A Survey on Pump and Dump Detection in the Cryptocurrency Market Using Machine Learning
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The popularity of cryptocurrencies has skyrocketed in recent years, with blockchain technologies enabling the development of new digital assets. However, along with their advantages, such as lower transaction costs, increased security, and transactional transparency, cryptocurrencies have also become susceptible to various forms of market manipulation. The pump and dump (P&D) scheme is of significant concern among these manipulation tactics. Despite the growing awareness of P&D activities in cryptocurrency markets, a comprehensive survey is needed to explore the detection methods. This paper aims to fill this gap by reviewing the literature on P&D detection in the cryptocurrency world. This survey provides valuable insights into detecting and classifying P&D schemes in the cryptocurrency market by analyzing the selected studies, including their definitions and the taxonomies of P&D schemes, the methodologies employed, their strengths and weaknesses, and the proposed solutions. Presented here are insights that can guide future research in this field and offer practical approaches to combating P&D manipulations in cryptocurrency trading.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it