Detection of Click Spamming in Mobile Advertising

dc.authorscopusid57485533600
dc.authorscopusid47161046600
dc.authorscopusid57485533700
dc.contributor.authorKaya, S.Ş.
dc.contributor.authorÇavdaroğlu, B.
dc.contributor.authorŞensoy, K.S.
dc.date.accessioned2023-10-19T15:05:23Z
dc.date.available2023-10-19T15:05:23Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.department-tempKaya, S.Ş., Department of Industrial Engineering, Kadir Has University, Istanbul, Turkey; Çavdaroğlu, B., Department of Industrial Engineering, Kadir Has University, Istanbul, Turkey; Şensoy, K.S., App Samurai Inc, San Francisco, CA, United Statesen_US
dc.description13th Balkan Conference on Operational Research, BALCOR 2018 --25 May 2018 through 28 May 2018 -- --273699en_US
dc.description.abstractMost of the marketing expenditures in mobile advertising are conducted through real-time bidding (RTB) marketplaces, in which ad spaces of the sellers (publishers) are auctioned for the impression of the buyers’ (advertisers) mobile apps. One of the most popular pricing models in RTB marketplaces is cost-per-install (CPI). In a CPI campaign, publishers place mobile ads of the highest bidders in their mobile apps and are paid by advertisers only if the advertised app is installed by a user. CPI pricing model causes some publishers to conduct an infamous fraudulent activity, known as click spamming. A click spamming publisher executes clicks for lots of users who have not authentically made them. If one of these users hears about the advertised app organically (say, via TV commercial) afterwards and installs it, this install will be attributed to the click spamming publisher. In this study, we propose a novel multiple testing procedure which can identify click spamming activities using the data of click-to-install time (CTIT), the time difference between the click of a mobile app’s ad and the first launch of the app after the install. We statistically show that our procedure has a false-positive error rate of 5% in the worst case. Finally, we run an experiment with 30 publishers, half of which are fraudulent. According to the results of the experiment, all non-fraudulent publishers are correctly identified and 73% of the fraudulent publishers are successfully detected. © 2020, Springer Nature Switzerland AG.en_US
dc.identifier.citation1
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/978-3-030-21990-1_15en_US
dc.identifier.endpage263en_US
dc.identifier.isbn9783030219895
dc.identifier.issn2198-7246
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85090798909en_US
dc.identifier.startpage251en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21990-1_15
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12469/4864
dc.institutionauthorÇavdaroğlu, Burak
dc.khas20231019-Scopusen_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherSpringer Science and Business Media B.V.en_US
dc.relation.ispartofSpringer Proceedings in Business and Economicsen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryKonferans Öğesi - Uluslararası - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.subjectClick spammingen_US
dc.subjectFraud detectionen_US
dc.subjectMobile advertisingen_US
dc.subjectMultiple testingen_US
dc.titleDetection of Click Spamming in Mobile Advertisingen_US
dc.typeConference Objecten_US
dspace.entity.typePublication
relation.isAuthorOfPublication4754d84b-e228-4ca2-bc38-5de3c3a62004
relation.isAuthorOfPublication.latestForDiscovery4754d84b-e228-4ca2-bc38-5de3c3a62004

Files