Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2008.12112

An Empirical Study of In-App Advertising Issues Based on Large Scale App Review Analysis

Cuiyun Gao·Jichuan Zeng·David Lo·Xin Xia·Irwin King·Michael R. Lyu
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

In-app advertising closely relates to app revenue. Reckless ad integration could adversely impact app reliability and user experience, leading to loss of income. It is very challenging to balance the ad revenue and user experience for app developers. In this paper, we present a large-scale analysis on ad-related user feedback. The large user feedback data from App Store and Google Play allow us to summarize ad-related app issues comprehensively and thus provide practical ad integration strategies for developers. We first define common ad issues by manually labeling a statistically representative sample of ad-related feedback, and then build an automatic classifier to categorize ad-related feedback. We study the relations between different ad issues and user ratings to identify the ad issues poorly scored by users. We also explore the fix durations of ad issues across platforms for extracting insights into prioritizing ad issues for ad maintenance. We summarize 15 types of ad issues by manually annotating 903/36,309 ad-related user reviews. From a statistical analysis of 36,309 ad-related reviews, we find that users care most about the number of unique ads and ad display frequency during usage. Besides, users tend to give relatively lower ratings when they report the security and notification related issues. Regarding different platforms, we observe that the distributions of ad issues are significantly different between App Store and Google Play. Moreover, some ad issue types are addressed more quickly by developers than other ad issues. We believe the findings we discovered can benefit app developers towards balancing ad revenue and user experience while ensuring app reliability.

Explore related subjects

cs.CYcs.SE

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Cuiyun Gao, Jichuan Zeng, David Lo, Xin Xia, Irwin King, Michael R. Lyu. 2020-08-22. An Empirical Study of In-App Advertising Issues Based on Large Scale App Review Analysis. https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.12112

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

HumanAgencyBench: Scalable Evaluation of Human Agency Support in AI Assistants

As humans delegate more tasks and decisions to artificial intelligence (AI), we risk losing control of our individual and collective futures. Relatively simple algorithmic systems already steer human decision-making, such as social media feed algorithms that lead people to unintentionally and absent-mindedly scroll through engagement-optimized content. In this paper, we develop the idea of human agency by integrating philosophical and scientific theories of agency with AI-assisted evaluation methods: using large language models (LLMs) to simulate and validate user queries and to evaluate AI responses. We develop HumanAgencyBench (HAB), a scalable and adaptive diagnostic tool for six behaviors related to human agency. HAB measures the tendency of an AI assistant to Ask Clarifying Questions, Avoid Value Manipulation, Correct Misinformation, Defer Important Decisions, Encourage Learning, and Maintain Social Boundaries. We find low-to-moderate agency support in contemporary LLM-based assistants, with substantial variation across system developers and behaviors. For example, while Anthropic LLMs most support human agency overall, they are the least supportive LLMs in terms of Avoid Value Manipulation. These behaviors do not appear to consistently result from increasing LLM capabilities or instruction-following (e.g., RLHF); we encourage further study of these behaviors so that developers and users can better understand the complexities of modern human-AI interaction.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

Can LLMs Perform Technical Comprehension of Computer Architecture Papers?

Can large language models perform technical comprehension of computer architecture papers--not summarization, but structured critique that names the core mechanism, surfaces buried assumptions, and connects a contribution beyond its own scope? We study Gauntlet, an open-source pipeline that analyzes a paper through five independent expert-persona reviewers and an adversarial synthesis stage. On 20 ISCA 2025 and HPCA 2026 papers, 10 researchers each wrote their own analyses and then judged, for papers other than their own, the human analysis against Gauntlet's. Across the 20 comparisons evaluators preferred Gauntlet in 15 (human in 4, one tie); its advantage is significant on per-analyst totals (two-sided Wilcoxon, p < 0.001) and largest on Critical Rigor. Where humans win, it is on trust and usefulness rather than depth: a confident wrong claim, a mechanism described but not taught, or unprioritized breadth. A 98-paper automated ablation shows the gain comes from the multi-agent structure: the pipeline beats the same model run as a single rich-persona agent on 96% of papers. We release all analyses, scores, and the rubric as a community resource.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

Beyond PUE: A Local Impact Audit Framework for Data Center Environmental Accountability

Standard data center sustainability metrics, including Power Usage Effectiveness (PUE), Water Usage Effectiveness (WUE), and Carbon Usage Effectiveness (CUE), measure a facility's resource use and emissions intensity, normalized to IT energy use, without directly representing local resource scarcity, infrastructure capacity, or social footprint. This gap has become politically consequential. In the first quarter of 2026 alone, local opposition delayed or canceled roughly $130 billion in projects across the United States, driven overwhelmingly by recurring concerns over water use, power demand, infrastructure capacity, and transparency rather than internal efficiency, matching the total for all of 2025 [11]. We propose a five-category local impact audit framework covering efficiency, water stewardship, carbon and renewables, regulatory compliance, and local disclosure. The framework is designed for recurring quarterly assessment and independent verification against public records. We illustrate its application using publicly available data from three Illinois facilities that are currently at the center of local policy disputes, and we examine the data-access barriers that constrain independent verification. We position this framework as both a research contribution and a practical instrument for county-level policymakers evaluating data center permitting and moratorium decisions.

cs.CY↗