Editing Click fraud (section)

==Research==
The fact that the middlemen (search engines) have the upper hand in the operational definition of invalid clicks is the reason for the conflict of interest between advertisers and the middlemen, as described above. This is manifested in the Tuzhilin Report<ref name="Tuzhilin"/> as described above. The Tuzhilin report did not publicly define invalid clicks and did not describe the operational definitions in detail. Rather, it gave a high-level picture of the fraud-detection system and argued that the operational definition of the search engine under investigations is "reasonable". One aim of the report was to preserve the privacy of the fraud-detection system in order to maintain its effectiveness. This prompted some researchers to conduct public research on how the middlemen can fight click fraud.<ref>Jansen, B. J. (2007) [https://faculty.ist.psu.edu/jjansen/academic/jansen_click_fraud.pdf Click fraud]. IEEE Computer. 40(7), 85-86.</ref> Since such research is presumably not tainted by market forces, there is hope that this research can be adopted to assess how rigorous a middleman is in detecting click fraud in future law cases. The fear that this research can expose the internal fraud-detection system of middlemen still applies. An example of such research is that done by Metwally, Agrawal and El Abbadi at [[UCSB]].  Other work by Majumdar, Kulkarni, and Ravishankar at [[UC Riverside]] proposes protocols for the identification of fraudulent behavior by brokers and other intermediaries in content-delivery networks.