> the study is based on the premise that there is lots of spoofing going on That's fine, but you can't then claim the study as evidence of spoofing, since it w

> the study is based on the premise that there is lots of spoofing going on That's fine, but you can't then claim the study as evidence of spoofing, since it was injected into the simulations explicitly. > which they then compare to real data to test its accuracy, which they claim is 90% The validation with real data was just comparing things like trade volume, volatility, autocorrelation, etc. They didn't put a specific number on it (the 90% accuracy mentioned in the abstract is about detecting HFT in simulated data). And they added in the spoofing after the validation. There definitely is spoofing going on (some of my job involves trying to detect it), but I'm deeply skeptical of anyone who claims they can detect it accurately or quantify the amount. 92% accuracy for detecting spoofers in simulated data is insanely high, and makes me doubt the applicability to the real world.