MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031805859 · doi:10.1109/mobilesoft.2015.38

Detecting Antipatterns in Android Apps

2015· preprint· en· W2031805859 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Malware Detection Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversité du Québec à Montréal
KeywordsAndroid (operating system)Computer scienceOperating systemWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mobile apps are becoming complex software systems that must be developed quickly and evolve continuously to fit new user requirements and execution contexts. However, addressing these constraints may result in poor design choices, known as antipatterns, which may incidentally degrade software quality and performance. Thus, the automatic detection of antipatterns is an important activity that eases both maintenance and evolution tasks. Moreover, it guides developers to refactor their applications and thus, to improve their quality. While antipatterns are well-known in object-oriented applications, their study in mobile applications is still in their infancy. In this paper, we propose a tooled approach, called Paprika, to analyze Android applications and to detect object-oriented and Android-specific antipatterns from binaries of mobile apps. We validate the effectiveness of our approach on a set of popular mobile apps downloaded from the Google Play Store.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Malware Detection TechniquesFrench-language works237,207