MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158694364 · doi:10.1109/wcre.2012.27

Reverse Engineering iOS Mobile Applications

2012· article· en· W2158694364 on OpenAlexaff
Mona Erfani Joorabchi, Ali Mesbah

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceReverse engineeringMobile devicePopularitySoftwareUser interfaceInterface (matter)Cover (algebra)State (computer science)Mobile computingHuman–computer interactionSoftware engineeringWorld Wide WebOperating systemProgramming languageEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As a result of the ubiquity and popularity of smart phones, the number of third party mobile applications is explosively growing. With the increasing demands of users for new dependable applications, novel software engineering techniques and tools geared towards the mobile platform are required to support developers in their program comprehension and analysis tasks. In this paper, we propose a reverse engineering technique that automatically (1) hooks into, dynamically runs, and analyzes a given iOS mobile application, (2) exercises its user interface to cover the interaction state space and extracts information about the runtime behaviour, and (3) generates a state model of the given application, capturing the user interface states and transitions between them. Our technique is implemented in a tool called iCrawler. To evaluate our technique, we have conducted a case study using six open-source iPhone applications. The results indicate that iCrawler is capable of automatically detecting the unique states and generating a correct model of a given mobile application.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations56
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware Engineering ResearchFrench-language works237,207