Automated, Cost-effective, and Update-driven App Testing
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Apps’ pervasive role in our society led to the definition of test automation approaches to ensure their dependability. However, state-of-the-art approaches tend to generate large numbers of test inputs and are unlikely to achieve more than 50% method coverage. In this article, we propose a strategy to achieve significantly higher coverage of the code affected by updates with a much smaller number of test inputs, thus alleviating the test oracle problem. More specifically, we present ATUA, a model-based approach that synthesizes App models with static analysis, integrates a dynamically refined state abstraction function and combines complementary testing strategies, including (1) coverage of the model structure, (2) coverage of the App code, (3) random exploration, and (4) coverage of dependencies identified through information retrieval. Its model-based strategy enables ATUA to generate a small set of inputs that exercise only the code affected by the updates. In turn, this makes common test oracle solutions more cost-effective, as they tend to involve human effort. A large empirical evaluation, conducted with 72 App versions belonging to nine popular Android Apps, has shown that ATUA is more effective and less effort-intensive than state-of-the-art approaches when testing App updates.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it