Automated, Cost-effective, and Update-driven App Testing
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".