Mining Test Repositories for Automatic Detection of UI Performance Regressions in Android Apps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The reputation of a mobile app vendor’s apps is crucial to survive amongst the ever increasing competition, however this reputation largely depends on the quality of the apps, both functional and non-functional. One major non-functional requirement of mobile apps is to guarantee smooth UI interactions, since choppy scrolling or navigation caused by performance problems on a mobile device’s limited hardware resources is highly annoying for end-users. The main research challenge of automatically identifying UI performance problems on mobile devices is that the performance of an app highly varies depending on its context—i.e., the hardware and software configurations on which it runs.This paper presents DUNE, an approach to automatically detect UI performance degradations in Android apps while taking into account context differences. DUNE builds an ensemble model of the UI performance of historical test runs that are known to be acceptable, for different configurations of context. We empirically evaluate DUNE on real UI performance defects reported in two Android apps. We demonstrate that this toolset can be successfully used to spot UI performance regressions at a fine granularity.
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 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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".