On the Identification of Third-Party Library Usage Patterns for Android Applications
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
The rapid growth of mobile applications development and usage raises several new challenges to developers as they need to respond quickly to the users’ needs in a world of continuous changes. Developers often use third-party libraries to add functionality, which significantly improves developers productivity, and reduces time-to-market. In this paper, we present an approach for the visualization and recommendation of libraries for Android apps. Our approach, named LibScanDroid, is based on how libraries are used within existing Android applications. LibScanDroid groups together libraries based on their history of joint and separate usage in existing Android applications available in Google Play Store. The library groups, i.e., usage patterns, are presented in several layers to visualize and navigate through the patterns. These groupings are performed using the ϵ-DBSCAN hierarchical clustering algorithm.We implement our approach in the form of an interactive tool and evaluate it on a database that covers 1,458 libraries that are used by over 1,000 Android applications. Our experiments have shown that our approach can detect library patterns with high co-usage cohesion. The results from the cross-validation, allows us to affirm the generalizability of the detected patterns.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it