User Driven Functionality Deletion for Mobile Apps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evolving software with an increasing number of features is harder to understand and thus harder to use. Software release planning has been concerned with planning these additions. Moreover, software of increasing size takes more effort to be maintained. In the domain of mobile apps, too much functionality can easily impact usability, maintainability, and resource consumption. Hence, it is important to understand the extent to which the law of continuous growth applies to mobile apps. Previous work showed that the deletion of functionality is common and sometimes driven by user reviews. However, it is unknown whether these deletions are visible or important to the app users. In this study, we surveyed 297 mobile app users to understand the significance of functionality deletion for them. Our results showed that for most users, the deletion of features corresponds with negative sentiments and change in usage and even churn. Motivated by these preliminary results, we propose Radiation to input user reviews and recommend if any functionality should be deleted from an app's User Interface (UI). We evaluate Radiation using historical data and surveying developers' opinions. From the analysis of 190,062 reviews from 115 randomly selected apps, we show that Radiation can recommend functionality deletion with an average F-Score of 74% and if sufficiently many negative user reviews suggest so.
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 | 0.004 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".