Large Language Model vs. Stack Overflow in Addressing Android Permission Related Challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Android permission system regulates access to sensitive mobile device resources such as camera and location. To access these resources, third-party developers need to request permissions. However, the Android permission system is complex and fast-evolving, presenting developers with numerous challenges surrounding compatibility issues, misuse of permissions, and vulnerabilities related to permissions. Our study aims to explore whether Large Language Models (LLMs) can serve as a reliable tool to assist developers in using Android permissions correctly and securely, thereby reducing the risks of misuse and security vulnerabilities in apps. In our study, we analyzed 1,008 Stack Overflow questions related to Android permissions and their accepted answers. In parallel, we generate answers to these questions using a popular LLM tool, ChatGPT. We focused on how well the ChatGPT's responses align with the accepted answers on Stack Overflow. Our findings show that above 50% of ChatGPT's answers align with Stack Overflow's accepted answers. ChatGPT offers better-aligned responses for challenges related to Documentation and Conceptual Understanding, while it provides less aligned answers for Debugging-related issues. In addition, we found that ChatGPT provides more consistent answers for 73.27% questions. Our study demonstrates the potential for using LLMs such as ChatGPT as a supporting tool to help developers navigate Android permission-related problems.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".