MANDOLINE: Dynamic Slicing of Android Applications with Trace-Based Alias Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dynamic program slicing is used in a variety of tasks, including program debugging and security analysis. Building an efficient and effective dynamic slicing tool is a challenging task, especially in an Android environment, where programs are event-driven, asynchronous, and interleave code written by a developer with the code of the underlying Android platform. The user-facing nature of Android applications further complicates matters as the slicing solution has to maintain a low overhead to avoid substantial application slowdown. In this paper, we propose an accurate and efficient dynamic slicing technique for Android applications and implement it in a tool named MANDOLINE. The core idea behind our technique is to use minimal, low-overhead instrumentation followed by sophisticated, on-demand execution trace analysis for constructing a dynamic slice. We also contribute a benchmark suite of Android applications with manually constructed dynamic slices that use a faulty line of code as a slicing criterion. We evaluate MANDOLINE on that benchmark suite and show that it is substantially more accurate and efficient than the state-of-the-art dynamic slicing technique named ANDROIDSLICER.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".