Mobile Application Coverage: The 30% Curse and Ways Forward
Faridah Akinotcho, Lili Wei, Julia Rubin
Abstract
Testing, security analysis, and other dynamic quality assurance approaches rely on mechanisms that invoke the software under test, aiming to achieve high code coverage. A large number of invocation mechanisms proposed in the literature, in particular for Android mobile applications, employ GUI-driven application exploration. However, studies show that even the most advanced GUI exploration techniques can cover only around 30% of a real-world application. This paper aims to investigate “the remaining 70%”. By conducting a large-scale experiment involving two human experts, who thoroughly explored 61 benchmark and 42 popular apps from Google Play, we show that achieving a substantially larger coverage for real-world applications is impractical even if we factor out known GUI-based exploration issues, such as the inability to provide semantic inputs and the right order of events. The main reasons preventing even human analysts from covering the entire application include application dependencies on remote servers and external resources, hard-to-reach app entry points, disabled and erroneous features, and software/hardware properties of the underlying device. Thus, future investment in GUI-based exploration strategies is unlikely to lead to substantial improvements in coverage. To chart possible ways forward and explore approaches to satisfy/bypass these “blockers”, we thoroughly analyze code-level properties guarding them. Our analysis shows that a large fraction of the blockers could actually be successfully bypassed with relatively simple beyond-GUI exploration techniques. We hope our study can inspire future work in this area; it also provides a realistic benchmark for evaluating such work.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Cited by top-tier papers1
Ask how each one uses itBuilds on13
- IntelliDroid: A Targeted Input Generator for the Dynamic Analysis of Android MalwareMichelle Y. Wong, David LieNDSS 2016 · 253 citations
- Reinforcement learning based curiosity-driven testing of Android applicationsMinxue Pan, An Huang, Guoxin Wang, Tian Zhang et al.ISSTA 2020 · 166 citations
- Harvesting Runtime Values in Android Applications That Feature Anti-Analysis TechniquesSiegfried Rasthofer, Steven Arzt, Marc Miltenberger, Eric BoddenNDSS 2016 · 157 citations
- Time-travel testing of Android appsZhen Dong, Marcel Böhme, Lucia Cojocaru, Abhik RoychoudhuryICSE 2020 · 104 citations
- Malton: Towards On-Device Non-Invasive Mobile Malware Analysis for ARTLei Xue, Yajin Zhou, Ting Chen, Xiapu Luo et al.USENIX Security 2017 · 81 citations
Related papers
- Deeply Reinforcing Android GUI Testing with Deep Reinforcement LearningYuanhong Lan, Yifei Lu, Zhong Li, Minxue Pan et al.ICSE 2024 · 21 citations
- A Comprehensive Evaluation of Android ICC Resolution TechniquesJiwei Yan, Shixin Zhang, Yepang Liu, Xi Deng et al.ASE 2022 · 15 citations
- Automata-Based Trace Analysis for Aiding Diagnosing GUI Testing Tools for AndroidEnze Ma, Shan Huang, Weigang He, Ting Su et al.FSE 2023 · 3 citations
- From Suspicious Signals to Crashes: Guiding Bug-Driven GUI Testing via Code-Inspired TracingMengzhuo Chen, Zhe Liu, Chunyang Chen, Junjie Wang et al.FSE 2026
- Benchmarking automated GUI testing for Android against real-world bugsTing Su, Jue Wang, Zhendong SuFSE 2021 · 77 citations
