Seven Reasons Why: An In-Depth Study of the Limitations of Random Test Input Generation for Android
Farnaz Behrang, Alessandro Orso
Abstract
Experience paper: Testing of mobile apps is time-consuming and requires a great deal of manual effort. For this reason, industry and academic researchers have proposed a number of test input generation techniques for automating app testing. Although useful, these techniques have weaknesses and limitations that often prevent them from achieving high coverage. We believe that one of the reasons for these limitations is that tool developers tend to focus mainly on improving the strategy the techniques employ to explore app behavior, whereas limited effort has been put into investigating other ways to improve the performance of these techniques. To address this problem, and get a better understanding of the limitations of input-generation techniques for mobile apps, we conducted an in-depth study of the limitations of Monkey-arguably the most widely used tool for automated testing of Android apps. Specifically, in our study, we manually analyzed Monkey's performance on a benchmark of 64 apps to identify the common limitations that prevent the tool from achieving better coverage results. We then assessed the coverage improvement that Monkey could achieve if these limitations were eliminated. In our analysis of the results, we also discuss whether other existing test input generation tools suffer from these common limitations and provide insights on how they could address them.
• Software and its engineering → Software testing and debugging.
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.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext b4364baa-b8e2-4601-856f-df1fabaf5448Cited by top-tier papers6
- Benchmarking automated GUI testing for Android against real-world bugsTing Su, Jue Wang, Zhendong SuFSE 2021 · 77 citations
- General and Practical Property-based Testing for Android AppsYiheng Xiong, Ting Su, Jue Wang, Jingling Sun et al.ASE 2024 · 5 citations
- Navigating Mobile Testing Evaluation: A Comprehensive Statistical Analysis of Android GUI Testing MetricsYuanhong Lan, Yifei Lu, Minxue Pan, Xuandong LiASE 2024 · 4 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
- Mobile Application Coverage: The 30% Curse and Ways ForwardFaridah Akinotcho, Lili Wei, Julia RubinICSE 2025 · 3 citations
Builds on1
Related papers
- Deep GUI: Black-box GUI Input Generation with Deep LearningFaraz Yazdani Banafshe Daragh, Sam MalekASE 2021 · 29 citations
- An infrastructure approach to improving effectiveness of Android UI testing toolsWenyu Wang, Wing Lam, Tao XieISSTA 2021 · 33 citations
- UI Obfuscation and Its Effects on Automated UI Analysis for Android AppsHao Zhou, Ting Chen, Haoyu Wang, Le Yu et al.ASE 2020 · 9 citations
- ComboDroid: generating high-quality test inputs for Android apps via use case combinationsJue Wang, Yanyan Jiang, Chang Xu, Chun Cao et al.ICSE 2020 · 61 citations
- Liberating Libraries through Automated Fuzz Driver Generation: Striking a Balance without Consumer CodeFlavio Toffalini, Nicolas Badoux, Zurab Tsinadze, Mathias PayerFSE 2025
