The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Automated Test Input Generation for Android: Are We There Yet? (E)
Abstract
Like all software, mobile applications ("apps") must be adequately tested to gain confidence that they behave correctly. Therefore, in recent years, researchers and practitioners alike have begun to investigate ways to automate apps testing. In particular, because of Android's open source nature and its large share of the market, a great deal of research has been performed on input generation techniques for apps that run on the Android operating systems. At this point in time, there are in fact a number of such techniques in the literature, which differ in the way they generate inputs, the strategy they use to explore the behavior of the app under test, and the specific heuristics they use. To better understand the strengths and weaknesses of these existing approaches, and get general insight on ways they could be made more effective, in this paper we perform a thorough comparison of the main existing test input generation tools for Android. In our comparison, we evaluate the effectiveness of these tools, and their corresponding techniques, according to four metrics: ease of use, ability to work on multiple platforms, code coverage, and ability to detect faults. Our results provide a clear picture of the state of the art in input generation for Android apps and identify future research directions that, if suitably investigated, could lead to more effective and efficient testing tools for Android.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
GUI ripping: reverse engineering of graphical user interfaces for testing
Memon, A., Banerjee, I., & Nagarajan, A. (2004) · 10th Working Conference on Reverse Engineering, 2003. WCRE 2003. Proceedings. · doi:10.1109/wcre.2003.1287256 · Cited by 379
Cited by
Chen, C., Su, T., Meng, G., Xing, Z., & Liu, Y. (2018) · Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/3180155.3180240 · Cited by 188
ReCon: Revealing and Controlling PII Leaks in Mobile Network Traffic
Ren, J., Rao, A., Lindorfer, M., Legout, A., & Choffnes, D. (2016) · Proceedings of the 14th Annual International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications, and Services · doi:10.1145/2906388.2906392 · Cited by 132
Automated mobile UI test fragility: an exploratory assessment study on Android
Coppola, R., Raffero, E., & Torchiano, M. (2016) · Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on User Interface Test Automation · doi:10.1145/2945404.2945406 · Cited by 25
Metadata
- Authors
- Choudhary, S. R., Gorla, A., & Orso, A.
- Venue
- 2015 30th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2015-11
- Pages
- 429-440
- OpenAlex
- W2227887088
- Cited by
- 463
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 42.67
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Automated Test Input Generation for Android: Are We There Yet? (E). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/ase.2015.89
- The paper
- Choudhary, S. R., Gorla, A., & Orso, A. (2015). Automated Test Input Generation for Android: Are We There Yet? (E). 2015 30th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE). https://doi.org/10.1109/ase.2015.89
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.