The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Automated model-based Android GUI testing using multi-level GUI comparison criteria
Abstract
Automated Graphical User Interface (GUI) testing is one of the most widely used techniques to detect faults in mobile applications (apps) and to test functionality and usability. GUI testing exercises behaviors of an application under test (AUT) by executing events on GUIs and checking whether the app behaves correctly. In particular, because Android leads in market share of mobile OS platforms, a lot of research on automated Android GUI testing techniques has been performed. Among various techniques, we focus on model-based Android GUI testing that utilizes a GUI model for systematic test generation and effective debugging support. Since test inputs are generated based on the underlying model, accurate GUI modeling of an AUT is the most crucial factor in order to generate effective test inputs. However, most modern Android apps contain a number of dynamically constructed GUIs that make accurate behavior modeling more challenging. To address this problem, we propose a set of multi-level GUI Comparison Criteria (GUICC) that provides the selection of multiple abstraction levels for GUI model generation. By using multilevel GUICC, we conducted empirical experiments to identify the influence of GUICC on testing effectiveness. Results show that our approach, which performs model-based testing with multi-level GUICC, achieved higher effectiveness than activity-based GUI model generation. We also found that multi-level GUICC can alleviate the inherent state explosion problems of existing a single-level GUICC for behavior modeling of real-world Android apps by flexibly manipulating GUICC.
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
Guided, stochastic model-based GUI testing of Android apps
Su, T., Meng, G., Chen, Y., Wu, K., Yang, W., Yao, Y., Pu, G., Liu, Y., & Su, Z. (2017) · Proceedings of the 2017 11th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/3106237.3106298 · Cited by 371
Metadata
- Authors
- Baek, Y.-M., & Bae, D.-H.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 31st IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2016-08-25
- Pages
- 238-249
- OpenAlex
- W2514303331
- Cited by
- 159
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 15.10
- 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 model-based Android GUI testing using multi-level GUI comparison criteria. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/2970276.2970313
- The paper
- Baek, Y.-M., & Bae, D.-H. (2016). Automated model-based Android GUI testing using multi-level GUI comparison criteria. Proceedings of the 31st IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1145/2970276.2970313
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.