A Comparative Study of Android Performance Issues in Real-World Applications and Literature
Open accessAbstract
Performance issues in Android applications significantly undermine users’ experience, engagement, and retention, which is a long-lasting research topic in academia. Unlike functionality issues, performance issues are more difficult to diagnose and resolve due to their complex root causes, which often emerge only under specific conditions or payloads. Although many efforts have attempted to mitigate the impact of performance issues by developing methods to automatically identify and resolve them, it remains unclear if this objective has been fulfilled, and the existing approaches indeed targeted on the most critical performance issues encountered in real-world settings. To this end, we conduct a large-scale comparative study of Android performance issues in real-world applications and literature. Specifically, we started by investigating real-world performance issues, their underlying root causes (i.e., contributing factors), and common code patterns. We then took an additional step to empirically summarize existing approaches and datasets through a literature review, assessing how well academic research reflects the real-world challenges faced by developers and users. Our comparison results show a substantial divergence exists in the primary performance concerns of researchers, developers, and users. Among all the identified factors, 57.14% have not been examined in academic research, while a substantial 63.41% remain unaddressed by existing tools, and 70.73% lack corresponding datasets. This stark contrast underscores a substantial gap in our understanding and management of performance issues. Consequently, it is crucial for our community to intensify efforts to bridge these gaps and achieve comprehensive detection and resolution of performance issues.
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
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.
Cites
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Liao, D., Pan, S., Yang, S., Zhao, Y., Xing, Z., & Sun, X.
- Affiliations
- Australian National University (AU)
- Huazhong University of Science and Technology (CN)
- Venue
- ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology
- Published
- 2026-07-11
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1-32
- ISSN
- 1049-331X (ISSN-L)
- 1557-7392
- OpenAlex
- W4415261640
- Cited by
- 4
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4
- FWCI
- 2.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Mobile and Web Applications
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Software System Performance and Reliability
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
- Keywords
- mobile application performance, root cause analysis, real-world applications, user experience
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