Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2203.06420

Automatically Distilling Storyboard with Rich Features for Android Apps

Abstract

Before developing a new mobile app, the development team usually endeavors painstaking efforts to review many existing apps with similar purposes. The review process is crucial in the sense that it reduces market risks and provides inspirations for app development. However, manual exploration of hundreds of existing apps by different roles (e.g., product manager, UI/UX designer, developer, and tester) can be ineffective. Following the conception of storyboard in movie production, we propose a system, named StoryDistiller, to automatically generate the storyboards for Android apps with rich features through reverse engineering, and assist different roles to review and analyze apps effectively and efficiently. Specifically, we (1) propose a hybrid method to extract a relatively complete Activity transition graph (ATG), that is, it first extracts the ATG of Android apps through static analysis method first, and further leverages dynamic component exploration to augment ATG; (2) extract the required inter-component communication (ICC) data of each target Activity by leveraging static data-flow analysis and renders UI pages dynamically by using app instrumentation together with the extracted required ICC data; (3) obtain rich features including comprehensive ATG with rendered UI pages, semantic activity names, corresponding logic and layout code, etc. (4) implement the storyboard visualization as a web service with the rendered UI pages and the corresponding rich features. Our experiments unveil that StoryDistiller is effective and indeed useful to assist app exploration and review. We also conduct a comprehensive comparison study to demonstrate better performance over IC3, Gator, Stoat, and StoryDroid.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Sen Chen, Lingling Fan, Chunyang Chen, Yang Liu. 2022-03-12. Automatically Distilling Storyboard with Rich Features for Android Apps. https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.06420

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks

Vibe coding is a new software development paradigm in which human engineers prompt a large language model (LLM) agent to complete complex coding tasks with little supervision. Although vibe coding is increasingly adopted, is the generated code really safe to deploy in production? To investigate this question, we propose SUSVIBES, a benchmark consisting of 186 feature-request software engineering tasks from real-world open-source projects, for which, human programmers committed vulnerable implementations. We evaluate 12 widely used coding agentic settings with frontier models on the benchmark. Disturbingly, all agents perform poorly in terms of software security. Although 57% of the solutions from SWE-Agent with Claude 4 Sonnet are functionally correct, only 11.8% are secure. Further experiments demonstrate that preliminary security strategies, such as augmenting the feature request with vulnerability hints, cannot mitigate these security issues. Our findings raise serious concerns about the widespread adoption of vibe coding, particularly in security-sensitive applications. The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/LeiLiLab/susvibes. The leaderboard is at https://leililab.github.io/susvibes-leaderboard.

cs.SE

Why3-py: A Tool for Formal Verification of Hypothesis Testing and Meta-Analysis in Python

The reproducibility crisis in scientific research has received widespread recognition, thereby increasing the importance of meta-analyses that integrate statistical analyses from multiple studies. However, statistical methods often have ambiguous and implicit underlying assumptions, which can lead to their erroneous applications and interpretations. To address this issue, we propose a formal verification framework for statistical Python programs. Specifically, we present Why3-py, a Python front-end for the Why3 verification platform that transforms Python code into verification-oriented WhyML representations, addressing the challenges arising from Python's dynamic typing and runtime polymorphism. Furthermore, we extend the StatWhy tool to support the verification of meta-analysis methods. These tools enable meta-analysts to identify overlooked assumptions and misuse of analyses, and to verify the correct use of hypothesis testing and meta-analysis methods in Python code.

cs.SE

What is the Difference Between Me and You? Benchmarking the Quality Gap Between Human-Written and AI-Generated Code

AI coding assistants are becoming co-authors of production software, yet their evaluation centers on functional correctness, leaving open whether their code differs from human code in the quality dimensions dominating lifecycle cost. We compare human-written and AI-generated code at scale: 787,562 function pairs across Python, Java, and C, each human function mined from open-source repositories paired with implementations generated from its docstring by three AI assistants (OpenAI GPT models, DeepSeek-Coder, Qwen2.5-Coder). We characterize structural complexity and statistical naturalness, and map static-analysis findings onto Orthogonal Defect Classification for defects and the Common Weakness Enumeration for vulnerabilities, making authors and languages directly comparable. AI-generated code is structurally compressed and stylistically templated: roughly half the size and branching of human code, clustering apart at the style level. Defect profiles differ in kind: human code concentrates issues of mature codebases, AI code repetitive boilerplate; security is language-dependent, with LLMs producing more, and more severe, findings in Python and Java but fewer high-severity memory-safety findings than humans in C. Once size is controlled for, complexity metrics carry little signal, while naturalness separates authors. Finally, we release CQBench, a benchmark of 27,346 issue-prone tasks with baselines and an evaluation pipeline for quality assurance and security testing.

cs.SE