Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2205.15535

Do Customized Android Frameworks Keep Pace with Android?

Pei Liu·Mattia Fazzini·John Grundy·Li Li
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

To satisfy varying customer needs, device vendors and OS providers often rely on the open-source nature of the Android OS and offer customized versions of the Android OS. When a new version of the Android OS is released, device vendors and OS providers need to merge the changes from the Android OS into their customizations to account for its bug fixes, security patches, and new features. Because developers of customized OSs might have made changes to code locations that were also modified by the developers of the Android OS, the merge task can be characterized by conflicts, which can be time-consuming and error-prone to resolve. To provide more insight into this critical aspect of the Android ecosystem, we present an empirical study that investigates how eight open-source customizations of the Android OS merge the changes from the Android OS into their projects. The study analyzes how often the developers from the customized OSs merge changes from the Android OS, how often the developers experience textual merge conflicts, and the characteristics of these conflicts. Furthermore, to analyze the effect of the conflicts, the study also analyzes how the conflicts can affect a randomly selected sample of 1,000 apps. After analyzing 1,148 merge operations, we identified that developers perform these operations for 9.7\% of the released versions of the Android OS, developers will encounter at least one conflict in 41.3\% of the merge operations, 58.1\% of the conflicts required developers to change the customized OSs, and 64.4\% of the apps considered use at least one method affected by a conflict. In addition to detailing our results, the paper also discusses the implications of our findings and provides insights for researchers and practitioners working with Android and its customizations.

Explore related subjects

cs.SE

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Pei Liu, Mattia Fazzini, John Grundy, Li Li. 2022-05-31. Do Customized Android Frameworks Keep Pace with Android?. https://doi.org/10.1145/3524842.3527963

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

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↗
arXiv2026

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↗
arXiv2026

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↗