Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2507.02110

Moderately Mighty: To What Extent Can Internal Software Metrics Predict App Popularity at Launch?

Abstract

Predicting a mobile app's popularity before its first release can provide developers with a strategic advantage in a competitive marketplace, yet it remains a challenging problem. This study explores the extent to which internal software metrics, measurable from source code before deployment, can predict an app's popularity (i.e., ratings and downloads per year) at inception. For our analysis, we constructed a rigorously filtered dataset of 446 open-source Java-based Android apps that are available on both F-Droid and Google Play Store. Using app source code from F-Droid, we extracted a wide array of internal metrics, including system-, class-, and method-level code metrics, code smells, and app metadata. Popularity-related information, including reviews and download counts, was collected from the Play Store. We evaluate regression and classification models across three feature sets: a minimal Size-only baseline, a domain-informed Handpicked set, and a Voting set derived via feature selection algorithms. Our results show that, for both app ratings and number of downloads, regression models perform poorly due to skewed rating distributions and a highly scattered range of download counts in our dataset. However, when reframed as a binary classification (Popular vs. Unpopular), performance improves significantly-the best model, a Multilayer Perceptron, achieves an F1-score of 0.72. We conclude that, although internal code metrics alone are insufficient for accurately predicting an app's future popularity, they do exhibit meaningful correlations with it. Thus, our findings challenge prior studies that have entirely dismissed internal metrics as valid indicators of software quality. Instead, our results align with research suggesting that internal code metrics can be valuable when evaluated within the appropriate context-specifically, we found them useful for classification tasks.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Md Nahidul Islam Opu, Fatima Islam Mouri, Rick Kazman, Yuanfang Cai, Shaiful Chowdhury. 2025-09-11. Moderately Mighty: To What Extent Can Internal Software Metrics Predict App Popularity at Launch?. https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.02110

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