Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Faridah Akinotcho
dblp:278/0558
· DBLP profile ↗
2ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 2 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
2 papers |
Software testing · 50% Program analysis · 28% Program verification · 22% |
Topics — the 8 heaviest of 8, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Software testing › test generation
GUI test generation |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Mobile Application Coverage: The 30% Curse and Ways Forward · ICSE 2025 |
Software testing
test coverage |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Mobile Application Coverage: The 30% Curse and Ways Forward · ICSE 2025 |
Program verification
equivalence checking |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | ARDiff: scaling program equivalence checking via iterative abstraction and refinement of common code · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2020 |
Program verification › equivalence checking
program equivalence checking |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | ARDiff: scaling program equivalence checking via iterative abstraction and refinement of common code · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2020 |
Program analysis
static analysis |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | ARDiff: scaling program equivalence checking via iterative abstraction and refinement of common code · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2020 |
Program analysis
symbolic execution |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | ARDiff: scaling program equivalence checking via iterative abstraction and refinement of common code · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2020 |
Software testing › test coverage
code coverage |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | Mobile Application Coverage: The 30% Curse and Ways Forward · ICSE 2025 |
Program analysis
dynamic analysis |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | Mobile Application Coverage: The 30% Curse and Ways Forward · ICSE 2025 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
empirical study · 0.9GUI-driven exploration · 0.9symbolic execution · 0.4iterative abstraction and refinement · 0.4
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Mobile Application Coverage: The 30% Curse and Ways ForwardabstractTesting, security analysis, and other dynamic quality assurance approaches rely on mechanisms that invoke the software under test, aiming to achieve high code coverage. A large number of invocation mechanisms proposed in the literature, in particular for Android mobile applications, employ GUI-driven application exploration. However, studies show that even the most advanced GUI exploration techniques can cover only around 30% of a real-world application. This paper aims to investigate “the remaining 70%”. By conducting a large-scale experiment involving two human experts, who thoroughly explored 61 benchmark and 42 popular apps from Google Play, we show that achieving a substantially larger coverage for real-world applications is impractical even if we factor out known GUI-based exploration issues, such as the inability to provide semantic inputs and the right order of events. The main reasons preventing even human analysts from covering the entire application include application dependencies on remote servers and external resources, hard-to-reach app entry points, disabled and erroneous features, and software/hardware properties of the underlying device. Thus, future investment in GUI-based exploration strategies is unlikely to lead to substantial improvements in coverage. To chart possible ways forward and explore approaches to satisfy/bypass these “blockers”, we thoroughly analyze code-level properties guarding them. Our analysis shows that a large fraction of the blockers could actually be successfully bypassed with relatively simple beyond-GUI exploration techniques. We hope our study can inspire future work in this area; it also provides a realistic benchmark for evaluating such work. Faridah Akinotcho, Julia Rubin |
ICSE | 1 |
| 2020 | ARDiff: scaling program equivalence checking via iterative abstraction and refinement of common codeabstractEquivalence checking techniques help establish whether two versions of a program exhibit the same behavior. The majority of popular techniques for formally proving/refuting equivalence relies on symbolic execution – a static analysis approach that reasons about program behaviors in terms of symbolic input variables. Yet, symbolic execution is difficult to scale in practice due to complex programming constructs, such as loops and non-linear arithmetic. Sahar Badihi, Faridah Akinotcho, Yi Li 0008, Julia Rubin |
ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE | 2 |