Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Faridah Akinotcho

dblp:278/0558 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Software testing › test generation
GUI test generation
0.912025
Mobile Application Coverage: The 30% Curse and Ways Forward · ICSE 2025
Software testing
test coverage
0.912025
Mobile Application Coverage: The 30% Curse and Ways Forward · ICSE 2025
Program verification
equivalence checking
0.412020
ARDiff: scaling program equivalence checking via iterative abstraction and refinement of common code · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2020
Program verification › equivalence checking
program equivalence checking
0.412020
ARDiff: scaling program equivalence checking via iterative abstraction and refinement of common code · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2020
Program analysis
static analysis
0.412020
ARDiff: scaling program equivalence checking via iterative abstraction and refinement of common code · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2020
Program analysis
symbolic execution
0.412020
ARDiff: scaling program equivalence checking via iterative abstraction and refinement of common code · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2020
Software testing › test coverage
code coverage
0.312025
Mobile Application Coverage: The 30% Curse and Ways Forward · ICSE 2025
Program analysis
dynamic analysis
0.312025
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
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 Mobile Application Coverage: The 30% Curse and Ways Forward
abstract
Testing, 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
ICSE1
2020 ARDiff: scaling program equivalence checking via iterative abstraction and refinement of common code
abstract
Equivalence 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 FSE2