Activity Transition Graph Generation: How Far Are We?

Android applications (i.e., apps) are indispensable nowadays and are getting bigger and bigger with an increasing number of functionalities. To understand how to access functionalities in an app, prior studies proposed tools to model the transitions between functionalities with the activity transition graph (ATG). ATG is an important data structure and has been used for various Android app analyses, including app design, understanding, and testing. However, there is no benchmarking work on ATG generation. It is still unclear whether the transitions identified by tools are correct and how many transitions are missed. To fill this gap, we manually identified all transitions in 98 applications to build a benchmark. Using the benchmark, we evaluate seven popular ATG generation tools that were used in prior studies. We observe that these tools not only report incorrect transitions but also missed transitions, and different tools do not report the same set of transitions. Compared with the transitions reported by a single tool, the union set of the transitions reported by different tools contains fewer missed transitions but more incorrect transitions. We summarize five potential reasons that explain why GUI testing tools fail to identify transitions in ATG, revealing the limitations in the current design of exploration strategies. For instance, we observe that learning-based tools may overlook subtle distinctions between states, potentially misclassifying different states as identical. This will lead the tool to always focus on the old state while the new state is not fully explored. Based on our findings, we propose a series of suggestions for researchers using and building ATG generation tools. For example, when aiming to identify more transitions, one can combine the results of different tools by running each tool for 10 minutes, which will produce better results than running a single tool for 60 minutes.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology
Published
2025-11-13
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1145/3776553
Primary Topic
Software Testing and Debugging Techniques
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Activity Transition Graph Generation: How Far Are We?

Shahar Maoz, Ferdian Thung, Wei Minn, Eran Toch et al.
ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology
Software Testing and Debugging Techniques
article

Activity Transition Graph Generation: How Far Are We?

Shahar Maoz, Ferdian Thung, Wei Minn, Eran Toch, Debin Gao, David Lo, Yonghui Liu, Peixin Zhang, Jiakun Liu, Han Hu
article en

Abstract

Android applications (i.e., apps) are indispensable nowadays and are getting bigger and bigger with an increasing number of functionalities. To understand how to access functionalities in an app, prior studies proposed tools to model the transitions between functionalities with the activity transition graph (ATG). ATG is an important data structure and has been used for various Android app analyses, including app design, understanding, and testing. However, there is no benchmarking work on ATG generation. It is still unclear whether the transitions identified by tools are correct and how many transitions are missed. To fill this gap, we manually identified all transitions in 98 applications to build a benchmark. Using the benchmark, we evaluate seven popular ATG generation tools that were used in prior studies. We observe that these tools not only report incorrect transitions but also missed transitions, and different tools do not report the same set of transitions. Compared with the transitions reported by a single tool, the union set of the transitions reported by different tools contains fewer missed transitions but more incorrect transitions. We summarize five potential reasons that explain why GUI testing tools fail to identify transitions in ATG, revealing the limitations in the current design of exploration strategies. For instance, we observe that learning-based tools may overlook subtle distinctions between states, potentially misclassifying different states as identical. This will lead the tool to always focus on the old state while the new state is not fully explored. Based on our findings, we propose a series of suggestions for researchers using and building ATG generation tools. For example, when aiming to identify more transitions, one can combine the results of different tools by running each tool for 10 minutes, which will produce better results than running a single tool for 60 minutes.

ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology
Australian National University (AU), Tel Aviv University (IL), Harbin Institute of Technology (CN), Monash University (AU), Singapore Management University (SG)
Openalex Percentile: Top 65%
Software Testing and Debugging Techniques
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.