Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 1703.03017

Comprehension of Ads-supported and Paid Android Applications: Are They Different?

Rubén Saborido·Foutse Khomh·Yann-Gaël Guéhéneuc·Giuliano Antoniol
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The Android market is a place where developers offer paid and-or free apps to users. Free apps are interesting to users because they can try them immediately without incurring a monetary cost. However, free apps often have limited features and-or contain ads when compared to their paid counterparts. Thus, users may eventually need to pay to get additional features and-or remove ads. While paid apps have clear market values, their ads-supported versions are not entirely free because ads have an impact on performance. In this paper, first, we perform an exploratory study about ads-supported and paid apps to understand their differences in terms of implementation and development process. We analyze 40 Android apps and we observe that (i) ads-supported apps are preferred by users although paid apps have a better rating, (ii) developers do not usually offer a paid app without a corresponding free version, (iii) ads-supported apps usually have more releases and are released more often than their corresponding paid versions, (iv) there is no a clear strategy about the way developers set prices of paid apps, (v) paid apps do not usually include more functionalities than their corresponding ads-supported versions, (vi) developers do not always remove ad networks in paid versions of their ads-supported apps, and (vii) paid apps require less permissions than ads-supported apps. Second, we carry out an experimental study to compare the performance of ads-supported and paid apps and we propose four equations to estimate the cost of ads-supported apps. We obtain that (i) ads-supported apps use more resources than their corresponding paid versions with statistically significant differences and (ii) paid apps could be considered a most cost-effective choice for users because their cost can be amortized in a short period of time, depending on their usage.

Explore related subjects

cs.SE

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Rubén Saborido, Foutse Khomh, Yann-Gaël Guéhéneuc, Giuliano Antoniol. 2017-03-08. Comprehension of Ads-supported and Paid Android Applications: Are They Different?. https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.03017

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

LLMVul: A Vulnerability-Labeled Dataset of LLM-Generated C/C++ Functions from Real Production Repositories

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to generate and assist with software development, yet existing vulnerability datasets largely focus on human-written code or controlled prompting environments. This limits the ability to study security weaknesses in LLM-generated code as it appears in real-world software projects. We present LLMVul, a vulnerability-labeled dataset of LLM-generated C/C++ functions mined from real production repositories. We mine AI-assisted development activity from GitHub over a 4 year period, from November 13, 2022 to September 3, 2026, using provenance signals such as commit metadata and AI-related authorship evidence. After filtering and deduplication, LLMVul contains 21,430 unique C/C++ functions from 226 repositories, together with repository, commit, function, provenance, and AI-tool metadata. We establish vulnerability labels using an ensemble of complementary static-analysis and pattern-based techniques and assign Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) categories to confirmed vulnerable functions. To assess labeling reliability, we additionally conduct independent manual annotation and measure inter-rater agreement using Cohen's kappa ($k=0.79$). LLMVul contains 1,540 ensemble-vulnerable functions spanning 17 unique CWE categories, providing substantially more real-world LLM-generated vulnerable C/C++ functions than existing vulnerability-oriented LLM code benchmarks. By preserving both code-level vulnerability labels and generation/provenance metadata, LLMVul enables reproducible research on vulnerability detection, security evaluation of LLM-generated code, and analysis of vulnerability patterns in AI-assisted software development. The LLMVul dataset is publicly available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22668216.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

What a Random Draw from the MCP Registry Contains, and What Tool-Use Benchmarks Contain Instead

Studies of the Model Context Protocol (MCP) server ecosystem draw their samples in ways that quietly select for servers that work: reference sets, popularity lists, hand-curated frames, or pipelines that repair a server until it starts. We report what an unrepaired probability sample actually contains. From a 24,135-server registry census we draw 400 npm/stdio servers with a published seed and probe each one over the wire. Only 48.8% complete an initialize handshake, against 66.7% for a hand-curated frame measured with the same instrument, and the dominant failure is not missing credentials (13.3%) but servers that never start at all (37.5%). Among the 195 that do run, hard conformance is total: zero fatal JSON Schema violations across 2,766 advertised tools. Optional safety annotations are the real variance, and the tool-level omission rate on a random draw is 58.8% against 41.5% on the curated frame, so curation flatters this figure too. We then compare the tool descriptions these servers advertise against two tool-use benchmark corpora using one method held constant. Real MCP tools show 2.8% near-duplication at cosine 0.70, and all of it lies within single servers: cross-author near-duplication is 0.0% at every threshold tested. BFCL v4 shows 16.7%, of which 16.4 points lie between independently presented tasks. UltraTool shows 0.3%, cleaner than real tools, so this is a property of BFCL and not of synthetic corpora as a class. Separately, 68.8% of raw BFCL rows and 85.6% of raw UltraTool rows are exact name-plus-description repeats, against 0.4% for real MCP, so any statistic computed over these releases without global deduplication measures repetition rather than tools. All figures regenerate from released scripts and a published seed.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

Engineering Reliable Commit Gates for Agentic AI: Cost-Aware Verification Portfolios under Common-Mode Data Failures

Agentic systems commit state-changing actions, but additional verifiers can inherit the same upstream fault. We present VP-CONTROL, a runtime-assurance design and deterministic benchmark for cost-aware commit gates. Its 48 task templates yield 2,880 scenarios across six fault regimes. A fixed-call 2 x 2 experiment separates verifier-model diversity from evidence-source diversity. On frozen proposals from two local actor families, a cross-model vote over shared evidence approves 62.9% of unsafe proposals, versus 22.9% with an independent source. The source effect is 40.9 percentage points, compared with 11.3 for model diversity. A portfolio controller selects verification plans using only deployment-observable metadata. Approximate cluster-adjusted calibration at a nominal 5% per-task target yields 1.9% unsafe execution and 38.2% automated safe coverage on the locked test. Matched-budget portfolios also improve on fixed verification policies. Transfer remains conditional: unseen fault families yield 16-26% risk, and a FinQA check fails to reproduce the source effect with the tested small verifiers. A preregistered live HTTP/SQLite study tests concurrent writes and lost responses. After-check races defeat verifier-only gates; transactional partial guards prevent only covered failures, while a full atomic guard records no unsafe effects across 216 episodes. Idempotent request identifiers prevent duplicate effects after lost responses. The results motivate explicit evidence lineage, cost-aware selection, and commit-time enforcement, while exposing the limits of approximate calibration and local-tool generalization.

cs.SE↗