Paper detail

CHAMP: Characterizing Undesired App Behaviors from User Comments based on Market Policies

Millions of mobile apps have been available through various app markets. Although most app markets have enforced a number of automated or even manual mechanisms to vet each app before it is released to the market, thousands of low-quality apps still exist in different markets, some of which violate the explicitly specified market policies.In order to identify these violations accurately and timely, we resort to user comments, which can form an immediate feedback for app market maintainers, to identify undesired behaviors that violate market policies, including security-related user concerns. Specifically, we present the first large-scale study to detect and characterize the correlations between user comments and market policies. First, we propose CHAMP, an approach that adopts text mining and natural language processing (NLP) techniques to extract semantic rules through a semi-automated process, and classifies comments into 26 pre-defined types of undesired behaviors that violate market policies. Our evaluation on real-world user comments shows that it achieves both high precision and recall ($>0.9$) in classifying comments for undesired behaviors. Then, we curate a large-scale comment dataset (over 3 million user comments) from apps in Google Play and 8 popular alternative Android app markets, and apply CHAMP to understand the characteristics of undesired behavior comments in the wild. The results confirm our speculation that user comments can be used to pinpoint suspicious apps that violate policies declared by app markets. The study also reveals that policy violations are widespread in many app markets despite their extensive vetting efforts. CHAMP can be a \textit{whistle blower} that assigns policy-violation scores and identifies most informative comments for apps.

preprint2021arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.