You are presented with multiple paper abstracts, alongside the associated literature review and chapter titles. Given the provided information, you are going to do a literature review. Please generate a coherent literature review that synthesizes the content, draws connections between different works, highlights major findings, and identifies any gaps in the existing research.

Literature Review Title: Rebooting Research on Detecting Repackaged Android Apps: Literature Review and Benchmark 
Chapter Title:  Statistics on state-of-the-art work 
1. Abstract of Cited Paper (BIB001):  The appearance of the Android platform and its popularity has resulted in a sharp rise in the number of reported vulnerabilities and consequently in the number of mobile threats. Leveraging openness of Android app markets and the lack of security testing, malware authors commonly plagiarize Android applications (e.g., through code reuse and repackaging) boosting the amount of malware on the markets and consequently the infection rate. In this study, we present AndroidSOO, a lightweight approach for the detection of repackaging symptoms on Android apps. In this work, we introduce and explore novel and easily extractable attribute called String Offset Order. Extractable from string identifiers list in the .dex file, the method is able to pinpoint symptoms of reverse engineered Android apps without the need for complex further analysis. We performed extensive evaluation of String Order metric to assess its capabilities on datasets made available by three recent studies: Android Malware Genome Project, DroidAnalytics and Drebin. We also performed a large-scale study of over 5,000 Android applications extracted from Google Play market and over 80 000 samples from Virus Total service. 
2. Abstract of Cited Paper (BIB002):  During repackaging, malware writers statically inject malcode and modify the control flow to ensure its execution. Repackaged malware is difficult to detect by existing classification techniques, partly because of their behavioral similarities to benign apps. By exploring the app's internal different behaviors, we propose a new Android repackaged malware detection technique based on code heterogeneity analysis. Our solution strategically partitions the code structure of an app into multiple dependence-based regions (subsets of the code). Each region is independently classified on its behavioral features. We point out the security challenges and design choices for partitioning code structures at the class and method level graphs, and present a solution based on multiple dependence relations. We have performed experimental evaluation with over 7,542 Android apps. For repackaged malware, our partition-based detection reduces false negatives (i.e., missed detection) by 30-fold, when compared to the non-partition-based approach. Overall, our approach achieves a false negative rate of 0.35% and a false positive rate of 2.97%. 
3. Abstract of Cited Paper (BIB003):  We present LibRadar, a tool that is able to detect third-party libraries used in an Android app accurately and instantly. As third-party libraries are widely used in Android apps, program analysis on Android apps typically needs to detect or remove third-party libraries first in order to function correctly or provide accurate results. However, most previous studies employ a whitelist of package names of known libraries, which is incomplete and unable to deal with obfuscation. In contrast, LibRadar detects libraries based on stable API features that are obfuscation resilient in most cases. After analyzing one million free Android apps from Google Play, we have identified possible libraries and collected their unique features. Based on these features, LibRadar can detect third-party libraries in a given Android app within seconds, as it only requires simple static analysis and fast comparison. LibRadar is available for public use at http://radar.pkuos.org. The demo video is available at: https://youtu.be/GoMYjYxsZnI 
4. Abstract of Cited Paper (BIB004):  Third-party libraries on Android have been shown to be security and privacy hazards by adding security vulnerabilities to their host apps or by misusing inherited access rights. Correctly attributing improper app behavior either to app or library developer code or isolating library code from their host apps would be highly desirable to mitigate these problems, but is impeded by the absence of a third-party library detection that is effective and reliable in spite of obfuscated code. This paper proposes a library detection technique that is resilient against common code obfuscations and that is capable of pinpointing the exact library version used in apps. Libraries are detected with profiles from a comprehensive library database that we generated from the original library SDKs. We apply our technique to the top apps on Google Play and their complete histories to conduct a longitudinal study of library usage and evolution in apps. Our results particularly show that app developers only slowly adapt new library versions, exposing their end-users to large windows of vulnerability. For instance, we discovered that two long-known security vulnerabilities in popular libs are still present in the current top apps. Moreover, we find that misuse of cryptographic APIs in advertising libs, which increases the host apps' attack surface, affects 296 top apps with a cumulative install base of 3.7bn devices according to Play. To the best of our knowledge, our work is first to quantify the security impact of third-party libs on the Android ecosystem. 
5. Abstract of Cited Paper (BIB005):  As shown in previous work, malware authors often reuse portions of code in the development of their samples. Especially in the mobile scenario, there exists a phenomena, called piggybacking, that describes the act of embedding malicious code inside benign apps. In this paper, we leverage such observations to analyze mobile malware by looking at its similarities. In practice, we propose a novel approach that identifies and extracts code similarities in mobile apps. Our approach is based on static analysis and works by computing the Control Flow Graph of each method and encoding it in a feature vector used to measure similarities. We implemented our approach in a tool, GroupDroid, able to group mobile apps together according to their code similarities. Armed with Group-Droid, we then analyzed modern mobile malware samples. Our experiments show that GroupDroid is able to correctly and accurately distinguish different malware variants, and to provide useful and detailed information about the similar portions of malicious code. 
6. Abstract of Cited Paper (BIB006):  With the thriving of the mobile app markets, third-party libraries are pervasively integrated in the Android applications. Third-party libraries provide functionality such as advertisements, location services, and social networking services, making multi-functional app development much more productive. However, the spread of vulnerable or harmful third-party libraries may also hurt the entire mobile ecosystem, leading to various security problems. The Android platform suffers severely from such problems due to the way its ecosystem is constructed and maintained. Therefore, third-party Android library identification has emerged as an important problem which is the basis of many security applications such as repackaging detection and malware analysis. According to our investigation, existing work on Android library detection still requires improvement in many aspects, including accuracy and obfuscation resilience. In response to these limitations, we propose a novel approach to identifying third-party Android libraries. Our method utilizes the internal code dependencies of an Android app to detect and classify library candidates. Different from most previous methods which classify detected library candidates based on similarity comparison, our method is based on feature hashing and can better handle code whose package and method names are obfuscated. Based on this approach, we have developed a prototypical tool called LibD and evaluated it with an update-to-date and large-scale dataset. Our experimental results on 1,427,395 apps show that compared to existing tools, LibD can better handle multi-package third-party libraries in the presence of name-based obfuscation, leading to significantly improved precision without the loss of scalability.

Literature Review:
The research topic around repackaged apps has been initiated in the Android community after a presentation of Desnos and Gueguen  at Black Hat, Abu Dhabi 2011, where they discussed Android app reverse engineering and decompilation, and the associated security implications. Fig. 1 illustrates some statistical trends of the research publications on Android repackaged app detection. It appears from the collected data that repackaged app detection has been tackled first and mostly by security researchers. Then, Software Engineering researchers have picked up on the problem, leading to a peak of publications in 2014. After 2014, the volume of published research started to steadily decrease, although no new data has shown that the problem has been solved in practice. It is noteworthy that only 19% (11 out of 57) of the stateof-the-art work have been archived in a Journal volume, suggesting that very few extensive investigations into the problem are available. Conference proceedings, which provide a faster visibility of researcher's work on a competitive topic such as Android, account for over 80% of the publications. The four workshop papers BIB001 , BIB002 , BIB003 , BIB006 that we have identified in the SLR are providing radically new approaches to the problem of repackaged apps detection, but only focus on repackaged malware. Except for the considered approaches that explicitly target the detection of repackaged Android apps, our literature search also identified several papers focusing on detecting third-party libraries BIB007 , BIB004 , BIB005 . Although these papers are not considered in this work, we believe their approaches can generally be adapted to detect repackaged apps as well. For example, Li et al. BIB007 have introduced LibD to identify third-party libraries, including multi-package ones, which are categorised based on the internal code dependencies of candidate libraries. Interested readers are encouraged to follow their research paper for more details.