Bibliographic record
Abstract
IoT systems are rapidly adopted in various domains, from embedded systems to smart homes. Despite their growing adoption and popularity, there has been no thorough study to understand IoT development challenges from the practitioners' point of view. We provide the first systematic study of bugs and challenges that IoT developers face in practice, through a large-scale empirical investigation. We collected 5,565 bug reports from 91 representative IoT project repositories and categorized a random sample of 323 based on the observed failures, root causes, and the locations of the faulty components. In addition, we conducted nine interviews with IoT experts to uncover more details about IoT bugs and to gain insight into IoT developers' challenges. Lastly, we surveyed 194 IoT developers to validate our findings and gain further insights. We propose the first bug taxonomy for IoT systems based on our results. We highlight frequent bug categories and their root causes, correlations between them, and common pitfalls and challenges that IoT developers face. We recommend future directions for IoT areas that require research and development attention.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.129 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".