MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414122478 · doi:10.1109/jiot.2025.3609240

TISSEA: A Framework for Testing IoT Systems Based on Technical Software Engineering Aspects

2025· article· en· W4414122478 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Internet of Things Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware System Performance and Reliability
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie SupérieureConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSystem integration testingCloud computingTest strategySoftware performance testingSoftwareNon-functional testingSoftware reliability testingConformance testingSoftware system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Internet of Things (IoT) systems refer to interconnected systems of devices that collect, process, and exchange data. As IoT adoption continues to grow, ensuring effective testing is of paramount importance. However, testing IoT systems remains a challenge, particularly for software engineers, due to the need to test aspects beyond their primary area of expertise (e.g., security, sensor calibration, and connectivity). Testing aspects refer to any concept or concern that should be considered when testing a given system. While several frameworks for testing exist that focus on generic aspects of IoT systems, there is no dedicated framework for testing technical software engineering (SE) aspects of IoT systems. To address this gap, we propose and evaluate <italic xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">TISSEA</i>, a framework to guide software engineers to test the technical software engineering (SE) aspects of IoT systems. We constructed TISSEA by identifying all possible technical software-engineering aspects from published taxonomies for IoT systems testing. Further, we mapped each aspect to the granularity of testing at each layer of the IoT system. We finally mapped each aspect with test orchestration strategies, test input artifacts, and execution strategies. We evaluated the TISSEA by surveying 22 professionals and conducting two case studies: (1) event logging and handling testing and (2) data integrity testing. The survey results show that professionals agreed with the proposed technical SE aspects for testing the device and application layers. However, the aspects proposed for testing the gateway and cloud layers still require further investigation. Results of the case studies indicate a gap between expected and captured log events. Regarding event handling, we found that some of the events reported by the system as successfully handled may include unhandled events that cannot be identified when relying on a single orchestration strategy. Regarding data integrity testing, we found that data can be altered at any node at any layer of the IoT system. However, accessing the original data allows the detection of modifications made to it at each node. Overall evaluation of TISSEA shows strong agreement with practitioners, and it could usefulness to test technical software engineering aspects of IoT systems.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.703
Threshold uncertainty score0.620

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it