The DOI matches its Crossref record; 49 of the 50 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 13 of the 55 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions
Open accessAbstract
The rapid evolution of the Internet of Things (IoT) is making way for the development of several IoT applications that require minimal or no human involvement in the data collection, transformation, knowledge extraction, and decision-making (actuation) process. To ensure that such IoT applications (we term them autonomic) function as expected, it is necessary to measure and evaluate their quality, which is challenging in the absence of any human involvement or feedback. Existing Quality of Experience (QoE) literature and most QoE definitions focuses on evaluating application quality from the lens of human receiving application services. However, in autonomic IoT applications, poor quality of decisions and resulting actions can degrade the application quality leading to economic and social losses. In this paper, we present a vision, survey and future directions for QoE research in IoT. We review existing QoE definitions followed by a survey of techniques and approaches in the literature used to evaluate QoE in IoT. We identify and review the role of data from the perspective of IoT architectures, which is a critical factor when evaluating the QoE of IoT applications. We conclude the paper by identifying and presenting our vision for future research in evaluating the QoE of autonomic IoT applications.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This review surveys QoE definitions and models for IoT, arguing that existing QoE is human-centric and insufficient for autonomic IoT applications where devices sense, analyze, and actuate without human feedback. It presents a vision and future directions for objective, data-aware QoE evaluation across the IoT application lifecycle.
Key findings
- Existing QoE definitions from ITU-T, ETSI, Qualinet, Nokia, Ericsson, and others focus on end-user subjective perception; the paper states there is no widely generic QoE definition for IoT, and only Minovski et al.’s QoIoT/QoME work addresses machine-focused quality alongside user-centric QoE.
- In the surveyed literature, 77.77% of work involves human subjective evaluation for QoE in IoT, while 22.22% involves no human feedback for evaluation.
- Reviewed QoE models either decompose application QoE into submetrics such as Quality of Data (QoD), Quality of Information (QoI), and QoS, or evaluate QoE without decomposition using subjective user feedback and IoT architectural layers; one QoD/QoI-based model reported a Pearson correlation of 0.81 with subjective test results.
- Data quality is identified as crucial for IoT application quality, characterized by metrics including accuracy, completeness, usefulness, and timeliness.
Methods
- Survey of research published from 2007 to the present (2020) referring to QoE in IoT, using Google Scholar, Springer, Science Direct, and IEEE Xplore, with search terms including “Quality of experience” and “IoT”, “QoE definition” and “IoT”, “QoE” and “data”, and “QoE models” in Abstract/Title/Keywords.
- The paper reports selecting 50 papers in total, while also stating that 53 papers were surveyed; papers were classified by reading abstracts and full papers when necessary, with duplicates across databases eliminated.
- Narrative review and synthesis of QoE definitions, QoE models, metrics, datasets, and the role of data; no primary empirical experiment is conducted.
Limitations
- The paper states that no widely generic QoE definition exists for IoT, and existing definitions rely on human feedback and do not cover sensing, analytics, and actuation or machine experiences.
- The paper notes a lack of general IoT architecture in the literature, and reviewed QoE models often use synthetic data or human feedback, limiting their applicability to autonomic IoT applications.
- Evident from the text: the selection criteria list appears incomplete after “were the following,” the survey count is inconsistent (50 vs. 53 papers), and many reviewed works are summarized without detailed extraction.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
29 No full text of the sources · 24 Own interpretation · 18 No basis given · 6 Partly supported · 5 Own result · 4 Supported · 3 Sources not found · 3 Own method · 2 Supported so far · 1 Not supported · 1 Not checked yet · accuracy not yet measured
At least one cited source doesn’t support this claim or points to a different paper, and none confirmed it — see the verdicts below.
In the paper
“In [36] authors developed a predictive model for quality evaluation in IoT.The model is based on user experience from the IoT application.This model is solely based on data gathered from the survey performed on the users of the application.”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > 3.1 QoE models for IoT
What the sources say
- Disputedcites [36] Robitza W, Ahmad A, Kara PA, Atzori L, Martini MG, Raake A, et al. Challenges of future multimedia QoE monitoring for internet service providers. Multimedia Tools Appl. 2017;76(21):22243–66. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 3.4, “Virtual objects” (page unavailable), describes creating quality models for virtualized IoT services as a challenge, not a model the authors developed. The Conclusion (page unavailable) likewise says the major challenge lies in developing appropriate models. Neither passage describes a model built solely from a user survey. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Disputed
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“The same is true with some of the other existing literature [30,37,38], as they do not assess how the application QoE relates to the individual components of IoT applications.”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > 3.1 QoE models for IoT
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [30] Shin D-H. Conceptualizing and measuring quality of experience of the internet of things: Exploring how quality is perceived by users. InfManag. 2017;54(8):998–1011.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [37] Ikeda Y, Kouno S, Shiozu A, Noritake K. A framework of scalable QoE modeling for application explosion in the Internet of Things; 2016. p. 425–9. source
- Supportedcites [38] Suryanegara M, Prasetyo DA, Andriyanto F, Hayati N. A 5-step framework for measuring the quality of experience (QoE) of Internet of Things (IoT) services. IEEE Access. 2019;7:175779–92. source
Section III, Step 1 defines service-specific QoE parameters, and Step 3 measures users’ perceptions before and after IoT implementation. The proof-of-concept results report scores for service functions, not an assessment of how overall application QoE relates to individual IoT application components. The paper does assess individual QoE parameters, but those are not presented as relationships between application QoE and its technical components. (LLM, conf=0.83)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Even though using MOS is the most widely used method, its validity is recently questioned by several researchers [35].”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > 3.1 QoE models for IoT
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [35] Hoßfeld T, Heegaard PE, Varela M, Möller S. QoE beyond the MOS: an in-depth look at QoE via better metrics and their relation to MOS. Qual User Exp. 2016;1(1):2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41233-016-0002-1. source
The “Influence factors in subjective experiments” section (page unavailable) says standardized subjective-assessment methods produce MOS ratings for the most part. This supports the claim that MOS is widely used for subjective ratings. (LLM, conf=0.87)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“the distributed architecture of an IoT application also significantly impacts its performance [52].”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > 4.3 Measuring QoE for fog/edge enabled IoT applications
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [52] Anand P, Singh Y, Selwal A, Singh PK, Felseghi RA, Raboaca MS. IoVT: internet of vulnerable things? Threat architecture, attack surfaces, and vulnerabilities in Internet of Things And Its Applications Towards Smart Grids. Energies. 2020;13(18):1–23. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In the section labeled “X X X” (page not given), the paper reports that particular IoT architectures can reduce energy consumption or detect attacks with fewer overheads. It does not establish the broader claim that an IoT application's distributed architecture significantly affects its overall performance. (LLM, conf=0.76)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“This necessitates data transfer between different networks rendering threat to the security aspects of the applications [52].”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > 4.5 Implication of security mechanisms on QoE of autonomic IoT application
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [52] Anand P, Singh Y, Selwal A, Singh PK, Felseghi RA, Raboaca MS. IoVT: internet of vulnerable things? Threat architecture, attack surfaces, and vulnerabilities in Internet of Things And Its Applications Towards Smart Grids. Energies. 2020;13(18):1–23. source
Section 3, “IoT: Threat Architecture” (page not provided), describes IoT gateways connecting to servers or applications through multiple communication networks. Section 4, “IoT: Attack Surfaces” (page not provided), says communication links create paths for network attacks and that cloud-connected IoT services are exposed to open networks. Together, these support the claim that such connectivity poses security threats to IoT applications. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“None of the existing QoE definitions aim to evaluate quality of IoT application in terms of sensing, analytics and actuation.”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > Organizations like International Telecommunication Union ITU-T (ITU-T) and
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Existing surveys on QoE in IoT such as [16][17][18] focus on network metrics to assess QoE.”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > 1 3
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [16] Yang M, Wang S, Calheiros RN, Yang F. Survey on QoE assessment approach for network service. IEEE Access. 2018;6:48374–90. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2867253. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [17] Akpakwu GA, Silva BJ, Hancke GP, Abu-Mahfouz AM. A survey on 5G networks for the Internet of Things: communication technologies and challenges. IEEE Access. 2018;6:3619–47. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2017.2779844. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [18] Chettri L, Bera R. A comprehensive survey on Internet of Things (IoT) toward 5G wireless systems. IEEE Internet of Things J. 2020;7(1):16–32. https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2019.2948888. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In the existing literature on IoT, we found only one reference which looks to define and evaluate the quality of IoT applications [19].”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > Organizations/papers Definitions
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [19] Minovski D, Hlund C, Mitra K. Modeling quality of IoT experience in autonomous vehicles. IEEE Internet of Things J. 2020;7:3833–49. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The existing literature in evaluating quality of IoT applications are dependent on the data which application senses, analyses and use it to actuate.”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > Additional information
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We identify that there is still a gap in QoE evaluation for IoT applications”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > 5 Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 54
- It may state two separate claims as one. 26
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Even though using MOS is the most widely used method, its validity is recently questioned by several researchers [35].”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > 3.1 QoE models for IoT
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [35] Hoßfeld T, Heegaard PE, Varela M, Möller S. QoE beyond the MOS: an in-depth look at QoE via better metrics and their relation to MOS. Qual User Exp. 2016;1(1):2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41233-016-0002-1. source
The Abstract (page unavailable) says MOS dominates QoE literature but has several limitations. The Motivation section (page unavailable) calls its use common and well-established and notes that other researchers have discussed its limitations. This supports the citing sentence’s broad point that a widely used measure has been questioned, without implying that MOS is wholly invalid. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In [41], authors proposed a QoE model to measure QoE of a teleconsultation app.First, they identified five factors which impact QoE.These factors are integrality, retainability, availability, usability and instantaneousness.”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > 3.1 QoE models for IoT
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [41] de la Torre DI, Alonso SG, Cruz EM, Franco MA. Measuring QoE of a teleconsultation app in mental health using a pentagram model. J Med Syst. 2019;43(7):213. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Methods section describes a five-factor pentagram model, and Table 1 names integrality, retainability, availability, usability, and instantaneousness. But the Introduction says the authors used an existing model-based approach [12], while the Conclusion says proposing a new model is future work; this paper did not propose the model as claimed. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In surveys such as [14,15], authors have focussed on QoE in multimedia IoT applications, which is determined based on how such applications are consumed by users.”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > 1 3
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [14] Barakabitze AA, Barman N, Ahmad A, Zadtootaghaj S, Sun L, Martini MG, et al. QoE management of multimedia streaming services in future networks: a tutorial and survey. IEEE CommunSurv Tutorials. 2020;22(1):526–65. https://doi.org/10.1109/COMST.2019.2958784. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The survey discusses QoE management for multimedia IoT applications in “Multimedia Communications in Internet of Things” (p. 29), and defines QoE in terms of users’ experience of an application or service in “Quality of Experience: Definition” (p. 4). But multimedia IoT is one subsection of a broader survey of multimedia streaming services, not the survey’s central focus. (LLM, conf=0.85)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [15] Skorin-Kapov L, Varela M, Hoßfeld T, Chen K-T. A survey of emerging concepts and challenges for QoE management of multimedia services. ACM Trans Multimedia Comput CommunAppl. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1145/3176648. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In this use case, authors first identified the quality requirements of a smart city.Secondly, they defined the users of this IoT application.Thirdly, they compute a mean opinion score (MOS) based on surveys performed before and after implementing the IoT application.Lastly, the difference between after implementing and before implementing the application is performed.”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > 3.1 QoE models for IoT
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [43] Pal D, Vanijja V, Arpnikanondt C, Zhang X, Papasratorn B. A quantitative approach for evaluating the quality of experience of smart-wearables from the quality of data and quality of information: an end user perspective. IEEE Access. 2019;7:64266–78. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 1 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“One of the recently evolving methods for measuring the quality of multimedia content involves both subjective and objective evaluation to obtain the best of two methods [36].”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > 3.1 QoE models for IoT
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [36] Robitza W, Ahmad A, Kara PA, Atzori L, Martini MG, Raake A, et al. Challenges of future multimedia QoE monitoring for internet service providers. Multimedia Tools Appl. 2017;76(21):22243–66. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 2.2 (page unavailable) describes automated multimedia-quality models that estimate a value akin to a human observer’s rating, and §2.1 describes a shift toward predicting user-perceived quality. Neither passage says that a method combines subjective and objective evaluations to obtain the benefits of both. (LLM, conf=0.78)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In [43], the authors measure the QoE of a smart city application using the smart city of Jakarta as a use case.”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > 3.1 QoE models for IoT
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [43] Pal D, Vanijja V, Arpnikanondt C, Zhang X, Papasratorn B. A quantitative approach for evaluating the quality of experience of smart-wearables from the quality of data and quality of information: an end user perspective. IEEE Access. 2019;7:64266–78. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction and Discussion describe a QoE evaluation of smart-wearables and their companion applications, so the source supports the measurement of QoE. They do not describe a smart-city application or a Jakarta use case; the paper mentions smart cities only as one example of the many kinds of IoT applications. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“They model the application QoE and measure the users experience through subjective evaluations.”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > 3.1 QoE models for IoT
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [30] Shin D-H. Conceptualizing and measuring quality of experience of the internet of things: Exploring how quality is perceived by users. InfManag. 2017;54(8):998–1011.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [37] Ikeda Y, Kouno S, Shiozu A, Noritake K. A framework of scalable QoE modeling for application explosion in the Internet of Things; 2016. p. 425–9. source
- Supportedcites [38] Suryanegara M, Prasetyo DA, Andriyanto F, Hayati N. A 5-step framework for measuring the quality of experience (QoE) of Internet of Things (IoT) services. IEEE Access. 2019;7:175779–92. source
The Introduction describes a framework that develops QoE parameters for the IoT services being assessed. Step 3 reports measuring users’ experience through MOS surveys in which respondents scored their subjective evaluations. (LLM, conf=0.91)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“For example, in one of such works [31] on QoE in multimedia IoT, authors measure QoE objectively.”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > 3.1 QoE models for IoT
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [31] Floris A, Atzori L. Managing the quality of experience in the multimedia internet of things: a layered-based approach. Sensors. 2016;16(12):2057. source
Section 4.3 describes estimating QoE by mapping objective QoS and QoD measures to users’ quality ratings. Section 5.1.3 applies this approach to a multimedia IoT vehicle application, evaluating QoE from video bitrate, data accuracy, and network delay. The paper also uses subjective ratings to build and validate its models; these do not negate the objective estimation described in the claim. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We identify and review the role of data from the perspective of IoT architectures, which is a critical factor when evaluating the QoE of IoT applications.”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“However, the authors do not highlight how these metrics impact the quality of IoT applications.”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > 3.1 QoE models for IoT
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [40] Li L, Rong M, Zhang G. An Internet of Things QoE evaluation method based on multiple linear regression analysis; 2015. p. 925–8. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Existing Quality of Experience (QoE) literature and most QoE definitions focuses on evaluating application quality from the lens of human receiving application services.”
- Also stated in: § Organizations like International Telecommunication Union ITU-T (ITU-T) and · plain
“However, all the existing definitions of QoE focus on the understanding and measurement of the quality of an application or a service received by the endusers (humans), and typically from multimedia applications perspective.”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Organizations like International Telecommunication Union ITU-T (ITU-T) and · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We reviewed the existing literature including QoE definitions, all of which are focused on human as users and QoE evaluation is based on their feedback.”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > 5 Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Currently, QoE models are based on human feedback or experience.”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > 4.4 Practical QoE models with no human involvement
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“To the best of our knowledge, Minovski et al. [11] provided the first comprehensive definition of QoE from IoT perspective.”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > 4.1 QoE definition specific to autonomic IoT
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [11] Satyanarayanan M. The emergence of edge computing. Computer. 2017;50(1):30–9. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2017.9. source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As discussed till now, the notion of QoE in IoT is relatively new”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > 4.3 Measuring QoE for fog/edge enabled IoT applications
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, in food paste processing application, the IoT network is outside the corporate machine network.Hence, there are security issues that render delays in sensed data from machine being delivered for analysis.”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > 4.5 Implication of security mechanisms on QoE of autonomic IoT application
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The QoE models we reviewed in this section can be classified broadly into two categories as follows:”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > 3.1 QoE models for IoT
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“QoE in IoT showed is a well explored area.”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > 4 Research gaps and future research directions
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Table 3 lists such existing papers which has characterized IoT data based on the metrics such as accuracy, completeness, usefulness and timeliness.”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > Acknowledgements
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the introduction of edge computing introduces additional complexities due to its highly distributed nature and need to support distributed processing of IoT application.”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > 1 3
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Similarly, definitions of QoE given by the European Telecommunications Standard Institute and Qualinet White Paper cannot be mixed with IoT in its purest form because IoT application involves IoT device to device interaction and humans may not be present as end users to provide his/her feedback about the application.”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > Organizations like International Telecommunication Union ITU-T (ITU-T) and
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This distributed processing of IoT applications further necessitates continuous evaluation of quality of IoT applications.”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > 1 3
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“QoE considers only the end-user's objective and subjective experience but does not measure the overall machine performance.”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > Organizations/papers Definitions
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [19] Minovski D, Hlund C, Mitra K. Modeling quality of IoT experience in autonomous vehicles. IEEE Internet of Things J. 2020;7:3833–49. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, in IoT applications, quality is not driven by network metrics alone but also by other metrics such as data.”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > 1 3
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Machine performance is measured in terms of decision-making, reasoning, and optimized machine operations.”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > Organizations/papers Definitions
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [19] Minovski D, Hlund C, Mitra K. Modeling quality of IoT experience in autonomous vehicles. IEEE Internet of Things J. 2020;7:3833–49. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“However, it is a complex method that fails for real-time applications [23].”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > Organizations like International Telecommunication Union ITU-T (ITU-T) and
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [23] Wubin P, Gaung C, Hua W, Yongning T, editors. Towards QoE assessment of encrypted YouTube adaptive video streaming in mobile networks. In: 2016 IEEE/ACM 24th international symposium on quality of service (IWQoS); 2016; 20–21 June 2016. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Also, these definitions involve human feedback to evaluate the application quality and do not include machine experiences; hence., quality measurement of such IoT applications remains uncovered.”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > Organizations like International Telecommunication Union ITU-T (ITU-T) and
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In [40], authors aim to ensure QoE through existing QoS parameters.In this direction, they develop a functional model between QoE and QoS.The model uses principal component analysis (PCA) to identify the principal components.Next, they deduce regression equation between QoE and principal components.Based on this regression equation, they obtain a functional model which connects QoE and QoS.”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > 3.1 QoE models for IoT
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [40] Li L, Rong M, Zhang G. An Internet of Things QoE evaluation method based on multiple linear regression analysis; 2015. p. 925–8. source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“QoME measures machine performance objectively.”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > Organizations/papers Definitions
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [19] Minovski D, Hlund C, Mitra K. Modeling quality of IoT experience in autonomous vehicles. IEEE Internet of Things J. 2020;7:3833–49. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The results from the proposed model shows a strong correlation with the results obtained from subjective test through a Pearson correlation value of 0.81.”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > 3.1 QoE models for IoT
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [39] Pal D, Triyason T, Varadarajan V, Zhang X, editors. Quality of experience evaluation of smart-wearables: a mathematical modelling approach. In: 2019 IEEE 35th international conference on data engineering workshops (ICDEW); 2019 8–12 April; 2019. source
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“QoS metrics such as throughput, delay, jitter, packet loss, availability and reliability are precise in definition but are rather crude.”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > 1 3
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Further, since the result produced by the IoT application i.e., paste consistency, is not just from actuation (i.e., applying specific settings to the evaporator machine), but is a result of other components of IoT, which includes the sensor data collected in real-time as well as the data analytics performed using the collected sensor data, evaluation of how individual components impact the final”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > 1 3
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“However, as mentioned above, in an IoT ecosystem, there is a need to consider device to device interactions that can impact the quality of the application and hence the need for more objective measures to assess QoE [19,22].”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > 1 3
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [19] Minovski D, Hlund C, Mitra K. Modeling quality of IoT experience in autonomous vehicles. IEEE Internet of Things J. 2020;7:3833–49. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [22] Han B, Zhang X, Qi Y, Gao Y, Yang D. QoE model based optimization for streaming media service considering equipment and environment factors. Wireless PersCommun. 2012;66(3):595–612. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11277-012-0739-7. source
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Subjective evaluation is considered as the most accurate method of getting a user's opinion.”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > Organizations like International Telecommunication Union ITU-T (ITU-T) and
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [23] Wubin P, Gaung C, Hua W, Yongning T, editors. Towards QoE assessment of encrypted YouTube adaptive video streaming in mobile networks. In: 2016 IEEE/ACM 24th international symposium on quality of service (IWQoS); 2016; 20–21 June 2016. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The experimental results in the paper show that the proposed scheme leads to improved QoS performance metrics, such as packet delivery ratio, memory utilization, control message overhead, residual energy, network lifetime, and throughput.”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > 1 3
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [13] Faheem M, Gungor VC. MQRP: Mobile sinks-based QoS-aware data gathering protocol for wireless sensor networks-based smart grid applications in the context of industry 4.0-based on internet of things. Future Gen Comput Syst. 2018;82:358–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2017.10.009. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, the distributed and heterogeneous nature of IoT applications implies that the quality of IoT applications is impacted by multiple factors, which make them distinct from other QoE measurement methods in the literature.”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > 1 3
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The quality of such multimedia IoT applications can be evaluated in terms of how accurate the actuation command is.”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > 3.1 QoE models for IoT
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Recently Minovski et al. [19,20] and Mitra et al. [12] have argued for the need to understand quality in an IoT ecosystem; within an IoT ecosystem a user can be both human and/or other systems and IoT devices.”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > 1 3
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [19] Minovski D, Hlund C, Mitra K. Modeling quality of IoT experience in autonomous vehicles. IEEE Internet of Things J. 2020;7:3833–49. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [20] Minovski D, hlund C, Mitra K, Zhohov R. Quality of experience for the Internet of Things. IT Professional Magazine; 2020. p. 1–9. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [12] Mitra K, Zaslavsky A, Åhlund C. Context-aware QoE modelling, measurement, and prediction in mobile computing systems. IEEE Trans Mob Comput. 2015;14(5):920–36. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMC.2013.155. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The need to assess QoE objectively is enforced more strongly with the rapid increase and adoption of analytics-driven actuations in autonomic IoT applications where there is no human feedback.”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > 1 3
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Rests on an assumption: In autonomic IoT applications, poor quality of decisions and resulting actions can degrade application quality, leading to economic and social losses.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“IoT applications' distributed processing on the network edge and the centralized cloud is suitable, especially for latency sensitive IoT applications.”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > 4.3 Measuring QoE for fog/edge enabled IoT applications
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Measuring QoE provided by an application is an important metric for system designers and developers as it provides them with a mechanism to quantify the outcomes provided by the application they are developing.”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > 1 3
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In the device layer, metrics related to data producing IoT devices are considered such as, GPS accuracy of sensor devices or the resolution of camera devices.”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > 3.1 QoE models for IoT
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [40] Li L, Rong M, Zhang G. An Internet of Things QoE evaluation method based on multiple linear regression analysis; 2015. p. 925–8. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This implies that the outcomes of an IoT application may be consumed by another device or even another IoT application.”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > 4.1 QoE definition specific to autonomic IoT
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Rests on an assumption: IoT applications are often systems of systems, in which multiple autonomous IoT applications interact with each other.
In the paper
“However, in their work, they do not directly measure the quality of content, service, and system.But they measure these metrics through the utility and hedonicity the end-user (humans) receives.”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > Organizations like International Telecommunication Union ITU-T (ITU-T) and
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [30] Shin D-H. Conceptualizing and measuring quality of experience of the internet of things: Exploring how quality is perceived by users. InfManag. 2017;54(8):998–1011.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Layer based model is another approach for modelling quality of IoT applications.”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > 3.1 QoE models for IoT
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In [39], the authors proposed a QoE model based on a generic QoE equation.”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > 3.1 QoE models for IoT
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [39] Pal D, Triyason T, Varadarajan V, Zhang X, editors. Quality of experience evaluation of smart-wearables: a mathematical modelling approach. In: 2019 IEEE 35th international conference on data engineering workshops (ICDEW); 2019 8–12 April; 2019. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While existing definitions of QoE cover the satisfaction of end-users, they may not be sufficient for IoT applications where an actuation performed by IoT device (e.g., machine) can impact another IoT device or a set of connected IoT devices (and not always a human).”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > 1 3
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Physical metrics include the factors that impact the application quality and are mapped to IoT architecture.Metaphysical metrics correspond to factors which impact the application quality and are mapped to application requirements.”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > 3.1 QoE models for IoT
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [40] Li L, Rong M, Zhang G. An Internet of Things QoE evaluation method based on multiple linear regression analysis; 2015. p. 925–8. source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“To organize the quality metrics corresponding to IoT architecture (physical metrics), functions of IoT architecture are virtually divided into four different layers and the quality metrics are defined for each layer.These layers are device, network, computing, and user interface.”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > 3.1 QoE models for IoT
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [40] Li L, Rong M, Zhang G. An Internet of Things QoE evaluation method based on multiple linear regression analysis; 2015. p. 925–8. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“For example, in [30], authors have used the QoE definition given by ITU-T and they describe the IoT network as an aggregate of three factors i.e. system, content, and service.”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > Organizations like International Telecommunication Union ITU-T (ITU-T) and
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [30] Shin D-H. Conceptualizing and measuring quality of experience of the internet of things: Exploring how quality is perceived by users. InfManag. 2017;54(8):998–1011.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“In [40], the authors categorized the metrics which impact application QoE into two broad categories: physical metrics and metaphysical metrics.”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > 3.1 QoE models for IoT
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [40] Li L, Rong M, Zhang G. An Internet of Things QoE evaluation method based on multiple linear regression analysis; 2015. p. 925–8. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“One such work is [42], in which authors measure the QoE of teleconsultation application called Psiconnect using an approach that is based on pentagram model.”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > 3.1 QoE models for IoT
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [42] Floris A, Atzori L. Quality of experience in the multimedia Internet of Things: definition and practical use-cases; 2015. p. 1747–52. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, first, we cannot use the subjective tests in such cases, and objective metrics are necessitated.”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > 4.3 Measuring QoE for fog/edge enabled IoT applications
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the outputs of an autonomic IoT application may be consumed by another IoT device (e.g.machines in case of Industry 4.0), implying the absence of any user feedback.”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > 1 3
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This pentagram model is based on five factors (integrality, retainability, availability, usability, and instantaneousness).”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > 3.1 QoE models for IoT
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [42] Floris A, Atzori L. Quality of experience in the multimedia Internet of Things: definition and practical use-cases; 2015. p. 1747–52. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“They modeled QoE as a weighted linear combination of Quality of Data (QoD) and Quality of Information (QoI).”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > 3.1 QoE models for IoT
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [39] Pal D, Triyason T, Varadarajan V, Zhang X, editors. Quality of experience evaluation of smart-wearables: a mathematical modelling approach. In: 2019 IEEE 35th international conference on data engineering workshops (ICDEW); 2019 8–12 April; 2019. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is because IoT applications may operate automatically without human intervention and even produce outcomes that are consumed later.”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > 4.1 QoE definition specific to autonomic IoT
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In [47], authors identified that a poor quality data likely leads to unsound decisions and actions in IoT.”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > Additional information
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [47] Karkouch A, Mousannif H, Al Moatassime H, Noel T. Data quality in internet of things: a state-of-the-art survey. J Netw Comput Appl. 2016;73:57–81. source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The authors in [45] identified that quality of data is crucial not only at device or network level but also at application level.”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > Additional information
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [45] Banerjee T, Sheth A. Iot quality control for data and application needs. IEEE Intell Syst. 2017;32(2):68–73. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We have classified the papers by reading their abstracts as well as the full paper when necessary”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > 5 Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Minovski et al. in [19] evaluated the quality of autonomous vehicles based on metrics such as quality of data, network and context.”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > Additional information
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [19] Minovski D, Hlund C, Mitra K. Modeling quality of IoT experience in autonomous vehicles. IEEE Internet of Things J. 2020;7:3833–49. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In [30], authors evaluate the quality of experience in IoT based on quality of network which in turn is driven by the generated IoT data.”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > Acknowledgements
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [30] Shin D-H. Conceptualizing and measuring quality of experience of the internet of things: Exploring how quality is perceived by users. InfManag. 2017;54(8):998–1011.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In total, we selected 50 papers, most of which are from past 10 years.”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > 5 Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“all the papers repeated in more than one database are eliminated.”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > 5 Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper relies on this without support.
In autonomic IoT applications, poor quality of decisions and resulting actions can degrade application quality, leading to economic and social losses.
“However, in autonomic IoT applications, poor quality of decisions and resulting actions can degrade the application quality leading to economic and social losses.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Manufacturing KPIs are typically not measured during production.
“Firstly, there is typically no human feedback available based on which the QoE of the application can be estimated in real-time, since the manufacturing KPIs are typically not measured during production.”
The paper relies on this without support.
IoT applications increasingly require minimal or no human involvement in data collection, transformation, knowledge extraction, and decision-making (actuation).
“The rapid evolution of the Internet of Things (IoT) is making way for the development of several IoT applications that require minimal or no human involvement in the data collection, transformation, knowledge extraction, and decisionmaking (actuation) process.”
The paper relies on this without support.
IoT applications are often systems of systems, in which multiple autonomous IoT applications interact with each other.
“IoT applications are often systems of systems, in which multiple autonomous IoT applications interact with each other.”
The paper relies on this without support.
IoT applications are inherently distributed, and this distribution results from both computation requirements and the distinct roles of application components that contribute differently to the application outcome.
“IoT applications are distinct from other applications in the fact that not only are they inherently distributed, but the distribution is result of both computation requirements and the distinct roles of application components that contribute differently to the application outcome.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The 53 surveyed papers are representative of the literature on QoE in IoT.
“The plethora of the paper we have surveyed (53 papers) have considered human involvement in QoE evaluation for IoT as shown in Fig. 3.”
The paper relies on this without support.
It is possible to evaluate application quality without human feedback by identifying factors that impact it.
“Suppose the designer of the application can identify the factors and evaluate their impact on the application quality.In that case, such QoE models can be used for applications where a human is not present to provide his subjective feedback.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > 3.1 QoE models for IoT
“In [43], the authors measure the QoE of a smart city application using the smart city of Jakarta as a use case.”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > Additional information
“Similarly, in [43] authors used the concepts of quality of data (QoD) and quality of information (QoI) to map a relationship between human experience and quality perception.For their work, they used a smart wearable application”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > 4.1 QoE definition specific to autonomic IoT
“To the best of our knowledge, Minovski et al. [11] provided the first comprehensive definition of QoE from IoT perspective.”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > References
“11. Satyanarayanan M. The emergence of edge computing. Computer. 2017;50(1):30-9.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > 3.1 QoE models for IoT
“One such work is [42], in which authors measure the QoE of teleconsultation application called Psiconnect using an approach that is based on pentagram model.”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > 3.1 QoE models for IoT
“In [42], authors proposed a layered model for multimedia IoT applications (MIoT).The proposed model is composed of five layers: Real-World Layer, Network Layer, Virtualization Layer, Combination layer, and Application Layer.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > 5 Conclusion
“In total, we selected 50 papers, most of which are from past 10 years.”
§ Discover Internet of Things Review QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions > 4 Research gaps and future research directions
“The plethora of the paper we have surveyed (53 papers) have considered human involvement in QoE evaluation for IoT as shown in Fig. 3.”
Citations
Cites
The emergence of edge computing
Satyanarayanan, M. (2017) · Computer · doi:10.1109/mc.2017.9 · Cited by 2,832
A Comprehensive Survey on Internet of Things (IoT) Toward 5G Wireless Systems
Chettri, L., & Bera, R. (2020) · IEEE Internet of Things Journal · doi:10.1109/jiot.2019.2948888 · Cited by 1,737
A Survey on 5G Networks for the Internet of Things: Communication Technologies and Challenges
Akpakwu, G. A., Silva, B. J., Hancke, G. P., & Abu-Mahfouz, A. M. (2018) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2017.2779844 · Cited by 1,293
Disruptive technologies: Advances that will transform life, business, and the global economy
Manyika, J., Chui, M., Bughin, J., Dobbs, R., Bisson, P., & Marrs, A. (2013) · Cited by 1,237
Qualinet White Paper on Definitions of Quality of Experience
Callet, P. L., Möller, S., Perkis, A., Brunnstrom, K. E., Beker, S., Moor, K. D., Dooms, A., Egger, S., Garcia, M.-N., Hoßfeld, T., et al. (2013) · HAL · Cited by 693
Internet of Things Platform for Smart Farming: Experiences and Lessons Learnt
Jayaraman, P. P., Yavari, A., Georgakopoulos, D., Morshed, A., & Zaslavsky, A. (2016) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s16111884 · Cited by 440
Self-citationData Quality in Internet of Things: A state-of-the-art survey
Karkouch, A., Mousannif, H., Al Moatassime, H., & Noel, T. (2016) · Journal of Network and Computer Applications · doi:10.1016/j.jnca.2016.08.002 · Cited by 378
Internet of Things and Edge Cloud Computing Roadmap for Manufacturing
Georgakopoulos, D., Jayaraman, P. P., Fazia, M., Villari, M., & Ranjan, R. K. (2016) · IEEE Cloud Computing · doi:10.1109/mcc.2016.91 · Cited by 256
Self-citationAn integrated fire detection system using IoT and image processing technique for smart cities
Sharma, A., Singh, P. K., & Kumar, Y. (2020) · Sustainable Cities and Society · doi:10.1016/j.scs.2020.102332 · Cited by 252
QoE Management of Multimedia Streaming Services in Future Networks: A Tutorial and Survey
Barakabitze, A. A., Barman, N., Ahmad, A., Zadtootaghaj, S., Sun, L., Martini, M. G., & Atzori, L. (2020) · IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials · doi:10.1109/comst.2019.2958784 · Cited by 239
Shin, D. (2017) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2017.02.006 · Cited by 214 · cited 3×
“The same is true with some of the other existing literature [30, 37, 38], as they do not assess how the application QoE relates to the individual components of IoT applications.”
BackgroundMethodQuality of experience in distributed interactive multimedia environments
Wu, W., Arefin, A., Rivas, R., Nahrstedt, K., Sheppard, R. M., & Yang, Z. (2009) · ACM International Conference on Multimedia (ACM MM) · doi:10.1145/1631272.1631338 · Cited by 178 · cited 1×
“Wu et al. [29] “QoE is a multi-dimensional construct of perceptions and behaviours of a user, which represents his/her emotional, cognitive, and behavioural responses, both subjective and objective, while using a system.””
BackgroundQuality of Experience: Advanced Concepts, Applications and Methods
(2014) · T-Labs Series in Telecommunication Services · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-02681-7 · Cited by 155
Context-Aware QoE Modelling, Measurement, and Prediction in Mobile Computing Systems
Mitra, K., Zaslavsky, A., & Ahlund, C. (2015) · IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing · doi:10.1109/tmc.2013.155 · Cited by 144
Self-citationQoE beyond the MOS: an in-depth look at QoE via better metrics and their relation to MOS
Hoßfeld, T., Heegaard, P. E., Varela, M., & Möller, S. (2016) · Quality and User Experience · doi:10.1007/s41233-016-0002-1 · Cited by 135
The Future Internet of Things: Secure, Efficient, and Model-Based
Siegel, J. E., Kumar, S., & Sarma, S. E. (2017) · IEEE Internet of Things Journal · doi:10.1109/jiot.2017.2755620 · Cited by 123
A Survey of Emerging Concepts and Challenges for QoE Management of Multimedia Services
Skorin-Kapov, L., Varela, M., Hoßfeld, T., & Chen, K.-T. (2018) · ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications · doi:10.1145/3176648 · Cited by 116
Quality of Experience: Advanced Concepts, Applications and Methods
Mller, S., & Raake, A. (2014) · Springer eBooks · Cited by 106
Anand, P., Singh, Y., Selwal, A., Singh, P. K., Felseghi, R. A., & Raboaca, M. S. (2020) · Energies · doi:10.3390/en13184813 · Cited by 72
Faheem, M., & Gungor, V. C. (2018) · Future Generation Computer Systems · doi:10.1016/j.future.2017.10.009 · Cited by 70
Quality of Experience in the Multimedia Internet of Things: Definition and practical use-cases
Floris, A., & Atzori, L. (2015) · 2015 IEEE International Conference on Communication Workshop (ICCW) · doi:10.1109/iccw.2015.7247433 · Cited by 62 · cited 2×
“In [42], authors proposed a layered model for multimedia IoT applications (MIoT).”
BackgroundModeling Quality of IoT Experience in Autonomous Vehicles
Minovski, D., Ahlund, C., & Mitra, K. (2020) · IEEE Internet of Things Journal · doi:10.1109/jiot.2020.2975418 · Cited by 59
Self-citationChallenges of future multimedia QoE monitoring for internet service providers
Robitza, W., Ahmad, A., Kara, P. A., Atzori, L., Martini, M. G., Raake, A., & Sun, L. (2017) · Multimedia Tools and Applications · doi:10.1007/s11042-017-4870-z · Cited by 57
Objective and Subjective QoE Evaluation for Adaptive Point Cloud Streaming
van der Hooft, J., Vega, M. T., Timmerer, C., et al. (2020) · International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX) · doi:10.1109/qomex48832.2020.9123081 · Cited by 57
QoE Evaluation of Multimedia Services Based on Audiovisual Quality and User Interest
Song, J., Yang, F., Zhou, Y., Wan, S., & Wu, H. R. (2016) · IEEE Transactions on Multimedia · doi:10.1109/tmm.2016.2520090 · Cited by 54
Managing the Quality of Experience in the Multimedia Internet of Things: A Layered-Based Approach
Floris, A., & Atzori, L. (2016) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s16122057 · Cited by 54
Survey on QoE Assessment Approach for Network Service
Yang, M., Wang, S., Calheiros, R. N., & Yang, F. (2018) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2018.2867253 · Cited by 54
IoT Quality Control for Data and Application Needs
Banerjee, T., & Sheth, A. (2017) · IEEE Intelligent Systems · doi:10.1109/mis.2017.35 · Cited by 49
Data-Driven QoS and QoE Management in Smart Cities: A Tutorial Study
Tu, W. (2018) · IEEE Communications Magazine · doi:10.1109/mcom.2018.1700870 · Cited by 47
AC “Back to Back” Switching Device in Industrial Application
Faranda, R. S., Hafezi, H., Akkala, K., et al. (2020) · Energies · doi:10.3390/en13143539 · Cited by 47
Determination of quality parameters of tomato paste using guided microwave spectroscopy
Zhang, L., Schultz, M., Cash, R., et al. (2013) · Food Control · doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2013.12.008 · Cited by 46
Pal, D., Vanijja, V., Arpnikanondt, C., Zhang, X., & Papasratorn, B. (2019) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2019.2917061 · Cited by 39
An Industrial IoT Solution for Evaluating Workers' Performance Via Activity Recognition
Forkan, A. R. M., Montori, F., Georgakopoulos, D., Jayaraman, P. P., Yavari, A., & Morshed, A. (2019) · IEEE International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS) · doi:10.1109/icdcs.2019.00139 · Cited by 39 · cited 1×
“Industry 4.0 is used to improve the efficiency of plant operations through reduction of production downtimes and improved product consistency, thereby increasing the manufacturer’s ability to be agile and meet the fluctuating customer demands [3, 4].”
MethodInfluentialSelf-citationAn Internet of Things QoE evaluation method based on multiple linear regression analysis
Li, L., Rong, M., & Zhang, G. (2015) · 2015 10th International Conference on Computer Science & Education (ICCSE) · doi:10.1109/iccse.2015.7250382 · Cited by 37 · cited 2×
“In [40], authors aim to ensure QoE through existing QoS parameters.”
BackgroundSuryanegara, M., Prasetyo, D. A., Andriyanto, F., & Hayati, N. (2019) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2019.2957341 · Cited by 37
Descriptive, Predictive, and Prescriptive Analytics
El Morr, C., & Ali-Hassan, H. (2019) · SpringerBriefs in Health Care Management and Economics · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-04506-7_3 · Cited by 35 · cited 1×
“…and prescriptive data analytics and increased availability of data via the IoT devices is shifting IoT to analytics-driven actuation i.e. IoT application are increasingly being developed to extract high value knowledge from the IoT data that allows them to take actions on behalf of humans [8].”
BackgroundTowards QoE assessment of encrypted YouTube adaptive video streaming in mobile networks
Pan, W., Cheng, G., Wu, H., & Tang, Y. (2016) · 2016 IEEE/ACM 24th International Symposium on Quality of Service (IWQoS) · doi:10.1109/iwqos.2016.7590437 · Cited by 30 · cited 1×
“However, it is a complex method that fails for real-time applications [23].”
BackgroundA framework of scalable QoE modeling for application explosion in the Internet of Things
Ikeda, Y., Kouno, S., Shiozu, A., & Noritake, K. (2016) · 2016 IEEE 3rd World Forum on Internet of Things (WF-IoT) · doi:10.1109/wf-iot.2016.7845393 · Cited by 25 · cited 2×
“The authors in [37] identified the role of data on application quality at various stages from data collection, data transfer, data analysis to user interface.”
BackgroundHan, B., Zhang, X., Qi, Y., Gao, Y., & Yang, D. (2012) · Wireless Personal Communications · doi:10.1007/s11277-012-0739-7 · Cited by 24
Multimedia Communications in Internet of Things QoT or QoE?
Karaadi, A., Sun, L., & Mkwawa, I.-H. M. (2017) · IEEE International Conference on Internet of Things (iThings) and IEEE Green Computing and Communications (GreenCom) and IEEE Cyber, Physical and Social Computing (CPSCom) and IEEE Smart Data (SmartData) · doi:10.1109/ithings-greencom-cpscom-smartdata.2017.11 · Cited by 21
Towards Evaluating the Quality of Experience of Remote Patient Monitoring Services
Skorin‐Kapov, L., Dobrijević, O., & Piplica, D. (2014) · International Journal of Mobile Human Computer Interaction · doi:10.4018/ijmhci.2014100104 · Cited by 18
The effect of requests for user feedback on Quality of Experience
Fotrousi, F., Fricker, S. A., & Fiedler, M. (2017) · Software Quality Journal · doi:10.1007/s11219-017-9373-7 · Cited by 17
Defining Quality of Experience for the Internet of Things
Minovski, D., Ahlund, C., Mitra, K., & Zhohov, R. (2020) · IT Professional · doi:10.1109/mitp.2020.2968259 · Cited by 17 · cited 1×
“Recently Minovski et al. [19, 20] and Mitra et al. [12] have argued for the need to understand quality in an IoT ecosystem; within an IoT ecosystem a user can be both human and/or other systems and IoT devices.”
BackgroundSelf-citationMeasuring QoE of a Teleconsultation App in Mental Health Using a Pentagram Model
de la Torre Díez, I., Alonso, S. G., Cruz, E. M., & Franco, M. A. (2019) · Journal of Medical Systems · doi:10.1007/s10916-019-1342-1 · Cited by 10
Quality of Experience Evaluation of Smart-Wearables: A Mathematical Modelling Approach
Pal, D., Triyason, T., Varadarajan, V., & Zhang, X. (2019) · 2019 IEEE 35th International Conference on Data Engineering Workshops (ICDEW) · doi:10.1109/icdew.2019.00-32 · Cited by 10 · cited 1×
“In [39], the authors proposed a QoE model based on a generic QoE equation.”
BackgroundThe whole story of... Parking [robotics, IOT and autonomous cars]
Williams, L. C. (2019) · Engineering & Technology · doi:10.1049/et.2019.0206 · Cited by 6
Minovski, D., Rondeau, E., & Georges, J. (2017) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-60137-3_10 · Cited by 4
Research on Data Quality Assessment of Accuracy and Quality Control Strategy for Sensor Networks
Zhang, J., Ma, Y., & Hong, D. (2019) · Journal of Physics Conference Series · doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1288/1/012041 · Cited by 3 · cited 2×
“For example, authors in [48] used artificial learning-based models to estimate QoE in IoT, albeit for video traffic.”
BackgroundVQEG column: Recent contributions to ITU recommendations
Gutiérrez, J., & Brunnstrom, K. E. (2020) · ACM SIGMultimedia Records · doi:10.1145/3548570.3548576 · Cited by 2
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Ericsson. Video QoE: leveraging standards to meet rising user expectations; 2017. https://www.ericsson.com/en/reports-and-papers/ericsson-technology-review/articles/video-qoe-leveraging-standards-to-meet-rising-user-expectations. Accessed 12 Dec 2020.
- Floris A, Atzori L. Towards the evaluation of quality of experience of internet of things applications. IEEE Internet Things J. 2017.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
IoT-Enabled Smart Cities: A Review of Concepts, Frameworks and Key Technologies
Bellini, P., Nesi, P., & Pantaleo, G. (2022) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app12031607 · Cited by 400
“According to the report presented by Statista Research in 2019, it has been estimated that the total number of connected IoT devices worldwide will increase to about 75 billion by 2025 [2], creating a potential IoT economic impact that could reach USD 11 trillion per year by 2025 [3].”
BackgroundEthical hacking for IoT: Security issues, challenges, solutions and recommendations
Yaacoub, J.-P. A., Noura, H., Salman, O., & Chehab, A. (2023) · Internet of Things and Cyber-Physical Systems · doi:10.1016/j.iotcps.2023.04.002 · Cited by 141
DIDS: A Deep Neural Network based real-time Intrusion detection system for IoT
Vishwakarma, M., & Kesswani, N. (2022) · Decision Analytics Journal · doi:10.1016/j.dajour.2022.100142 · Cited by 121
A Survey of Emergencies Management Systems in Smart Cities
Costa, D. G., Peixoto, J. P. J., de Jesus, T. C., Portugal, P., Vasques, F., Rangel, E. O., & Peixoto, M. L. M. (2022) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2022.3180033 · Cited by 127
“…relevant than the others based on different criteria (position, sensing configuration, energy resources, transmission bandwidth, etc), and thus data retrieved from them may be assumed as more relevant or having higher associated Quality of Service (QoS) / Quality of Experience (QoE) [4, 111, 112].”
BackgroundNasralla, M. M., Khattak, S. B. A., Rehman, I. U., & Iqbal, M. (2023) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s23135882 · Cited by 92
Metadata
- Authors
- Fizza, K., Banerjee, A., Mitra, K., Jayaraman, P. P., Ranjan, R., Patel, P., & Georgakopoulos, D.
- Affiliations
- Swinburne University of Technology (AU)
- Luleå University of Technology (SE)
- Newcastle University (GB)
- Ollscoil na Gaillimhe – University of Galway (IE)
- Corresponding author
- Fizza, Kaneez
- Jayaraman, Prem Prakash
- Ranjan, Rajiv
- ORCID
- Venue
- Discover Internet of Things
- Published
- 2021-02-24
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 1
- ISSN
- 2730-7239 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3164531790
- Semantic Scholar
- f19003c6d80ec6d67ce01eec841b7959686413fc
- Cited by
- 127
- References
- 50
- Citations by year
- 2026: 17 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 21
- FWCI
- 9.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Discover Internet of Things (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- KTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity) (cc-by)
- Funders
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (2019-2021, 2019-2022)
- Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/T021985/1)
- Research England
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › IoT and Edge/Fog Computing
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Image and Video Quality Assessment
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Internet of Things and AI
- Keywords
- quality of experience, Internet of Things, QoE evaluation, IoT architecture, decision quality, actuation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
