pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.23122 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-25 · 💻 cs.SE · cs.NI

Source-Code Analysis of iFogSim for Simulating Distributed IoT Architectures: Coverage, Challenges, and Enhancements

Milliam Maxime Zekeng Ndadji This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 08:00 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.SE cs.NI
keywords iFogSimIoT simulationfog computingmodeling challengessource code analysisemergency response systemsimulation toolsdistributed architectures
0
0 comments X

The pith

Source-code analysis of iFogSim identifies seven modeling challenges that bias results when simulating non-canonical IoT architectures such as four-tier emergency response systems.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper surveys iFogSim and related tools against a taxonomy of ten scientific objectives for IoT architecture simulation. It then applies iFogSim to a concrete four-tier smart emergency response system on a 25-node road topology, measuring outcomes including alert latency near 205 ms, FPGA path computation speedup, and incident conflict rates. The authors document seven modeling challenges with explicit root causes in the simulator source code and assessments of how each challenge biases reported results. They organize the findings around five practitioner questions and close with seven developer recommendations for source-code changes that would improve coverage.

Core claim

Through source-code examination and simulation of a four-tier smart emergency response system covering a 25-node synthetic road topology, four experimental configurations, end-to-end alert latency near 205 ms, FPGA-accelerated Dijkstra computation with x10 CPU speedup, 75% concurrent incident conflict rates under dual load, and path-cache acceleration of x197, the work identifies seven modeling challenges with source-code-grounded root causes and explicit bias assessments; seven developer recommendations are proposed as an actionable improvement roadmap.

What carries the argument

The source-code analysis of iFogSim organized around five practitioner questions applied to the four-tier smart emergency response system case study.

Load-bearing premise

The modeling challenges and biases observed in this single four-tier emergency-response case study are representative of the broader class of non-canonical IoT architectures that practitioners wish to simulate.

What would settle it

Re-running the emergency response simulation after applying the seven proposed source-code changes and checking whether the previously observed biases in latency, path-computation speedup, and conflict rates disappear or shrink substantially.

read the original abstract

Simulation is an indispensable tool for validating distributed IoT architectures before physical deployment, and iFogSim has emerged as one of the most widely adopted platform in the fog and edge computing research community. Yet the experience of using iFogSim for non-canonical, application-specific architectures remains incompletely documented, leaving practitioners without guidance on when the tool is appropriate, which scientific objectives it can address, and how to manage the modelling approximations it imposes. This article helps in providing that guidance through two complementary contributions. First, we present a structured state of the art covering iFogSim and iFogSim2, a taxonomy of ten scientific objectives that motivate IoT architecture simulation, and a comparative survey of eight simulation tools assessed against those objectives. Second, we report our experience of simulating a four-tier smart emergency response system for resource-constrained urban environments, covering a 25-node synthetic road topology, four experimental configurations, and quantitative results including end-to-end alert latency (near 205 ms), FPGA-accelerated Dijkstra path computation (x10 CPU speedup), concurrent incident conflict rates (75% under dual load), and path-cache acceleration (x197). The analysis is organised around five practitioner questions: whether iFogSim fits the target architecture, which objectives it covers natively versus partially, what modelling challenges arise and how their workarounds bias reported results, what changes to the iFogSim source code would close the identified gaps, and whether tool co-simulation can provide comprehensive coverage. Seven modelling challenges are documented with source-code-grounded root causes and explicit bias assessments; finally, seven developer recommendations are proposed as an actionable improvement roadmap for the iFogSim community.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that iFogSim's suitability for non-canonical IoT architectures is incompletely documented. It addresses this via a structured state-of-the-art review of iFogSim and iFogSim2 (including a taxonomy of ten scientific objectives for IoT simulation and a comparative survey of eight tools) plus an empirical source-code analysis of a four-tier smart emergency response system on a 25-node synthetic road topology across four configurations. The analysis identifies seven modeling challenges with source-code-grounded root causes and explicit bias assessments, and proposes seven developer recommendations as an improvement roadmap.

Significance. If the identified challenges and biases prove representative, the work could provide valuable practitioner guidance on when iFogSim is appropriate for custom IoT architectures and how its approximations affect results. The source-code-grounded root causes and independent empirical approach (rather than high-level critiques) are strengths, as is the taxonomy and tool survey for contextualizing iFogSim's coverage of scientific objectives.

major comments (2)
  1. [Empirical analysis and case study] The central claims of seven modeling challenges with explicit bias assessments and a seven-recommendation roadmap rest on a single four-tier emergency-response case study (25-node synthetic road topology, four configurations). It is not shown that challenges such as those producing the 75% conflict rate under dual load or the 197x path-cache acceleration need are core iFogSim limitations rather than tied to emergency-specific elements like incident conflicts and path computation; this directly affects the scope and applicability of the practitioner guidance and roadmap.
  2. [Quantitative results and experimental configurations] The quantitative results used to ground the bias assessments (end-to-end alert latency near 205 ms, 10x FPGA speedup for Dijkstra, 75% conflict rate, 197x path-cache acceleration) are stated without error bars, raw data, or complete details on the four experimental configurations. This weakens the reliability of the explicit bias assessments tied to the modeling challenges.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract refers to latency as 'near 205 ms'; stating the precise measured value or range would improve precision and reproducibility.
  2. [State-of-the-art review and taxonomy] The taxonomy of ten scientific objectives is described but would benefit from an explicit enumerated list or table to facilitate comparison with the survey of eight tools.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on our manuscript. The comments highlight important aspects of the empirical analysis and its presentation, which we address point by point below. We propose targeted revisions to improve clarity, reproducibility, and scope without altering the core contributions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Empirical analysis and case study] The central claims of seven modeling challenges with explicit bias assessments and a seven-recommendation roadmap rest on a single four-tier emergency-response case study (25-node synthetic road topology, four configurations). It is not shown that challenges such as those producing the 75% conflict rate under dual load or the 197x path-cache acceleration need are core iFogSim limitations rather than tied to emergency-specific elements like incident conflicts and path computation; this directly affects the scope and applicability of the practitioner guidance and roadmap.

    Authors: We agree that a single case study limits the demonstrated generality, and the manuscript does not explicitly prove that every challenge applies identically to all non-canonical architectures. However, the root causes are derived from direct source-code inspection of iFogSim's core modules (e.g., the network topology handler and event scheduler), which are not emergency-specific. The path-cache acceleration need arises from the general absence of incremental updates in the FogDevice and NetworkModel classes, applicable to any dynamic routing scenario. The conflict rate reflects the lack of native multi-application concurrency support in the Application and Tuple classes. To strengthen the defense, we will add a new subsection in the revised manuscript that maps each of the seven challenges to the taxonomy of ten scientific objectives, provides non-emergency examples (e.g., smart-grid load balancing or vehicular networks), and explicitly states the scope limitations of the practitioner guidance. This will clarify applicability without requiring additional case studies. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Quantitative results and experimental configurations] The quantitative results used to ground the bias assessments (end-to-end alert latency near 205 ms, 10x FPGA speedup for Dijkstra, 75% conflict rate, 197x path-cache acceleration) are stated without error bars, raw data, or complete details on the four experimental configurations. This weakens the reliability of the explicit bias assessments tied to the modeling challenges.

    Authors: We concur that the current presentation lacks sufficient detail for full reproducibility and assessment of the bias claims. The four configurations vary load (single vs. dual incidents), topology density, and acceleration modes (CPU vs. FPGA), but these parameters and the underlying measurement methodology are only summarized. In the revision, we will expand Section 4 with a dedicated table listing all configuration parameters (node counts, link latencies, incident frequencies), include error bars or variance measures for stochastic elements where relevant (noting that conflict rates are deterministic given fixed seeds), and append raw aggregated data or pseudocode for the latency and speedup calculations. This directly supports the bias assessments and addresses the reliability concern. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Empirical source-code analysis and survey with no derivational circularity

full rationale

The paper performs a literature survey, taxonomy of objectives, comparative tool assessment, and empirical source-code analysis of iFogSim via one four-tier case study. No equations, predictions, fitted parameters, or first-principles derivations are present that could reduce to inputs by construction. Challenges are documented from direct code inspection and simulation outputs with bias assessments; recommendations follow from observed gaps. This is independent empirical work. Generalizability of the single case study is a scope limitation but not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper is an empirical software-engineering analysis and experience report; it introduces no mathematical models, fitted constants, or new postulated entities.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5610 in / 1122 out tokens · 25394 ms · 2026-05-08T08:00:10.687762+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    and Akbari, E., 2020

    Alizadeh, M.R., Khajehvand, V ., Rahmani, A.M. and Akbari, E., 2020. Task scheduling approaches in fog computing: A systematic review.International journal of communication systems, 33(16), p.e4583. E4583 IJCS-19-0949.R2. https://onlinelibrary .wiley .com/doi/pdf/10.1002/dac.4583, Available from: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/dac.4583

    work page doi:10.1002/dac.4583 2020

  2. [2]

    and Mahmoud, T ., 2025

    Assoul, M.A.A., Ndadji, M.M.Z., Tsofack, B.N., Mdemaya, G.B.J., Tahir, A.M. and Mahmoud, T ., 2025. Expert-based evaluation of a smart emergency response system for urban settings in resource-constrained environments.Preprints, September. Available from: https://doi.org/10. 20944/preprints202509.1016.v1

    work page arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    and Zekeng Ndadji, M.M.,

    Aziz Assoul, M.A., Tahir, A.M., Mahmoud, T ., Jagho Mdemaya, G.B. and Zekeng Ndadji, M.M.,

    work page

  4. [4]

    Available from: https://doi.org/10.55969/paradigmplus.v5n2a1

    A comprehensive system architecture using field programmable gate arrays technology , dijkstra’s algorithm, and edge computing for emergency response in smart cities.Paradigmplus, 5(2), Aug., pp.1–21. Available from: https://doi.org/10.55969/paradigmplus.v5n2a1

    work page doi:10.55969/paradigmplus.v5n2a1

  5. [5]

    and Assoul, S., 2025

    Bendaouch, F ., Zaydi, H., Merzouk, S. and Assoul, S., 2025. Benchmarking iot simulation frameworks for edge–fog–cloud architectures: A comparative and experimental study .Future internet, 17(9). Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/fi17090382

    work page doi:10.3390/fi17090382 2025

  6. [6]

    Calheiros, Rajiv Ranjan, Anton Beloglazov, César A

    Calheiros, R.N., Ranjan, R., Beloglazov, A., De Rose, C.A.F . and Buyya, R., 2011. Cloudsim: a toolkit for modeling and simulation of cloud computing environments and evaluation of resource provisioning algorithms.Software: Practice and experience, 41(1), pp.23–50. https: //onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/spe.995, Available from: https://doi.org/h...

    work page doi:10.1002/spe.995 2011

  7. [7]

    and Ghini, V ., 2016

    D’Angelo, G., Ferretti, S. and Ghini, V ., 2016. Simulation of the internet of things.2016 international conference on high performance computing & simulation (hpcs). pp.1–8. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1109/HPCSim.2016.7568309

    work page doi:10.1109/hpcsim.2016.7568309 2016

  8. [8]

    and Ghini, V ., 2017

    D’Angelo, G., Ferretti, S. and Ghini, V ., 2017. Modeling the internet of things: a simulation perspective.2017 international conference on high performance computing & simulation (hpcs). pp.18–27. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1109/HPCS.2017.13

    work page doi:10.1109/hpcs.2017.13 2017

  9. [9]

    and Puliafito, A., 2018

    Dautov, R., Distefano, S., Bruneo, D., Longo, F ., Merlino, G. and Puliafito, A., 2018. Data processing in cyber-physical-social systems through edge computing.Ieee access, 6, pp.29822– 29835. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2839915

    work page doi:10.1109/access.2018.2839915 2018

  10. [10]

    and Farias, P .C.M.d.A., 2024

    Esteves, L.T .C., Oliveira, W .L.A.d. and Farias, P .C.M.d.A., 2024. Analysis and construction of hardware accelerators for calculating the shortest path in real-time robot route planning. Electronics, 13(11). Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics13112167

    work page doi:10.3390/electronics13112167 2024

  11. [11]

    and Trocan, M., 2023

    Fahimullah, M., Philippe, G., Ahvar, S. and Trocan, M., 2023. Simulation tools for fog computing: A comparative analysis.Sensors, 23(7). Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/s23073492

    work page doi:10.3390/s23073492 2023

  12. [12]

    and Martinez, J.I., 2008

    Fernandez, I., Castillo, J., Pedraza, C., Sanchez, C. and Martinez, J.I., 2008. Parallel implemen- tation of the shortest path algorithm on fpga.2008 4th southern conference on programmable logic. pp.245–248. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1109/SPL.2008.4547768

    work page doi:10.1109/spl.2008.4547768 2008

  13. [13]

    and Buyya, R., 2017

    Gupta, H., Vahid Dastjerdi, A., Ghosh, S.K. and Buyya, R., 2017. iFogSim: A toolkit for 17 , modeling and simulation of IoT, edge and fog computing environments — source code repository . https://github.com/Cloudslab/iFogSim. Accessed: March 2026

    work page 2017

  14. [14]

    Gupta, A

    Gupta, H., Vahid Dastjerdi, A., Ghosh, S.K. and Buyya, R., 2017. ifogsim: A toolkit for modeling and simulation of resource management techniques in the internet of things, edge and fog computing environments.Software: Practice and experience, 47(9), pp.1275–1296. https://onlinelibrary .wiley .com/doi/pdf/10.1002/spe.2509, Available from: https://doi.org/...

    work page doi:10.1002/spe.2509 2017

  15. [15]

    and Xia, F ., 2016

    Lei, G., Dou, Y., Li, R. and Xia, F ., 2016. An fpga implementation for solving the large single- source-shortest-path problem.Ieee transactions on circuits and systems ii: Express briefs, 63(5), pp.473–477. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1109/TCSII.2015.2505998

    work page doi:10.1109/tcsii.2015.2505998 2016

  16. [16]

    and Juiz, C., 2019

    Lera, I., Guerrero, C. and Juiz, C., 2019. Yafs: A simulator for iot scenarios in fog computing.Ieee access, 7, pp.91745–91758. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2927895

    work page doi:10.1109/access.2019.2927895 2019

  17. [17]

    and Buyya, R., 2022

    Mahmud, R., Pallewatta, S., Goudarzi, M. and Buyya, R., 2022. ifogsim2: An extended ifogsim simulator for mobility, clustering, and microservice management in edge and fog computing environments.Journal of systems and software, 190, p.111351. Available from: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2022.111351

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jss.2022.111351 2022

  18. [18]

    and Abraham, J., 2026

    Matange, A. and Abraham, J., 2026. ifogsumo: An integrated platform of ifogsim and sumo to enhance simulation capabilities of adaptive traffic control for smart city applications.Interna- tional journal of online and biomedical engineering (ijoe), 22(02), Feb., p.pp. 38–54. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3991/ijoe.v22i02.58823. [18]Mechalikh, C., Takt...

    work page doi:10.3991/ijoe.v22i02.58823 2026

  19. [19]

    IEEE Internet of Things Journal11(5), 7374–7398 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT

    Meneghello, F ., Calore, M., Zucchetto, D., Polese, M. and Zanella, A., 2019. Iot: Internet of threats? a survey of practical security vulnerabilities in real iot devices.Ieee internet of things journal, 6(5), pp.8182–8201. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT .2019.2935189

    work page doi:10.1109/jiot 2019

  20. [20]

    and Lynn, O.B., 2016

    Nawir, M., Amir, A., Yaakob, N. and Lynn, O.B., 2016. Internet of things (iot): Taxonomy of security attacks.2016 3rd international conference on electronic design (iced). pp.321–326. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1109/ICED.2016.7804660

    work page doi:10.1109/iced.2016.7804660 2016

  21. [21]

    and Mansouri, N., 2025

    Nemati, A.M. and Mansouri, N., 2025. Resource allocation in fog computing: a survey on current state and research challenges.Knowl. inf. syst., 67(3), pp.2091–2170. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/S10115-024-02274-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s10115-024-02274-5 2025

  22. [22]

    NS-3: A discrete-event network simulator for internet systems

    NS-3 Consortium, 2026. NS-3: A discrete-event network simulator for internet systems. https://www.nsnam.org. Accessed: March 2026

    work page 2026

  23. [23]

    and Khan, S.U., 2018

    Qayyum, T ., Malik, A.W ., Khan Khattak, M.A., Khalid, O. and Khan, S.U., 2018. Fognetsim++: A toolkit for modeling and simulation of distributed fog environment.Ieee access, 6, pp.63570– 63583. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2877696

    work page doi:10.1109/access.2018.2877696 2018

  24. [24]

    and Iranmanesh, M., 2023

    Rejeb, A., Rejeb, K., Treiblmaier, H., Appolloni, A., Alghamdi, S., Alhasawi, Y. and Iranmanesh, M., 2023. The internet of things (iot) in healthcare: Taking stock and moving forward.Internet of things, 22, p.100721. Available from: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iot.2023. 100721

    work page doi:10.1016/j.iot.2023 2023

  25. [25]

    and Ersoy , C., 2018

    Sonmez, C., Ozgovde, A. and Ersoy , C., 2018. Edgecloudsim: An environment for performance evaluation of edge computing systems.Transactions on emerging telecommunications technologies, 29(11), p.e3493. E3493 ett.3493. https://onlinelibrary .wiley .com/doi/pdf/10.1002/ett.3493, Available from: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/ett.3493

    work page doi:10.1002/ett.3493 2018

  26. [26]

    and Dastres, R., 2023

    Soori, M., Arezoo, B. and Dastres, R., 2023. Internet of things for smart factories in industry 4.0, a review.Internet of things and cyber-physical systems, 3, pp.192–204. Available from: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iotcps.2023.04.006

    work page doi:10.1016/j.iotcps.2023.04.006 2023

  27. [27]

    and Thamsen, L., 2021

    Wiesner, P . and Thamsen, L., 2021. Leaf: Simulating large energy-aware fog computing environments.2021 ieee 5th international conference on fog and edge computing (icfec). pp.29–

    work page 2021

  28. [28]

    Available from: https://doi.org/10.1109/ICFEC51620.2021.00012. 18

    work page doi:10.1109/icfec51620.2021.00012 2021