Helping Users Debug Trigger-Action Programs
Lefan Zhang, Cyrus Zhou, Michael L. Littman, Blase Ur, Shan Lu
Abstract
Trigger-action programming (TAP) empowers a wide array of users to automate Internet of Things (IoT) devices. However, it can be challenging for users to create completely correct trigger-action programs (TAPs) on the first try, necessitating debugging. While TAP has received substantial research attention, TAP debugging has not. In this paper, we present the first empirical study of users' end-to-end TAP debugging process, focusing on obstacles users face in debugging TAPs and how well users ultimately fix incorrect automations. To enable this study, we added TAP capabilities to an existing 3-D smart home simulator. Thirty remote participants spent a total of 84 hours debugging TAPs using this simulator. Without additional support, participants were often unable to fix buggy TAPs due to a series of obstacles we document. However, we also found that two novel tools we developed helped participants overcome many of these obstacles and more successfully debug TAPs. These tools collect either implicit or explicit feedback from users about automations that should or should not have happened in the past, using a SAT-solving-based algorithm we developed to automatically modify the TAPs to account for this feedback.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext c5afc010-9eb8-4a9a-bab3-c9e328a44652Cited by top-tier papers2
- Navigating User-System Gaps: Understanding User-Interactions in User-Centric Context-Aware Systems for Digital Well-being InterventionInyeop Kim, Uichin LeeCHI 2024 · 9 citations
- What If Smart Homes Could See Our Homes?: Exploring DIY Smart Home Building Experiences with VLM-Based Camera SensorsSojeong Yun, Youn-kyung LimCHI 2025 · 5 citations
Builds on5
- Charting the Attack Surface of Trigger-Action IoT PlatformsQi Wang, Pubali Datta, Wei Yang, Si Liu et al.CCS 2019 · 162 citations
- Scalable analysis of interaction threats in IoT systemsMohannad Alhanahnah, Clay Stevens, Hamid BagheriISSTA 2020 · 63 citations
- FORTNIoT: Intelligible Predictions to Improve User Understanding of Smart Home BehaviorSven Coppers, Davy Vanacken, Kris LuytenUbiComp 2021 · 29 citations
- Understanding Trigger-Action Programs Through Novel Visualizations of Program DifferencesValerie Zhao, Lefan Zhang, Bo Wang, Michael L. Littman et al.CHI 2021 · 23 citations
- Trace2TAP: Synthesizing Trigger-Action Programs from Traces of BehaviorLefan Zhang, Weijia He, Olivia Morkved, Valerie Zhao et al.UbiComp 2020 · 22 citations
Related papers
- TAPFixer: Automatic Detection and Repair of Home Automation Vulnerabilities based on Negated-property ReasoningYinbo Yu, Yuanqi Xu, Kepu Huang, Jiajia LiuUSENIX Security 2024 · 6 citations
- Detecting Smart Home Automation Application Interferences with Domain KnowledgeTao Wang, Wei Chen, Liwei Liu, Guoquan Wu et al.ASE 2023 · 3 citations
- ChatIoT: Zero-code Generation of Trigger-action Based IoT ProgramsYi Gao, Kaijie Xiao, Fu Li, Weifeng Xu et al.UbiComp 2024 · 18 citations
- Who Should Hold Control? Rethinking Empowerment in Home Automation among Cohabitants through the Lens of Co-DesignXiao Xue, Xinyang Li, Boyang Jia, Jiachen Du et al.CHI 2024 · 17 citations
- Understanding In-Situ Programming for Smart Home AutomationXiaoyi Liu, Yingtian Shi, Chun Yu, Cheng Gao et al.UbiComp 2023 · 17 citations
