Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 33 references

Scalable and low-cost remote lab platforms: Teaching industrial robotics using open-source tools and understanding its social implications

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Two open-source remote labs teach industrial robotics to thousands of students at low cost.

desk verdict Useful deployment report with honest architecture details; the 'trained 1,312 students' efficacy claim is not supported by the paper's own retention data. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.15369 v1 pith:WAUVXUYO submitted 2024-12-19 cs.RO

Amit Kumar , Jaison Jose , Archit Jain , Siddharth Kulkarni , Kavi Arya This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords remotelaboratoryindustrialroboticseducationRobotOperatingSystemROS2project-basedlearninge-YantraCompetitionautonomousagriculturalharvesterwarehouse
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper reports building two remote laboratory platforms that let large numbers of students operate a Universal Robots UR5 arm and a custom mobile rover through the Robot Operating System (ROS), with the hardware placed in life-size greenhouse and warehouse testbeds. The authors claim these platforms are low-cost, scalable, and customizable, and they tested them inside a seven-month project-based robotics competition running two editions with a combined 2,745 registered students. Their central evidence is that the teams that reached the hardware stage could write fully autonomous agricultural-harvesting and warehouse-management algorithms after receiving only 19.4 and 30.8 hours of remote hardware access on average. If the claim holds, it would show that a single shared installation of industrial robotic hardware can serve as an effective teaching tool for a very large student population without each student needing physical access to expensive equipment.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the remote access architecture itself: a peer-to-peer VPN (Husarnet) for Stack 1 and a combination of VNC remote desktop and VPN for Stack 2, layered on ROS and ROS 2 communication topics that are kept identical between the Gazebo simulation and the real hardware. The architecture does two kinds of work: it eliminates the sim-to-real gap by letting students test on real robots, and it confines all safety-critical behavior to the host side, where collision checks, speed limits, and emergency stops run locally so that a student's mistake damages neither the robot nor the arena.

What would settle it

A controlled study with the same teaching materials would settle the claim: randomly assign beginner students to (a) simulation-only, (b) remote hardware access, and (c) physical hardware access, then give all groups an identical pre- and post-assessment of ROS and robotics skills, and compare objective completion rates of a fixed manipulation and navigation task.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that two remote lab architectures, built entirely from open-source tools, can give thousands of students meaningful hands-on experience with industrial robotic hardware. Stack 1, used for the agricultural task, connects student computers to the robots through a peer-to-peer VPN, letting students run ROS code directly on the hardware, with only data passing over the network. Stack 2, used for the warehouse task, gives students remote desktop access to a host computer over VNC, so students control ROS 2 scripts that run on the host side while still being in the same VPN. The authors report that these platforms were deployed for seven months, with 160 hours of remote access used by 14 hardware teams in 2022-23 and 355 hours used by 38 hardware teams in 2023-24, and that the finalist teams, most of whom rated themselves as ROS beginners, completed fully autonomous operations in their respective testbeds within the stated average hours. The paper presents this as evidence that large-scale, low-cost remote robotics education is feasible with existing open-source software.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's conclusion that the platforms 'train' over a thousand students each year rests on the assumption that completing competition tasks and self-reporting expertise is a valid measure of learning; there is no control group, no objective pre/post test, and no statistical analysis separating persistence or prior skill from the platform's effect.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single remote lab installation can replace many physical robot work cells, lowering the per-student cost of industrial robotics education.
  • The same ROS-based architecture can be reused for other testbeds, since the simulation-to-hardware topic mapping stays the same and students can port simulation code with negligible changes.
  • The two stacks give a practical comparison: VPN-based execution gives students package freedom but adds latency and system requirements, while remote-desktop execution lowers student requirements at the cost of host-side setup and restricted packages.
  • The reported low dropout after the hardware stage suggests that remote hardware access may increase student retention in project-based competitions, once initial onboarding is overcome.
  • Automating the reset of testbed components after each run is identified by the authors as the next step needed to increase daily operating hours of such labs.
  • If these platforms are adopted widely, they could make industrial-robot experience accessible to institutions that cannot afford dedicated robot laboratories.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A plausible reading of the data is that the platform's main educational payoff occurs only for the selected hardware-stage teams (about 5-10 percent of registrants), while the broader thousand-student numbers reflect simulation-based training rather than remote hardware training.
  • The competition format may confound the measurement: teams that reached the hardware stage were already selected for performance in simulation, so their 19.4/30.8-hour success might reflect prior skill or persistence rather than the specific contribution of the remote lab.
  • One testable extension the authors do not run is a controlled comparison where matched groups learn the same task with simulation only, with remote hardware, and with physical hardware, holding the teaching materials constant, which would isolate the value of the remote access itself.
  • The reported 300 ms latency and 2-second camera lag in Stack 1 suggests a practical upper bound on the complexity of control tasks that can be taught through this VPN-only architecture; a future study could measure how latency affects task completion time or error rates across tasks of different temporal sensitivity.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper describes two remote laboratory platforms built with open-source tools (ROS and ROS 2) for teaching industrial robotics: an Autonomous Agricultural Harvester System (AAHS) using a UR5 arm and mobile rover in a greenhouse, and an Autonomous Warehouse Management System (AWMS) in a warehouse. The platforms were deployed in the e-Yantra Robotics Competition (eYRC) for 2022-23 and 2023-24, and the paper reports registration numbers (1,433 and 1,312 students), task-completion counts, remote hardware access hours (160 and 355 hours), and finalist performance. The central claim is that these platforms are low-cost, scalable, and customizable, and that their deployment showed that finalist teams could develop fully autonomous algorithms with only 19.4 and 30.8 hours of remote hardware access on average.

Significance. If the efficacy claim were well supported, this would be a significant contribution: it demonstrates a practical, large-scale approach to giving thousands of students remote access to industrial robots, with detailed architectural choices for two contrasting remote-access stacks. The paper's strengths include a concrete description of both stacks, explicit safety measures, honest reporting of dropout rates, and a useful comparison table of the two approaches. The deployment scale (1,433 and 1,312 registered students) is rare in the remote-lab literature. However, the evidence presented does not establish that the platforms were 'tested for efficacy': the outcome measures are descriptive retention/usage data and self-reported expertise, with no control group, no objective learning assessment, and no statistical analysis. The claimed 'training' of 1,312 students is not supported by the retention figures, since only 296 of 349 registered teams completed task 0.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3, §4, Abstract] The claim that the platforms were 'tested for their efficacy with 1,433 and 1,312 students' (Abstract) and that 'we successfully trained 1312 students' (§4) is not supported by the paper's own data. In eYRC 2023-24, 349 teams (1,312 students) registered, but only 296 teams completed task 0 and only 38 teams (146 students) reached the hardware stage (§3). Treating all registered students as 'trained' conflates enrollment with engagement and learning; the same issue appears in the 2022-23 data ('we provided training to 197 teams using a simulator', §4, when 373 teams registered and 197 submitted task 0). The authors should either use the actually participating cohort as the denominator or explicitly distinguish 'registered' from 'trained'.
  2. [§3, §4] The paper's central efficacy inference is that completing the tasks demonstrates that the platforms taught robotics/ROS. However, the evidence consists of task-completion counts (Fig. 4), self-reported ROS expertise before the competition (Fig. 3), and the fact that shortlisted teams completed hardware tasks. There is no control condition, no pre/post knowledge assessment, no measure of learning gain, and no statistical analysis relating remote access hours to outcomes. The reported dropout rates (54% after task 0 in 2022-23; more than 50% in 2023-24) further undermine the claim that the platforms were 'tested for efficacy' on the full registered population. The authors should either add an appropriate evaluation design or substantially soften the efficacy claim and reframe the paper as a deployment/usage report.
  3. [§3, Table 1 and surrounding text] The averages of 19.4 and 30.8 hours of remote access per finalist team are computed only for teams already selected on the basis of relative performance in earlier tasks. These averages are therefore subject to selection on prior skill and persistence; they cannot be used to conclude that 'finalists, primarily consisting of beginners, could completely automate AAHS and AWMS in such limited hours' as evidence of the platform's reach or sufficiency for the general student population. The paper should clarify the population to which these averages apply and avoid causal language about what the hours alone enabled.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Title/Abstract] The title and abstract promise 'understanding its social implications', but the manuscript contains no discussion of social implications (e.g., equity, access, labor, or societal impact of industrial automation). Please either add such a discussion or remove this phrase from the title/abstract to avoid overpromising.
  2. [§3] The text states 'Stack 1 was tested over 160 slots of 1 hour each by 70 students', but 14 shortlisted teams of 2-4 members would imply at most 56 students. Please clarify how the 70-student figure is obtained.
  3. [§3, Fig. 3] The axes in Figure 3 are not labeled; please state what the y-axis represents (e.g., percentage of respondents) and what the x-axis categories are.
  4. [Table 1] Table 1 has an empty first-column header ('-') and the 'Advantages' and 'Disadvantages' rows are not visually aligned with the columns; please reformat for readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the paper reports platform usage and task-completion data; any overstatement about training efficacy is an evidentiary gap, not a constructionally circular argument.

full rationale

This paper contains no predictive equations, fitted parameters, or derived quantities whose values are fixed by construction from the inputs. The central claims are architectural: two remote-lab stacks were built with open-source tools, deployed in eYRC competitions, and used for a measured number of student-hours. The hours, team counts, task-completion numbers, and self-reported ROS expertise are presented as observational usage data rather than as outputs of a model fitted to those same data. The cited prior e-Yantra project-based-learning papers (e.g., [15], [21], [27]) overlap with the present authors, but they are used only as background support for the general effectiveness of project-based learning and are accompanied by independent citations on the same point; they are not invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as the sole justification for a specific forced choice. The conclusion that the platforms 'successfully trained 1312 students' does overstate what the data show, because 1,312 is the registration count while only 296 teams completed task 0 and only 38 teams reached hardware, and the 19.4/30.8-hour averages are computed only for selected finalists. However, that is a validity and inference weakness about whether task completion measures learning, not a circularity in which a claim is equivalent by definition to its own input. No step in the paper reduces to a self-citation chain, a renamed empirical pattern, or a fitted parameter relabeled as a prediction. Therefore the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no mathematical parameters or new physical entities. Its central claims rest on five domain assumptions about pedagogy, learning measurement, sim-to-real transfer, latency tolerance, and cost, none of which is independently measured in the paper.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Project-based learning is an effective method for teaching ROS and robotics.
    Invoked in Section 1 with citations [8,11,15,20,21,27]; the current study does not independently validate this premise, and the paper's efficacy interpretation depends on it.
  • domain assumption Task completion and relative competition performance are valid proxies for learning.
    Section 3 uses completion counts, dropout rates, and finalist success as evidence that the platforms trained students, without validated learning assessments or a control group.
  • domain assumption Skills transfer from simulation to remote hardware with negligible loss.
    Section 2.1 acknowledges the sim-to-real gap but assumes that keeping ROS topic names identical and dividing hardware tasks into subtasks is enough to make transfer effective; no transfer measurement is reported.
  • domain assumption 300 ms data latency and roughly 2 s camera lag do not materially harm learning or safety.
    Section 2.2 states the camera lag 'does not affect control' and the average data latency is 300 ms, but no experiment quantifies the effect of latency on task performance or learning.
  • domain assumption Using open-source tools makes the platforms low-cost.
    The abstract and contributions call the platforms low-cost, but no bill of materials, robot costs, or comparison with commercial teaching labs is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Scalable and low-cost remote lab platforms: Teaching industrial robotics using open-source tools and understanding its social implications." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WAUVXUYO

@misc{pith2026241215369,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Scalable and low-cost remote lab platforms: Teaching industrial robotics using open-source tools and understanding its social implications},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WAUVXUYO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.15369}
}
read the original abstract

With recent advancements in industrial robots, educating students in new technologies and preparing them for the future is imperative. However, access to industrial robots for teaching poses challenges, such as the high cost of acquiring these robots, the safety of the operator and the robot, and complicated training material. This paper proposes two low-cost platforms built using open-source tools like Robot Operating System (ROS) and its latest version ROS 2 to help students learn and test algorithms on remotely connected industrial robots. Universal Robotics (UR5) arm and a custom mobile rover were deployed in different life-size testbeds, a greenhouse, and a warehouse to create an Autonomous Agricultural Harvester System (AAHS) and an Autonomous Warehouse Management System (AWMS). These platforms were deployed for a period of 7 months and were tested for their efficacy with 1,433 and 1,312 students, respectively. The hardware used in AAHS and AWMS was controlled remotely for 160 and 355 hours, respectively, by students over a period of 3 months.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.15369 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Set up of remote testbeds in a greenhouse (top) and a warehouse (bot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Operational Workflow Architecture of Stacks 1 and 2 for remote lab plat [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. The four-wheeled mobile rover works on a skid steer drive control [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Self-reported expertise by students in both years of eYRC before the start [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Performance of teams in each task during the two separate editions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Total remote access slots (hours) given per hardware task vs the number [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    AnyDesk: Anydesk: The fast remote desktop application. (n.d.). anydesk.,https: //anydesk.com/en/, accessed: 2024-06-26

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    In: 2015 IEEE Inter- national Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)

    Casañ, G.A., Cervera, E., Moughlbay, A.A., Alemany, J., Martinet, P.: Ros-based online robot programming for remote education and training. In: 2015 IEEE Inter- national Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). pp. 6101–6106 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICRA.2015.7140055

    arXiv 2015

  3. [3]

    Publications Office of the Euro- pean Union (2021).https://doi.org/doi/10.2777/17322

    Commission, E., for Research, D.G., Innovation, Renda, A., Schwaag Serger, S., Tataj, D., Morlet, A., Isaksson, D., Martins, F., Mir Roca, M., Hidalgo, C., Huang, A., Dixson-Declève, S., Balland, P., Bria, F., Charveriat, C., Dunlop, K., Giovan- nini, E.: Industry 5.0, a transformative vision for Europe – Governing systemic transformations towards a susta...

    work page doi:10.2777/17322 2021

  4. [4]

    bash (3.2

    GNU, P.: Free software foundation. bash (3.2. 48)[unix shell program] (2007)

    work page 2007

  5. [5]

    Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism 21(2), 177–197 (2021)

    Goopio, J., Cheung, C.: The mooc dropout phenomenon and reten- tion strategies. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism 21(2), 177–197 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1080/15313220.2020.1809050, https://doi.org/ 10.1080/15313220.2020.1809050

    work page arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    Gough, V.: Encfs - an encrypted filesystem,https://vgough.github.io/encfs/, accessed: 2024-06-26

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Computers & Education 98, 14–38 (2016)

    Heradio, R., de la Torre, L., Galan, D., Cabrerizo, F.J., Herrera- Viedma, E., Dormido, S.: Virtual and remote labs in education: A bibliometric analysis. Computers & Education 98, 14–38 (2016). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.03.010, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131516300677

    work page doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2016.03.010 2016

  8. [8]

    In: 2019 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON)

    Hultman, E., Leijon, M.: Integration of real-world project tasks in a course on automation and robot engineering. In: 2019 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON). pp. 107–114 (2019).https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON. 2019.8725198

    arXiv 2019

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    Husarnet: Operate at the edge of latency,https://husarnet.com, accessed: 2024- 06-26

    2024

  2. [10]

    Computers & Education 57(4), 2451–2461 (2011)

    Jara, C.A., Candelas, F.A., Puente, S.T., Torres, F.: Hands-on experi- ences of undergraduate students in automatics and robotics using a vir- tual and remote laboratory. Computers & Education 57(4), 2451–2461 (2011). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.0...

    2011 doi

  3. [11]

    In: Proceedings of the E-Learning and Smart Engineering Systems (ELSES 2023)

    Jdidou, A., Aammou, S.: Exploring the potential of ros in education: A project- based learning approach to teaching programming to children. In: Proceedings of the E-Learning and Smart Engineering Systems (ELSES 2023). pp. 29–35. Scalable and low-cost remote lab platforms 13 A...

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    https://doi.org/10.1109/LRA.2020.3013848

    Kadian, A., Truong, J., Gokaslan, A., Clegg, A., Wijmans, E., Lee, S., Savva, M., Chernova, S., Batra, D.: Sim2real predictivity: Does evaluation in simulation pre- dict real-world performance? IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters5(4), 6670– 6677 (2020). https://doi.org/10.110...

    2020

  5. [13]

    Telecommun

    Kam, H.R., Lee, S.H., Park, T., Kim, C.H.: Rviz: a toolkit for real domain data visualization. Telecommun. Syst. 60(2), 337–345 (oct 2015). https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11235-015-0034-5, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11235-015-0034-5

    2015 doi

  6. [14]

    In: 2004 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) (IEEE Cat

    Koenig, N., Howard, A.: Design and use paradigms for gazebo, an open-source multi-robot simulator. In: 2004 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) (IEEE Cat. No.04CH37566). vol. 3, pp. 2149–2154 vol.3 (Sep 2004).https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS....

    2004 arXiv

  7. [15]

    In: 2014 IEEE Sixth International Conference on Technology for Education

    Krithivasan, S., Shandilya, S., Lala, K., Arya, K.: Massive project based learning through a competition: Impact of and insights from the e-yantra robotics compe- tition (eyrc – 2013). In: 2014 IEEE Sixth International Conference on Technology for Education. pp. 156–163 (2014)...

    2014 doi

  8. [16]

    IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies17, 1325–1338 (2024)

    Kr¯ umin,š, D., Schumann, S., Vunder, V., Põlluäär, R., Laht, K., Raudmäe, R., Aabloo, A., Kruusamäe, K.: Open remote web lab for learning robotics and ros with physical and simulated robots in an authentic developer environment. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies17, 1...

    2024

  9. [17]

    ACM Comput

    Ma, J., Nickerson, J.V.: Hands-on, simulated, and remote laboratories: A compar- ative literature review. ACM Comput. Surv.38(3), 7–es (sep 2006).https://doi. org/10.1145/1132960.1132961, https://doi.org/10.1145/1132960.1132961

    2006

  10. [18]

    In: 2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) (2020),https://github.com/ros-planning/navigation2

    Macenski, S., Martín, F., White, R., Ginés Clavero, J.: The marathon 2: A navi- gation system. In: 2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) (2020),https://github.com/ros-planning/navigation2

    2020

  11. [19]

    Science Robotics7(66) (May 2022)

    Macenski, S., Foote, T., Gerkey, B., Lalancette, C., Woodall, W.: Robot operat- ing system 2: Design, architecture, and uses in the wild. Science Robotics7(66) (May 2022). https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.abm6074, http://dx.doi. org/10.1126/scirobotics.abm6074

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    Aust J Eng Educ3 (01 2003)

    Mills, J., Treagust, D.: Engineering education, is problem-based or project-based learning the answer. Aust J Eng Educ3 (01 2003)

    2003

  13. [21]

    In: 2020 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON)

    Panwar, A., Chauhan, A., Arya, K.: Analyzing learning outcomes for a mas- sive online competition through a project-based learning engagement. In: 2020 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON). pp. 1246–1251 (April 2020). https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON45650.2020.9125379

    2020

  14. [22]

    In: Giuliani, M., Assaf, T., Giannaccini, M.E

    Pitonakova, L., Giuliani, M., Pipe, A., Winfield, A.: Feature and performance com- parison of the v-rep, gazebo and argos robot simulators. In: Giuliani, M., Assaf, T., Giannaccini, M.E. (eds.) Towards Autonomous Robotic Systems. pp. 357–368. Springer International Publishing,...

    2018

  15. [23]

    Probe, A., Oyake, A., Chambers, S.W., Deans, M., Brat, G., Cramer, N.B., Kempa, B.,Roberts,B.,Hambuchen,K.:SpaceROS:AnOpen-SourceFrameworkforSpace Robotics and Flight Software.https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2023-2709

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    In: ICRA Workshop on Open Source Software

    Quigley, M., Conley, K., Gerkey, B., Faust, J., Foote, T., Leibs, J., Wheeler, R., Ng, A.: Ros: an open-source robot operating system. In: ICRA Workshop on Open Source Software. vol. 3 (01 2009)

    2009

  17. [25]

    Kumar et al

    Robotics, O.: Ros 2 humble hawksbill installation guide,https://docs.ros.org/ en/humble/Installation.html 14 A. Kumar et al

  18. [26]

    Robots, U.: Ur5 technical specifications, https://www.universal-robots.com/ media/50588/ur5_en.pdf, accessed: 2024-06-26

    2024

  19. [27]

    In: 2022 International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT)

    Sarkar, A., Pandey, A., Kumar, A., Furtado, A., Karia, K., Arya, K.: Teaching complex skills through an online robotics competition during covid-19 pandemic. In: 2022 International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT). pp. 199–200 (2022).https://doi.org/10.1109...

    2022

  20. [28]

    Schulzrinne, H., Rao, A., Lanphier, R.: Rfc2326: Real time streaming protocol (rtsp) (1998)

    1998

  21. [29]

    Pearson Education (2015)

    Sobell, M.G.: A practical guide to Ubuntu Linux. Pearson Education (2015)

    2015

  22. [30]

    Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica Amsterdam (1995)

    Van Rossum, G., Drake Jr, F.L.: Python reference manual. Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica Amsterdam (1995)

    1995

  23. [31]

    In: 2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)

    Wiedmeyer, W., Mende, M., Hartmann, D., Bischoff, R., Ledermann, C., Kroger, T.: Robotics education and research at scale: A remotely accessible robotics devel- opment platform. In: 2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). pp. 3679–3685 (2019).https://d...

    2019

  24. [32]

    Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory132, 102895 (2024).https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j

    Wijaya, G.D., Caesarendra, W., Petra, M.I., Królczyk, G., Glowacz, A.: Compara- tive study of gazebo and unity 3d in performing a virtual pick and place of universal robot ur3 for assembly process in manufacturing. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory132, 102895 (2024).htt...

    2024

  25. [33]

    IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies16(1), 18–25 (2023)

    Čehovin Zajc, L., Rezelj, A., Skočaj, D.: Low-cost open-source robotic platform for education. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies16(1), 18–25 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2022.3224227

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.