Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Edge Computing and its Application in Robotics: A Survey

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The first comprehensive survey of edge robotics from 2015 to 2025 organizes the field into seven application categories and a comparative objective table.

desk verdict A useful, candid survey of edge robotics that is undermined mainly by its own 'comprehensive' claim, which its methodology cannot support and its conclusion explicitly contradicts. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.00523 v1 pith:Q2WDLFKB submitted 2025-07-01 cs.RO cs.DCcs.NI

Nazish Tahir , Ramviyas Parasuraman This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.DCcs.NI
keywords edgecomputingroboticscloudfogmulti-robotsystemscomputationaloffloadingsimultaneouslocalizationandmappinglatencyminimization
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

This survey aims to establish that edge robotics—running computation, storage, and intelligence on servers close to robots rather than in distant clouds—has become a distinct research domain that lacked an up-to-date comprehensive review. The authors argue that cloud robotics suffers from multi-hop latency that hurts time-sensitive tasks, and that edge computing answers that problem while adding mobility support, location awareness, and distributed parallel processing. To support this, they review work published between 2015 and 2025, gathered from IEEE Xplore, ScienceDirect, and the ACM Digital Library, and classify it into seven application categories: computational offloading, context awareness, localization, navigation, latency minimization, resource optimization, and energy minimization. The survey's comparative table shows that most systems target offloading and latency, while context awareness, security, handover, fault tolerance, and realistic multi-robot evaluation are underexplored. If accurate, this gives the community a shared map of what edge robotics can do and where the next work is needed.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the seven-category application taxonomy realized in a comparison table that checks each surveyed system against the objectives it addresses: computational offloading, context awareness, localization, navigation, minimizing latency, resource optimization, and minimizing energy consumption. That table is what converts a collection of prototypes into evidence that the field clusters around a few goals and neglects others. Around it, the paper builds a conceptual taxonomy of computing paradigms—cloud, fog, edge, MEC, cloudlets, mist—that defines what counts as edge robotics and why it differs from cloud robotics and fog robotics. The paradigm taxonomy supplies the definitions; the application table supplies the map.

What would settle it

A reader could rerun the search with additional databases (Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar) and broader terms such as 'edge intelligence' or 'MEC robotics,' then check whether any earlier survey already provides a comprehensive application-domain classification of edge robotics across 2015–2025; if such a survey exists, the paper's 'no recent comprehensive survey' premise is false. Alternatively, re-coding the same corpus with the paper's seven categories should reproduce the reported gap analysis; any major disagreement would show the taxonomy is not as stable as presented.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that edge robotics is a maturing but still young field whose literature can be systematically organized, and that this organization reveals a clear pattern. The paper positions edge robotics on a spectrum running from cloud robotics through fog robotics, Mobile/Multi-Access Edge Computing (MEC), and cloudlets to mist computing, and draws the operational line between edge and fog: edge systems can process data entirely at the network edge without involving a cloud, while fog systems sit between edge and cloud and forward preprocessed data upward. It then reviews state-of-the-art systems and codes each one against seven objectives, producing the field's first application-domain classification. The resulting pattern is that computational offloading and latency reduction dominate the literature, whereas security, context awareness, handover mechanisms, network-failure resilience, and fault tolerance receive little attention, and most experiments run under idealized network conditions or in small testbeds. The conclusion the paper draws is that edge robotics has real potential but remains in its early stages, with the open challenges laid out as a research agenda.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the literature search over IEEE Xplore, ScienceDirect, and the ACM Digital Library using four specified search terms captured a representative and complete sample of edge-robotics work from 2015 to 2025; if important works fall outside those databases or terms, the survey's comprehensiveness claim weakens.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • New edge-robotics papers can be positioned against a standard seven-category taxonomy, making it easier to see which objective combinations have already been tried.
  • The gap list in the survey translates directly into a research agenda: security, context awareness, handover, network-failure handling, fault tolerance, and heterogeneity are the named open problems.
  • Since the review finds that most evaluations assume stable wireless links or use small testbeds, the practical conclusion is that edge-robotics performance claims need validation under real-world, multi-robot, variable-bandwidth conditions.
  • The paradigm taxonomy gives deployment guidance: choose edge computing when low latency and fully local processing matter, fog when cloud mediation is acceptable, and cloud when scalability and centralized storage dominate.
  • Including MEC-based robotics inside edge robotics means the field's scope covers telecom-standardized edge servers inside radio access networks, not only local gateways.

Reading between the lines

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

  • I would treat the seven-category table as a candidate coding standard for future surveys; the paper itself does not propose standardization, but if the community adopted it, cross-paper comparisons of objectives would become straightforward.
  • The observation that partial offloading often beats full offloading in the reviewed drone-navigation studies suggests a transferable design heuristic—offload compressed features rather than raw imagery—that the survey does not itself elevate to a principle.
  • The comprehensiveness claim could be stress-tested by extending the search to databases and terms the paper did not use; because inclusion and exclusion criteria are not reported, the representativeness of the corpus is the survey's most testable assumption.
  • A natural extension of the gap analysis is to add security, handover, and fault tolerance as explicit columns in the application table, which would make the under-explored objectives as visible as latency and resource use.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper is a survey of edge computing applied to robotics, covering work from approximately 2015 to 2025. It introduces and distinguishes cloud, fog, edge, MEC, mist, and cloudlet paradigms, then organizes the recent literature into seven application-driven categories: computational offloading, context awareness, localization, navigation, latency minimization, resource optimization, and energy minimization. For each category it summarizes representative papers, provides a comparison table of objectives (Table III), and closes with research gaps, future challenges, and a conclusion. The paper's central claim, stated in the abstract and Section I.B, is that no recent survey comprehensively examines the benefits of edge computing in robotics and that this paper fills that gap.

Significance. If the comprehensiveness claim were supported, the paper would offer a useful organizing framework for the rapidly growing edge-robotics literature: its seven-category application classification, the background taxonomy of computing paradigms, and the candid assessment of experimental limitations in Section V are all potentially valuable contributions. The paper also makes a useful attempt to separate what has been validated in real-world systems from what has only been evaluated in simulation or controlled testbeds. However, the central novelty claim is not currently verifiable because the literature search is not described reproducibly, the survey itself concedes that it is not exhaustive, and the comparison against prior surveys omits at least one directly overlapping recent survey. These issues are load-bearing rather than cosmetic, because the paper's contribution is defined in opposition to the comprehensiveness of earlier surveys.

major comments (3)
  1. [I.B and VII] The abstract's claims that 'there has been no recent survey that comprehensively examines these benefits' and that the paper 'provides a comprehensive evaluation' are not supported by the reported methodology. Section I.B names three databases and four search terms, but it gives no exact query strings, no screening or inclusion/exclusion criteria, no deduplication procedure, no counts of retrieved, screened, or included papers, and no PRISMA-style flow. Section VII then states that the survey 'is not exhaustive.' Since the paper's novelty is explicitly defined by its comprehensiveness relative to prior surveys, the authors must either provide a reproducible search and selection protocol with article counts, or reframe the contribution as a selected overview rather than a comprehensive survey.
  2. [I.B and reference [87]] The positioning against prior surveys is incomplete in a directly relevant way. Reference [87], Chaari et al., 'Dynamic computation offloading for ground and flying robots: Taxonomy, state of art, and future directions' (Computer Science Review, 2022), is a recent survey that provides a taxonomy and state-of-the-art review of dynamic computation offloading for ground and flying robots, which substantially overlaps with Section IV.A and with the paper's stated scope. This reference is cited later in Section VI.B but is not discussed in Section I.B when the authors distinguish their work from existing surveys. The authors should explain how their survey goes beyond [87] in coverage, categorization, or critical assessment, and should position themselves explicitly against it.
  3. [Table III and Sections IV.A, IV.E] The comparative table is not a reliable audit of the objectives claimed for each paper. For example, the row for Tahir et al. [49], [50] marks Localization and Navigation as addressed, but the surrounding text in Section IV.A describes utility-aware task offloading and decentralized multi-robot scheduling, with no mention of localization or navigation outcomes. Conversely, the row for Yin et al. [75] marks Minimizing Energy Consumption as not addressed, even though Section IV.E states that the paper's two resource-management schemes are explicitly 'minimizing and balancing energy usage' across slave robots. Because Table III is the paper's main comparative instrument, the authors should define a coding protocol for the checkmarks and ensure each mark is traceable to the cited work or to a specific statement in Section IV.
minor comments (6)
  1. [I.C] The article-organization list in Section I.C jumps from Section IV to Section VI and omits Section V ('Research Gaps and Limitations'); this should be corrected to match the actual structure and Figure 3.
  2. [I.B] The search term 'multi-edge servers in mutirobot systems' contains a typo; it should read 'multi-robot systems'.
  3. [IV.C and Table III] The name 'Lui et al. [62]' should be 'Liu et al. [62]' to match the reference list and the corresponding authors of that work.
  4. [IV.D] The text refers to 'Qingqin et al. [71]', but the cited work is by 'L. Qingqing et al.'; the spelling should be consistent with the reference.
  5. [II.E] The sentence 'it relies on multiple links for data transport, which is a significant disadvantage of fog computing' has an unclear antecedent; the contrast between edge and fog in this sentence should be rewritten for clarity.
  6. [V and reference [65]] The reference to 'A. J. Ben et al. [65]' is inaccurate; the author name is 'A. J. Ben Ali et al.', and it should be spelled consistently with Section IV.C.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is a survey with no fitted parameters or derived predictions, its novelty claim is supported by comparison with external prior surveys, and the authors' self-citations are background and survey entries rather than load-bearing evidence.

full rationale

This is a survey paper, not a derivation-based paper: there are no equations, no fitted parameters, no predictions, and no first-principles results, so the self-definitional and fitted-input-called-prediction patterns do not apply. The central claim — that 'there has been no recent survey that comprehensively examines these benefits' and that this paper bridges that gap — is supported in Section I.B by describing and distinguishing the paper from external surveys [16]-[20], [44], [87], none of which are authored by Tahir or Parasuraman. The authors' own works are cited in the paper, but only as background (e.g., [14], [31], [88], [89]), as state-of-the-art entries (e.g., [49], [50] in Section IV.A and Table III, [76] in Section IV.E), and in passing examples; the survey's classification scheme, gap analysis, and challenges discussion do not reduce to those works. No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation. The 'comprehensive' claim is weakened by the paper's own admission in Section VII that 'it is not exhaustive' and by the unreported search protocol in Section I.B (no query strings, inclusion criteria, or article counts), but these are reproducibility and rigor concerns, not circularity. Per the rule that self-citation becomes circularity only when the load-bearing argument reduces to the self-citation, none of the self-citations here are load-bearing; the central content of the survey is independent of them. Score 2 reflects the presence of several non-load-bearing self-citations, with no circular step identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This survey has no free parameters and introduces no new entities. Its load-bearing assumptions are about the representativeness of the literature search and the accuracy of the authors' readings of the cited works.

assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption The selected papers from IEEE Xplore, ScienceDirect, and ACM Digital Library, found with four search terms, represent the edge robotics literature from 2015 to 2025.
    Supports the abstract's comprehensiveness claim; no screening protocol or article counts are given in Section I.B.
  • domain assumption The authors' summaries and critiques of the cited works faithfully reflect the content of those papers.
    Section V draws conclusions about limitations of prior work; there is no independent audit or machine-checked evidence for these characterizations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Edge Computing and its Application in Robotics: A Survey." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q2WDLFKB

@misc{pith2026250700523,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Edge Computing and its Application in Robotics: A Survey},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q2WDLFKB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.00523}
}
read the original abstract

The Edge computing paradigm has gained prominence in both academic and industry circles in recent years. By implementing edge computing facilities and services in robotics, it becomes a key enabler in the deployment of artificial intelligence applications to robots. Time-sensitive robotics applications benefit from the reduced latency, mobility, and location awareness provided by the edge computing paradigm, which enables real-time data processing and intelligence at the network's edge. While the advantages of integrating edge computing into robotics are numerous, there has been no recent survey that comprehensively examines these benefits. This paper aims to bridge that gap by highlighting important work in the domain of edge robotics, examining recent advancements, and offering deeper insight into the challenges and motivations behind both current and emerging solutions. In particular, this article provides a comprehensive evaluation of recent developments in edge robotics, with an emphasis on fundamental applications, providing in-depth analysis of the key motivations, challenges, and future directions in this rapidly evolving domain. It also explores the importance of edge computing in real-world robotics scenarios where rapid response times are critical. Finally, the paper outlines various open research challenges in the field of edge robotics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.00523 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Taxonomy of existing computational domains. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of robot applications supported by edge, cloud, and fog (multi-robot collaboration) infrastructures. minimal communication latency [15]. It also boasts the robots’ competency in knowledge exchange by leveraging local edge devices rather than distant cloud servers. More￾over, it contributes to lowering the bandwidth required for data transfer to the cloud. B. Survey Scope Several studies published in reputab… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Table of content and survey organization sive survey of Edge Robotics, encompassing a structured classification based on application domains, comparative analysis, and an in-depth discussion of open research chal￾lenges. We begin by establishing the necessary background to distinguish among various distributed computing paradigms, positioning Edge Robotics within this broader context. The survey then investigates th… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. HeteroMosaic: Exposing and Exploiting Heterogeneous Execution Opportunities for Energy-Efficient Edge LLM Inference

    cs.DC 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    HeteroMosaic uses micro-batching and trace-guided co-optimization to split edge LLM prefill across iGPU and NPU, achieving up to 1.73-2.05x speedups and 45.3% energy reduction on AMD Ryzen AI.

  2. The AI Shadow War: SaaS vs. Edge Computing Architectures

    cs.DC 2025-07 reject novelty 2.0 of 10

    A review-style paper claims a 10,000x efficiency edge for on-device AI over cloud AI, but the supporting numbers are unsourced and internally inconsistent.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 72 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [87]

    Dynamic computation offloading for ground and flying robots : Taxonomy , state of art , and future directions,

    R. Cha ˆari, O. Cheikhrouhou, A. Koub ˆaa, and H. Youssef, “Dynamic computation offloading for ground and flying robots : Taxonomy , state of art , and future directions,” Computer Science Review , vol. 45, p. 100488, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosrev.2022.100488

    arXiv 2022

  2. [49]

    Utility ai for dynamic task offloading in the multi-edge infrastructure,

    N. Tahir and R. Parasuraman, “Utility ai for dynamic task offloading in the multi-edge infrastructure,” in 2023 Seventh IEEE International Conference on Robotic Computing (IRC) , 2023, pp. 331–338

    work page 2023

  3. [50]

    Consensus-based resource scheduling for collaborative multi- robot tasks,

    ——, “Consensus-based resource scheduling for collaborative multi- robot tasks,” in 2023 Seventh IEEE International Conference on Robotic Computing (IRC) , 2023, pp. 323–330

    work page 2023

  4. [75]

    Time-critical tasks implementation in MEC based multi-robot cooperation systems,

    R. Yin, Y . Shen, H. Zhu, X. Chen, and C. Wu, “Time-critical tasks implementation in MEC based multi-robot cooperation systems,” China Communications, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 199–215, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [1]

    Edgeiot: Mobile edge computing for the internet of things,

    X. Sun and N. Ansari, “Edgeiot: Mobile edge computing for the internet of things,” IEEE Communications Magazine , vol. 54, no. 12, pp. 22–29, 2016

    2016

  6. [2]

    Fog computing for the internet of things: Security and privacy issues,

    A. Alrawais, A. Alhothaily, C. Hu, and X. Cheng, “Fog computing for the internet of things: Security and privacy issues,” IEEE Internet Computing, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 34–42, 2017

    2017

  7. [3]

    The role of edge computing in internet of things,

    N. Hassan, S. Gillani, E. Ahmed, I. Yaqoob, and M. Imran, “The role of edge computing in internet of things,” IEEE communications magazine, vol. 56, no. 11, pp. 110–115, 2018

    2018

  8. [4]

    Edge computing: A survey,

    W. Z. Khan, E. Ahmed, S. Hakak, I. Yaqoob, and A. Ahmed, “Edge computing: A survey,” Future Generation Computer Systems , vol. 97, pp. 219–235, 2019

    2019

Show all 89 references
  1. [5]

    Edge computing: platforms, applications and challenges,

    Z. Zhao, F. Liu, Z. Cai, and N. Xiao, “Edge computing: platforms, applications and challenges,” J. Comput. Res. Dev , vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 327–337, 2018

    2018

  2. [6]

    A review of internet of things technologies for ambient assisted living environments,

    R. Maskeli ¯unas, R. Dama ˇseviˇcius, and S. Segal, “A review of internet of things technologies for ambient assisted living environments,” Future Internet, vol. 11, no. 12, p. 259, 2019

    2019

  3. [7]

    An overview on edge computing research,

    K. Cao, Y . Liu, G. Meng, and Q. Sun, “An overview on edge computing research,” IEEE access, vol. 8, pp. 85 714–85 728, 2020

    2020

  4. [8]

    Studying energy trade offs in offloading computa- tion/compilation in java-enabled mobile devices,

    G. Chen, B.-T. Kang, M. Kandemir, N. Vijaykrishnan, M. J. Irwin, and R. Chandramouli, “Studying energy trade offs in offloading computa- tion/compilation in java-enabled mobile devices,” IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, vol. 15, no. 9, pp. 795–809, 2004

    2004

  5. [9]

    Resource-aware estimation and control for edge robotics: A set-based approach,

    D. Spatharakis, M. Avgeris, N. Athanasopoulos, D. Dechouniotis, and S. Papavassiliou, “Resource-aware estimation and control for edge robotics: A set-based approach,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal , 2022

    2022

  6. [10]

    Analog twin framework for human and ai supervisory control and teleoperation of robots,

    N. Tahir and R. Parasuraman, “Analog twin framework for human and ai supervisory control and teleoperation of robots,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems , vol. 53, no. 5, pp. 2616– 2628, 2022

    2022

  7. [11]

    Cloud robotics: architecture, challenges and applications,

    G. Hu, W. P. Tay, and Y . Wen, “Cloud robotics: architecture, challenges and applications,” IEEE network, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 21–28, 2012

    2012

  8. [12]

    Cloud robotics: Current status and open issues,

    J. Wan, S. Tang, H. Yan, D. Li, S. Wang, and A. V . Vasilakos, “Cloud robotics: Current status and open issues,” IEEE Access , vol. 4, pp. 2797–2807, 2016

    2016

  9. [13]

    Energy-efficient optimal task offloading in cloud networked multi- robot systems,

    A. Rahman, J. Jin, A. Rahman, A. Cricenti, M. Afrin, and Y .-n. Dong, “Energy-efficient optimal task offloading in cloud networked multi- robot systems,” Computer Networks, vol. 160, pp. 11–32, 2019

    2019

  10. [14]

    Pound: a ros node for reducing delay and jitter in wireless multi-robot networks,

    D. Tardioli, R. Parasuraman, and P. ¨Ogren, “Pound: a ros node for reducing delay and jitter in wireless multi-robot networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.07540, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  11. [15]

    Resource allocation and service provisioning in multi-agent cloud robotics: A comprehensive survey,

    M. Afrin, J. Jin, A. Rahman, A. Rahman, J. Wan, and E. Hossain, “Resource allocation and service provisioning in multi-agent cloud robotics: A comprehensive survey,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 842–870, 2021

    2021

  12. [16]

    Edge robotics: Are we ready? an experimental evaluation of current vision and future directions,

    M. Groshev, G. Baldoni, L. Cominardi, A. de la Oliva, and R. Gazda, “Edge robotics: Are we ready? an experimental evaluation of current vision and future directions,” Digital Communications and Networks , vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 166–174, 2023

    2023

  13. [17]

    Robotics 4.0–are we there yet?

    T. Haidegger, P. Galambos, and I. J. Rudas, “Robotics 4.0–are we there yet?” in 2019 IEEE 23rd International Conference on Intelligent Engineering Systems (INES) . IEEE, 2019, pp. 000 117–000 124

    2019

  14. [18]

    Edge computing and robotic appli- cations in modern agriculture,

    A. A. Ayranci and B. Erkmen, “Edge computing and robotic appli- cations in modern agriculture,” in 2024 International Congress on Human-Computer Interaction, Optimization and Robotic Applications (HORA), 2024, pp. 1–6

    2024

  15. [19]

    Edge computing for industry 5.0: Fundamental, applications, and research challenges,

    M. Sharma, A. Tomar, and A. Hazra, “Edge computing for industry 5.0: Fundamental, applications, and research challenges,” IEEE Inter- net of Things Journal , vol. 11, no. 11, pp. 19 070–19 093, 2024

    2024

  16. [20]

    Cognitive computing and wireless communications on the edge for healthcare service robots,

    S. Wan, Z. Gu, and Q. Ni, “Cognitive computing and wireless communications on the edge for healthcare service robots,” Computer Communications, vol. 149, pp. 99–106, 2020

    2020

  17. [21]

    Cloud-enabled robots in: Ieee-ras international conference on humanoid robots,

    J. Kuffner, “Cloud-enabled robots in: Ieee-ras international conference on humanoid robots,” Piscataway, NJ: IEEE , 2010

    2010

  18. [22]

    A survey of research on cloud robotics and automation,

    B. Kehoe, S. Patil, P. Abbeel, and K. Goldberg, “A survey of research on cloud robotics and automation,” IEEE Transactions on automation science and engineering , vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 398–409, 2015

    2015

  19. [23]

    Davinci: A cloud computing framework for service robots,

    R. Arumugam, V . R. Enti, L. Bingbing, W. Xiaojun, K. Baskaran, F. F. Kong, A. S. Kumar, K. D. Meng, and G. W. Kit, “Davinci: A cloud computing framework for service robots,” in 2010 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation. IEEE, 2010, pp. 3084–3089

    2010

  20. [24]

    Fastslam 1.0,

    M. Montemerlo and S. Thrun, “Fastslam 1.0,” FastSLAM: A scalable method for the simultaneous localization and mapping problem in robotics, pp. 27–62, 2007

    2007

  21. [25]

    Rapyuta: A cloud robotics platform,

    G. Mohanarajah, D. Hunziker, R. D’Andrea, and M. Waibel, “Rapyuta: A cloud robotics platform,” IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 481–493, 2014

    2014

  22. [26]

    C2tam: A cloud framework for cooperative tracking and mapping,

    L. Riazuelo, J. Civera, and J. M. Montiel, “C2tam: A cloud framework for cooperative tracking and mapping,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 62, no. 4, pp. 401–413, 2014

    2014

  23. [27]

    Aws services for cloud robotics applications,

    M. Sartoni, “Aws services for cloud robotics applications,” Ph.D. dissertation, Politecnico di Torino, 2022

    2022

  24. [28]

    A comprehensive survey of recent trends in cloud robotics architectures and applications,

    O. Saha and P. Dasgupta, “A comprehensive survey of recent trends in cloud robotics architectures and applications,” Robotics, vol. 7, no. 3, p. 47, 2018

    2018

  25. [29]

    Fog computing and its role in the internet of things,

    F. Bonomi, R. Milito, J. Zhu, and S. Addepalli, “Fog computing and its role in the internet of things,” in Proceedings of the first edition of the MCC workshop on Mobile cloud computing , 2012, pp. 13–16

    2012

  26. [30]

    Fog robotics: An introduction,

    S. C. Gudi et al. , “Fog robotics: An introduction,” in IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems , 2017

    2017

  27. [31]

    Communication-efficient reinforcement learning in swarm robotic networks for maze explo- ration,

    E. Latif, W. Song, and R. Parasuraman, “Communication-efficient reinforcement learning in swarm robotic networks for maze explo- ration,” in IEEE INFOCOM 2023-IEEE Conference on Computer Communications Workshops (INFOCOM WKSHPS) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–6

    2023

  28. [32]

    Fog-enabled multi-robot systems,

    N. Mohamed, J. Al-Jaroodi, and I. Jawhar, “Fog-enabled multi-robot systems,” in 2018 IEEE 2nd International Conference on Fog and Edge Computing (ICFEC) , 2018, pp. 1–10

    2018

  29. [33]

    Cloud, fog, and mist computing: Advanced robot applications,

    P. Galambos, “Cloud, fog, and mist computing: Advanced robot applications,” IEEE Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Magazine , vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 41–45, 2020

    2020

  30. [34]

    Mobile edge computing—a key technology towards 5g,

    Y . C. Hu, M. Patel, D. Sabella, N. Sprecher, and V . Young, “Mobile edge computing—a key technology towards 5g,” ETSI white paper , vol. 11, no. 11, pp. 1–16, 2015

    2015

  31. [35]

    Mec deployments in 4g and evolution towards 5g,

    F. Giust, G. Verin, K. Antevski, J. Chou, Y . Fang, W. Featherstone, F. Fontes, D. Frydman, A. Li, A. Manzalini et al., “Mec deployments in 4g and evolution towards 5g,” ETSI White paper, vol. 24, no. 2018, pp. 1–24, 2018

    2018

  32. [36]

    Deep learning for edge computing applications: A state-of-the-art survey,

    F. Wang, M. Zhang, X. Wang, X. Ma, and J. Liu, “Deep learning for edge computing applications: A state-of-the-art survey,” IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 58 322–58 336, 2020

    2020

  33. [37]

    Energy-delay co-optimization of resource allocation for robotic services in cloudlet infrastructure,

    M. Afrin, J. Jin, and A. Rahman, “Energy-delay co-optimization of resource allocation for robotic services in cloudlet infrastructure,” in International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing . Springer, 2018, pp. 295–303

    2018

  34. [38]

    Networked, cloud and fog robotics,

    D. Song, A. K. Tanwani, and K. Goldberg, “Networked, cloud and fog robotics,” in Robotics Goes MOOC: Interaction . Springer, 2025, pp. 271–313

    2025

  35. [39]

    Industrial internet robot collaboration system and edge computing optimization,

    Q. Zuo, D. Tao, T. Qi, J. Xie, Z. Zhou, Z. Tian, and Y . Mingyu, “Industrial internet robot collaboration system and edge computing optimization,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.02492

    2025

  36. [40]

    On multi-access edge computing: A survey of the emerging 5g network edge cloud architecture and orchestration,

    T. Taleb, K. Samdanis, B. Mada, H. Flinck, S. Dutta, and D. Sabella, “On multi-access edge computing: A survey of the emerging 5g network edge cloud architecture and orchestration,” IEEE Commu- nications Surveys & Tutorials , vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 1657–1681, 2017

    2017

  37. [41]

    Ieee draft standard for adoption of openfog reference architecture for fog computing,

    “Ieee draft standard for adoption of openfog reference architecture for fog computing,” IEEE P1934/D1.0, February 2018 , pp. 1–170, 2018

    2018

  38. [42]

    Fog robotics—understanding the research challenges,

    V . C. Pujol and S. Dustdar, “Fog robotics—understanding the research challenges,” IEEE Internet Computing, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 10–17, 2021

    2021

  39. [43]

    Fog robotics: A summary, challenges and future scope,

    S. L. K. C. Gudi, B. Johnston, and M.-A. Williams, “Fog robotics: A summary, challenges and future scope,” 2019. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.04935

    2019 arXiv

  40. [44]

    A survey on end- edge-cloud orchestrated network computing paradigms: Transparent computing, mobile edge computing, fog computing, and cloudlet,

    J. Ren, D. Zhang, S. He, Y . Zhang, and T. Li, “A survey on end- edge-cloud orchestrated network computing paradigms: Transparent computing, mobile edge computing, fog computing, and cloudlet,” ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) , vol. 52, no. 6, pp. 1–36, 2019

    2019

  41. [45]

    Robotic slam: a review from fog comput- ing and mobile edge computing perspective,

    S. Dey and A. Mukherjee, “Robotic slam: a review from fog comput- ing and mobile edge computing perspective,” in Adjunct Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Systems: Computing Networking and Services , 2016, pp. 153–158

    2016

  42. [46]

    Edge robotics experimentation over next generation iiot testbeds,

    D. Dechouniotis, D. Spatharakis, and S. Papavassiliou, “Edge robotics experimentation over next generation iiot testbeds,” in NOMS 2022- 2022 IEEE/IFIP Network Operations and Management Symposium . IEEE, 2022, pp. 1–3

    2022

  43. [47]

    Intelligent control method of live working robot based on cloud and edge computing terminal,

    W. Li, Y . Fan, A. Jiang, Z. Liu, A. Pan, and B. Wei, “Intelligent control method of live working robot based on cloud and edge computing terminal,” in 2020 10th International Conference on Power and Energy Systems (ICPES). IEEE, 2020, pp. 321–325

    2020

  44. [48]

    Collaborative task offloading strategy of uav cluster using improved genetic algorithm in mobile edge computing,

    H. Wang, “Collaborative task offloading strategy of uav cluster using improved genetic algorithm in mobile edge computing,” Journal of Robotics, vol. 2021, 2021

    2021

  45. [51]

    Ai-driven ground robots: Mobile edge computing and mmwave communications at work,

    G. Baruffa, A. Detti, L. Rugini, F. Crocetti, P. Banelli, G. Costante, and P. Valigi, “Ai-driven ground robots: Mobile edge computing and mmwave communications at work,” IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society, vol. 5, pp. 3104–3119, 2024

    2024

  46. [52]

    Semantic local planning for mobile robots through path optimization services on the edge: A scenario-based evaluation,

    T. Klaas, J. Lambrecht, and E. Funk, “Semantic local planning for mobile robots through path optimization services on the edge: A scenario-based evaluation,” in 2020 25th IEEE International Con- ference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation (ETFA) , vol. 1. IEEE, 202...

    2020

  47. [53]

    Wisture: Touch-less hand gesture classification in unmodified smartphones using wi-fi signals,

    M. A. A. Haseeb and R. Parasuraman, “Wisture: Touch-less hand gesture classification in unmodified smartphones using wi-fi signals,” IEEE Sensors Journal , vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 257–267, 2018

    2018

  48. [54]

    Material mapping in unknown environments using tapping sound,

    S. S. Kannan, W. Jo, R. Parasuraman, and B.-C. Min, “Material mapping in unknown environments using tapping sound,” in 2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2020, pp. 4855–4861

    2020

  49. [55]

    Edge-enabled autonomous navigation and computer vision as a service: A study on mobile robot’s onboard energy consumption and computing requirements,

    J. Lambrecht and E. Funk, “Edge-enabled autonomous navigation and computer vision as a service: A study on mobile robot’s onboard energy consumption and computing requirements,” in ROBOT, 2019

    2019

  50. [56]

    Enhancing edge robotics through the use of context information,

    K. Antevski, M. Groshev, L. Cominardi, C. J. Bernardos, A. Mourad, and R. Gazda, “Enhancing edge robotics through the use of context information,” in Proceedings of the Workshop on Experimentation and Measurements in 5G , 2018, pp. 7–12

    2018

  51. [57]

    COTORRA: Context-Aware testbed for robotic applications,

    M. Groshev, J. Mart ´ın-P´erez, K. Antevski, A. De La Oliva, and C. J. Bernardos, “COTORRA: Context-Aware testbed for robotic applications,” MobileServerless 2021 - Proceedings of the 2021 1st Workshop on Serverless Mobile Networking for 6G Communications , pp. 7–12, 2021

    2021

  52. [58]

    Knowledge-based ultra-low-latency semantic communications for robotic edge intelligence,

    Q. Zeng, Z. Wang, Y . Zhou, H. Wu, L. Yang, and K. Huang, “Knowledge-based ultra-low-latency semantic communications for robotic edge intelligence,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, pp. 1–1, 2024

    2024

  53. [59]

    An autonomous mobile robot system based on serverless computing and edge computing,

    T. Thong Tran, Y . C. Zhang, W. T. Liao, Y . J. Lin, M. C. Li, and H. S. Huang, “An autonomous mobile robot system based on serverless computing and edge computing,” APNOMS 2020 - 2020 21st Asia- Pacific Network Operations and Management Symposium: Towards Service and Networki...

    2020

  54. [60]

    Co- laSLAM: Real-time multi-robot collaborative laser SLAM via edge computing,

    P. Huang, L. Zeng, K. Luo, J. Guo, Z. Zhou, and X. Chen, “Co- laSLAM: Real-time multi-robot collaborative laser SLAM via edge computing,” 2021 IEEE/CIC International Conference on Communi- cations in China, ICCC 2021 , no. Iccc, pp. 242–247, 2021

    2021

  55. [61]

    Edge robotics: Edge-computing-accelerated multirobot simultaneous local- ization and mapping,

    P. Huang, L. Zeng, X. Chen, K. Luo, Z. Zhou, and S. Yu, “Edge robotics: Edge-computing-accelerated multirobot simultaneous local- ization and mapping,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal , vol. 9, no. 15, pp. 14 087–14 102, 2022

    2022

  56. [62]

    Edge-assisted multi-robot visual-inertial slam with efficient communication,

    X. Liu, S. Wen, J. Zhao, T. Z. Qiu, and H. Zhang, “Edge-assisted multi-robot visual-inertial slam with efficient communication,” IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering , vol. 22, pp. 2186–2198, 2025

    2025

  57. [63]

    Offloading slam for indoor mobile robots with edge-fog-cloud com- puting,

    V . K. Sarker, J. P. Queralta, T. N. Gia, H. Tenhunen, and T. Westerlund, “Offloading slam for indoor mobile robots with edge-fog-cloud com- puting,” in 2019 1st international conference on advances in science, engineering and robotics technology (ICASERT) . IEEE, 2019, pp. 1–6

    2019

  58. [64]

    3D Semantic Map Construction Using Improved ORB-SLAM2 for Mobile Robot in Edge Computing Envi- ronment,

    X. Cui, C. Lu, and J. Wang, “3D Semantic Map Construction Using Improved ORB-SLAM2 for Mobile Robot in Edge Computing Envi- ronment,” IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 67 179–67 191, 2020

    2020

  59. [65]

    Edge-slam: Edge-assisted visual simultaneous localization and mapping,

    A. J. Ben Ali, M. Kouroshli, S. Semenova, Z. S. Hashemifar, S. Y . Ko, and K. Dantu, “Edge-slam: Edge-assisted visual simultaneous localization and mapping,” ACM Trans. Embed. Comput. Syst., vol. 22, no. 1, Oct. 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3561972

    2022 doi

  60. [66]

    Edge computing assisted autonomous flight for UA V: Synergies be- tween vision and communications,

    Q. Chen, H. Zhu, L. Yang, X. Chen, S. Pollin, and E. Vinogradov, “Edge computing assisted autonomous flight for UA V: Synergies be- tween vision and communications,” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 28–33, 2021

    2021

  61. [67]

    Design and implementation of a radioactive source intelligent search robot based on artificial intelligence edge computing,

    P. Wang, Z. Gao, Y . Li, L. Zeng, and H. Zhong, “Design and implementation of a radioactive source intelligent search robot based on artificial intelligence edge computing,” Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing , vol. 2022, 2022

    2022

  62. [68]

    Edge comput- ing based autonomous robot for secured industrial iot,

    U. Palani, R. Sadhana, D. Vasanthi, and S. S. Mahesh, “Edge comput- ing based autonomous robot for secured industrial iot,” in 2022 IEEE International Conference on Data Science and Information System (ICDSIS). IEEE, 2022, pp. 1–6

    2022

  63. [69]

    Collaborative Robot Transport System Based on Edge Computing,

    Z. Fan, W. Chen, G. Zhu, Y . You, F. Deng, Y . Hou, W. Liang, R. Fu, J. Xin, J. Chen, and H. Wang, “Collaborative Robot Transport System Based on Edge Computing,” 9th IEEE International Conference on Cyber Technology in Automation, Control and Intelligent Systems, CYBER 2019, ...

    2019

  64. [70]

    A robot vision navigation method using deep learning in edge computing environment,

    J. Li, J. Yin, and L. Deng, “A robot vision navigation method using deep learning in edge computing environment,” Eurasip Journal on Advances in Signal Processing , vol. 2021, no. 1, 2021

    2021

  65. [71]

    Offloading monocular visual odometry with edge computing: Optimizing image quality in multi-robot systems,

    L. Qingqing, J. P. Queralta, T. N. Gia, and T. Westerlund, “Offloading monocular visual odometry with edge computing: Optimizing image quality in multi-robot systems,” ACM International Conference Pro- ceeding Series, pp. 22–26, 2019

    2019

  66. [72]

    Edge Computing in 5G for Drone Navigation: What to Offload?

    S. Hayat, R. Jung, H. Hellwagner, C. Bettstetter, D. Emini, and D. Schnieders, “Edge Computing in 5G for Drone Navigation: What to Offload?” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 2571–2578, 2021

    2021

  67. [73]

    Edge accelerated robot navigation with collaborative motion planning,

    G. Li, R. Han, S. Wang, F. Gao, Y . C. Eldar, and C. Xu, “Edge accelerated robot navigation with collaborative motion planning,” IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics , 2024

    2024

  68. [74]

    Low Latency Peer to Peer Robot Wireless Communication with Edge Computing,

    C. Asavasirikulkij, C. Mathong, T. Sinthumongkolchai, R. Chan- charoen, and W. Asdomwised, “Low Latency Peer to Peer Robot Wireless Communication with Edge Computing,” 2021 IEEE 11th International Conference on System Engineering and Technology, ICSET 2021 - Proceedings , no. ...

    2021

  69. [76]

    Communication-aware con- sistent edge selection for mobile users and autonomous vehicles,

    N. Tahir, R. Parasuraman, and H. Sun, “Communication-aware con- sistent edge selection for mobile users and autonomous vehicles,” in 2024 IEEE 100th Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC2024-Fall) , 2024, pp. 1–7

    2024

  70. [77]

    Fogros2-ls: A location- independent fog robotics framework for latency sensitive ros2 ap- plications,

    K. Chen, M. Wang, M. Gualtieri, N. Tian, C. Juette, L. Ren, J. Ich- nowski, J. Kubiatowicz, and K. Goldberg, “Fogros2-ls: A location- independent fog robotics framework for latency sensitive ros2 ap- plications,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation...

    2024

  71. [78]

    Edge computing for mobile robots: Multi- robot feature-based lidar odometry with fpgas,

    L. Qingqing, F. Yuhong, J. P. Queralta, T. N. Gia, H. Tenhunen, Z. Zou, and T. Westerlund, “Edge computing for mobile robots: Multi- robot feature-based lidar odometry with fpgas,” in 2019 Twelfth Inter- national Conference on Mobile Computing and Ubiquitous Network (ICMU). IE...

    2019

  72. [79]

    Resource-aware estimation and control for edge robotics: A set-based approach,

    D. Spatharakis, M. Avgeris, N. Athanasopoulos, D. Dechouniotis, and S. Papavassiliou, “Resource-aware estimation and control for edge robotics: A set-based approach,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal , vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 2003–2020, 2022

    2003

  73. [80]

    Efficient Workload Allocation and User-Centric Utility Maximization for Task Scheduling in Collaborative Vehicular Edge Computing,

    X. Huang, R. Yu, D. Ye, L. Shu, and S. Xie, “Efficient Workload Allocation and User-Centric Utility Maximization for Task Scheduling in Collaborative Vehicular Edge Computing,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 70, no. 4, pp. 3773–3787, 2021

    2021

  74. [81]

    Drl-based trajectory planning and sensor task scheduling for edge robotics,

    S. Bouhoula, M. Avgeris, A. Leivadeas, and I. Lambadaris, “Drl-based trajectory planning and sensor task scheduling for edge robotics,” in 2024 IEEE 10th World Forum on Internet of Things (WF-IoT) , 2024, pp. 352–357

    2024

  75. [82]

    Mobility-aware computation offloading for swarm robotics using deep reinforcement learning,

    X. Wang and H. Guo, “Mobility-aware computation offloading for swarm robotics using deep reinforcement learning,” in 2021 IEEE 18th Annual Consumer Communications & Networking Conference (CCNC), 2021, pp. 1–4

    2021

  76. [83]

    Multiuser context-aware computation offloading in mobile edge computing based on bayesian learning automata,

    F. Farahbakhsh, A. Shahidinejad, and M. Ghobaei-Arani, “Multiuser context-aware computation offloading in mobile edge computing based on bayesian learning automata,” Transactions on Emerging Telecommunications Technologies , vol. 32, no. 1, p. e4127, 2021, e4127 ETT-20-0396.R2...

    2021 doi

  77. [84]

    Implementation of big ai models for wireless networks with collaborative edge computing,

    L. Zeng, S. Ye, X. Chen, and Y . Yang, “Implementation of big ai models for wireless networks with collaborative edge computing,” IEEE Wireless Communications, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 50–58, 2024

    2024

  78. [85]

    Security modeling of autonomous systems: A survey,

    F. Jahan, W. Sun, Q. Niyaz, and M. Alam, “Security modeling of autonomous systems: A survey,” ACM Comput. Surv. , vol. 52, no. 5, sep 2019. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3337791

    2019 doi

  79. [86]

    Secure group communication in wireless sensor networks,

    S. Ghosh, R. Patro, M. Raina, C. Thejaswi, and V . Ganapathy, “Secure group communication in wireless sensor networks,” in 2006 1st International Symposium on Wireless Pervasive Computing , 2006, pp. 5 pp.–5

    2006

  80. [88]

    Spatial sampling methods for improved communication for wireless relay robots,

    R. Parasuraman, T. Fabry, K. Kershaw, and M. Ferre, “Spatial sampling methods for improved communication for wireless relay robots,” in 2013 International Conference on Connected Vehicles and Expo (ICCVE). IEEE, 2013, pp. 874–880

    2013

  81. [89]

    Rapid prediction of network quality in mobile robots,

    R. Parasuraman, B.-C. Min, and P. ¨Ogren, “Rapid prediction of network quality in mobile robots,” Ad Hoc Networks , vol. 138, p. 103014, 2023

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.