pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.23553 · v1 · pith:MMGID3V2new · submitted 2026-05-22 · 💻 cs.NI

Sea Trial Validation of the ROS-DESERT Middleware with Autonomous Underwater Vehicles

Davide Cosimo , Davide Costa , Riccardo Costanzi , Filippo Campagnaro , Andrea Caiti , Michele Zorzi This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 02:56 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.NI
keywords autonomous underwater vehiclesunderwater acoustic communicationmiddlewareROSdepth adaptationpacket receptionsea trialslittoral environment
0
0 comments X

The pith

Depth-adaptive repositioning of AUVs improves acoustic packet reception at roughly 1 km horizontal separation.

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

The paper presents a middleware architecture that links robot operating systems to underwater communication frameworks so that AUVs can process environmental data and adjust depth to maintain better acoustic links. A lightweight depth-optimization strategy is built on this architecture and tested in sea trials with three vehicles of different roles in littoral water averaging 100 m depth. The trials show clear gains in packet success at about 1 km range from the adaptive positioning, while gains disappear at shorter ranges where signal strength already exceeds demodulation needs. This matters because it demonstrates that existing AUV fleets can achieve better connectivity through software coordination rather than new hardware.

Core claim

The architecture combines a ROS 2 application layer with the DESERT Underwater framework via the rmw_desert middleware and a ROS 1 bridge for legacy compatibility, enabling cross-layer configurability and onboard environmental processing. When used to run a depth-optimization strategy, sea trials off the Gulf of La Spezia confirm measurable improvements in packet reception at 1 km horizontal separation through adaptive repositioning, with negligible differences at shorter ranges where received signal energy stays above thresholds, while also confirming the architecture's modularity and deployability on existing platforms.

What carries the argument

The rmw_desert middleware that bridges ROS 2 with the DESERT Underwater framework to support environmental-aware adaptive communication behaviors and fine-grained stack configurability.

If this is right

  • Depth-adaptive repositioning extends effective acoustic link range in littoral waters of average 100 m depth.
  • The modular stack supports interoperability between modern ROS 2 applications and legacy ROS 1 vehicle controllers.
  • Fine-grained cross-layer configurability allows communication behaviors to be tuned from the application layer.
  • The approach is practically deployable on heterogeneous existing AUV platforms without hardware modification.
  • Performance gains appear primarily where received signal energy is marginal for demodulation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same middleware pattern could support other adaptive tactics such as transmit power or frequency selection based on real-time measurements.
  • Communication-aware path planning could become a standard layer in multi-AUV mission software.
  • Scaling the system to larger fleets would likely require additional coordination mechanisms beyond pairwise link optimization.

Load-bearing premise

The packet reception differences observed in the trials stem from the depth strategy rather than unmeasured environmental conditions or hardware variations.

What would settle it

Repeat the same sea trials with the depth-optimization strategy disabled and check whether the packet reception advantage at 1 km separation disappears.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.23553 by Andrea Caiti, Davide Cosimo, Davide Costa, Filippo Campagnaro, Michele Zorzi, Riccardo Costanzi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: GUI for the operational management of X300 AUVs. The interface provides tools for mission configuration, real-time monitoring, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Internal architecture of rmw_desert connecting the ROS client library with the DESERT framework through the ROS middleware interface. The underlying channel can be either a simulation or a physical modem. To understand how these features are supported, it is essential to look at the layered architecture of ROS 2, focusing on the central interaction point between the ROS client library (rcl) and the middlew… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Example CBOR encoding of a message containing five values. Each field is highlighted with a different color, marking the dynamic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Structure of the data packet used by rmw_desert depicting in blue the CBOR-encoded fields specific for each payload, and in black all the other standard fields required for a correct decapsulation. 16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: X300 software architecture. The diagram shows the integration of a ROS 2-based autonomy layer with the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Protocol stack used in the trials. The diagram illustrates the layered communication architecture adopted for underwater networking, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Leader AUV used in the experiments, equipped with an Idronaut Ocean Seven 308 CTD probe for in-situ environmental sensing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: SSPs measured on November 19 respectively around 9 am (8a) and 2 pm (8b) in the waters of the Gulf of La Spezia. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Transmission Loss diagram obtained with Bellhop using the afternoon measured SSP. The source, with a center frequency of 26 kHz [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Scenario of interest, with the surface buoy connected with the ship through a Wi-Fi link and equipped with a modem to command [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Event timelines derived from ROS logs for leader and follower AUV during test 4 in Table II, conducted at an initial inter-node [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Boxplots of PER obtained from simulation for baseline (left) and optimized configurations (right) at different inter-node distances [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_12.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

This paper presents a modular software architecture that enables environmental-aware coordination of heterogeneous Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUVs) to improve underwater acoustic connectivity. The architecture combines a Robot Operating System 2 application layer with the DESERT Underwater communication framework through the rmw_desert middleware, and integrates a Robot Operating System 1 bridge to ensure interoperability with legacy vehicle front-seat controllers. This design enables fine-grained, cross-layer configurability of the communication stack and supports onboard processing of environmental measurements to inform adaptive communication behaviors. As a representative use case, this architecture is used to implement a lightweight depth-optimization strategy that exploits environmental awareness and AUV mobility to improve acoustic link performance. The complete software stack is validated through sea trials conducted off the Gulf of La Spezia in littoral water with an average depth of approximately 100m using a deployment involving three AUVs with distinct operational roles. Experimental results indicate that depth-adaptive repositioning yields measurable gains in packet reception at horizontal separation of approximately 1km, while differences are negligible at shorter ranges where the received signal energy remains above demodulation thresholds. Beyond link-level performance the sea trials confirm the feasibility, modularity, and practical deployability of the proposed architecture on existing AUV platforms.

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 / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a modular middleware architecture (rmw_desert) that integrates ROS 2 with the DESERT underwater communication framework and a ROS 1 bridge for legacy AUV interoperability. It implements a lightweight depth-optimization strategy that uses environmental awareness to adapt AUV depth for improved acoustic links, and validates the full stack via sea trials in the Gulf of La Spezia (~100 m littoral water) with three heterogeneous AUVs. The central experimental claim is that depth-adaptive repositioning produces measurable packet-reception gains at ~1 km horizontal range while differences are negligible at shorter ranges.

Significance. If the experimental claims are substantiated with quantitative data and controls, the work would demonstrate a practical, deployable middleware enabling cross-layer environmental-aware behaviors on existing AUV platforms. This addresses a recognized gap between simulation frameworks and operational underwater acoustic systems.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the statement that 'experimental results indicate that depth-adaptive repositioning yields measurable gains in packet reception' supplies no quantitative values, error bars, statistical tests, sample sizes, or exclusion criteria. The central claim of measurable, attributable improvement therefore rests on an unreported dataset whose quality cannot be assessed.
  2. [Experimental validation / sea trials] Sea-trial description: no paired control runs at fixed depth, no repeated trials under statistically comparable conditions, and no hypothesis test on the reception-rate delta are described. Without these, the causal attribution of reception differences at ~1 km to the middleware-enabled depth strategy cannot be isolated from sound-speed profile changes, depth-sensor drift, positioning error, or hardware-specific modem behavior.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments highlighting the need for greater transparency in our experimental claims. We address each point below and commit to revisions that improve the reporting without overstating the results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the statement that 'experimental results indicate that depth-adaptive repositioning yields measurable gains in packet reception' supplies no quantitative values, error bars, statistical tests, sample sizes, or exclusion criteria. The central claim of measurable, attributable improvement therefore rests on an unreported dataset whose quality cannot be assessed.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract should be more specific. In the revised manuscript we will insert the observed packet reception rates (with sample sizes) at the ~1 km range and at shorter ranges, along with any available measures of variability from the trial logs. The underlying dataset consists of the logged transmissions from the three-AUV deployment described in Section IV; we will add a pointer to the results tables and clarify any packet exclusion rules applied during post-processing. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Experimental validation / sea trials] Sea-trial description: no paired control runs at fixed depth, no repeated trials under statistically comparable conditions, and no hypothesis test on the reception-rate delta are described. Without these, the causal attribution of reception differences at ~1 km to the middleware-enabled depth strategy cannot be isolated from sound-speed profile changes, depth-sensor drift, positioning error, or hardware-specific modem behavior.

    Authors: The sea trials were performed as a single integrated field deployment to validate the complete middleware stack under realistic operational constraints rather than as a controlled laboratory-style experiment. Performance was compared across ranges within the same deployment. We accept that this design precludes strong causal isolation and will revise the text to present the 1 km gains as observational evidence of feasibility, explicitly discuss the listed confounding factors, and state that no formal hypothesis testing was performed. These changes will be made in the experimental section and in a new limitations paragraph. revision: partial

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • The original sea trials did not include paired fixed-depth control runs or repeated trials under statistically comparable conditions; these elements cannot be supplied without new experiments.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: experimental sea-trial validation with no derivation or fitted predictions

full rationale

The paper is a report of sea trials validating a middleware stack (ROS-DESERT) for AUV coordination. It presents no mathematical derivation, no first-principles equations, no parameter fitting, and no 'predictions' that reduce to inputs by construction. The central claim (depth-adaptive repositioning improves packet reception at ~1 km) is an empirical observation from trials, not a result derived from self-referential definitions or self-citations. No load-bearing steps match any of the enumerated circularity patterns; the work is self-contained against external benchmarks (actual sea data).

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

This is an engineering systems paper; no free parameters, mathematical axioms, or new postulated entities are introduced.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5762 in / 1165 out tokens · 26221 ms · 2026-05-25T02:56:01.542624+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    W. H. O. Institution,Dalio Explore Fund Annual Report 2019: REMUS 6000 — Video Plankton Recorder, 2019, annual report of the Dalio Explore Fund. Available: https://www.whoi.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Dalio-Explore-Fund-Annual-Report-2019.pdf

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    The autonomous underwater vehicle integrated with the unmanned surface vessel mapping the southern ionian sea. the winning technology solution of the shell ocean discovery xprize,

    K. Zwolaket al., “The autonomous underwater vehicle integrated with the unmanned surface vessel mapping the southern ionian sea. the winning technology solution of the shell ocean discovery xprize,”Remote Sensing, vol. 12, no. 8, 2020, p. 1344, doi: 10.3390/rs12081344

    work page doi:10.3390/rs12081344 2020

  3. [4]

    Lurton,An Introduction to Underwater Acoustics: Principles and Applications, 2nd ed

    X. Lurton,An Introduction to Underwater Acoustics: Principles and Applications, 2nd ed. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2010. Available: https://link.springer.com/book/9783540784807 30

    work page arXiv 2010

  4. [5]

    Underwater acoustic communications,

    M. Stojanovic, “Underwater acoustic communications,” inUnderwater Acoustic Digital Signal Processing and Communication Systems, R. S. H. Istepanian and M. Stojanovic, Eds. Springer, 2002. Available: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-1-4757-3617-5

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-3617-5 2002

  5. [6]

    Adaptive Cooperative Algorithms for AUV Networks,

    A. Caiti and A. Munaf `o, “Adaptive Cooperative Algorithms for AUV Networks,”IEEE International Conference on Communications Workshops, 2010, pp. 1–5, doi: 10.1109/ICCW.2010.5503952

    work page doi:10.1109/iccw.2010.5503952 2010

  6. [7]

    Robot Operating System (ROS) talks underwater: an open-source communication middleware to control underwater vehicles,

    D. Costa, F. Campagnaro, and M. Zorzi, “Robot Operating System (ROS) talks underwater: an open-source communication middleware to control underwater vehicles,”IEEE International Workshop on Metrology for the Sea; Learning to Measure Sea Health Parameters (MetroSea), 2025, pp. 123–127, doi: 10.1109/MetroSea66681.2025.11245708

    work page doi:10.1109/metrosea66681.2025.11245708 2025

  7. [8]

    DESERT Underwater: An NS-Miracle-based framework to design, simulate, emulate and realize test-beds for underwater network protocols,

    R. Masieroet al., “DESERT Underwater: An NS-Miracle-based framework to design, simulate, emulate and realize test-beds for underwater network protocols,”IEEE Oceans - Yeosu, 2012, pp. 1–10, doi: 10.1109/OCEANS-Yeosu.2012.6263524

    work page doi:10.1109/oceans-yeosu.2012.6263524 2012

  8. [9]

    The DESERT Underwater framework v2: Improved capabilities and extension tools,

    F. Campagnaroet al., “The DESERT Underwater framework v2: Improved capabilities and extension tools,” 2016, pp. 1–5, doi: 10.1109/UComms.2016.7583420

    work page doi:10.1109/ucomms.2016.7583420 2016

  9. [10]

    Recent advances in underwater acoustic communications and networking,

    M. Chitre, S. Shahabudeen, L. Freitag and M. Stojanovic, “Recent advances in underwater acoustic communications and networking,” OCEANS, 2008, pp. 1–10, doi: 10.1109/OCEANS.2008.5152045

    work page doi:10.1109/oceans.2008.5152045 2008

  10. [11]

    Underwater Acoustic Communications and Networking: Recent Advances and Future Challenges,

    M. Chitre, S. Shahabudeen and M. Stojanovic, “Underwater Acoustic Communications and Networking: Recent Advances and Future Challenges,”Marine Technology Society Journal, vol. 42, no. 1, March 2008, pp. 103–116, doi: 10.4031/002533208786861263

    work page doi:10.4031/002533208786861263 2008

  11. [12]

    Experimental Demonstrations of CATL, the Collaborative Autonomy Tasking Layer,

    M. W. G. van Riet, J. Alves, G. Arcieri, L. Bazzarello, J. de Sousa Borges, M. Colin, A. Cormack, P. Dias, J. Dinale, G. Ferri, S. Fioravanti, T. Furfaro, M. Guesdon, M. Horstmann, M. Macia ´s, B. Marshall, L. Morlando, A. Munaf `o, V . Newsum, Y . Pailhas, M. Payne, R. Petroccia, S. Spears and A. Tesei, “Experimental Demonstrations of CATL, the Collabora...

    work page doi:10.1109/oceanslimerick52467.2023.10244669 2023

  12. [13]

    Moos middleware and node adaptivity in underwater sensor networks: Results from the UAN11 SEA trial,

    A. Caiti, V . Calabr`o, G. Dini, A. Lo Duca and A. Munaf`o, “Moos middleware and node adaptivity in underwater sensor networks: Results from the UAN11 SEA trial,”Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics, vol. 17, no. 1, Jan. 2012, pp. 1263–1270, doi: 10.1121/1.4772678

    work page doi:10.1121/1.4772678 2012

  13. [14]

    GUWMANET — Multicast routing in Underwater Acoustic Networks,

    M. Goetz and I. Nissen, “GUWMANET — Multicast routing in Underwater Acoustic Networks,” inProceedings of the Military Communications and Information Systems Conference (MCC). IEEE, Jan. 2012, pp. 1–8. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6387908

    work page arXiv 2012

  14. [15]

    Underwater acoustic sensor networks: Research challenges,

    I. F. Akyildiz, D. Pompili, T. Melodia, “Underwater acoustic sensor networks: Research challenges,”Ad Hoc Networks, vol. 3, May 2005, pp. 257–279, doi: 10.1016/j.adhoc.2005.01.004

    work page doi:10.1016/j.adhoc.2005.01.004 2005

  15. [16]

    Cross-Layer Design for Energy-Efficient Reliable Multi-Path Transmission in Event-Driven Wireless Sensor Networks,

    H. Xu and X. Yuan, “Cross-Layer Design for Energy-Efficient Reliable Multi-Path Transmission in Event-Driven Wireless Sensor Networks,”Sensors, vol. 23, no. 14, 2023, p. 6520, doi: 10.3390/s23146520

    work page doi:10.3390/s23146520 2023

  16. [17]

    Advanced autonomy architecture for maritime applications A V A,

    J. Weaver, J. Perkins, and D. Sternlicht, “Advanced autonomy architecture for maritime applications A V A,”OCEANS MTS/IEEE Monterey, 2016, pp. 1–8, doi: 10.1109/OCEANS.2016.7761389

    work page doi:10.1109/oceans.2016.7761389 2016

  17. [18]

    Generic Underwater Application Language (GUW AL),

    I. Nissen and M. Goetz, “Generic Underwater Application Language (GUW AL),” inFinal Demonstration, La Spezia, May 2014, doi: 10.13140/RG.2.1.2480.4081, doi: 10.13140/RG.2.1.2480.4081

    work page doi:10.13140/rg.2.1.2480.4081 2014

  18. [19]

    The dynamic compact control language version 3,

    T. Schneider, S. Petillo, H. Schmidt, and C. Murphy, “The dynamic compact control language version 3,”OCEANS - Genova, 2015, pp. 1–7, doi: 10.1109/OCEANS-Genova.2015.7271608

    work page doi:10.1109/oceans-genova.2015.7271608 2015

  19. [20]

    ROS Message Transport over Underwater Acoustic Links with ros acomms,

    E. Gallimore, D. Giaya, B. Miller-Klugman, C. Fitzgerald, K. Griffen, L. Lindzey and L. Freitag, “ROS Message Transport over Underwater Acoustic Links with ros acomms,”Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE/OES Autonomous Underwater Vehicles Symposium (AUV), 2022, pp. 1–6, doi: 10.1109/AUV53081.2022.9965848

    work page doi:10.1109/auv53081.2022.9965848 2022

  20. [21]

    Communication for underwater sensor networks: A comprehensive summary,

    A. Pal, F. Campagnaro, K. Ashraf, M. Rashed, A. Ashok, and H. Guo, “Communication for underwater sensor networks: A comprehensive summary,”ACM Trans. Sen. Netw., vol. 19, no. 1, Dec. 2022, doi: 10.1145/3546827. 31

    work page doi:10.1145/3546827 2022

  21. [22]

    Internet of underwater things and big marine data analytics — a comprehensive survey,

    M. Jahanbakht, W. Xiang, L. Hanzo, and M. R. Azghadi, “Internet of underwater things and big marine data analytics — a comprehensive survey,”IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 23, no. 2, Apr. 2021, pp. 904–956, doi: 10.1109/COMST.2021.3053118

    work page doi:10.1109/comst.2021.3053118 2021

  22. [23]

    Underwater internet of things in smart ocean: System architecture and open issues,

    T. Qiu, Z. Zhao, T. Zhang, C. Chen, and C. L. P. Chen, “Underwater internet of things in smart ocean: System architecture and open issues,”IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 16, no. 7, Jul. 2020, pp. 4297–4307, doi: 10.1109/TII.2019.2946618

    work page doi:10.1109/tii.2019.2946618 2020

  23. [24]

    The role of hydrostatic pressure on the metal corrosion in simulated deep-sea environments – a review,

    R. Liu, L. Liu, and F. Wang, “The role of hydrostatic pressure on the metal corrosion in simulated deep-sea environments – a review,” Journal of Materials Science & Technology, vol. 112, 2022, pp. 230–238, doi: 10.1016/j.jmst.2021.10.014

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jmst.2021.10.014 2022

  24. [25]

    Progress of material degradation: metals and polymers in deep-sea environments,

    Z. Haoet al., “Progress of material degradation: metals and polymers in deep-sea environments,”Corrosion Reviews, vol. 43, no. 3, Dec. 2024, pp. 315–334, doi: 10.1515/corrrev-2024-0009

    work page doi:10.1515/corrrev-2024-0009 2024

  25. [26]

    Thermal and biofouling effects on underwater wireless power transfer,

    J. Oiler, G. Anderson, V . Bana, A. Phipps, M. Kerber, and J. D. Rockway, “Thermal and biofouling effects on underwater wireless power transfer,” inProceedings of the 2015 IEEE Wireless Power Transfer Conference (WPTC). Boulder, CO, USA: IEEE, May 2015, doi: 10.1109/WPT.2015.7140146, doi: 10.1109/WPT.2015.7140146

    work page doi:10.1109/wpt.2015.7140146 2015

  26. [27]

    Understanding biofouling and contaminant accretion on submerged marine structures,

    P. Vuong, A. McKinley, and P. Kaur, “Understanding biofouling and contaminant accretion on submerged marine structures,”npj Materials Degradation, vol. 7, no. 1, Jun. 2023, p. 50, doi: 10.1038/s41529-023-00370-5

    work page doi:10.1038/s41529-023-00370-5 2023

  27. [28]

    Auv navigation and localization: A review,

    L. Paull, S. Saeedi, M. L. Seto, and H. Li, “Auv navigation and localization: A review,”IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, vol. 39, no. 1, Jan. 2014, pp. 131–149, doi: 10.1109/JOE.2013.2278891

    work page doi:10.1109/joe.2013.2278891 2014

  28. [29]

    A survey on energy efficiency in underwater wireless communications,

    K. Y . Islam, I. Ahmad, D. Habibi, and A. Waqar, “A survey on energy efficiency in underwater wireless communications,”Journal of Network and Computer Applications, vol. 198, Feb. 2022, pp. 103–135, doi: 10.1016/j.jnca.2021.103295

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jnca.2021.103295 2022

  29. [30]

    Underwater acoustic communication channels: Propagation models and statistical characterization,

    M. Stojanovic and J. Preisig, “Underwater acoustic communication channels: Propagation models and statistical characterization,”IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 47, no. 1, Jan. 2009, pp. 84–89, doi: 10.1109/MCOM.2009.4752682

    work page doi:10.1109/mcom.2009.4752682 2009

  30. [31]

    A Review on Practical Considerations and Solutions in Underwater Wireless Optical Communication,

    X. Sunet al., “A Review on Practical Considerations and Solutions in Underwater Wireless Optical Communication,”Journal of Lightwave Technology, vol. 38, no. 2, Jan. 2020, pp. 421–431, doi: 10.1109/JLT.2019.2946606

    work page doi:10.1109/jlt.2019.2946606 2020

  31. [32]

    Experimental Demonstration of High Speed Underwater Visible Light Communications,

    G. Cossuet al., “Experimental Demonstration of High Speed Underwater Visible Light Communications,”2nd International Workshop on Optical Wireless Communications (IWOW), 2013, pp. 11–15, doi: 10.1109/IWOW.2013.6777767

    work page doi:10.1109/iwow.2013.6777767 2013

  32. [33]

    A survey of underwater magnetic induction communications: Fundamental issues, recent advances, and challenges,

    Y . Li, S. Wang, C. Jin, Y . Zhang, and T. Jiang, “A survey of underwater magnetic induction communications: Fundamental issues, recent advances, and challenges,”IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 21, no. 3, 2019, pp. 2466–2488, doi: 10.1109/COMST.2019.2892810

    work page doi:10.1109/comst.2019.2892810 2019

  33. [34]

    Underwater communication technologies: a review,

    T. Theocharidis and E. Kavallieratou, “Underwater communication technologies: a review,”Telecommunication Systems, vol. 88, 2025, p. 54, doi: 10.1007/s11235-025-01279-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s11235-025-01279-x 2025

  34. [35]

    Underwater Wireless Sensor Networks: A Survey,

    I. F. Akyildiz, T. Melodia and K. R. Chowdhury, “Underwater Wireless Sensor Networks: A Survey,”Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing, Jan. 2019, pp. 1–20, doi: 10.1155/2019/6470359

    work page doi:10.1155/2019/6470359 2019

  35. [36]

    Underwater and air-water wireless commu- nication: State-of-the-art, channel characteristics, security, and open problems,

    W. Aman, S. Al-Kuwari, A. Kumar, M. M. U. Rahman, and M. Muzzammil, “Underwater and air-water wireless commu- nication: State-of-the-art, channel characteristics, security, and open problems,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.02667, 2022, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.02667

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.02667 2022

  36. [37]

    F `olaga: A low-cost autonomous underwater vehicle combining glider and AUV capabilities,

    A. Alvarezet al., “F `olaga: A low-cost autonomous underwater vehicle combining glider and AUV capabilities,”Ocean Engineering, vol. 36, no. 1, 2009, pp. 24–38, doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2008.08.014

    work page doi:10.1016/j.oceaneng.2008.08.014 2009

  37. [38]

    The hybrid glider/AUV FOLAGA,

    A. Caffaz, A. Caiti, G. Casalino, and A. Turetta, “The hybrid glider/AUV FOLAGA,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine, vol. 17, no. 1, 2010, pp. 31–44, doi: 10.1109/MRA.2010.935791

    work page doi:10.1109/mra.2010.935791 2010

  38. [39]

    Mobile underwater sensor networks for protection and security: field experience at the UAN11 experiment,

    A. Caiti, V . Calabr `o, G. Dini, A. Lo Duca, and A. Munaf `o, “Mobile underwater sensor networks for protection and security: field experience at the UAN11 experiment,”Journal of Filed Robotics, vol. vol. 30, Mar. 2013, pp. 237 – 253, doi: 10.1002/rob.21447. 32

    work page doi:10.1002/rob.21447 2013

  39. [40]

    Exploiting mobility to improve underwater sensor networks,

    R. W. L. Coutinho and A. Boukerche, “Exploiting mobility to improve underwater sensor networks,”16th ACM International Symposium on Mobility Management and Wireless Access (MobiWac’18), 2018, pp. 89–94, doi: 10.1145/3265863.3268073

    work page doi:10.1145/3265863.3268073 2018

  40. [41]

    Movement assisted-topology control and geographic routing protocol for underwater sensor networks,

    R. W. L. Coutinho, L. F. M. Vieira, and A. A. F. Loureiro, “Movement assisted-topology control and geographic routing protocol for underwater sensor networks,”Proceedings of the 16th ACM International Conference on Modeling, Analysis and Simulation of Wireless and Mobile Systems, 2013, pp. 189–196, doi: 10.1145/2507924.2507956

    work page doi:10.1145/2507924.2507956 2013

  41. [42]

    A Probabilistic and Highly Efficient Topology Control Algorithm for Underwater Cooperating AUV Networks,

    N. Li, B. C ¨ur¨ukl¨u, J. Bastos, V . Sucasas, J. A. S. Fernandez, and J. Rodriguez, “A Probabilistic and Highly Efficient Topology Control Algorithm for Underwater Cooperating AUV Networks,”Sensors, vol. 17, no. 5, 2017, p. 1022, doi: 10.3390/s17051022

    work page doi:10.3390/s17051022 2017

  42. [43]

    AUV-aided computing offloading for multi-tier underwater computing: A Stackelberg game learning approach,

    H. Chen, W. Cai, and M. Zhang, “AUV-aided computing offloading for multi-tier underwater computing: A Stackelberg game learning approach,”Ocean Engineering, vol. 297, 2024, pp. 109–117, doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2024.117109

    work page doi:10.1016/j.oceaneng.2024.117109 2024

  43. [44]

    Multiple-UUV approach for enhancing connectivity in underwater ad-hoc sensor networks,

    W. K. G. Seah, H. Tan, Z. Liu, and M. H. Ang, “Multiple-UUV approach for enhancing connectivity in underwater ad-hoc sensor networks,” inProceedings of OCEANS MTS/IEEE. IEEE, 2005, pp. 2263–2268, doi: 10.1109/OCEANS.2005.1640102

    work page doi:10.1109/oceans.2005.1640102 2005

  44. [45]

    Underwater Acoustic Sensors Data Collection in the Robotic Vessels as-a-Service Project,

    A. Signori, F. Campagnaro, D. Zordan, F. Favaro and M. Zorzi, “Underwater Acoustic Sensors Data Collection in the Robotic Vessels as-a-Service Project,” inProceedings of OCEANS Marseille. IEEE, 2019, pp. 1–9, doi: 10.1109/OCEANSE.2019.8867100

    work page doi:10.1109/oceanse.2019.8867100 2019

  45. [46]

    Cooperative Position Aware Mobility Pattern of AUVs for Avoiding V oid Zones in Underwater WSNs,

    N. Javaidet al., “Cooperative Position Aware Mobility Pattern of AUVs for Avoiding V oid Zones in Underwater WSNs,”Sensors, vol. 17, no. 3, 2017, p. 580, doi: 10.3390/s17030580

    work page doi:10.3390/s17030580 2017

  46. [47]

    Adaptive Scheduling MAC Protocol in Underwater Acoustic Broadcast Communications for AUV Formation,

    M. Liuet al., “Adaptive Scheduling MAC Protocol in Underwater Acoustic Broadcast Communications for AUV Formation,”IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 10, no. 8, 2023, pp. 6887–6901, doi: 10.1109/JIOT.2022.3227265

    work page doi:10.1109/jiot.2022.3227265 2023

  47. [48]

    A Load-adaptive CSMA/CA MAC Protocol for Mobile Underwater Acoustic Sensor Networks,

    Y . Zhang, H. Chen, and W. Xu, “A Load-adaptive CSMA/CA MAC Protocol for Mobile Underwater Acoustic Sensor Networks,” in Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Wireless Communications and Signal Processing (WCSP). IEEE, 2018, pp. 1–7, doi: 10.1109/WCSP.2018.8555631

    work page doi:10.1109/wcsp.2018.8555631 2018

  48. [49]

    Model-based adaptive behavior framework for optimal acoustic communication and sensing by marine robots,

    T. Schneider and H. Schmidt, “Model-based adaptive behavior framework for optimal acoustic communication and sensing by marine robots,”IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, vol. 38, no. 3, 2013, pp. 522–533, doi: 10.1109/JOE.2012.2232492

    work page doi:10.1109/joe.2012.2232492 2013

  49. [50]

    Autonomy for unmanned marine vehicles with MOOS-IvP,

    M. R. Benjamin, H. Schmidt, P. M. Newman, and J. J. Leonard, “Autonomy for unmanned marine vehicles with MOOS-IvP,”Marine Robot Autonomy, 11 2013, pp. 47–90, doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-5659-9-2

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-5659-9-2 2013

  50. [51]

    Finite-element ray tracing,

    M. Porter and Y . Liu, “Finite-element ray tracing,” inProceedings of the International Conference on Theoretical and Computational Acoustics, vol. 2, 1992, pp. 947–956. Available: https://digitalcommons.njit.edu/theses/1783

    work page 1992

  51. [52]

    The bellhop manual and user’s guide: Preliminary draft,

    M. Porter and B. Michael, “The bellhop manual and user’s guide: Preliminary draft,”Heat, Light, and Sound Research, Inc., La Jolla, CA, USA, Tech. Rep, vol. 260, 2011. Available: http://oalib.hlsresearch.com/Rays/HLS-2010-1.pdf

    work page 2011

  52. [53]

    The KRAKEN normal mode program,

    M. B. Porter, “The KRAKEN normal mode program,” SACLANT Undersea Research Centre, La Spezia, Italy, Tech. Rep., May

    work page

  53. [54]

    Available: http://oalib.hlsresearch.com/Modes/kraken.pdf

    work page

  54. [55]

    Improving Underwater Acoustic Network Performance with AUV Swarm Mobility and Environmental Awareness,

    D. Cosimoet al., “Improving Underwater Acoustic Network Performance with AUV Swarm Mobility and Environmental Awareness,” inProceedings of OCEANS 2025 Brest. IEEE, 2025, pp. 1–8, doi: 10.1109/OCEANS58557.2025.11104779

    work page doi:10.1109/oceans58557.2025.11104779 2025

  55. [56]

    World ocean simulation system (WOSS): a simulation tool for underwater networks with realistic propagation modeling

    F. Guerra, P. Casari, and M. Zorzi, “World ocean simulation system (WOSS): a simulation tool for underwater networks with realistic propagation modeling.”Proceedings of the 4th ACM International Workshop on Underwater Networks, 2009, doi: 10.1145/1654130.1654134

    work page doi:10.1145/1654130.1654134 2009

  56. [57]

    Open-source suites for the underwater networking community: WOSS and DESERT Underwater,

    P. Casariet al., “Open-source suites for the underwater networking community: WOSS and DESERT Underwater,”IEEE Network, special issue on “Open Source for Networking: Development and Experimentation”, vol. 28, no. 5, Oct. 2014, pp. 38–46, doi: 10.1109/MNET.2014.6915438

    work page doi:10.1109/mnet.2014.6915438 2014

  57. [58]

    Software engineering research on the robot operating system: A systematic mapping study,

    M. Albonico, M. Dordevi ´c, E. Hamer, and I. Malavolta, “Software engineering research on the robot operating system: A systematic mapping study,”Journal of Systems and Software, vol. 197, 2023, pp. 111–139, doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2022.111574. 33

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jss.2022.111574 2023

  58. [59]

    Science Robotics7(66), 6074 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.abm6074

    S. Macenski, T. Foote, B. Gerkey, C. Lalancette, and W. Woodall, “Robot operating system 2: Design, architecture, and uses in the wild,”Science Robotics, vol. 7, no. 66, 2022, pp. 60–74, doi: 10.1126/scirobotics.abm6074

    work page doi:10.1126/scirobotics.abm6074 2022

  59. [60]

    Testing network protocols via the desert underwater framework: The commsnet’13 experience,

    G. Toso, I. Calabrese, F. Favaro, L. Brolo, P. Casari, and M. Zorzi, “Testing network protocols via the desert underwater framework: The commsnet’13 experience,” inIEEE Oceans - St. John’s, Sep. 2014, pp. 1–8, doi: 10.1109/OCEANS.2014.7003105

    work page doi:10.1109/oceans.2014.7003105 2014

  60. [61]

    System Architecture and Communication Infrastructure for the RoboVaaS Project,

    E. Coccoloet al., “System Architecture and Communication Infrastructure for the RoboVaaS Project,”IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, vol. 48, no. 3, 2023, pp. 716–739, doi: 10.1109/JOE.2023.3234710

    work page doi:10.1109/joe.2023.3234710 2023

  61. [62]

    Graaltech official website,

    GraalTech, “Graaltech official website,” https://www.graaltech.com/it/, accessed: 29 August 2025

    work page 2025

  62. [63]

    The Backseat Control Architecture for Autonomous Robotic Vehicles: A Case Study with the Iver2 AUV,

    D. P. Eickstedt and S. R. Sideleau, “The Backseat Control Architecture for Autonomous Robotic Vehicles: A Case Study with the Iver2 AUV,”Marine Technology Society Journal, vol. 44, no. 4, 2010, pp. 42–54, doi: 10.4031/MTSJ.44.4.1

    work page doi:10.4031/mtsj.44.4.1 2010

  63. [64]

    Adaptable underwater networks: The relation between autonomy and communications,

    A. Hamiltonet al., “Adaptable underwater networks: The relation between autonomy and communications,”Remote sensing, vol. 12, no. 20, Oct. 2020, p. 3290, doi: 10.3390/rs12203290

    work page doi:10.3390/rs12203290 2020

  64. [65]

    Ros.org — powering the world’s robots

    Open Robotics, “Ros.org — powering the world’s robots.” Available: https://www.ros.org

    work page

  65. [66]

    RFC 8949: Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR),

    C. Bormann and P. Hoffman, “RFC 8949: Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR),” USA, 2020. Available: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8949

    work page 2020

  66. [67]

    R. J. Urick,Principles of Underwater Sound. Peninsula Publishing, 1983. Available: https://books.google.it/books?id= MBBgQgAACAAJ

    work page 1983

  67. [68]

    Part A - Alphanumeric Codes,

    World Meteorological Organization, “Part A - Alphanumeric Codes,” inManual on Codes - International Codes. Volume I.1, Annex II to the WMO Technical Regulations. Geneva, Switzerland: World Meteorological Organization, 2019, no. WMO-No. 306, table 3700 (Sea State code) on p. A-326. Available: https://codes.wmo.int/codeform/3700

    work page 2019

  68. [69]

    A shadow zone aware routing protocol for acoustic underwater sensor networks,

    S. T. Nguyen, E. Cayirci, L. Yan, and C. Rong, “A shadow zone aware routing protocol for acoustic underwater sensor networks,” IEEE Communications Letters, vol. 13, no. 5, May 2009, doi: 10.1109/LCOMM.2009.090278. 34

    work page doi:10.1109/lcomm.2009.090278 2009