Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 45 references

A systematic review of 22 studies finds that autonomous robotics solutions only partially meet Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, with explicit transparency in 40% of cases and failure intervention in 30%.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

A PRISMA review claims robotics research only partially meets EU AI Act requirements, with big gaps in transparency, human oversight, and traceability.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection The 40%/30% compliance figures in this review are unauditable: the 22 studies are never listed, the PRISMA counts are inconsistent (243 vs 365), and the reference list contains placeholder authors and an auto-generated instruction. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2509.05380 v1 pith:RHLDICE5 submitted 2025-09-04 cs.CY cs.AIcs.CRcs.RO

Cumplimiento del Reglamento (UE) 2024/1689 en rob\'otica y sistemas aut\'onomos: una revisi\'on sistem\'atica de la literatura

Yoana Pita Lorenzo This is my paper
classification cs.CY cs.AIcs.CRcs.RO
keywords EU AI Actautonomous roboticscybersecurity frameworkssystematic literature reviewtransparencyhuman oversighttraceabilityrisk management
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 paper tries to establish how far today's autonomous robotics systems actually meet the EU's Artificial Intelligence Act, Regulation (EU) 2024/1689. By systematically reviewing 243 candidate records and selecting 22 primary studies, it finds only partial compliance: advances in risk management and encrypted communications, but persistent gaps in explainability, real-time human oversight, and traceability of knowledge bases. The headline numbers are that 40% of the reviewed solutions explicitly address transparency requirements and 30% implement failure-intervention mechanisms. The paper concludes that future frameworks need to integrate risk, supervision, and continuous auditing as a modular whole rather than as add-ons.

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is a quantified compliance gap between what the EU AI Act requires of high-risk autonomous robots and what current security frameworks and tools actually deliver. After screening 243 records down to 22 primary studies, the paper reports that risk management and encrypted communications are comparatively well covered, while explainability modules, real-time human oversight, and traceability of the robot's knowledge base are the weakest areas. Only about 40% of the reviewed solutions explicitly address transparency and explainability, and only about 30% enable mechanisms to intervene when failures occur. The paper argues that existing frameworks such

What carries the argument

The paper's central device is a structured literature-review protocol that filters an initial pool of records into 22 primary studies, then classifies each study along three axes: methodology (qualitative vs quantitative), technology (explainable AI, cybersecurity, or active human supervision), and approach (normative frameworks, practical implementations, hybrid models). The classification, expressed as percentages, is what turns the review into a compliance measurement: it maps the selected tools onto the regulation's requirements for risk management, transparency, human oversight, and traceability, and the uncovered categories become the claimed gaps.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 22 selected studies can be reliably mapped to the regulation's requirements even when a paper only 'extrapolably' mentions the AI Act; if that mapping is wrong, the 40% and 30% figures lose their meaning.

What would settle it

Test the coding: have two independent reviewers classify the same 22 studies against explicit transparency and intervention criteria. If the inter-reviewer agreement is low, or if re-running the stated search across the same databases recovers a different set of studies, the reported compliance percentages would not survive.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the percentages are representative, most current robotics security frameworks would fail an AI Act conformity assessment on transparency and intervention.
  • Tool builders face a concrete missing market: explainability modules that trace decisions from subsymbolic models, and real-time operator interfaces integrated with human-robot interaction, are largely absent in ROS/ROS 2 ecosystems.
  • Regulators should expect a wave of high-risk robotics deployments that are secure at the communication layer but non-compliant at the governance layer, unless traceability and audit tooling mature.
  • The review implies that hardening the robot is necessary but insufficient; compliance requires connecting security logs with mission performance and AI decision traces across the robot's lifecycle.
  • The reported gaps point to a research agenda focused on protecting symbolic and subsymbolic knowledge bases and on building continuous-audit pipelines that correlate security incidents with robotic failures.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not list the 22 selected studies or show the coding that produced its percentages, so the quantitative claims are not yet independently checkable; publishing the study list and a coding table is the natural next step.
  • A testable extension: define a machine-readable checklist from the AI Act's high-risk requirements and score the same corpus; if the 40% figure is stable, it becomes a usable baseline for tracking improvement over time.
  • If the regulation's transition periods end before tooling closes these gaps, compliance may become a procurement bottleneck rather than a purely technical one, pushing robotics vendors toward modular audit-ready architectures.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents itself as a PRISMA-based systematic literature review of compliance with Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 in autonomous robotics and cybersecurity. The abstract reports that 22 studies were selected from 243 initial records and that 40% of the reviewed solutions explicitly address transparency requirements, 30% implement failure-intervention mechanisms, and gaps remain in explainability, real-time human oversight, and knowledge-base traceability. Section II describes inclusion/exclusion criteria, keyword searches, and percentage breakdowns by methodology and technology. The conclusions repeat the 40% and 30% figures and recommend modular compliance approaches. The central quantitative claim is therefore the claimed partial compliance rates derived from the selected corpus.

Significance. A reliable systematic review of AI Act compliance in autonomous robotics would be timely and useful for researchers and practitioners. The topic is relevant, and the paper’s stated aim—synthesizing cybersecurity frameworks against the EU AI Act—addresses a real gap. However, the manuscript as submitted does not provide auditable support for its main findings. The included-study list is never shown, the PRISMA flow diagram is referenced but absent, the initial record count is inconsistent (243 vs. 365), and the bibliography contains placeholder and fabricated entries. Because the headline percentages are computed from an undisclosed and possibly unstable corpus, the paper’s central contribution cannot be verified or recomputed. No reproducible data, coding matrix, inter-rater agreement measures, or PRISMA checklist are provided. These are not cosmetic issues; they undermine the paper’s only substantive quantitative claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and §II.A] The initial record count is inconsistent: the abstract states 243 records were retrieved, while §II.A states 'De un total de 365 registros iniciales'. This discrepancy affects the reported screening outcome and makes the PRISMA flow unreproducible. The PRISMA flow diagram is listed as 'Fig. 1' but no diagram is actually present in the text, so the reader cannot trace the 22 included studies through screening, eligibility, and quality assessment.
  2. [§II.A–§II.C and Conclusions] The headline findings—40% transparency, 30% failure intervention, and the methodology/technology percentages in Figures 2 and 3—are computed from 22 studies that are never enumerated. No table lists the included studies, no extraction matrix maps each study to specific AI Act requirements, and no coding rubric or inter-rater reliability measure is provided. The inclusion criterion 'referencia explícita (o extrapolable) a los requisitos de la Ley UE 2024/1689' is vague enough to admit nearly any robotics security paper. Without the corpus and coding rules, every reported percentage is unauditable and the central conclusion of 'partial compliance' is unsupported.
  3. [References [4], [5], [6], [24], [28]–[29], [38]] The reference list contains multiple placeholder or non-existent entries. [4] lists 'A. Alcance' as an author (the Spanish word for 'scope'), [5] lists 'J. Doe and R. Roe', and [6] repeats the title of [5] with different authors and venue. [24] lists 'Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity' as an author, [38] cites a nonexistent 'Ph.D. dissertation, OW ASP', and [28]–[29] invent a proceedings with different author sets and an implausible DOI pattern. After [9], the text 'Aquí tienes algunas referencias adicionales...' is left in the bibliography. These entries mean the literature base itself is not trustworthy, so the review's synthesis cannot be built on it.
  4. [§III.A–§III.B] The discussion claims that 'alrededor del 40%' of analyzed studies address transparency and that the reviewed frameworks fall short on explainability, supervision, and traceability. These conclusions are presented as if they follow directly from the selected studies, but the preceding sections never establish which frameworks correspond to which percentage. The discussion also shifts between citing named tools (RSF, SROS2, Wazuh, SealFSv2) and the unverifiable aggregate percentages, without showing that those tools were among the 22 included studies. This creates a circularity concern: the qualitative discussion may be based on general knowledge rather than on the systematic corpus, making the quantitative result non-independent.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical errors and awkward phrasings, e.g., 'estas preguntas fueron a base' in §I.B and 'Con esta base se avaluará' in §I.C. A careful language edit is needed.
  2. [Figures] Figure 1 is only a caption; no PRISMA diagram is rendered. Figures 2 and 3 are referenced in the text but contain no visible graphical data, only the percentages already stated in the prose.
  3. [References] Several references are duplicated: [14] and [19] are the same RSF arXiv preprint, and [25] and [33] are the same article with different volume/pagination. Reference [9] is a self-citation to the author's own prior arXiv paper; while not improper per se, it should be disclosed and its relation to the present review clarified.
  4. [§II.A] The stated search period is January 2018–March 2025, yet Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 was only adopted in 2024. The paper does not explain how eligibility for 'reference (or extrapolable) to EU 2024/1689' was applied to studies published before the regulation existed. This needs methodological clarification.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the review's percentages are descriptive coding counts, not predictions derived from fitted inputs or from the author's prior theorems.

full rationale

The paper is a systematic literature review; its headline percentages (40% transparency, 30% intervention) are summary statistics of the author's manual classification of a selected corpus. No equation or derivation is used, and no parameter is fitted to data and then renamed as a prediction. The inclusion criterion 'Referencia explícita (o extrapolable) a los requisitos de la Ley UE 2024/1689' (Section II.A) and the PICO outcome 'grado de cobertura de requisitos normativos' (Section I.B) define the object of measurement, but the reported percentages are not entailed by those definitions: a study can reference the AI Act without explicitly addressing transparency or intervention mechanisms. The only self-citation, reference [9] (Rodríguez Lera, Pita Lorenzo et al.), does not appear in the body text and is not used to justify any load-bearing step; it is therefore not a circularity. The manuscript has serious auditability and integrity problems — no list of the 22 included studies, PRISMA Figure 1 absent, inconsistent initial counts (243 in abstract vs. 365 in Section II.A), and malformed references such as [4] 'A. Alcance' and [5] 'J. Doe and R. Roe' — but those concern reproducibility and evidential support, not circularity. Under the hard rule that circularity must be exhibited as a specific reduction or fitted-input-renamed-as-prediction, no such step can be identified, so the appropriate score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

The review rests on assumptions about the completeness of the search, the validity of the subjective coding to the AI Act, and the comparability of the hidden study set. No free parameters or new entities are introduced because this is a literature review, not a quantitative model.

axioms (3)
  • domain assumption The PRISMA protocol, as implicitly implemented, yields an unbiased sample of the literature.
    The review claims to follow PRISMA (Section II) but does not provide the flow diagram or screening details, so the claimed representativeness is an unverified assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper It is legitimate to extrapolate papers about general robot security to AI Act requirements.
    Inclusion criterion in Section II.A allows papers with only 'extrapolable' reference to the regulation, which is a subjective mapping that is never explained or validated.
  • domain assumption The 22 selected studies are sufficiently homogeneous and comparable to support percentage aggregations.
    The paper aggregates diverse studies into percentages without showing the distribution of study types, quality, or AI Act relevance, making the aggregation an unsupported assumption.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cumplimiento del Reglamento (UE) 2024/1689 en rob\'otica y sistemas aut\'onomos: una revisi\'on sistem\'atica de la literatura." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RHLDICE5

@misc{pith2026250905380,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cumplimiento del Reglamento (UE) 2024/1689 en rob\'otica y sistemas aut\'onomos: una revisi\'on sistem\'atica de la literatura},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RHLDICE5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.05380}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

This systematic literature review analyzes the current state of compliance with Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 in autonomous robotic systems, focusing on cybersecurity frameworks and methodologies. Using the PRISMA protocol, 22 studies were selected from 243 initial records across IEEE Xplore, ACM DL, Scopus, and Web of Science. Findings reveal partial regulatory alignment: while progress has been made in risk management and encrypted communications, significant gaps persist in explainability modules, real-time human oversight, and knowledge base traceability. Only 40% of reviewed solutions explicitly address transparency requirements, and 30% implement failure intervention mechanisms. The study concludes that modular approaches integrating risk, supervision, and continuous auditing are essential to meet the AI Act mandates in autonomous robotics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.05380 by Yoana Pita Lorenzo.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Diagrama PRISMA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Clasificacion de los Estudios Seleccionados Porcentaje ´ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Clasificacion de las tecnolog ´ ´ıas utilizadas Porcentaje D. Clasificacion por Enfoques Utilizados ´ • Basados en marcos normativos: Muchos de los estudios siguieron un enfoque normativo, alineando sus propues￾tas o evaluaciones con estandares reconocidos, como el ´ Robot Security Framework (RSF), la ISO/IEC 27001, o las recomendaciones de NIST. • Enfoques orientados a la implementacion pr ´ actica ´ : Ot… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages · 7 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Desarrollo de estados de la cuesti ´on robustos: Re- visiones Sistem´aticas de Literatura,

    F. J. Garc ´ıa-Pe˜nalvo, “Desarrollo de estados de la cuesti ´on robustos: Re- visiones Sistem´aticas de Literatura,” Education in the Knowledge Society (EKS), vol. 23, e28600, 2022. https://doi.org/10.14201/eks.28600

    work page doi:10.14201/eks.28600 2022

  2. [2]

    Guidelines for performing Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering. Version 2.3,

    B. Kitchenham and S. Charters, “Guidelines for performing Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering. Version 2.3,” School of Computer Science and Mathematics, Keele University Technical Report EBSE-2007-01, 2007. Disponible en: https://goo.gl/L1VHcw

    work page 2007

  3. [3]

    Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement,

    D. Moher, A. Liberati, J. Tetzlaff, and D. G. Altman; PRISMA Group, “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement,” PLoS Med., vol. 6, no. 7, p. e1000097, 2009

    work page 2009

  4. [4]

    Security and Privacy in Fog Robotics: A Systematic Literature Review,

    A. Alcance, E. Nurse, and J. Smith, “Security and Privacy in Fog Robotics: A Systematic Literature Review,” Journal of Fog Security , 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Secure AI for Autonomous Robots: A Systematic Review of Frameworks and Tools,

    J. Doe and R. Roe, “Secure AI for Autonomous Robots: A Systematic Review of Frameworks and Tools,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.01234, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Secure AI for Autonomous Robots: A Systematic Review of Frameworks and Tools,

    W. Li, R. Singh, and M. Torres, “Secure AI for Autonomous Robots: A Systematic Review of Frameworks and Tools,” Robotics and Au- tonomous Systems, vol. 78, pp. 201–229, 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    When LLMs Meet Cybersecurity: A Systematic Literature Review,

    M. Zhou, C. Fern ´andez, and Y . Nakamura, “When LLMs Meet Cybersecurity: A Systematic Literature Review,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.03644, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Artificial Neural Network for Cybersecurity: A Comprehensive Review

    P. Podder, S. Bharati, M. R. H. Mondal, P. K. Paul, and U. Kose, “Secure Collaboration in Multi-Agent Robotic Systems: A Review,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.01185 , 2021

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  9. [9]

    Aportes para el cumplimiento del Reglamento (UE) 2024/1689 en rob\'otica y sistemas aut\'onomos

    F. J. Rodr ´ıguez Lera, Y . Pita Lorenzo, D. Sobr´ın Hidalgo, L. Fern ´andez Becerra, I. Gonz´alez Fern´andez, and J. M. Guerrero Hern´andez, “Aportes para el cumplimiento del Reglamento (UE) 2024/1689 en rob ´otica y sistemas aut ´onomos,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.17730, Mar. 2025. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2503.17730 Aqu´ı tienes algunas referenci...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.17730 2024

  10. [10]

    Cyber Security of Robots: a Comprehensive Survey,

    A. Botta, S. Rotbei, S. Zinno, and G. Ventre, “Cyber Security of Robots: a Comprehensive Survey,” Intelligent Systems with Applications, vol. 18, p. 200237, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswa.2023.200237

    work page arXiv 2023

  11. [11]

    Cybersecurity of Robotic Systems: Leading Challenges and Robotic System Design Methodology,

    V . Dutta and T. Zieli ´nska, “Cybersecurity of Robotic Systems: Leading Challenges and Robotic System Design Methodology,” Electronics, vol. 10, no. 22, p. 2850, 2021. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics10222850

    work page doi:10.3390/electronics10222850 2021

  12. [12]

    Cybersecurity in Robotics: Challenges, Quantitative Modeling, and Practice

    Q. Zhu, S. Rass, B. Dieber, and V . Mayoral Vilches, “Cybersecurity in Robotics: Challenges, Quantitative Modeling, and Practice,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.05789, 2021

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  13. [13]

    Security Considerations in AI-Robotics: A Survey of Current Methods, Challenges, and Opportunities

    S. Neupane, S. Mitra, I.A. Fernandez, S. Saha, S. Mittal, J. Chen, N. Pillai, and S. Rahimi, “Security Considerations in AI-Robotics: A Survey of Current Methods, Challenges, and Opportunities,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.08565, 2023

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  14. [15]

    On the Cyber-Physical Security of Commercial Indoor Delivery Robot Systems

    F. Alshammari, Y . Luo, and Q. Chen, “On the Cyber-Physical Secu- rity of Commercial Indoor Delivery Robot Systems,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.10699, 2024

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  15. [16]

    A Systematic Review on Security Aspects of Fog Computing Environment: Challenges, Solutions and Future Directions,

    N. Kaur, “A Systematic Review on Security Aspects of Fog Computing Environment: Challenges, Solutions and Future Directions,” Computer Science Review, p. 100688, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosrev.2024. 100688

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cosrev.2024 2024

  16. [17]

    A Survey on Security Issues and Attacks of Fog Computing,

    R. Qureshi, M. Asad, S. Siraj Qureshi, and A. Ghulam, “A Survey on Security Issues and Attacks of Fog Computing,” VFAST Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 1309, 2021. https://doi.org/ 10.21015/vtse.v11i1.1309

    work page doi:10.21015/vtse.v11i1.1309 2021

  17. [18]

    Security Assessment and Hardening of Fog Computing Systems

    C. Cesarano, “Security Assessment and Hardening of Fog Computing Systems,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.12707, 2023

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  18. [19]

    Introducing the Robot Security Framework (RSF), a standardized methodology to perform security assessments in robotics

    V . Mayoral Vilches et al., “Introducing the Robot Security Framework (RSF), a standardized methodology to perform security assessments in robotics,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.04042, 2018. https://arxiv.org/abs/ 1806.04042

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  19. [20]

    Robot Security Framework (RSF),

    Alias Robotics, “Robot Security Framework (RSF),” GitHub repository,

    work page

  20. [21]

    Hacia una propuesta de metodolog ´ıa para el desarrollo de proyectos de IA confi- ables,

    C. M. Braga, M. A. Serrano, and E. Fern ´andez Medina, “Hacia una propuesta de metodolog ´ıa para el desarrollo de proyectos de IA confi- ables,” Jornadas Nacionales de Investigaci´on en Ciberseguridad (JNIC), pp. 270–277, 2024

    work page 2024

  21. [22]

    Framework for Analyzing the Security of Robot Control Systems,

    E. Basan, A. Gritsynin, and T. Avdeenko, “Framework for Analyzing the Security of Robot Control Systems,” in 2019 International Confer- ence on Information Systems and Computer Science (INCISCOS) , pp. 354–360, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1109/INCISCOS49368.2019.00062

    work page arXiv 2019

  22. [23]

    Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cyber- security, Version 1.0,

    A. Sedgewick, “Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cyber- security, Version 1.0,” NIST Tech. Rep. NIST.CSWP.02122014, 2014. http://nist.gov/cyberframework/

    work page 2014

  23. [24]

    Framework for improving critical infrastructure cybersecurity,

    Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity, “Framework for improving critical infrastructure cybersecurity,” NIST Cybersecurity White Paper , vol. 4162018, no. 7, 2018. https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/CSWP/NIST. CSWP

    work page 2018

  24. [26]

    llama ros: Integration of LLaMA with ROS,

    M. Gonz ´alez et al. , “llama ros: Integration of LLaMA with ROS,” GitHub repository, 2024. https://github.com/mgonzs13/llama ros

    work page 2024

  25. [27]

    whisper ros,

    M. A. Gonz ´alez-Santamarta, “whisper ros,” GitHub repository, 2023. https://github.com/mgonzs13/whisper ros

    work page 2023

  26. [28]

    Advancements in AI Integration for Autonomous Systems,

    A. Smith, B. Johnson, y C. Lee, “Advancements in AI Integration for Autonomous Systems,” en Proceedings of the 2024 International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Communication Technology (ICAICT), 2024, pp. 123–130. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICAICT.2024. 10470832

    work page doi:10.1109/icaict.2024 2024

  27. [29]

    The Use of AI and Its Legal Boundaries in the EU,

    D. Mart ´ınez y E. Garc ´ıa, “The Use of AI and Its Legal Boundaries in the EU,” en Proceedings of the 2024 International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Communication Technology (ICAICT) , 2024, pp. 210–217. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICAICT.2024.10435342

    work page arXiv 2024

  28. [30]

    Trustworthiness Assurance Assessment for High-Risk AI-Based Systems,

    F. L ´opez, G. Hern ´andez, y H. Wang, “Trustworthiness Assurance Assessment for High-Risk AI-Based Systems,” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering , vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 456–469, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2024.10430152

    work page arXiv 2025

  29. [31]

    Towards a User-centred Security Framework for Social Robots in Public Spaces,

    M. Birk, K. F. MacDorman, y P. H. Kahn, “Towards a User-centred Security Framework for Social Robots in Public Spaces,” ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 1–9, 2023. https://dl.acm.org/ doi/10.1145/3593434.3593446

    arXiv 2023

  30. [32]

    Security framework for industrial collaborative robotic cyber-physical systems,

    A. Khalid, P. Kirisci, Z. H. Khan, Z. Ghrairi, K. D. Thoben, y J. Pannek, “Security framework for industrial collaborative robotic cyber-physical systems,” Computers in Industry , vol. 97, pp. 132–145, 2018. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2018.02.009

    work page doi:10.1016/j.compind.2018.02.009 2018

  31. [33]

    Architectural views for social robots in public spaces: business, system, and security strategies,

    S. Oruma, R. Colomo-Palacios, y V . Gkioulos, “Architectural views for social robots in public spaces: business, system, and security strategies,” International Journal of Information Security, vol. 24, no. 1, p. 12, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10207-024-00924-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s10207-024-00924-x 2024

  32. [34]

    A review on fog computing: Issues, characteris- tics, challenges, and potential applications,

    M. A. Khan et al., “A review on fog computing: Issues, characteris- tics, challenges, and potential applications,” Telematics and Informatics Reports, vol. 10, p. 100049, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.teler.2023. 100049

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

  33. [35]

    yolo ros,

    M. A. Gonz ´alez-Santamarta, “yolo ros,” GitHub repository, 2023. https: //github.com/mgonzs13/yolo ros

    work page 2023

  34. [36]

    Smart cloud: Scalable cloud robotic architecture for web-powered multi-robot applications,

    M. Penmetcha, S. S. Kannan, and B.-C. Min, “Smart cloud: Scalable cloud robotic architecture for web-powered multi-robot applications,” in 2020 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC), pp. 2397–2402, 2020

    work page 2020

  35. [37]

    Fogros: An adaptive framework for automating fog robotics deployment,

    K. E. Chen et al., “Fogros: An adaptive framework for automating fog robotics deployment,” in 2021 IEEE 17th International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering (CASE) , pp. 2035–2042, 2021

    work page 2021

  36. [38]

    OW ASP Top 10 for LLM Apps Gen AI Agentic Security Initiative,

    S. John et al., “OW ASP Top 10 for LLM Apps Gen AI Agentic Security Initiative,” Ph.D. dissertation, OW ASP, 2025

    work page 2025

  37. [39]

    OW ASP LLM Top 10 – Principales riesgos de seguridad en modelos de lenguaje,

    OW ASP, “OW ASP LLM Top 10 – Principales riesgos de seguridad en modelos de lenguaje,” 2024. https://genai.owasp.org/es/llm-top-10/

    work page 2024

  38. [40]

    Reglamento (UE) 2024/1689 sobre Inteligen- cia Artificial y Seguridad en Sistemas Aut ´onomos,

    Comisi ´on Europea, “Reglamento (UE) 2024/1689 sobre Inteligen- cia Artificial y Seguridad en Sistemas Aut ´onomos,” 2024. https:// digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/es/policies/regulatory-framework-ai

    work page 2024

  39. [41]

    Requisitos de Seguridad para Robots Industriales: Garant ´ıa de Colaboraci ´on y Eficiencia,

    Robotnik, “Requisitos de Seguridad para Robots Industriales: Garant ´ıa de Colaboraci ´on y Eficiencia,” 2024. https://robotnik.eu/es/requisitos- de-seguridad-para-robots-industriales-garantia-de-colaboracion-y- eficiencia/

    work page 2024

  40. [42]

    Texto completo del Reglamento (UE) 2024/1689,

    Bolet ´ın Oficial del Estado, “Texto completo del Reglamento (UE) 2024/1689,” 2024. https://www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id= DOUE-L-2024-81079

    work page 2024

  41. [43]

    Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 March 2024 on Artificial Intelligence Act,

    European Parliament and Council of the European Union, “Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 March 2024 on Artificial Intelligence Act,” 2024. https://eur-lex.europa. eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32024R1689

    work page 2024

  42. [44]

    SealFSv2: combining storage-based and ratcheting for tamper-evident logging,

    G. Guardiola-M ´uzquiz and E. Soriano-Salvador, “SealFSv2: combining storage-based and ratcheting for tamper-evident logging,” International Journal of Information Security , vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 447–466, 2023

    work page 2023

  43. [45]

    Robot operating system 2: Design, architecture, and uses in the wild,

    S. Macenski et al., “Robot operating system 2: Design, architecture, and uses in the wild,” Science Robotics, vol. 7, no. 66, p. eabm6074, 2022

    work page 2022

  44. [46]

    SROS2: Usable cyber security tools for ROS 2,

    V . Mayoral-Vilches, R. White, G. Caiazza, and M. Arguedas, “SROS2: Usable cyber security tools for ROS 2,” in 2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 11253–11259, 2022. AGRADECIMIENTOS Gracias al Proyecto DMARCE - PID2021- 126592OB-C21, PID2021-126592OB-C22 financiado por MICIU/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 y por ...

    doi:10.13039/501100011033 2022

  45. [2024]

    https://github.com/aliasrobotics/RSF

    work page

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.