Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 201 references

Navigating the Edge-Cloud Continuum: A State-of-Practice Survey

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This survey organizes the edge-cloud continuum into a five-area conceptual framework—architecture, paradigms, technologies, platforms, applications—that serves as a practical developer's guide.

desk verdict A useful, well-organized survey that gives developers a practical map of the edge-cloud continuum, but its most quantitative table rests on a single policy roadmap and should be read as planning-level estimates, not measured values. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.02003 v1 pith:XG2YG5XW submitted 2025-05-22 cs.DC cs.ETcs.NI

Loris Belcastro , Fabrizio Marozzo , Alessio Orsino , Domenico Talia , Paolo Trunfio This is my paper
classification cs.DCcs.ETcs.NI
keywords edge-cloudcontinuumedgecomputingclouddistributedsystemsservicedistributiondeveloper-centricsurveymulti-layerarchitecturebenchmarkingtools
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper argues that the edge-cloud continuum—the multi-layer span from on-device sensors to centralized cloud data centers—has grown too fragmented for practitioners to navigate, and that existing surveys have stayed too academic to help. It sets out to establish a developer-centric, state-of-practice synthesis: a five-area conceptual framework covering distributed architecture, paradigms and models, enabling technologies, deployment platforms, and application domains. The payoff, if the framework holds, is a single structured reference a developer can use to choose layers, technologies, and platforms, and a researcher can use to locate open problems. The survey's distinctive contribution is comparative: it maps the five architectural layers to quantitative characteristics, compares orchestration and FaaS frameworks, and positions each major cloud provider's edge services across the layers.

What carries the argument

The central object is the five-area conceptual framework (architecture; paradigms and models; technologies; deployment platforms; applications, use cases, and testing tools), anchored by a five-layer architectural model (cloud, near edge, far edge, on-premise, on-device) and quantified in Table 1. The framework works by cross-cutting each layer with performance characteristics and each platform with the continuum layers it serves, producing comparison tables (orchestration tools, FaaS frameworks, provider edge services) that turn the fragmented literature into decision points.

What would settle it

Measure end-to-end latency, bandwidth, and deployment cost for the same workload at on-device, far-edge (e.g., AWS Wavelength), near-edge (e.g., AWS Local Zones), and cloud (e.g., a major AWS region), and compare the results against Table 1's ranges; if the observed values systematically fall outside those ranges, the layer characterization that anchors the framework's practical guidance does not hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a coherent, practitioner-oriented view of the edge-cloud continuum is possible and has been missing. It proposes a five-layer architecture—cloud, near edge, far edge, on-premise, on-device—classified by proximity to the cloud, and populates each layer with hardware, latency, bandwidth, cost, energy, tenancy, and privacy characteristics. On top of this it layers paradigms (computational, communication, deployment), enabling technologies, public and private platforms, and application domains, with comparative tables throughout. The intended upshot is that a developer can use the framework to decide where to place computation and which platform services to adopt, while researchers get a structured map of open challenges such as interoperability, orchestration, security, energy, and standardization.

Load-bearing premise

The survey's practical guidance rests on the premise that the quantitative layer characteristics in Table 1 (latency, distance, cost, power consumption) are representative of real deployments, yet those numbers come from a single European Commission roadmap without supporting measurements or error ranges.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A developer can choose where to run a workload—on-device, on-premise, far edge, near edge, or cloud—by matching latency, privacy, cost, and energy requirements against Table 1's layer characteristics.
  • Platform choice narrows to a small set: AWS, Azure, Google Cloud, and Alibaba cover the continuum with distinct near-edge strategies, while OpenStack and OpenNebula provide private alternatives.
  • Serverless and containerized deployment, federated learning, and HTTP/3-style protocols converge as the default toolkit for building continuum applications.
  • The open challenges the survey identifies—interoperability, orchestration, security, energy, data management, standardization—define the field's research agenda.
  • Benchmarking and maintenance (simulators, emulators, CI/CD, monitoring) are treated as first-class concerns rather than afterthoughts.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The five-layer abstraction could be tested empirically: building the same workload at two different layers and comparing observed latency, cost, and energy against Table 1 would show whether the quantitative anchors hold; the survey provides the structure but not the measurements.
  • Because Table 1's numbers come from a single road-mapping source, a natural extension is a community-maintained, measured version of the layer characteristics that tracks provider latency and pricing as they evolve.
  • The developer-centric framing exposes a tooling gap the paper only names: no unified programming abstraction yet spans the continuum, so following the practical guide may push developers toward the very standardization challenge listed as open.
  • The provider comparison implies a migration path—workloads built on AWS Outposts or Azure Stack Edge could move across layers as latency or sovereignty requirements change—but the paper stops short of specifying how such migrations would be engineered.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents a state-of-practice survey of the edge-cloud continuum. It introduces a five-area conceptual framework (distributed architecture, paradigms/models, technologies, deployment platforms, applications/tools) and uses it to organize a broad literature review. The paper aims to close a perceived gap in prior surveys by adopting a developer-oriented perspective: it provides architectural layer taxonomies, quantitative layer characteristics (Table 1), platform comparisons including edge-specific enabling services (Table 4) and global infrastructure maps (Figure 4), technology and orchestration comparisons (Tables 2 and 3), as well as application domains, benchmarking tools, maintenance practices, open challenges, and future trends. The central claim is that the survey serves as both a practical guide for developers and a structured reference for researchers.

Significance. If the quantitative claims and platform comparisons are made reliable, this survey would be a useful entry point for practitioners and researchers entering the edge-cloud continuum field. The paper's strengths are its broad and well-referenced coverage (201 references), its explicit research questions, the comparative tables at the end of each section, and its attempt to bridge academic methods with industrial offerings from AWS, Azure, Google, Alibaba, Huawei, and Tencent. The framework is a classification rather than a derivation, so there is no risk of circularity. However, the practical-guide value depends critically on the credibility of Table 1 and Figure 4, which currently contain unsupported or internally inconsistent quantitative data. The survey is potentially publishable after those load-bearing data quality issues are fixed.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2, Table 1] The quantitative layer characteristics (latency, cost, size, power) are presented as general properties of the five continuum layers, but the only source cited for distance and power is the European Commission roadmap [48], and latency and cost are asserted without any source. In particular, the sentence 'modern cloud deployments can average around 2.9 billion euros per deployment' appears to conflate the EU roadmap's aggregate investment figure with a typical per-deployment cost; such a number is not meaningful as an average cost of a cloud deployment. Because the survey's stated value proposition is developer-oriented practical guidance, and Table 1 is the main quantitative decision aid offered, these unsupported and implausible numbers undermine the central claim. Please replace the cost row with scoped, sourced estimates (e.g., per-capacity or per-datacenter costs), add error bars or ranges, and cite measured sources for the latency values.
  2. [Section 4.2 (Table 1) vs. Section 7.1 (Figure 4)] There is an internal inconsistency between Table 1 and Figure 4. Table 1's Size row lists 'Cloud <10' and the accompanying text says the cloud layer operates with 'few globally distributed data centers,' but Figure 4 and the text in Section 7.1 report 36 AWS regions, 65 Azure regions, 41 Google Cloud regions, and 28 Alibaba Cloud regions. Even a single provider exceeds the <10 figure, so the Size definition must be clarified (e.g., number of data centers, number of device endpoints) and the values reconciled. As written, a reader cannot trust either the layer comparison or the platform comparison.
  3. [Section 7.1, Figure 4] The global infrastructure counts in Figure 4 are taken from a third-party map (cloudinfrastructuremap.com, updated February 2025) without caveats about the source's methodology, the definition of 'near-edge zone,' or the rapidly changing nature of provider footprints. Since the platform evaluation with geographic distribution is one of the paper's claimed contributions over prior surveys, please cross-check the counts against official provider documentation (or explicitly label them as approximate third-party data with a date and method), and state what counts as a 'near-edge zone' for each provider.
  4. [Section 6.3, Table 2] Table 2 contains a duplicated 'Scalability' row with inconsistent values: the first Scalability row reports Docker Swarm as 'High' and Rancher as 'High', while the second Scalability row reports Docker Swarm as 'Small' and Rancher as 'Medium'. A comparison table that contradicts itself cannot support the paper's advertised 'comparative analysis tools' contribution. Remove the duplicate row or reconcile the values with the cited sources.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 4.2, Table 1] The 'Size' row lacks a clear unit definition (number of devices? number of data centers?) and mixes quantities of different kinds; please define the unit and add a note about the time frame or region scope.
  2. [Section 4.2, Table 1] The 'Network bandwidth' row uses units like 'KBps-MBps' and 'Gbps-Tbps' without defining whether they are per-node, per-link, or aggregate; please state the measurement context.
  3. [Section 5.2] Typo: 'client-sever' should be 'client-server'.
  4. [Section 6.2, AMQP paragraph] The sentence 'particularly useful in distributed enterprise applications and IoT ecosystems where [185]' is grammatically incomplete; it should be reworded, e.g., 'particularly useful in distributed enterprise applications and IoT ecosystems, as discussed in [185].'
  5. [Section 7.1, Table 4] In the Google Cloud row, 'Google Coral Edge TPU' is a hardware accelerator, not a cloud service; please relabel the column header to 'Edge AI hardware/toolkit' or add a clarifying footnote.
  6. [Section 8.3, Logging] Typo: 'The ELK Stack is situable' should be 'is suitable'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is a survey whose framework is a classification of external literature, not a derivation or prediction from fitted inputs.

full rationale

This paper is a state-of-practice survey, not a derivation-based contribution. Its conceptual framework (Figure 1 and Figure 2) organizes existing architectural layers, paradigms, technologies, platforms, and application domains into a taxonomy; there is no equation, model, fitted parameter, or predicted quantity whose value is defined by the paper's own inputs. The authors' self-citations [19, 20, 21, 22, 29] appear as background references for their prior work on related topics and are not load-bearing for the survey's central organizational claims. The quantitative layer characteristics in Table 1 are attributed to an external European Commission roadmap [48] and, as the skeptic notes, may be insufficiently caveated; however, that is a correctness or evidence-quality concern, not a circularity concern, because the table is presented as a summary of an external source rather than as a result derived within the paper. No step was found in which a claim is equivalent to its input by construction, a fitted value is renamed as a prediction, or a conclusion is forced by a self-citation chain. The survey is self-contained as a literature synthesis, and its practical-guide claim rests on the breadth and organization of that synthesis, not on any internal derivation. Therefore, the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters or invented physical entities are introduced; the survey proposes a five-area conceptual framework (Section 2), which is a classification scheme rather than an entity. The paper relies on domain assumptions about the salience of the continuum and the correctness of cited quantitative data.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The edge-cloud continuum is a meaningful, mature paradigm that warrants a dedicated developer guide.
    Sections 1 and 2 assume the continuum is a real and important target for developers; this is standard in the field but not proved.
  • ad hoc to paper The five-area framework (architecture, paradigms/models, technologies, platforms, applications/tools) is a valid and complete way to organize the field.
    Introduced in Section 2, Figure 1; no evidence that these five areas are exhaustive or non-overlapping.
  • ad hoc to paper The layer taxonomy and its quantitative characteristics (Table 1) are accurate and generalizable.
    Section 4.2, Table 1, based heavily on [48]; the authors adopt these numbers as representative without error bars or caveats.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Navigating the Edge-Cloud Continuum: A State-of-Practice Survey." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XG2YG5XW

@misc{pith2026250602003,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Navigating the Edge-Cloud Continuum: A State-of-Practice Survey},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XG2YG5XW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.02003}
}
read the original abstract

The edge-cloud continuum has emerged as a transformative paradigm that meets the growing demand for low-latency, scalable, end-to-end service delivery by integrating decentralized edge resources with centralized cloud infrastructures. Driven by the exponential growth of IoT-generated data and the need for real-time responsiveness, this continuum features multi-layered architectures. However, its adoption is hindered by infrastructural challenges, fragmented standards, and limited guidance for developers and researchers. Existing surveys rarely tackle practical implementation or recent industrial advances. This survey closes those gaps from a developer-oriented perspective, introducing a conceptual framework for navigating the edge-cloud continuum. We systematically examine architectural models, performance metrics, and paradigms for computation, communication, and deployment, together with enabling technologies and widely used edge-to-cloud platforms. We also discuss real-world applications in smart cities, healthcare, and Industry 4.0, as well as tools for testing and experimentation. Drawing on academic research and practices of leading cloud providers, this survey serves as a practical guide for developers and a structured reference for researchers, while identifying open challenges and emerging trends that will shape the future of the continuum.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.02003 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the proposed conceptual framework for the edge-cloud continuum, illustrating its five key areas of discussion. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Structure of the survey for navigating the edge–cloud continuum research landscape. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Edge-cloud continuum layers. This alternative architecture introduces new intermediate layers within the edge-cloud continuum, adopting a cloud-centric perspective that classifies them based on their proximity to the cloud rather than to end-user devices: • Cloud: this layer serves as the central hub for large-scale data processing and storage. It includes public data centers provided by major cloud service provider… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Global infrastructure of major cloud providers, including the number of active cloud regions and local zones for each provider. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

201 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages

  1. [48]

    European Commission. 2021. European Cloud-Edge Technology Investment Roadmap. Accessed: April 2025

    2021

  2. [1]

    Mohammad Aazam, Sherali Zeadally, and Khaled A Harras. 2018. Fog computing architecture, evaluation, and future research directions.IEEE Communications Magazine56 (2018)

    2018

  3. [2]

    2016.{TensorFlow}: a system for{Large-Scale} machine learning

    Martín Abadi, Paul Barham, Jianmin Chen, Zhifeng Chen, et al. 2016.{TensorFlow}: a system for{Large-Scale} machine learning. In12th USENIX symposium on operating systems design and implementation

    2016

  4. [3]

    Aamir Abbas, Ali Raza, Farhan Aadil, and Muazzam Maqsood. 2021. Meta-heuristic-based offloading task optimization in mobile edge computing. International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks17 (2021)

    2021

  5. [4]

    Grundy, Hourieh Khalajzadeh, et al

    Negin Akbari, Adel Nadjaran Toosi, John C. Grundy, Hourieh Khalajzadeh, et al . 2024. iContinuum: An Emulation Toolkit for Intent-Based Computing Across the Edge-to-Cloud Continuum.2024 IEEE 17th International Conference on Cloud Computing(2024)

    2024

  6. [5]

    Al-Dulaimy, M

    A. Al-Dulaimy, M. Jansen, B. Johansson, and A. Trivedi. 2024. The computing continuum: From IoT to the cloud.Internet of Things(2024)

    2024

  7. [6]

    Siavash M Alamouti, Fay Arjomandi, and Michel Burger. 2022. Hybrid edge cloud: A pragmatic approach for decentralized cloud computing.IEEE Communications Magazine60 (2022). Manuscript submitted to ACM Navigating the Edge-Cloud Continuum: A State-of-Practice Survey 29

    2022

  8. [7]

    Gregory, and Shuo Li

    Belal Ali, Mark A. Gregory, and Shuo Li. 2021. Multi-Access Edge Computing Architecture, Data Security and Privacy: A Review.IEEE Access9 (2021)

    2021

Show all 201 references
  1. [8]

    Jaber Almutairi and Mohammad Aldossary. 2021. A novel approach for IoT tasks offloading in edge-cloud environments.Journal of Cloud Computing10 (2021)

    2021

  2. [9]

    Ganesh Ananthanarayanan, Paramvir Bahl, Peter Bodík, Krishna Chintalapudi, et al. 2017. Real-Time Video Analytics: The Killer App for Edge Computing.Computer50 (2017)

    2017

  3. [10]

    Audris Arzovs, Janis Judvaitis, Krisjanis Nesenbergs, and Leo Selavo. 2024. Distributed Learning in the IoT–Edge–Cloud Continuum.Machine Learning and Knowledge Extraction6 (2024)

    2024

  4. [11]

    Majid Ashouri, Fabian Lorig, Paul Davidsson, and Romina Spalazzese. 2019. Edge computing simulators for iot system design: An analysis of qualities and metrics.Future Internet11 (2019)

    2019

  5. [12]

    Mohammad S Aslanpour, Sukhpal Singh Gill, and Adel N Toosi. 2020. Performance evaluation metrics for cloud, fog and edge computing: A review, taxonomy, benchmarks and standards for future research.Internet of Things12 (2020)

    2020

  6. [13]

    Aslanpour, Adel N

    Mohammad S. Aslanpour, Adel N. Toosi, Claudio Cicconetti, Bahman Javadi, et al. 2021. Serverless Edge Computing: Vision and Challenges. In Proceedings of the 2021 Australasian Computer Science Week Multiconference

    2021

  7. [14]

    Mohammad S Aslanpoura, Sukhpal Singh Gillc, and Adel N Toosia. 2020. Performance evaluation metrics for cloud, fog and edge computing: A review, taxonomy, benchmarks and standards for future research.Internet of Things(2020)

    2020

  8. [15]

    Gagangeet Singh Aujla, Rajat Chaudhary, Kuljeet Kaur, Sahil Garg, et al. 2019. SAFE: SDN-Assisted Framework for Edge–Cloud Interplay in Secure Healthcare Ecosystem.IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics15 (2019)

    2019

  9. [16]

    Babovic, Jelica Protic, and Veljko Milutinovic

    Zoran B. Babovic, Jelica Protic, and Veljko Milutinovic. 2016. Web Performance Evaluation for Internet of Things Applications.IEEE Access4 (2016)

    2016

  10. [17]

    Daniel Balouek-Thomert, Eduard Gibert Renart, Ali Reza Zamani, Anthony Simonet, et al . 2019. Towards a computing continuum: Enabling edge-to-cloud integration for data-driven workflows.The International Journal of High Performance Computing Applications33 (2019)

    2019

  11. [18]

    Baresi, DF Mendonça, M

    L. Baresi, DF Mendonça, M. Garriga, and S. Guinea. 2019. A unified model for the mobile-edge-cloud continuum.ACM Trans. on Internet Technology (2019)

    2019

  12. [19]

    Loris Belcastro, Riccardo Cantini, Fabrizio Marozzo, Alessio Orsino, et al. 2022. Programming big data analysis: principles and solutions.Journal of Big Data9 (2022)

    2022

  13. [20]

    Loris Belcastro, Fabrizio Marozzo, Alessio Orsino, Aleandro Presta, et al. 2024. Developing Cross-Platform and Fast-Responsive Applications on the Edge-Cloud Continuum. In2024 15th IFIP Wireless and Mobile Networking Conference

    2024

  14. [21]

    Loris Belcastro, Fabrizio Marozzo, Alessio Orsino, Domenico Talia, et al. 2023. Edge-cloud continuum solutions for urban mobility prediction and planning.IEEE Access11 (2023)

    2023

  15. [22]

    Loris Belcastro, Fabrizio Marozzo, Aleandro Presta, and Domenico Talia. 2024. A Spark-based Task Allocation Solution for Machine Learning in the Edge-Cloud Continuum. In20th Int. Conference on Distributed Computing in Smart Systems and the Internet of Things

    2024

  16. [23]

    August Betzler, Carles Gomez, Ilker Demirkol, and Josep Paradells. 2015. CoCoA+: An advanced congestion control mechanism for CoAP.Ad Hoc Networks33 (2015)

    2015

  17. [24]

    Daniel J Beutel, Taner Topal, Akhil Mathur, Xinchi Qiu, et al. 2020. Flower: A friendly federated learning research framework.arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.14390(2020)

    2020 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Kashif Bilal and Aiman M. Erbad. 2017. Edge computing for interactive media and video streaming.2017 Second International Conference on Fog and Mobile Edge Computing(2017)

    2017

  19. [26]

    Mario Bochicchio and Sileshi Nibret Zeleke. 2024. Personalized federated learning in edge-cloud continuum for privacy-preserving health informatics: opportunities and challenges. InInternational Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications

    2024

  20. [27]

    Alessio Botta, Walter De Donato, Valerio Persico, and Antonio Pescapé. 2016. Integration of cloud computing and internet of things: a survey. Future generation computer systems56 (2016)

    2016

  21. [28]

    Rodrigo N Calheiros, Rajiv Ranjan, Anton Beloglazov, César AF De Rose, et al. 2011. CloudSim: a toolkit for modeling and simulation of cloud computing environments and evaluation of resource provisioning algorithms.Software: Practice and experience41 (2011)

    2011

  22. [29]

    Riccardo Cantini, Alessio Orsino, and Domenico Talia. 2024. Xai-driven knowledge distillation of large language models for efficient deployment on low-resource devices.Journal of Big Data11 (2024)

    2024

  23. [30]

    Keyan Cao, Yefan Liu, Gongjie Meng, and Qimeng Sun. 2020. An overview on edge computing research.IEEE Access8 (2020)

    2020

  24. [31]

    Francisco Carpio, Marta Delgado, and Admela Jukan. 2020. Engineering and Experimentally Benchmarking a Container-based Edge Computing System.arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.03805(2020)

    2020 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Francisco Carpio, Marc Michalke, and Admela Jukan. 2023. BenchFaaS: Benchmarking Serverless Functions in an Edge Computing Network Testbed.IEEE Network37 (2023)

    2023

  26. [33]

    Batyr Charyyev, Engin Arslan, and Mehmet Hadi Gunes. 2020. Latency comparison of cloud datacenters and edge servers. InGLOBECOM 2020-2020 IEEE Global Communications Conference

    2020

  27. [34]

    Baotong Chen, Jiafu Wan, Antonio Celesti, Di Li, et al. 2018. Edge Computing in IoT-Based Manufacturing.IEEE Communications Magazine56 (2018). Manuscript submitted to ACM 30 Loris Belcastro, Fabrizio Marozzo, Alessio Orsino, Domenico Talia, and Paolo Trunfio

    2018

  28. [35]

    Tianqi Chen, Thierry Moreau, Ziheng Jiang, Lianmin Zheng, et al. 2018. TVM: An automated End-to-End optimizing compiler for deep learning. In 13th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation

    2018

  29. [36]

    Ying Chen, Jie Zhao, Yuan Wu, Jiwei Huang, et al. 2022. Qoe-aware decentralized task offloading and resource allocation for end-edge-cloud systems: A game-theoretical approach.IEEE Trans. on Mobile Computing23 (2022)

    2022

  30. [37]

    Yao Chiang, Yi Zhang, Hao Luo, Tse-Yu Chen, et al. 2023. Management and orchestration of edge computing for iot: A comprehensive survey.IEEE Internet of Things Journal(2023)

    2023

  31. [38]

    Robert David, Jared Duke, Advait Jain, Vijay Janapa Reddi, et al. 2021. Tensorflow lite micro: Embedded machine learning for tinyml systems. Proceedings of Machine Learning and Systems3 (2021)

    2021

  32. [39]

    Gabriele De Vito, Fabio Palomba, and Filomena Ferrucci. 2025. The role of Large Language Models in addressing IoT challenges: A systematic literature review.Future Generation Computer Systems171 (2025), 107829

    2025

  33. [40]

    Todd Deshane, Zachary Shepherd, Jeanna Neefe Matthews, Muli Ben-Yehuda, et al. 2008. Quantitative comparison of Xen and KVM.Xen Summit (2008)

    2008

  34. [41]

    Sauptik Dhar, Junyao Guo, Jiayi Liu, Samarth Tripathi, et al. 2021. A Survey of On-Device Machine Learning.ACM Transactions on Internet of Things2 (2021)

    2021

  35. [42]

    Marcos Dias de Assunção, Alexandre da Silva Veith, and Rajkumar Buyya. 2018. Distributed data stream processing and edge computing: A survey on resource elasticity and future directions.Journal of Network and Computer Applications103 (2018)

    2018

  36. [43]

    Weichao Ding, Fei Luo, Liangxiu Han, Chunhua Gu, et al. 2020. Adaptive virtual machine consolidation framework based on performance-to-power ratio in cloud data centers.Future Generation Computer Systems111 (2020)

    2020

  37. [44]

    Simone Disabato and Manuel Roveri. 2020. Incremental On-Device Tiny Machine Learning. InProceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Challenges in Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning for Internet of Things

    2020

  38. [45]

    Jasenka Dizdarević, Francisco Carpio, Admela Jukan, and Xavi Masip-Bruin. 2019. A Survey of Communication Protocols for Internet of Things and Related Challenges of Fog and Cloud Computing Integration.Comput. Surveys51 (2019)

    2019

  39. [46]

    Yuanrui Dong, Peng Zhao, Hanqiao Yu, Cong Zhao, et al . 2020. CDC: Classification driven compression for bandwidth efficient edge-cloud collaborative deep learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.02177(2020)

    2020 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Thang Le Duc, Rafael García Leiva, Paolo Casari, and Per-Olov Östberg. 2019. Machine learning methods for reliable resource provisioning in edge-cloud computing: A survey.Comput. Surveys52 (2019)

    2019

  41. [49]

    Wenhao Fan. 2023. Blockchain-Secured Task Offloading and Resource Allocation for Cloud-Edge-End Cooperative Networks.IEEE Trans. on Mobile Computing(2023)

    2023

  42. [50]

    Chao Fang, Xiangheng Meng, Zhaoming Hu, Fangmin Xu, et al . 2022. AI-driven energy-efficient content task offloading in cloud-edge-end cooperation networks.IEEE Open Journal of the Computer Society3 (2022)

    2022

  43. [51]

    Fahimeh Farahnakian, Tapio Pahikkala, Pasi Liljeberg, Juha Plosila, et al. 2019. Energy-Aware VM Consolidation in Cloud Data Centers Using Utilization Prediction Model.IEEE Transactions on Cloud Computing7 (2019)

    2019

  44. [52]

    Viviane Cunha Farias da Costa, Luiz Oliveira, and Jano de Souza. 2021. Internet of everything (IoE) taxonomies: A survey and a novel knowledge- based taxonomy.Sensors21 (2021)

    2021

  45. [53]

    Ian Fette and Alexey Melnikov. 2011. The WebSocket Protocol. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6455

    2011

  46. [54]

    Carlos Poncinelli Filho, Elias Marques, Victor Chang, Leonardo dos Santos, et al. 2022. A Systematic Literature Review on Distributed Machine Learning in Edge Computing.Sensors22 (2022)

    2022

  47. [55]

    Eduardo S Gama, Lucas Otávio N De Araújo, Roger Immich, and Luiz F Bittencourt. 2021. Video streaming analysis in multi-tier edge-cloud networks. In2021 8th International Conference on Future Internet of Things and Cloud

    2021

  48. [56]

    Niloofar Gholipour, Ehsan Arianyan, and Rajkumar Buyya. 2020. A novel energy-aware resource management technique using joint VM and container consolidation approach for green computing in cloud data centers.Simul. Model. Pract. Theory104 (2020)

    2020

  49. [57]

    Ananda Mohon Ghosh and Katarina Grolinger. 2019. Deep Learning: Edge-Cloud Data Analytics for IoT.2019 IEEE Canadian Conference of Electrical and Computer Engineering(2019)

    2019

  50. [58]

    Panagiotis Gkonis, Anastasios Giannopoulos, Panagiotis Trakadas, Xavi Masip-Bruin, et al. 2023. A survey on IoT-edge-cloud continuum systems: Status, challenges, use cases, and open issues.Future Internet15 (2023)

    2023

  51. [59]

    Siyuan Gu, Deke Guo, Guoming Tang, Lailong Luo, et al. 2023. Hyedge: A cooperative edge computing framework for provisioning private and public services.ACM Transactions on Internet of Things4 (2023)

    2023

  52. [60]

    Min Guo, Xing Huang, Wei Wang, Bing Liang, et al. 2021. Hagp: A heuristic algorithm based on greedy policy for task offloading with reliability of mds in mec of the industrial internet.Sensors21 (2021)

    2021

  53. [61]

    Harshit Gupta, Amir Vahid Dastjerdi, Soumya K Ghosh, and Rajkumar Buyya. 2017. iFogSim: A toolkit for modeling and simulation of resource management techniques in the Internet of Things, Edge and Fog computing environments.Software: Practice and Experience47 (2017)

    2017

  54. [62]

    Taimur Hafeez, Lina Xu, and Gavin Mcardle. 2021. Edge Intelligence for Data Handling and Predictive Maintenance in IIOT.IEEE Access9 (2021)

    2021

  55. [63]

    Geoffrey Hinton, Oriol Vinyals, and Jeff Dean. 2015. Distilling the knowledge in a neural network.arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.02531(2015)

    2015 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Cheol-Ho Hong and Blesson Varghese. 2019. Resource management in fog/edge computing: a survey on architectures, infrastructure, and algorithms. Comput. Surveys52 (2019). Manuscript submitted to ACM Navigating the Edge-Cloud Continuum: A State-of-Practice Survey 31

    2019

  57. [65]

    Pengfei Hu, Sahraoui Dhelim, Huansheng Ning, and Tie Qiu. 2017. Survey on fog computing: architecture, key technologies, applications and open issues.Journal of network and computer applications98 (2017)

    2017

  58. [66]

    Chih-Kai Huang and Shan-Hsiang Shen. 2021. Enabling service cache in edge clouds.ACM Trans. on Internet of Things2 (2021)

    2021

  59. [67]

    Yu Hsin Hung. 2019. Investigating How the Cloud Computing Transforms the Development of Industries.IEEE Access7 (2019)

    2019

  60. [68]

    Shawn Hymel, Colby Banbury, Daniel Situnayake, Alex Elium, et al. 2022. Edge impulse: An mlops platform for tiny machine learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.03332(2022)

    2022 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Ozlem Durmaz Incel and Sevda Özge Bursa. 2023. On-device deep learning for mobile and wearable sensing applications: A review.IEEE Sensors Journal23 (2023)

    2023

  62. [70]

    Akhirul Islam, Arindam Debnath, Manojit Ghose, and Suchetana Chakraborty. 2021. A survey on task offloading in multi-access edge computing. Journal of Systems Architecture118 (2021)

    2021

  63. [71]

    Jansen, L

    M. Jansen, L. Wagner, A. Trivedi, and A. Iosup. 2023. Continuum: Automate infrastructure deployment and benchmarking in the compute continuum. InCompanion of the ACM/SPEC International Conference on Performance Engineering

    2023

  64. [72]

    Karamjeet Kaur, Japinder Singh, and Navtej Singh Ghumman. 2014. Mininet as software defined networking testing platform. InInternational conference on communication, computing & systems

    2014

  65. [73]

    Danylo Khalyeyev, Tomas Bureš, and Petr Hnětynka. 2022. Towards characterization of edge-cloud continuum. InEuropean Conference on Software Architecture

    2022

  66. [74]

    Latif Ullah Khan, Ibrar Yaqoob, Nguyen H. Tran, S. M. Ahsan Kazmi, et al. 2019. Edge-Computing-Enabled Smart Cities: A Comprehensive Survey. IEEE Internet of Things Journal7 (2019)

    2019

  67. [75]

    Dragi Kimovski, Roland Math’a, Josef Hammer, Narges Mehran, et al. 2021. Cloud, Fog, or Edge: Where to Compute?IEEE Internet Computing25 (2021)

    2021

  68. [76]

    T Kiss, A Ullah, J Kovacs, J Deslauriers, et al . 2024. Decentralised Orchestration of Microservices in the Cloud-to-Edge Continuum. In16th International Workshop on Science Gateways

    2024

  69. [77]

    Jakub Konečn`y, H Brendan McMahan, Felix X Yu, Peter Richtárik, et al. 2016. Federated learning: Strategies for improving communication efficiency. arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.05492(2016)

    2016 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Linghe Kong, Jinlin Tan, Junqin Huang, Guihai Chen, et al. 2022. Edge-computing-driven internet of things: A survey.Comput. Surveys55 (2022)

    2022

  71. [79]

    Xiangjie Kong, Yuhan Wu, Hui Wang, and Feng Xia. 2022. Edge computing for internet of everything: A survey.IEEE Internet of Things Journal9 (2022)

    2022

  72. [80]

    Tim Kraska, Ameet Talwalkar, John C Duchi, Rean Griffith, et al. 2013. MLbase: A Distributed Machine-learning System.. InCidr, Vol. 1

    2013

  73. [81]

    Dora Kreković, Petar Krivić, Ivana Podnar Žarko, Mario Kušek, et al. 2025. Reducing communication overhead in the IoT-edge-cloud continuum: A survey on protocols and data reduction strategies.Internet of things(2025)

    2025

  74. [82]

    Navjot et al. Kukreja. 2019. Training on the Edge: The why and the how. In2019 IEEE International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium Workshops

    2019

  75. [83]

    Hemant H Kumar, VR Karthik, and Mydhili K Nair. 2020. Federated K-Means Clustering: A Novel Edge AI Based Approach for Privacy Preservation. In2020 IEEE International Conference on Cloud Computing in Emerging Markets

    2020

  76. [84]

    M Sathish Kumar and M Iyapparaja. 2021. Fog and edge computing simulators systems: research challenges and an overview.International Journal of System of Systems Engineering11 (2021)

    2021

  77. [85]

    Puneet Kumar and Behnam Dezfouli. 2019. Implementation and analysis of QUIC for MQTT.Computer Networks150 (2019)

    2019

  78. [86]

    Priyan Malarvizhi Kumar and Usha Devi Gandhi. 2020. Enhanced DTLS with CoAP-based authentication scheme for the internet of things in healthcare application.The Journal of Supercomputing76 (2020)

    2020

  79. [87]

    Adam Langley, Alistair Riddoch, Alyssa Wilk, Antonio Vicente, et al. 2017. The quic transport protocol: Design and internet-scale deployment. In Proc. of the conference of the ACM special interest group on data communication

    2017

  80. [88]

    Kyungwoon Lee and Byungchul Tak. 2023. MicroVM on Edge: Is It Ready for Prime Time?2023 31st International Symposium on Modeling, Analysis, and Simulation of Computer and Telecommunication Systems(2023)

    2023

  81. [89]

    Angel Lagares Lemos, Florian Daniel, and Boualem Benatallah. 2015. Web service composition: a survey of techniques and tools.Comput. Surveys 48 (2015)

    2015

  82. [90]

    Isaac Lera, Carlos Guerrero, and Carlos Juiz. 2019. YAFS: A simulator for IoT scenarios in fog computing.IEEE Access7 (2019)

    2019

  83. [91]

    Juan Li, Mengyuan Zhu, Jin Liu, Wei Liu, et al. 2024. Blockchain-based reliable task offloading framework for edge-cloud cooperative workflows in IoMT.Information Sciences668 (2024)

    2024

  84. [92]

    Andersen, Jun Woo Park, Alex Smola, et al

    Mu Li, David G. Andersen, Jun Woo Park, Alex Smola, et al. 2014. Scaling Distributed Machine Learning with the Parameter Server. InUSENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation

    2014

  85. [93]

    Mu Li, Li Zhou, Zichao Yang, Aaron Li, et al. 2013. Parameter server for distributed machine learning. InBig learning NIPS workshop, Vol. 6

    2013

  86. [94]

    Zhehao Li, Lei Shi, Yi Shi, Zhenchun Wei, et al. 2022. Task offloading strategy to maximize task completion rate in heterogeneous edge computing environment.Computer Networks210 (2022)

    2022

  87. [95]

    Roger Light. 2017. Mosquitto: Server and client implementation of the MQTT protocol.Journal of Open Source Software2 (2017)

    2017

  88. [96]

    Lightbend Inc. [n. d.]. Akka: Build Powerful Reactive Systems. https://akka.io/. Accessed: April 2025. Manuscript submitted to ACM 32 Loris Belcastro, Fabrizio Marozzo, Alessio Orsino, Domenico Talia, and Paolo Trunfio

    2025

  89. [97]

    Linyuan Liu, Haibin Zhu, Tianxing Wang, and Mingwei Tang. 2024. A Fast and Efficient Task Offloading Approach in Edge-Cloud Collaboration Environment.Electronics13 (2024)

    2024

  90. [98]

    Yang Liu, Tao Fan, Tianjian Chen, Qian Xu, et al. 2021. Fate: An industrial grade platform for collaborative learning with data protection.Journal of Machine Learning Research22 (2021)

    2021

  91. [99]

    Zhuang Liu, Mingjie Sun, Tinghui Zhou, Gao Huang, et al. 2018. Rethinking the value of network pruning.arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.05270(2018)

    2018 arXiv

  92. [100]

    Loconte, S

    D. Loconte, S. Ieva, A. Pinto, G. Loseto, et al. 2024. Expanding the cloud-to-edge continuum to the IoT in serverless federated learning. InFuture Generation Computer Systems, Vol. 155

    2024

  93. [101]

    Guodong Long, Yue Tan, Jing Jiang, and Chengqi Zhang. 2020. Federated learning for open banking. InFederated learning: privacy and incentive

    2020

  94. [102]

    Redondi, Matteo Cesana, Andrés Arcia-Moret, et al

    Edoardo Longo, Alessandro E.C. Redondi, Matteo Cesana, Andrés Arcia-Moret, et al. 2020. MQTT-ST: a Spanning Tree Protocol for Distributed MQTT Brokers. In2020 IEEE International Conference on Communications

    2020

  95. [103]

    Francesc Lordan, Daniele Lezzi, and Rosa M Badia. 2021. Colony: Parallel functions as a service on the cloud-edge continuum. InEuropean Conference on Parallel Processing

    2021

  96. [104]

    Heiko Ludwig, Nathalie Baracaldo, Gegi Thomas, Yi Zhou, et al. 2020. Ibm federated learning: an enterprise framework white paper v0. 1.arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.10987(2020)

    2020 arXiv

  97. [105]

    Sumit Maheshwari, Dipankar Raychaudhuri, Ivan Seskar, and Francesco Bronzino. 2018. Scalability and performance evaluation of edge cloud systems for latency constrained applications. In2018 IEEE/ACM Symposium on Edge Computing

    2018

  98. [106]

    Redowan Mahmud, Samodha Pallewatta, Mohammad Goudarzi, and Rajkumar Buyya. 2022. iFogSim2: An extended iFogSim simulator for mobility, clustering, and microservice management in edge and fog computing environments.Journal of Systems and Software190 (2022)

    2022

  99. [107]

    Yuyi Mao, Changsheng You, Jun Zhang, Kaibin Huang, et al. 2017. A survey on mobile edge computing: The communication perspective.IEEE communications surveys & tutorials19 (2017)

    2017

  100. [108]

    Ruben Mayer, Leon Graser, Harshit Gupta, Enrique Saurez, et al. 2017. Emufog: Extensible and scalable emulation of large-scale fog computing infrastructures. In2017 IEEE Fog World Congress

    2017

  101. [109]

    Brendan McMahan, Eider Moore, Daniel Ramage, Seth Hampson, et al. 2017. Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data. InArtificial intelligence and statistics

    2017

  102. [110]

    Xiangrui Meng, Joseph Bradley, Burak Yavuz, Evan Sparks, et al. 2016. Mllib: Machine learning in apache spark.Journal of Machine Learning Research17 (2016)

    2016

  103. [111]

    Massimo Merenda, Carlo Porcaro, and Demetrio Iero. 2020. Edge machine learning for ai-enabled iot devices: A review.Sensors20 (2020)

    2020

  104. [112]

    Higinio Mora, Jesus Peral, Antonio Ferrandez, David Gil, et al. 2019. Distributed architectures for intensive urban computing: a case study on smart lighting for sustainable cities.IEEE Access7 (2019)

    2019

  105. [113]

    Gabriele Morabito, Christian Sicari, Armando Ruggeri, Antonio Celesti, et al. 2023. Secure-by-design serverless workflows on the edge–cloud continuum through the osmotic computing paradigm.Internet of Things22 (2023)

    2023

  106. [114]

    Roberto Morabito. 2017. Virtualization on Internet of Things Edge Devices With Container Technologies: A Performance Evaluation.IEEE Access5 (2017)

    2017

  107. [115]

    Sergio Moreschini, Fabiano Pecorelli, Xiaozhou Li, Sonia Naz, et al. 2022. Cloud continuum: The definition.IEEE Access10 (2022)

    2022

  108. [116]

    Philipp Moritz, Robert Nishihara, Stephanie Wang, Alexey Tumanov, et al. 2018. Ray: A distributed framework for emerging{AI} applications. In 13th USENIX symposium on operating systems design and implementation

    2018

  109. [117]

    Mota-Cruz, J

    M. Mota-Cruz, J. H. Santos, J. F. Macedo, K. Velasquez, et al . 2024. Optimizing Microservices Placement in the Cloud-to-Edge Continuum: A Comparative Analysis of App and Service Based Approaches. In2024 IEEE 22nd Mediterranean Electrotechnical Conference

    2024

  110. [118]

    Carla Mouradian, Diala Naboulsi, Sami Yangui, Roch H Glitho, et al. 2017. A comprehensive survey on fog computing: State-of-the-art and research challenges.IEEE communications surveys & tutorials20 (2017)

    2017

  111. [119]

    Giuseppe Nebbione and Maria Carla Calzarossa. 2020. Security of IoT Application Layer Protocols: Challenges and Findings.Future Internet12 (2020)

    2020

  112. [120]

    Loc X Nguyen, Yan Kyaw Tun, Tri Nguyen Dang, Yu Min Park, et al. 2023. Dependency tasks offloading and communication resource allocation in collaborative UAVs networks: A meta-heuristic approach.IEEE Internet of Things Journal(2023)

    2023

  113. [121]

    Jianbing Ni, Kuan Zhang, and Athanasios V Vasilakos. 2020. Security and privacy for mobile edge caching: Challenges and solutions.IEEE Wireless Communications28 (2020)

    2020

  114. [122]

    Alaa Omran, Yaser Abid, Bilal Bakri, et al. 2024. Edge Computing Vs. Cloud Computing: Evaluating Performance, Scalability, and Security in Modern Applications.CyberSystem Journal1 (2024)

    2024

  115. [123]

    Open Neural Network Exchange. [n. d.]. ONNX: Open Neural Network Exchange. https://onnx.ai/. Accessed: April 2025

    2025

  116. [124]

    Pasquale Pace, Gianluca Aloi, Raffaele Gravina, Giuseppe Caliciuri, et al. 2019. An Edge-Based Architecture to Support Efficient Applications for Healthcare Industry 4.0.IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics15 (2019)

    2019

  117. [125]

    Jianli Pan and James McElhannon. 2018. Future Edge Cloud and Edge Computing for Internet of Things Applications.IEEE Internet of Things Journal5 (2018)

    2018

  118. [126]

    Gerardo Pardo-Castellote. 2003. Omg data-distribution service: Architectural overview. In23rd International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems Workshops, 2003. Proceedings. Manuscript submitted to ACM Navigating the Edge-Cloud Continuum: A State-of-Practice Survey 33

    2003

  119. [127]

    Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, et al. 2019. Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library.Advances in neural information processing systems32 (2019)

    2019

  120. [128]

    Gianluca Perna, Martino Trevisan, Danilo Giordano, and Idilio Drago. 2022. A first look at HTTP/3 adoption and performance.Computer Communications187 (2022)

    2022

  121. [129]

    Tobias Pfandzelter and David Bermbach. 2019. IoT Data Processing in the Fog: Functions, Streams, or Batch Processing?. In2019 IEEE International Conference on Fog Computing

    2019

  122. [130]

    Tobias Pfandzelter and David Bermbach. 2020. tinyfaas: A lightweight faas platform for edge environments. In2020 IEEE International Conference on Fog Computing

    2020

  123. [131]

    Kilian Pfeiffer, Martin Rapp, Ramin Khalili, and Jörg Henkel. 2023. Federated learning for computationally constrained heterogeneous devices: A survey.Comput. Surveys55 (2023)

    2023

  124. [132]

    V. N. Pham, G. W. Lee, V. Nguyen, and E. N. Huh. 2021. Efficient solution for large-scale IoT applications with proactive edge-cloud publish/subscribe brokers clustering.Sensors21 (2021)

    2021

  125. [133]

    V. N. Pham, V. Nguyen, T. D. Nguyen, and E. N. Huh. 2019. Efficient edge-cloud publish/subscribe broker overlay networks to support latency- sensitive wide-scale IoT applications.Symmetry12 (2019)

    2019

  126. [134]

    Plumb and Ryan Stutsman

    Jared N. Plumb and Ryan Stutsman. 2018. Exploiting Google’s Edge Network for Massively Multiplayer Online Games.2018 IEEE 2nd International Conference on Fog and Edge Computing(2018)

    2018

  127. [135]

    Cédric Prigent, Alexandru Costan, Gabriel Antoniu, and Loïc Cudennec. 2024. Enabling federated learning across the computing continuum: Systems, challenges and future directions.Future Generation Computer Systems160 (2024)

    2024

  128. [136]

    Carlo Puliafito, Luca Conforti, Antonio Virdis, and Enzo Mingozzi. 2022. Server-side QUIC connection migration to support microservice deployment at the edge.Pervasive and Mobile Computing83 (2022)

    2022

  129. [137]

    Guanjin Qu, Huaming Wu, Ruidong Li, and Pengfei Jiao. 2021. DMRO: A deep meta reinforcement learning-based task offloading framework for edge-cloud computing.IEEE Trans. on Network and Service Management18 (2021)

    2021

  130. [138]

    Amir M Rahmani, Tuan Nguyen Gia, Behailu Negash, Arman Anzanpour, et al. 2018. Exploiting smart e-Health gateways at the edge of healthcare Internet-of-Things: A fog computing approach.Future Generation Computer Systems78 (2018)

    2018

  131. [139]

    Moritz Raho, Alexander Spyridakis, Michele Paolino, and Daniel Raho. 2015. KVM, Xen and Docker: A performance analysis for ARM based NFV and cloud computing. In2015 IEEE 3rd Workshop on Advances in Information, Electronic and Electrical Engineering

    2015

  132. [140]

    Philipp Raith, Stefan Nastic, Schahram Dustdar, and Schahram Dustdar. 2023. Serverless Edge Computing–Where We Are and What Lies Ahead. IEEE Internet Computing27 (2023)

    2023

  133. [141]

    Flavio Ramalho and Augusto Venancio Neto. 2016. Virtualization at the network edge: A performance comparison.2016 IEEE 17th International Symposium on A World of Wireless, Mobile and Multimedia Networks(2016)

    2016

  134. [142]

    Partha Pratim Ray. 2021. A review on TinyML: State-of-the-art and prospects.J. King Saud Univ. Comput. Inf. Sci.34 (2021)

    2021

  135. [143]

    Eduard Gibert Renart, Javier Diaz-Montes, and Manish Parashar. 2017. Data-Driven Stream Processing at the Edge. In2017 IEEE 1st International Conference on Fog and Edge Computing

    2017

  136. [144]

    Sebastián Risco, Germán Moltó, Diana M Naranjo, and Ignacio Blanquer. 2021. Serverless workflows for containerised applications in the cloud continuum.Journal of Grid Computing19 (2021)

    2021

  137. [145]

    Roberto Rodrigues Filho, Luiz F Bittencourt, Barry Porter, and Fábio M Costa. 2022. Exploiting the potential of the edge-cloud continuum with self-distributing systems. In2022 IEEE/ACM 15th International Conference on Utility and Cloud Computing

    2022

  138. [146]

    Daniel Rosendo, Alexandru Costan, Patrick Valduriez, and Gabriel Antoniu. 2022. Distributed intelligence on the Edge-to-Cloud Continuum: A systematic literature review.J. Parallel and Distrib. Comput.(2022)

    2022

  139. [147]

    G. R. Russo, V. Cardellini, and F. L. Presti. 2024. A framework for offloading and migration of serverless functions in the Edge–Cloud Continuum. Pervasive and Mobile Computing100 (2024)

    2024

  140. [148]

    Gabriele Russo Russo, Valeria Cardellini, and Francesco Lo Presti. 2024. A framework for offloading and migration of serverless functions in the Edge–Cloud Continuum.Pervasive and Mobile Computing100 (2024)

    2024

  141. [149]

    Firdose Saeik, Marios Avgeris, Dimitrios Spatharakis, Nina Santi, et al . 2021. Task offloading in Edge and Cloud Computing: A survey on mathematical, artificial intelligence and control theory solutions.Computer Networks195 (2021)

    2021

  142. [150]

    Peter Saint-Andre. 2011. Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Core. Rfc 6120. https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6120

    2011

  143. [151]

    Ahmed Samy, Ibrahim A Elgendy, Haining Yu, Weizhe Zhang, et al. 2022. Secure task offloading in blockchain-enabled mobile edge computing with deep reinforcement learning.IEEE Trans. on network and service management19 (2022)

    2022

  144. [152]

    Dante D Sánchez-Gallegos, Alejandro Galaviz-Mosqueda, JL Gonzalez-Compean, Salvador Villarreal-Reyes, et al . 2020. On the continuous processing of health data in edge-fog-cloud computing by using micro/nanoservice composition.IEEE Access8 (2020)

    2020

  145. [153]

    Lorenzo Sani, Alex Iacob, Zeyu Cao, Bill Marino, et al . 2024. The future of large language model pre-training is federated.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.10853(2024)

    2024 arXiv

  146. [154]

    Mahadev Satyanarayanan. 2017. The emergence of edge computing.Computer50 (2017)

    2017

  147. [155]

    Chris Schlaeger. 2018. AWS EC2 Virtualization: Introducing Nitro.A WS Summit(2018)

    2018

  148. [156]

    Johann Schleier-Smith, Vikram Sreekanti, Anurag Khandelwal, Joao Carreira, et al. 2021. What serverless computing is and should become: The next phase of cloud computing.Commun. ACM64 (2021). Manuscript submitted to ACM 34 Loris Belcastro, Fabrizio Marozzo, Alessio Orsino, Dom...

    2021

  149. [157]

    Alexander Sergeev and Mike Del Balso. 2018. Horovod: fast and easy distributed deep learning in TensorFlow.preprint arXiv:1802.05799(2018)

    2018 arXiv

  150. [158]

    Sonia Shahzadi, Muddesar Iqbal, Tasos Dagiuklas, and Zia Ul Qayyum. 2017. Multi-access edge computing: open issues, challenges and future perspectives.Journal of Cloud Computing6 (2017)

    2017

  151. [159]

    Ali Shakarami, Hamid Shakarami, Mostafa Ghobaei-Arani, Elaheh Nikougoftar, et al . 2022. Resource provisioning in edge/fog computing: A comprehensive and systematic review.Journal of Systems Architecture122 (2022)

    2022

  152. [160]

    Micah J Sheller, Brandon Edwards, G Anthony Reina, Jason Martin, et al. 2020. Federated learning in medicine: facilitating multi-institutional collaborations without sharing patient data.Scientific reports10 (2020)

    2020

  153. [161]

    Wangyang Shi and Schahram Dustdar. 2016. Edge Computing: A Vision and Survey.IEEE Internet of Things Journal3 (2016)

    2016

  154. [162]

    In-Jae Shin, Byung-Kwen Song, and Doo-Seop Eom. 2017. International Electronical Committee (IEC) 61850 Mapping with Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) in Smart Grids Based European Telecommunications Standard Institute M2M Environment.Energies10 (2017)

    2017

  155. [163]

    Md Maruf Hossain Shuvo, Syed Kamrul Islam, Jianlin Cheng, and Bashir I Morshed. 2022. Efficient acceleration of deep learning inference on resource-constrained edge devices: A review.Proc. IEEE111 (2022)

    2022

  156. [164]

    Abhishek Singh, Praneeth Vepakomma, Otkrist Gupta, and Ramesh Raskar. 2019. Detailed comparison of communication efficiency of split learning and federated learning.ArXivabs/1909.09145 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  157. [165]

    Calheiros, Xiaohui Ji, et al

    Jungmin Son, Amir Vahid Dastjerdi, Rodrigo N. Calheiros, Xiaohui Ji, et al. 2015. CloudSimSDN: Modeling and Simulation of Software-Defined Cloud Data Centers. In2015 15th IEEE/ACM Int. Symposium on Cluster, Cloud and Grid Computing

    2015

  158. [166]

    Cagatay Sonmez, Atay Ozgovde, and Cem Ersoy. 2018. Edgecloudsim: An environment for performance evaluation of edge computing systems. Trans. on Emerging Telecommunications Technologies29 (2018)

    2018

  159. [167]

    Polyzois Soumplis, Panagiotis Kokkinos, Aristotelis Kretsis, Petros Nicopolitidis, et al. 2022. Resource allocation challenges in the cloud and edge continuum. InAdvances in Computing, Informatics, Networking and Cybersecurity

    2022

  160. [168]

    S. N. Srirama, F. M. S. Dick, and M. Adhikari. 2021. Akka framework based on the Actor model for executing distributed Fog Computing applications. Future Generation Computer Systems117 (2021)

    2021

  161. [169]

    Satish Narayana Srirama and Deepika Vemuri. 2023. CANTO: An actor model-based distributed fog framework supporting neural networks training in IoT applications.Computer Communications199 (2023)

    2023

  162. [170]

    Andy Stanford-Clark and Arlen Nipper. 1999. MQTT Version 3.1 Protocol Specification. https://mqtt.org/

    1999

  163. [171]

    Yi Su, Wenhao Fan, Yuan’an Liu, and Fan Wu. 2021. Game-based pricing and task offloading in mobile edge computing enabled edge-cloud systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.05628(2021)

    2021 arXiv

  164. [172]

    Sergej Svorobej, Patricia Takako Endo, Malika Bendechache, Christos Filelis-Papadopoulos, et al . 2019. Simulating fog and edge computing scenarios: An overview and research challenges.Future Internet11 (2019)

    2019

  165. [173]

    Ming Tang and Vincent WS Wong. 2020. Deep reinforcement learning for task offloading in mobile edge computing systems.IEEE Trans. on Mobile Computing21 (2020)

    2020

  166. [174]

    Zeyi Tao, Qi Xia, Zijiang Hao, Cheng Li, et al. 2019. A Survey of Virtual Machine Management in Edge Computing.Proc. IEEE107 (2019)

    2019

  167. [175]

    Haojun Teng, Zhetao Li, Kun Cao, Saiqin Long, et al. 2022. Game theoretical task offloading for profit maximization in mobile edge computing. IEEE Trans. on Mobile Computing(2022)

    2022

  168. [176]

    Chandra Thapa, Mahawaga Arachchige Pathum Chamikara, and Seyit A Camtepe. 2021. Advancements of federated learning towards privacy preservation: from federated learning to split learning.Federated Learning Systems: Towards Next-Generation AI(2021)

    2021

  169. [177]

    Shreshth Tuli, Nipam Basumatary, Sukhpal Singh Gill, Mohsen Kahani, et al. 2020. HealthFog: An ensemble deep learning based Smart Healthcare System for Automatic Diagnosis of Heart Diseases in integrated IoT and fog computing environments.Future Generation Computer Systems104 (2020)

    2020

  170. [178]

    Amjad Ullah, Tamas Kiss, József Kovács, Francesco Tusa, et al. 2023. Orchestration in the Cloud-to-Things compute continuum: taxonomy, survey and future directions.Journal of Cloud Computing12 (2023)

    2023

  171. [179]

    Ihsan Ullah, Hyun-Kyo Lim, Yeong-Jun Seok, and Youn-Hee Han. 2023. Optimizing task offloading and resource allocation in edge-cloud networks: a DRL approach.Journal of Cloud Computing12 (2023)

    2023

  172. [180]

    Blesson Varghese and Rajkumar Buyya. 2018. Next generation cloud computing: New trends and research directions.Future Generation Computer Systems79 (2018)

    2018

  173. [181]

    Veeramanikandan and S

    M. Veeramanikandan and S. Sankaranarayanan. 2019. Publish/subscribe based multi-tier edge computational model in Internet of Things for latency reduction.J. Parallel and Distrib. Comput.127 (2019)

    2019

  174. [182]

    Joost Verbraeken, Matthijs Wolting, Jonathan Katzy, Jeroen Kloppenburg, et al. 2020. A survey on distributed machine learning.Comput. Surveys 53 (2020)

    2020

  175. [183]

    Steve Vinoski. 2006. Advanced message queuing protocol.IEEE Internet Computing10 (2006)

    2006

  176. [184]

    Jun-Bo Wang, Jinyuexue Zhang, Changfeng Ding, Hua Zhang, et al. 2020. Joint Optimization of Transmission Bandwidth Allocation and Data Compression for Mobile-Edge Computing Systems.IEEE Communications Letters24 (2020)

    2020

  177. [185]

    2012.RabbitMQ in action: distributed messaging for everyone

    Jason Williams. 2012.RabbitMQ in action: distributed messaging for everyone. Simon and Schuster

    2012

  178. [186]

    Qingyuan Xie, Qiuyun Wang, Nuo Yu, Hejiao Huang, et al. 2018. Dynamic service caching in mobile edge networks. In2018 IEEE 15th International Conference on Mobile Ad Hoc and Sensor Systems

    2018

  179. [187]

    Ying Xiong, Yulin Sun, Li Xing, and Ying Huang. 2018. Extend Cloud to Edge with KubeEdge.2018 Symposium on Edge Computing(2018). Manuscript submitted to ACM Navigating the Edge-Cloud Continuum: A State-of-Practice Survey 35

    2018

  180. [188]

    Jie Xu, Lixing Chen, and Pan Zhou. 2018. Joint service caching and task offloading for mobile edge computing in dense networks. InIEEE INFOCOM 2018-IEEE Conference on Computer Communications

    2018

  181. [189]

    Xiaolong Xu, Qinting Jiang, Peiming Zhang, Xuefei Cao, et al. 2022. Game theory for distributed IoV task offloading with fuzzy neural network in edge computing.IEEE Trans. on Fuzzy Systems30 (2022)

    2022

  182. [190]

    Dmitry Yakupov. 2022. Overview and comparison of protocols Internet of Things: MQTT and AMQP.International Journal of Open Information Technologies10 (2022)

    2022

  183. [191]

    Su Yao, Mu Wang, Qiang Qu, Ziyi Zhang, et al. 2022. Blockchain-empowered collaborative task offloading for cloud-edge-device computing.IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications40 (2022)

    2022

  184. [192]

    Ashkan Yousefpour, Genya Ishigaki, and Jason P Jue. 2017. Fog computing: Towards minimizing delay in the internet of things. In2017 IEEE international conference on edge computing

    2017

  185. [193]

    Wei Yu, Fan Liang, Xiaofei He, William Grant Hatcher, et al. 2018. A Survey on the Edge Computing for the Internet of Things.IEEE Access6 (2018)

    2018

  186. [194]

    Matei Zaharia, Mosharaf Chowdhury, Michael J Franklin, Scott Shenker, et al. 2010. Spark: Cluster computing with working sets. In2nd USENIX workshop on hot topics in cloud computing

    2010

  187. [195]

    Zhang, W

    B. Zhang, W. Miao, and L. Wei. 2021. Research on Collaboration Method of Edge IoT Agent Based on Actor Model. In2021 5th International Conference on Power and Energy Engineering

    2021

  188. [196]

    Dongqing Zhang, Jiaolong Yang, Dongqiangzi Ye, and Gang Hua. 2018. Lq-nets: Learned quantization for highly accurate and compact deep neural networks. InProceedings of the 2018 European Conference on Computer Vision

    2018

  189. [197]

    Yushu Zhang, Hui Huang, Lu-Xing Yang, Yong Xiang, et al. 2019. Serious Challenges and Potential Solutions for the Industrial Internet of Things with Edge Intelligence.IEEE Network33 (2019)

    2019

  190. [198]

    Qihua Zhou, Zhihao Qu, Song Guo, Boyuan Luo, et al. 2021. On-Device Learning Systems for Edge Intelligence: A Software and Hardware Synergy Perspective.IEEE Internet of Things Journal8 (2021)

    2021

  191. [199]

    Shuai Zhu, Thiemo Voigt, Fatemeh Rahimian, and Jeonggil Ko. 2024. On-device training: A first overview on existing systems.ACM transactions on sensor networks20 (2024)

    2024

  192. [200]

    Alexander Ziller, Andrew Trask, Antonio Lopardo, Benjamin Szymkow, et al. 2021. Pysyft: A library for easy federated learning.Federated Learning Systems: Towards Next-Generation AI(2021)

    2021

  193. [201]

    INSIDER: INtelligent ServIce Deployment for advanced cloud-Edge integRation

    S, tefan Gabriel Soriga and Mihai Barbulescu. 2013. A comparison of the performance and scalability of Xen and KVM hypervisors.2013 RoEduNet International Conference 12th Edition: Networking in Education and Research(2013). Acknowledgments This work was supported by the resear...

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.