informatics

Review
Edge Computing and Cloud Computing for Internet of Things:
A Review
Francesco Cosimo Andriulo † , Marco Fiore † , Marina Mongiello *,† , Emanuele Traversa † and Vera Zizzo †

Department of Electrical and Information Engineering, Polytechnic University of Bari, 70126 Bari, Italy;
[email protected] (F.C.A.); [email protected] (M.F.); [email protected] (E.T.);
[email protected] (V.Z.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]
† These authors contributed equally to this work.

Abstract: The rapid expansion of the Internet of Things ecosystem has created an urgent need for
efficient data processing and analysis technologies. This review aims to systematically examine and
compare edge computing, cloud computing, and hybrid architectures, focusing on their applications
within IoT environments. The methodology involved a comprehensive search and analysis of peer-
reviewed journals, conference proceedings, and industry reports, highlighting recent advancements
in computing technologies for IoT. Key findings reveal that edge computing excels in reducing
latency and enhancing data privacy through localized processing, while cloud computing offers
superior scalability and flexibility. Hybrid approaches, such as fog and mist computing, present
a promising solution by combining the strengths of both edge and cloud systems. These hybrid
models optimize bandwidth use and support low-latency, privacy-sensitive applications in IoT
ecosystems. Hybrid architectures are identified as particularly effective for scenarios requiring
efficient bandwidth management and low-latency processing. These models represent a significant
step forward in addressing the limitations of both edge and cloud computing for IoT, offering a
balanced approach to data analysis and resource management.

Keywords: cloud computing; edge computing; fog computing; Internet of Things; privacy
Citation: Andriulo, F.C.; Fiore, M.;
Mongiello, M.; Traversa, E.; Zizzo, V.
Edge Computing and Cloud
Computing for Internet of Things: 1. Introduction
A Review. Informatics 2024, 11, 71. The progressive digitization of services has increasingly led to the massive use of
https://doi.org/10.3390/ sensors and intelligent devices in the most diverse fields, such as urban mobility, medicine,
informatics11040071
sports, and so on. The core technology for this transition is the Internet of Things (IoT),
Academic Editor: Alessandro which offers a wireless connection between heterogeneous devices, such as sensors, cars,
Pozzebon and household appliances. Collected data are transmitted and aggregated by a third-party
computer, either a remote server (cloud computing) or proximity computers (edge com-
Received: 16 July 2024
puting), from which results could be transmitted remotely for more complex analysis [1,2].
Revised: 16 September 2024
Edge computing brings the elaboration geographically closer to the user. It can also act as
Accepted: 24 September 2024
an intermediate node, managing resources by splitting heavy computational tasks among
Published: 30 September 2024
multiple nodes. An advantage of using edge computing is that sensitive information is pro-
cessed locally without the support of the cloud, thus guaranteeing user privacy. The small
volume of transmitted data also reduces transmission bandwidth and operation costs [3,4].
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors. Edge computing is usually found in real-time systems, which pose strict requirements on
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. processing times, such as in industrial and security applications [5]. In critical scenarios
This article is an open access article involving large numbers of people, such as emergencies in large buildings, timely and
distributed under the terms and targeted interventions by rescue workers are essential. An IoT-based framework has been
conditions of the Creative Commons developed to monitor environmental parameters and alert rescuers when thresholds are
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// exceeded, demonstrating the value of edge computing in processing data locally to pro-
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ vide real-time alerts and improve responsiveness. This framework uses a combination of
4.0/).

Informatics 2024, 11, 71. https://doi.org/10.3390/informatics11040071 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/informatics

Informatics 2024, 11, 71 2 of 22

hardware and software to manage and analyze raw data through a Complex Event Process-
ing engine, highlighting the adaptability and effectiveness of edge and fog computing in
critical applications.
Cloud computing, on the other hand, allows for great flexibility in terms of data
storage and computing power; some providers offer access to services using the pay-as-
you-go formula (a payment formula in which precise billing is provided based on the time
and computational capacity required), which reduces initial investments. Cloud providers
handle hardware maintenance and offer user-friendly graphical interfaces, allowing for
easy-to-use services. The architecture’s scalability stems from the ease of extending storage
spaces and modifying components, even temporarily; this is the key to managing workload
peaks [6,7].
However, neither approach alone is sufficient to address the complex and diverse
requirements of modern IoT applications. Cloud computing provides the scalability and
flexibility needed to handle large datasets and computationally intensive tasks, while
edge computing excels in low-latency and privacy-sensitive environments. The challenge,
therefore, lies in finding a balanced, efficient solution that leverages the strengths of both
architectures. This study is motivated by the growing need to explore hybrid computing
solutions, such as fog and mist computing, which combine the benefits of cloud and edge
computing to optimize performance for IoT systems. Understanding the advantages,
limitations, and potential of these architectures is critical for the future of IoT, as they
offer a path toward more efficient and responsive data processing models. In addition to
the need to aggregate data, it is important to be able to analyze them as best as possible.
For this purpose, an innovative technology is machine learning, which allows for the
development of predictive and/or decision-making models based on the collected data.
Precise and useful inference requires a significant volume of training data and copious
computing power. Machine learning algorithms were initially processed almost exclusively
in the cloud, creating a further increase in latency and bandwidth usage. Recent trends
have seen the rise of hybrid solutions that leverage the combined strengths of cloud and
edge architectures. These solutions exploit the computational power of the cloud while
also benefiting from the low latency offered by edge nodes [8]. Challenges to realize IoT
solutions for smart environments have also been well documented.
The work proposed in this paper is a systematic review that focuses on IoT technologies
and their interaction with edge and cloud computing, as well as hybrid architectures. Our
main contributions can be summarized as follows:
• We analyze both edge and cloud computing in a comprehensive manner, focusing on
their advantages and disadvantages, and the possibility of using hybrid architectures.
• We focus on privacy and optimization techniques, to ensure a consistent workflow in
IoT ecosystems.
• We discuss the implications of these technologies in different use cases, from resource
management to security to healthcare.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 analyzes related reviews on the
topic and highlights the unique contributions of this work. Section 3 shows the pursued
research methodology, including the research questions, the search string employed, and
the selection criteria used to identify relevant studies. Section 4 analyzes the results
extracted from the studies underlining the relevant keywords and their connection with
one another. For example, optimization is essential when dealing with massive datasets
for analysis, and the way we design our architectures significantly impacts how much
processing power and storage space is needed. To gain the most out of the resources,
it is crucial to carefully consider how much of each is required [9]. Then, we overview
machine learning algorithms because the considerable data collected from IoT devices
are usually analyzed using them. User privacy is a paramount concern in architectural
design. This means considering how a building or system can protect users’ personal
information from unauthorized access, misuse, or even accidental exposure [10]. The end
of Section 4 differentiates between cloud and edge computing, exploring their respective
Informatics 2024, 11, 71 3 of 22

advantages and disadvantages. It highlights the benefits of hybrid architectures, which can
synergistically combine the strengths of both approaches, leveraging their advantages while
mitigating their weaknesses [11]. This paper concludes with Section 5, which summarizes
the key contributions of the review. Section 6 then presents the overall conclusions drawn
from the analysis.

2. Related Work
This section of the review analyzes other reviews and surveys on the topic of edge
computing and IoT to highlight works’ differences. A summary is shown in Table 1.
Ali et al. [12] comprehensively explore the enabling technologies of the Internet of
Things technology stack. Their study focuses on the crucial role of middleware platforms in
facilitating IoT application development and integration. Recognizing the evolving nature
of the field, their article addresses outstanding challenges and proposes comprehensive
steps toward optimizing the IoT stack. Then, it investigates the integration of fog/edge
networks with the IoT technology stack, examining current research and highlighting
remaining challenges in this domain.
Apat et al. [13] dive deep into the various application models and resource allocation
strategies for the Internet of Things. Their study offers a comparative analysis of different
computing paradigms, highlighting their key features. Additionally, it proposes a general-
ized fog computing architecture that serves as a foundational framework for leveraging
these insights.
H. and V. [14] delve into various computing paradigms, exploring their strengths
and limitations. Their study then focuses on the characteristics of fog computing, provid-
ing a detailed analysis of its role in the Internet of Things (IoT) ecosystem. The survey
meticulously examines various fog system algorithms, offering valuable insights into their
functionalities. Furthermore, it systematically explores the challenges associated with fog
computing, considering its unique position as a middle layer between resource-constrained
IoT devices and powerful cloud data centers.
Tange et al. [15] concentrate on the security requirements of the Industrial Internet
of Things (IIoT) and how fog computing can be leveraged to address these requirements
and thus improve the security of the IIoT.
Iftikhar et al. [16] focus on the role of artificial intelligence and machine learning algo-
rithms in resource management for fog/edge computing environments and the associated
challenges in their applicability.
Lu et al. [17] investigate various edge computing methodologies employed in sig-
nal processing-based machine fault diagnosis. This analysis aims to empower the de-
velopment of robust Internet of Things (IoT) systems capable of real-time signal pro-
cessing, prompt fault detection (low latency), and ultimately, highly efficient predictive
maintenance strategies.
Amin and Hossain [18] study the existing and evolving edge computing architectures
and techniques for healthcare and recognize the challenges of different scenarios. The focus
of this survey is edge intelligence and its use in smart healthcare; in this case, artificial
intelligence is used to classify and predict patients’ health state.
Hamdan et al. [19] focus on edge computing architectures for IoT applications and
classify them according to different factors such as data placement, orchestration services,
security, and big data. Then, their study analyzes each architecture in depth to underline
its advantages and disadvantages.
Srirama [20] performs an analysis of fog computing with respect to challenges, rel-
evance, and future directions for research. They notice that after a decade of research,
we still do not see deployments of fog networks at a large scale. Only some small im-
plementations are proposed. They explore the real-time applications of fog computing,
together with its implementation with innovative technologies such as federated learning
and quantum computing.
Informatics 2024, 11, 71 4 of 22

Al-Shareeda et al. [21] explore how fog computing can be an appropriate paradigm to
overcome the actual algorithm in IoT applications. An architecture involving fog computing
with IoT is also presented to ensure security and data quality in communications.
Sharma et al. [22] examine the importance of edge computing in Industry 5.0. They
explore the usage of edge computing together with different technologies such as artificial
intelligence, digital twins, and collaborative robots. They also discuss research challenges,
which vary from privacy to human–robot collaboration.
Table 1 shows the topics covered in the articles analyzed. Our work offers a compre-
hensive analysis of edge computing, cloud computing, and hybrid architectures in the
context of IoT. Furthermore, we delve into the implications of these technologies from
multiple perspectives, including resource management, security, and healthcare use cases,
which are often treated in isolation in other reviews. A significant point of departure from
existing research lies in our comparative analysis of hybrid computing architectures like
fog and mist computing. These models have not been comprehensively addressed in earlier
reviews, especially in terms of their potential to bridge the gap between edge and cloud
computing in IoT systems.

Table 1. Related surveys and reviews about edge computing and IoT.

Pub Edge Cloud Hybrid

Ref. Privacy Optimization
Year Computing Computing Architecture
[12] 2022 ✓ ✓ ✓

[13] 2023 ✓ ✓ ✓

[14] 2021 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

[15] 2020 ✓ ✓

[16] 2023 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

[17] 2023 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

[18] 2021 ✓ ✓

[19] 2020 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

[20] 2024 ✓ ✓

[21] 2024 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

[22] 2024 ✓ ✓ ✓

Our work 2024 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

3. Research Methodology
Cloud and edge architectures were analyzed, with the advantages and disadvantages
of each of them. The final goal was to seek the most efficient architecture depending on
the case. For this study, we followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews
and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology, a set of useful rules for selecting the papers
on which to carry out a systematic review.
The research process was driven by the following six research questions (RQs):
RQ1 How has the topic of edge computing developed concerning the interaction with
IoT devices in 2022 and 2023?
RQ2 What are the research topics developed on the topic of edge computing concerning
the interaction with IoT devices?
RQ3 What data analysis paradigms has edge computing enabled?
RQ4 How has edge computing improved privacy?
Informatics 2024, 11, 71 5 of 22

RQ5 What are the disadvantages of decentralization related to edge computing?

RQ6 Which processing architectures are used in the IoT context and in what form?
Starting from the defined RQs, a query string was formulated to be inserted into
digital databases to identify the most relevant papers in the literature. Given the primary
objective of this review, the search keywords edge computing and Internet of Things were
considered essential. Given the direction of the in-depth analysis that emerged from the
RQs, the keywords privacy and data analysis were also included in the search string.
After evaluating different permutations of keywords, the search string was defined as
follows:
“edge computing” AND (IoT OR “Internet Of Things”) AND (techniques OR
technics) AND (“data analysis” OR privacy).
The search string was then optimized according to the algorithms and specificity of
each individual database.
To conduct this systematic review, the analysis of the papers was conducted using
the research questions listed above. The first two RQs were used to analyze and classify
the published bibliography, selecting it based on the year of publication and the topics
addressed. RQ3, RQ4, and RQ5 highlight the pros and cons of using edge computing in IoT
ecosystems. Finally, the last RQ facilitates a comparison between different data processing
architectures such as cloud computing, edge computing, and hybrid (edge–cloud) solutions.

3.1. Selection Criteria

To ensure appropriate selection for the studies included in this review, we developed
some key criteria that enabled us to precisely select papers for this work. These criteria
instructed both the automatic and manual selection process.
• Inclusion—publication year: 2022 or 2023;
• Inclusion—publication language: English;
• Inclusion—publication topic: relevance to the topic of the review;
• Exclusion—publication type: secondary work (review, survey, and tutorial);
• Exclusion—inaccessibility: pay-walled articles.
The PRISMA methodology consists of 3 phases:
1. Identification;
2. Screening;
3. Inclusion.
The screening phase internally comprised subsequent filtering layers, in which each
one keeps track of both excluded and included papers. The first part of PRISMA included
the papers’ source analysis, the removal of duplicates, and the automatic removal of
secondary works. In the second phase, we moved on to the manual exclusion of unavailable
papers. A first screening based on content was performed considering only the title and
abstract; in the second, a more complete screening was performed following the complete
reading of the text. Therefore, papers that reached the last section were the ones effectively
used for this study. A PRISMA workflow is shown in Figure 1.
Informatics 2024, 11, 71 6 of 22

Figure 1. PRISMA workflow.

3.2. Classification Schema

Although the research questions were fundamental, additional subquestions were
defined, as proposed in Table 2, to establish quantifiable criteria for paper classification,
facilitating the creation of informative graphs and discussions. The first subquestion refers
to RQ1 and RQ2 and aims to develop a general framework regarding the gathered scientific
material. The other subquestions lead to a more structured digression; particularly, the last
three compare edge computing with other technologies and highlight their advantages
and disadvantages.
To further guide research and discussion, we analyzed the keywords associated
with each selected paper. After sanitizing the keywords with processes such as merging
spellings, and removing duplicates and abbreviations, a co-occurrence map was generated
using a co-occurrence network generator function (https://nocodefunctions.com/gaze/
network_builder_tool.html, accessed on 18 May 2024). We then filtered the aggregated
keywords (removing overlapping tags) and grouped them into buckets. This last operation
was repeated three times: for all papers, for papers that contained the keyword “edge
computing”, and for papers that contained the keyword “cloud computing”.
From the aforementioned analysis, we developed several visualizations: a word
cloud, to illustrate the most frequent and covered themes across the analyzed papers; a
co-occurrence network, showing the correlations between the different keywords; and two
histograms about edge and cloud, containing all the correlated tags. These graphs are
analyzed in Section 4.
Informatics 2024, 11, 71 7 of 22

Table 2. Classification schema.

Data Description RQ
Where has edge computing
Scope RQ1 and RQ2
been applied?
Analysis algorithms How are IoT sensor data processed? RQ3
Privacy How is privacy protected? RQ4
Cost analysis/benefits (edge Are the benefits of centralized comput-
RQ5
computing) ing greater than the costs?
Which technologies are used
Other technologies RQ5
alternatively?
Cloud computing When is it preferred in the IoT field? RQ6

4. Results
4.1. Organization of the Systematic Review
This systematic review is organized as follows: We first discuss the relevant topics
identified in the analyzed papers, including healthcare, optimization, energy, security, and
safety. We then explore how data analysis is utilized and privacy is maintained within
these contexts. Next, we compare the advantages and disadvantages of cloud and edge
computing in the context of IoT solutions. This analysis provides a comprehensive perspec-
tive on the available system design options. We then delve into computing architectures,
with a particular focus on hybrid architectures that combine the benefits of both edge and
cloud computing. Fog computing is a noteworthy example of a hybrid architecture, which
we discuss in detail. Figure 2 presents an overview of the main topics analyzed.

Figure 2. Organization of this systematic review.

4.2. Bibliometric Analysis

Figure 3 shows the distribution of paper publication dates divided per month. The
distribution is overall uniform, showing that this topic is not strictly related to a particular
period of the year or to any specific event. Despite this, we found an increase in publications
related to healthcare, fog computing, and blockchain in 2023 compared to 2022.
Informatics 2024, 11, 71 8 of 22

Figure 3. Number of analyzed papers per month.

4.3. Keyword Analysis

After the papers’ selection, we analyzed the keywords used in each of them; with
this information, we created several graphs to help understand which topics were mostly
correlated to edge computing or cloud computing.
For a preliminary analysis of the papers’ keywords, a word cloud is shown to give
a visual snapshot of tags used in publications. A word cloud is a picture made of words,
where the size and prominence of each word reflect its frequency in the analyzed keyword
list. Figure 4 shows the word cloud generated from the buckets derived from the analyzed
papers. As expected—given the used research string—keywords edge (shorthand for edge
computing) and IoT (abbreviation for Internet of Things) are preponderant among the oth-
ers. In the figure, it is evident that cloud (shorthand for cloud computing) is the third most
frequently used term, indicating that the majority of the papers analyze it in comparison to
edge computing. Additionally, privacy and security appear to be prominent; in fact, most
of the advantages of edge computing are correlated to maintaining the privacy and security
of the user. Local data elaboration (on edge nodes) avoids sending them to remote servers
where the user has no control over them. Recognizing the limited computational power of
edge nodes compared to the cloud, the keywords resource management, latency, and task
offloading also emerge as prominent; this suggests that several papers explore methods for
optimizing storage and processing power utilization at the edge.
To evaluate the connections between the topics analyzed in the papers, we created
a correlation map, as shown in Figure 5, which is called a keyword co-occurrence net-
work. An interactive and dynamic version of the correlation map can be explored using
VOSviewer software either locally or online at https://app.vosviewer.com (accessed on 5
May 2024) by loading the JSON file available at https://github.com/Mackerkun/Edge-
and-Cloud-Computing-for-Internet-of-Things-A-Review (accessed on 5 May 2024). In this
map, keywords are represented by dots of size variable based on their frequency, while
the colored lines represent the connections between the various topics. This visualization
shows the profound correlation between the Internet of Things and various other top-
ics, confirming the permeability of this technology in today’s landscape. The node fog
computing is pretty notable, thus indicating that many papers suggest hybrid edge–cloud
architectures. Words such as federated learning, deep learning, and machine learning
are highly connected with each other and also with other nodes. These technologies are
used to analyze the huge volume of data coming from IoT devices. Given the last three
subquestions of the classification schema, all tags related to edge computing and IoT were
searched, and subsequently, two different histograms were proposed.
The histogram of topics correlated to edge computing, shown in Figure 6, indicates
that the most related keywords are IoT and cloud computing: IoT devices excel when used
in conjunction with an intermediate layer for data elaboration and workload management
and eventually send the heavier task toward the cloud. The presence of an edge computing
Informatics 2024, 11, 71 9 of 22

layer also improves the energy consumption of IoT devices and the security of the whole
infrastructure. The histogram of topics correlated to cloud computing, shown in Figure 7,
reveals the applications of cloud computing. Most of the analyzed papers present the
keywords edge computing and/or IoT. A relevant topic related to cloud computing is
latency, as many papers analyze the difficulties with network latency, an area where edge
computing and hybrid solutions can help address the problem.

Figure 4. Word cloud generated from analyzed papers’ keywords.

Figure 5. Keyword co-occurrence network.

 Informatics 2024, 11, 71

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0
10
20
30
40
50
60

edge computing; 31 iot; 51

iot; 21 cloud computing; 28

resource management; 20
healthcare; 9
mobile edge computing; 19
resource management; 9
energy; 17
data management; 7
privacy; 16
latency; 7
optimization; 15
performance evaluation; 7
security; 15
privacy; 6 task offloading; 13
deep learning; 5

4.4. Problems and Use Cases

wireless; 13
fog computing; 5 performance evaluation; 11
security; 5 task analysis; 11
costs; 4 data management; 10

machine learning; 4 latency; 10

blockchain; 3 federated learning; 9

industries; 9
decentralized applications; 3

Figure 6. Topics correlated to edge computing

fog computing; 8

Figure 7. Topics correlated to cloud computing.

edge-cloud collaboration; 3
healthcare; 8
energy efficiency; 3
machine learning; 8
federated learning; 3
quality of service; 8
industries; 3
collaboration; 7
offloading; 3 real-time systems; 7
real-time systems; 3 deep learning; 6
reliability; 3 distributed algorithm; 6
task analysis; 3 iov; 6
training; 3 multi-access edge computing; 6

big data; 2 reliability; 6

collaboration; 2 smart cities; 6

blockchain; 5
decision making; 2
computer vision; 5
optimization; 2
costs; 5
quality of service; 2
game theory; 5
scheduling; 2
neural networks; 5
smart cities; 2
reinforcement learning; 5
smart homes; 2 sensors; 5
wireless; 2 single board computers; 5

of our lives. Below, we delve deeper into specific areas of interest within the scope of this
nology across various domains, demonstrating its potential to impact numerous aspects
different use cases for edge computing. This helped us understand where edge computing
The papers were systematically collected and analyzed to identify and categorize the
10 of 22

was applied. This analysis revealed a wide range of applications for this emerging tech-
Informatics 2024, 11, 71 11 of 22

review. This includes an analysis of three critical challenges: security, safety, and resource
management. Then, we analyze a specific use case that exemplifies the power of edge
computing: healthcare.

4.4.1. Security and Safety

Cloud–edge architectures are very powerful, but every layer can be targeted by a
malicious attacker to obtain relevant data or simply deny the functionality of the services.
The most critical security threats are those related to network endpoint attacks, e.g., access
control system violation, targeting the authorization and authentication systems between
IoT nodes and edge computers and between edge computers and cloud services. In this
way, it is possible to retrieve data from the architecture or inject malicious code, using bugs
also caused by the current deployment. Another exposed part of the architecture is the
communication channel: It is important to ensure that data exchange is secure; moreover,
the identity of the two endpoints has to be verified, and the channel has to be secured
against man-in-the-middle attacks. A man-in-the-middle attack occurs when, during a
communication between two endpoints A and B, there is an attacker C that pretends to be
A for B and vice versa. In this way, even if all packets go correctly to the endpoints, data
are exposed to C. This particularly happens when the payload is in clear text, and there is
no strong authentication system to verify the identity of the endpoints [23]. Specifically
designed authentication schemes can address typical concerns related to IoT devices, thus
reducing computation and communication costs [24]. Another serious safety concern is
the reliability of the architecture, that is, making sure that a system is still functional even
if one or more of its components fail. A possible solution to increase reliability is to use
decentralized components, for example, using blockchain technology to store and securely
access data [25]; this way, the reliability of the architecture is increased, and there is no
single point of failure [26].

4.4.2. Resource Management

It is important to evaluate the computational and storage costs of an architecture.
With large volumes of data that need to be analyzed and stored, it is essential to optimize
resource usage and allocation. Numerous research papers explore optimal resource man-
agement techniques [27]. If the designed architecture includes IoT devices, the energy factor
must be considered, given their frequent battery-powered nature. Several factors influence
energy consumption, including CPU usage, sensor data collection frequency, and data
transmission frequency through the network [28,29]. In terms of energy consumption,
it can sometimes be beneficial to avoid running specific tasks on IoT devices, especially
CPU-bound ones, and delegate another actor on the architecture to process that. These
energy considerations are mandatory when designing an unmanned aerial vehicle-enabled
edge computing architecture: this is true because the on-board available energy is shared
between the drone (motors, navigation, etc.) and the computing part [30].
One way to efficiently use devices’ computational power is to use task-offloading
algorithms. These algorithms strategically distribute tasks across multiple nodes, mitigating
latency and improving user experience. They employ a dynamic approach, assigning tasks
to either a faster node or one with less load. This ensures optimal resource utilization
and minimizes bottlenecks [31]. Another target for these kinds of algorithms can be to
minimize both service latency and energy consumption [32–34]. Another concern of a
workload manager (running a task-offloading algorithm) may be to determine if a task can
be efficiently executed on the IoT device, using the limited computational power available,
or whether it is better to offload it to an edge node, which can then eventually escalate
the task to a cloud node [35]. These algorithms can also be based on deep reinforcement
learning, thus allowing the offloading system to improve over time [36]. Another approach
to the energy constraint nature of IoT devices is to implement energy harvest functionality
into the architecture: stationary devices (e.g., wireless access points) are set to provide
mobile IoT devices with both computational support (through offloading) and power
Informatics 2024, 11, 71 12 of 22

source [37]. Often, performance evaluation is used to ensure that the service-level agreements
(SLAs) are maintained throughout the operation of the architecture. By tracking metrics
such as cost, service speed, energy consumption, data usage, and CPU utilization, a system
designer can identify and address potential issues proactively. This approach ensures that
the architecture consistently delivers on its promised performance and resource efficiency
goals [9].

4.4.3. Healthcare
Edge computing and IoT have revolutionized the healthcare sector, enabling continuous
care, even outside of the medical structure [38]. This is also possible thanks to mobile edge
computing (MEC), a distributed architecture that aims to connect mobile devices like
smartphones and tablets with the cloud using edge nodes. This leverages the strengths of
both sensor data and mobile device capabilities combined with the cloud’s computational
power. Edge nodes can also handle critical tasks requiring low latency, where cloud
response times are unacceptable [39]. IoT devices are often used in the healthcare service
area to collect data on patients’ conditions. Artificial intelligence analysis can be used
to interpret data derived from sensors and generate information useful for doctors and
patients [38]. Given the sensible nature of medical data, privacy and data protection is
a strong concern. Guaranteeing confidentiality, integrity, and availability (CIA) while
factoring in the constraints posed by IoT devices requires a specialized data management
framework [40].

4.5. Data Analysis

The adoption of hybrid cloud–edge architectures has contributed to the development
of innovative data analysis paradigms that move processing from the cloud to the local
device architecture.
• Federated learning algorithms allow for distributed training. Each node trains the model
using locally available data. No user data are exchanged between the nodes or the
cloud; this allows for better privacy control. On top of this implicit privacy benefit, it
is also possible to implement specific privacy-preserving techniques, e.g., differential
privacy [41]. The overall model is built by merging the parts of the different edge nodes,
thus sharing only model weights with the central server [42]. Privacy-preserving
techniques (e.g., homomorphic encryption) are also applicable to this part of the
process. It is also possible to obtain optimized models for individual edge nodes by
appropriately calibrating the parameters of the overall model, which guarantees better
results during processing based on the data analyzed by the specific node [43]. The
use of federated learning enables the processing of big data while protecting the user’s
privacy [44]. It is also applicable to the healthcare sector for facilitating smart and
privacy-oriented medical services [45].
• Traditional machine learning techniques are based on centralized processing, which
therefore requires transferring data (both training data and the data actually to be
analyzed) to the cloud. This introduces concerns for privacy, network load, latency,
and separation of processing from the data source [6]. If an edge layer is added to the
processing architecture, it is possible to take advantage of the distributed techniques
which, at the expense of a lower analysis accuracy (due to the more limited calculation
capabilities), limit the aforementioned concerns (since data processing takes place
locally) [8]. Possible applications of these distributed techniques are computer vision-
related applications, like the ones described in [46,47]. Not only does the utilization
phase of a machine learning algorithm change in a distributed environment but
also the training phase can differ: Distributed learning splits the model into smaller
submodels (with fewer parameters) and trains each submodel in parallel on different
nodes, whereas decentralized learning replicates the entire model on each node and
trains it with the locally available data [48].
Informatics 2024, 11, 71 13 of 22

In addition to analytics, data storage has also changed with the advent of hybrid
architectures. It is possible to organize the data collected, for example, from IoT sensors,
in the form of graphs distributed between the various edge nodes and overlap them even
without central coordination [49]. The geographical dispersion of peripheral nodes is useful
for optimizing the availability of data in locations close to the actual users [50]. On the
other hand, the constrained nature of the edge environment creates new challenges in terms
of storage efficiency [51]. In general, it is not always optimal to run frameworks created
for the cloud on edge nodes, given the substantial structural differences between the two
architectures. Nonetheless, it is useful to transport the functionality offered by the afore-
mentioned applications toward the edges of the network, with the necessary optimizations.
For example, it is possible to implement an algorithm for managing concurrent queries in a
multi-access edge environment [52] or optimize de-duplication algorithms to ensure correct
data retention, without losing the advantages in terms of security and reduced network
load [7].

4.6. Privacy
The growing increase in IoT devices and the consequent increase in data transmission
on the network constitutes a real risk for user privacy, especially if data are not managed
with regulation-compliant practices. Blockchain technology has also developed to adapt
to edge architectures, allowing for the storage of data derived from the IoT network
on peripheral nodes and at the same time guaranteeing data security and integrity [53].
Blockchain facilitates decentralized data management: information is stored in verified
blocks that are added to the chain and stored in multiple devices, allowing for redundancy
and increased security. With this approach, there is no longer a need for a centralized
privacy entity, which reduces the cost and risk of the infrastructure; also, the duplication
of data and the block verification mechanism has a positive impact on data management
reliability [54]. Blockchain can be used to ensure the privacy of sensitive medical data,
as presented in [55].
An excellent solution is to avoid transmitting sensitive data to the cloud or try to
anonymize them before sharing: edge computing lends itself perfectly to this use. A very
effective technique in guaranteeing privacy is homomorphic encryption, an asymmetric
encryption method that allows operations to be carried out on encrypted data without
first decrypting them. In this way, with the same processing results, it is possible to
avoid the remote collection of sensitive information in clear text. However, the use of
homomorphic encryption increases the size of the data to be sent to the cloud. For example,
using the Paillier scheme that adopts RSA 1024 bit for message encryption, a 32-fold
increase is observed in the size of the data (using integers or 32-bit floating point as input).
Homomorphic encryption can also help secure the transfer of parameters calculated by
edge nodes to the cloud within federated learning systems, making it impossible for the
cloud to obtain information on the weights calculated during training [56]. Furthermore,
federated learning allows training to be carried out completely locally, as only the complete
model is transmitted remotely, thus reducing the volume of data subject to possible attacks
or data leaks [42].
With the considerable increase in data size, it is necessary to increase the network
bandwidth and computational power of the nodes, but privacy improves significantly
despite the increase in costs, especially compared to cloud-only solutions, either by lever-
aging the capabilities of the existing architecture [57] or by adding new components to the
architecture [58]. Edge devices are by nature less powerful than their cloud counterparts;
however, they represent an additional layer between cloud and IoT devices. The presence of
edge devices in cloud architectures facilitates data privacy not only in scenarios described
above but also through the implementation of algorithms, which filter or obfuscate sensitive
data [49].
An application in which privacy can be improved by implementing edge technology
is the voice user interface system, which transforms voice commands into actions, such
Informatics 2024, 11, 71 14 of 22

as music playback, reminder management, or control of interaction with other IoT de-
vices (smart lights). The audio captured by the devices contains numerous paralinguistic
information, from which it is possible to obtain extremely sensitive user data, such as
health state (physical and mental), emotional state, age, and gender; these data are not
necessary for the correct functioning of the service. It is, therefore, possible to create a
privacy-oriented VUI system, either by locally analyzing the captured audio to filter its
paralinguistic components before sending it to the cloud [59] or by enabling complete local
data management [60].

4.7. Computing Architecture

Data derived from IoT devices are processed from a variety of computing architectures,
as shown in Figure 8. This graph is the result of keyword analysis: First, we identified
all the research papers that contained “IoT” as a keyword. Following this initial filtering
step, we analyzed the remaining papers to identify which keywords related to computing
architectures were most frequently associated with “IoT”. Apart from edge-based or cloud-
based architecture, hybrid architectures are also deployed. It is important to notice that
edge computing is the most used architecture found in the papers because it is present in
the research string. Moreover, blockchain technology is applied in data management and
storage. For instance, Ref. [61] investigates a federated deep learning approach based on
blockchain, which offers an extra layer of security and decentralization but may introduce
increased communication overhead and longer training times.

70.00%

60.00% 58.89%

50.00%

40.00%

30.00%
27.78%

20.00%

10.00%
10.00% 8.89%
7.78%

3.33% 3.33%
2.22%

0.00%
edge computing cloud computing blockchain mobile edge computing fog computing edge-cloud architecture other multi-access edge
computing

Figure 8. Different computing architectures used in conjunction with IoT systems.

4.7.1. Advantages and Disadvantages of Cloud and Edge

Historically, IoT devices have always been associated with cloud solutions for pro-
cessing the data they produce. This architecture, although flexible, involves remote data
transmission causing an increase in network bandwidth usage and risk to user’s privacy.
The strength of the cloud is its extreme scalability and the efficient management of peak
activity; there are different classes/types of service:
• IaaS (Infrastructure as a Service): This enables the rental of a virtual machine type
infrastructure (VPS—Virtual Private Server) useful for installing software such as
Informatics 2024, 11, 71 15 of 22

databases, web servers, and DNS (Domain Name Service) but requires knowledge of
system administration.
• SaaS (Software as a Service ): This is one of the most widespread forms of cloud solu-
tions. The provider offers software to carry out a specific activity, and the customer
does not have to worry about the implementation or the hardware/software mainte-
nance of the system (including bug fixing and security problems of the environment).
To communicate with the SaaS, it is possible to use API (Application Programming
Interface), and this allows us to take advantage of software that is very complex to cre-
ate, reducing development times and costs. In particular, SaaS can often be purchased
with pay-as-you-go solutions, which greatly reduce the initial investment [62].
• NaaS (Network as a Service): This allows the network to be rented flexibly based
on user needs. NaaS offers significantly extended transmission bandwidth but has
above-average latency.
A disadvantage of cloud computing is that it is necessary to proportion the bandwidth
provided to IoT devices based on the volume of data to be uploaded remotely, and in the
absence of high-capacity connectivity (e.g., 5G), in particular, the network could constitute
a bottleneck for scalability. The primary need when you have an ecosystem of IoT devices
is to respect the QoS (Quality of Service), which decreases in case of excessive latency. In
particular, if real-time systems are created, high latency could be a compromise that is not
always acceptable [34,63,64].
The edge, on the other hand, allows data analysis to be brought closer to the devices
that perform the analyses. This way, it is possible to reduce latency and move traffic to the
local network, thus also significantly lowering costs. Moving to local processing promotes
user privacy, as the edge can be used to store the most sensitive data, which do not leave
the Intranet; this is also in line with new privacy regulations such as GDPR (General Data
Protection Regulation). The greatest problem with cloud-less architectures is that although
they reduce network-related latency, they increase computational latency. Considering
their reduced computing power compared to their remote counterparts, it is important
to commensurate the choice of architecture based on the type of load that needs to be
processed; in fact, the lower the computational load is, the more convenient the edge
solutions are [8,9].
In summary, every technology has its own advantages and disadvantages. Edge
computing is no exception, and its strengths and weaknesses include the following:
+ Processing closer to the data source;
+ Greater attention to privacy: Edge nodes can act as an intermediary layer between IoT
devices and the cloud. This positioning allows for data filtering and anonymization at
the edge, potentially improving data privacy;
+ Low network load: By processing data locally, edge computing reduces the amount of
information that needs to be transmitted over the network. This translates to lower
bandwidth consumption;
+ Reduced network latency: By processing data closer to the source, edge computing signifi-
cantly reduces network latency. This translates to quicker response times and real-time
decision-making capabilities, crucial for applications like autonomous vehicles or
industrial automation;
- Higher costs: Depending on the deployment model, edge computing can involve higher
initial costs compared to traditional cloud-based solutions. On-premise deployments,
for example, require investment in hardware, software licenses, and additional IT staff
for maintenance;
- Limited computing capabilities: Edge devices typically have less processing power
compared to large cloud data centers;
- Worse machine learning model execution: Their limited computing capabilities make
them less suitable for tasks requiring significant computational resources, such as
training large machine learning models;
Informatics 2024, 11, 71 16 of 22

- Difficult scalability: Scaling edge computing infrastructure can be more complex

compared to cloud deployments. Adding new devices or increasing processing de-
mands might require additional hardware installations, which can be time-consuming
and resource-intensive.
For cloud computing, the situation is as follows:
+ More Power: cloud servers typically have more processing power compared to
edge devices;
+ Scalability: cloud providers offer on-demand resources, allowing users to easily scale
their computing power and memory up or down as needed;
+ Maintenance paid by the provider;
+ Lower initial investments: cloud computing typically requires lower upfront investments
compared to on-premise solutions. Users pay only for the resources they use;
- Higher network Latency: by processing data further to the source, cloud computing
increases network latency;
- Reduced Privacy: Data security is a significant concern for some users, as data reside on
servers managed by a third-party provider. However, there are several options to help
maintain the privacy of the user like encryption and access controls;
- Limited to a few big players;
- Restricted to Internet access: unlike edge computing, which can be hosted on-premises,
cloud computing relies on a stable Internet connection. Disruptions or outages can
impact accessibility and application performance.
As highlighted in Tables 3 and 4, edge-based solutions are successful in the field of
privacy and network latency, but they do not provide enough compute power, whereas
the cloud favors scalability but requires greater connection bandwidth and compromises
on privacy. Building hybrid architectures allows us to benefit from the advantages of both
solutions and at the same time reduces their disadvantages.

Table 3. Cost analysis\benefits (Edge computing).

Advantages Disadvantages
Processing closer to the data source Higher costs
Greater attention to privacy Limited computing capabilities
Low network load Difficult scalability
Reduced network latency Worse machine learning model execution
Hybrid cloud–edge solutions

Table 4. Cost analysis\benefits (Cloud computing).

Advantages Disadvantages
More Power High Latency
Scalability Reduced Privacy
Maintenance paid by the provider Limited to a few big players
Lower initial investments Restricted to Internet access
Hybrid cloud–edge solutions

4.7.2. Hybrid Architectures

Fog computing is a hybrid architecture that extends cloud services to the edge of the
network where data are generated by Internet of Things devices. This is achieved by
utilizing edge computers to aggregate, pre-process, and analyze data from connected
devices before sending them to the cloud for more complex elaborations. Furthermore,
load management software is often run on edge devices to balance the operations carried
out locally and those delegated remotely. These processes are called offloading and are
essential for the functioning of the architecture and to guarantee adequate QoS [2,65,66].
For example, Ref. [2] shows that using a fog model instead of the traditional LoRaWAN
Informatics 2024, 11, 71 17 of 22

networks boosts a performance increase of 63% and lower latency. The most intensive
tasks are carried out in the cloud, enabling complex software execution. Privacy-preserving
techniques like homomorphic encryption can be used for data anonymization at the edge,
even when parts of the processing happen remotely. Using fog computing, the necessary
network bandwidth consumption and response time are minimized [67].
In real-time applications, mist computing is highly used. This is a layer that sits
between edge and cloud layers, deciding which data to store locally and which to send to
the cloud. Mist computing usually hosts services that extend cloud capabilities and support
end-user applications. This layer can be seamlessly integrated into fog architectures, further
enhancing performance and flexibility [67]. Another version of cloud computing is dew
computing, in which cloud services are hosted on the end devices [68]. Familiar examples
are Google Drive and Microsoft Teams, which are installed on smartphones and computers.
On Microsoft Teams, the records of the meetings can be watched multiple times but cannot
be copied on other devices (that have not Microsoft Teams installed), so access to the records
is restricted. Dew computing minimizes bandwidth usage, reduces security vulnerabilities,
ensures service availability, and improves user experience [67]. It can be particularly useful
when used in IoT environments [69]. Gusev [70] underline two important advantages
of dew computing: collaboration and independence. Collaboration allows dew devices
to synchronize with servers on higher layers in the post-cloud architecture. This enables
efficient data sharing and coordination between different levels of the network. Dew
devices are designed to operate independently of servers on higher architectural layers.
This provides flexibility and resilience, as dew servers can continue functioning even if the
connection to higher-level servers is disrupted.
All these hybrid architectures have their unique strengths and weaknesses, and their
suitability depends on the specific application requirements. As the number of IoT devices
continues to grow, these architectures will play an increasingly crucial role in managing
data efficiently and delivering optimal performance. They can also be combined to create
hybrid architectures that best suit the specific needs of an application or service.

5. Discussion
In this section, we summarize the main contributions for each defined research question:
RQ1 How did the topic of edge computing develop concerning the interaction with IoT devices
in 2022 and 2023?
The publication distribution was substantially uniform throughout the considered
time period. In 2023, compared to 2022, we observed an increase in papers related
to the following topics: healthcare, fog computing, and blockchain. At the same
time, we observed a decrease in studies related to homomorphic encryption.
RQ2 What are the research topics developed on the topic of edge computing concerning the
interaction with IoT devices?
The most notable topics related to edge computing and IoT in the analyzed pa-
pers are security and safety, optimization, energy, and healthcare. These top-
ics were analyzed through different perspectives: data analysis, privacy, and
computing architecture.
RQ3 What data analysis paradigms has edge computing enabled?
The adoption of hybrid cloud–edge architectures has contributed to the devel-
opment of innovative data analysis paradigms that move processing from the
cloud to the local device architecture: federated learning, distributed learning, and
decentralized learning.
RQ4 How has edge computing improved privacy?
Edge computing improves user privacy in several ways. Firstly, it reduces data
transmission by processing data locally on edge devices. Fewer data need to be sent
to the cloud, minimizing the risk of interception or unauthorized access. Secondly,
edge computing enables on-device processing, allowing sensitive information
to be filtered or anonymized before transmission, and protecting user privacy.
Informatics 2024, 11, 71 18 of 22

Additionally, edge computing facilitates decentralized data storage, thus reducing

reliance on centralized cloud storage systems that might be more susceptible to
large-scale data breaches.
RQ5 What are the disadvantages of decentralization related to edge computing?
Decentralization in edge computing brings several challenges. Firstly, edge devices
have less computational power compared to the cloud, which makes it more diffi-
cult to train and run complex machine learning models locally. Secondly, deploying
and managing a large number of geographically dispersed edge devices can incur
higher initial costs and ongoing maintenance compared to cloud computing. Fi-
nally, the distributed nature of edge computing can make it challenging to scale
resources as processing demands increase.
RQ6 Which processing architectures are used in the IoT context and in what form?
The Internet of Things (IoT) relies on different processing architectures to han-
dle data, each suited for specific application needs. Cloud architectures are used
when it is necessary to analyze a large volume of data from far locations. Con-
versely, edge computing brings processing closer to the data source, enabling
real-time analytics, reduced latency, and improved privacy, making it suitable
for applications requiring fast responses and having access to limited Internet
connectivity. Hybrid architectures are the most used systems because they allow
the user to take advantage of both cloud and edge features. For example, fog
computing is an architecture that extends cloud services to the edge of the network.
This is achieved by utilizing edge computers to aggregate, pre-process, and an-
alyze data from connected devices before sending them to the cloud for more
complex elaborations.

Limitations of the Approach

When conducting this scoping review, several limitations were encountered that
may impact the comprehensiveness and depth of the findings. First, the inclusion of the
literature was restricted to the sources available in English, which may have led to the
exclusion of relevant studies published in other languages. Second, while efforts were
made to include a broad range of sources, there is a possibility of selection bias, particularly
as the review prioritized peer-reviewed articles and well-established databases. This
may have resulted in the underrepresentation of emerging or non-traditional perspectives
found in grey literature, industry reports, or non-academic publications. Additionally,
the rapidly evolving nature of IoT technologies means that some of the findings may become
outdated as new developments emerge, potentially limiting the long-term relevance of the
conclusions drawn. This scoping review also did not involve a formal quality assessment
of the included studies, which could influence the reliability of the synthesized evidence.
Finally, the broad scope of this review, encompassing various computing paradigms and
hybrid architectures, may have led to a higher-level analysis, potentially overlooking some
nuanced details specific to individual IoT applications or technologies.

6. Conclusions
This review examined various data analysis technologies within IoT ecosystems, fo-
cusing on the advantages and limitations of edge computing, cloud computing, and hybrid
architectures. Our comprehensive analysis highlights that, while cloud computing contin-
ues to dominate due to its flexibility and scalability, edge computing is gaining traction
for its ability to reduce latency, improve privacy, and handle local data processing. How-
ever, edge computing still faces challenges in large-scale adoption, especially in terms
of limited computational power and decentralization. Hybrid architectures, such as fog,
mist, and dew computing, have emerged as the most effective solution to combine the
strengths of edge and cloud computing. By integrating edge nodes into cloud frameworks,
these architectures offer a balance of performance, privacy, and scalability. Hybrid systems
not only reduce network load and latency but also provide enhanced user privacy by
Informatics 2024, 11, 71 19 of 22

enabling on-site data processing. Moreover, they make use of cloud computing’s superior
computational capacity for tasks that require more intensive processing.
The main findings are summarized as follows:
• Edge computing is essential for low-latency, privacy-sensitive applications but requires
further optimization for large-scale deployment, particularly in load balancing and
resource management.
• Cloud computing remains valuable for its scalability and lower initial costs, though
privacy concerns persist due to the need for full data transmission to third-party
servers.
• Hybrid architectures represent a promising future direction for IoT applications,
combining the computational power of the cloud with the privacy and low-latency
benefits of edge computing. These architectures are particularly effective in sectors
like healthcare and security, where privacy and real-time processing are critical.
Future research directions should focus on optimizing edge computing to address
its current limitations. Improving the computational capacity of edge devices will be
crucial to ensure that they can handle more complex tasks independently, reducing re-
liance on cloud resources. Techniques like federated learning and distributed learning
are promising avenues for advancing data analysis at the edge while maintaining privacy.
Additionally, as the deployment of edge devices continues to expand, challenges related
to scaling and managing geographically dispersed networks must be addressed. Efficient
resource management techniques and cost-effective solutions for maintaining and scaling
edge networks are vital for the practical adoption of edge computing in IoT ecosystems.
Future developments in hybrid architectures will also require tailored solutions for specific
IoT applications, with an emphasis on enhancing energy efficiency, privacy, and perfor-
mance. By addressing these challenges, hybrid models can unlock their full potential and
significantly advance the development of IoT ecosystems.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, E.T.; methodology, F.C.A., E.T. and V.Z.; software, M.F.;
validation, F.C.A., E.T. and V.Z.; formal analysis, E.T.; investigation, F.C.A., E.T. and V.Z.; resources,
M.F.; data curation, F.C.A., E.T. and V.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, F.C.A. and V.Z.; writing—
review and editing, F.C.A., M.F., E.T. and V.Z.; visualization, E.T.; supervision, M.F. and M.M.; project
administration, M.F. and V.Z.; funding acquisition, M.M. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:

IoT Internet of Things

PRISMA Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
PICO Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome

References
1. Luu, S.; Ravindran, A.; Pazho, A.D.; Tabkhi, H. VEI: A multicloud edge gateway for computer vision in IoT. In Proceedings of
the 1st Workshop on Middleware for the Edge, Quebec, QC, Canada, 7 November 2022; Association for Computing Machinery:
New York, NY, USA, 2022; pp. 6–11. [CrossRef]
2. Mahmoud, M.; Ashraf Ateya, A.; Muthanna, A.; Zaghloul, A.; Kirichek, R.; Koucheryavy, A. Distributed Edge Computing to
Assist LPWAN: Fog-MEC Model. In Proceedings of the the 5th International Conference on Future Networks & Distributed
Systems, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 15–16 December 2021; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2022;
pp. 587–594. [CrossRef]
3. Serena, L.; Zichichi, M.; D’Angelo, G.; Ferretti, S. Simulation of hybrid edge computing architectures. In Proceedings of the
2021 IEEE/ACM 25th International Symposium on Distributed Simulation and Real Time Applications, Valencia, Spain, 27–28
September 2021; IEEE Press: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2022; pp. 1–8. [CrossRef]
Informatics 2024, 11, 71 20 of 22

4. Tianqing, Z.; Zhou, W.; Ye, D.; Cheng, Z.; Li, J. Resource Allocation in IoT Edge Computing via Concurrent Federated
Reinforcement Learning. IEEE Internet Things J. 2022, 9, 1414–1426. [CrossRef]
5. Qian, W.; Coutinho, R.W.L. Performance Evaluation of Edge Computing-Aided IoT Augmented Reality Systems. In Proceedings
of the 18th ACM International Symposium on QoS and Security for Wireless and Mobile Networks, Montreal, QC, Canada, 24–28
October 2022; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2022; pp. 79–86. [CrossRef]
6. Gutierrez-Torre, A.; Bahadori, K.; Baig, S.U.R.; Iqbal, W.; Vardanega, T.; Berral, J.L.; Carrera, D. Automatic Distributed Deep
Learning Using Resource-Constrained Edge Devices. IEEE Internet Things J. 2022, 9, 15018–15029. [CrossRef]
7. Shin, H.; Koo, D.; Hur, J. Secure and Efficient Hybrid Data Deduplication in Edge Computing. ACM Trans. Internet Technol. 2022,
22, 80:1–80:25. [CrossRef]
8. Gómez-Carmona, O.; Casado-Mansilla, D.; López-de Ipiña, D.; García-Zubia, J. Optimizing Computational Resources for Edge
Intelligence Through Model Cascade Strategies. IEEE Internet Things J. 2022, 9, 7404–7417. [CrossRef]
9. Raghavendar, K.; Batra, I.; Malik, A. A robust resource allocation model for optimizing data skew and consumption rate in
cloud-based IoT environments. Decis. Anal. J. 2023, 7, 100200. [CrossRef]
10. Foko Sindjoung, M.L.; Velempini, M.; Tayou Djamegni, C. A data security and privacy scheme for user quality of experience in a
Mobile Edge Computing-based network. Array 2023, 19, 100304. [CrossRef]
11. Zhou, J.; Kondo, M. An Edge-Cloud Collaboration Framework for Graph Processing in Smart Society. IEEE Trans. Emerg. Top.
Comput. 2023, 11, 985–1001. [CrossRef]
12. Ali, O.; Ishak, M.K.; Bhatti, M.K.L.; Khan, I.; Kim, K.I. A Comprehensive Review of Internet of Things: Technology Stack,
Middlewares, and Fog/Edge Computing Interface. Sensors 2022, 22, 995. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. Apat, H.K.; Nayak, R.; Sahoo, B. A comprehensive review on Internet of Things application placement in Fog computing
environment. Internet Things 2023, 23, 100866. [CrossRef]
14. Sabireen, H.; Neelanarayanan, V. A Review on Fog Computing: Architecture, Fog with IoT, Algorithms and Research Challenges.
ICT Express 2021, 7, 162–176. [CrossRef]
15. Tange, K.; De Donno, M.; Fafoutis, X.; Dragoni, N. A Systematic Survey of Industrial Internet of Things Security: Requirements
and Fog Computing Opportunities. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 2020, 22, 2489–2520. [CrossRef]
16. Iftikhar, S.; Gill, S.S.; Song, C.; Xu, M.; Aslanpour, M.S.; Toosi, A.N.; Du, J.; Wu, H.; Ghosh, S.; Chowdhury, D.; et al. AI-based fog
and edge computing: A systematic review, taxonomy and future directions. Internet Things 2023, 21, 100674. [CrossRef]
17. Lu, S.; Lu, J.; An, K.; Wang, X.; He, Q. Edge Computing on IoT for Machine Signal Processing and Fault Diagnosis: A Review.
IEEE Internet Things J. 2023, 10, 11093–11116. [CrossRef]
18. Amin, S.U.; Hossain, M.S. Edge Intelligence and Internet of Things in Healthcare: A Survey. IEEE Access 2021, 9, 45–59. [CrossRef]
19. Hamdan, S.; Ayyash, M.; Almajali, S. Edge-Computing Architectures for Internet of Things Applications: A Survey. Sensors 2020,
20, 6441. [CrossRef]
20. Srirama, S.N. A decade of research in fog computing: Relevance, challenges, and future directions. Softw. Pract. Exp. 2024,
54, 3–23. [CrossRef]
21. Al-Shareeda, M.A.; Alsadhan, A.A.; Qasim, H.H.; Manickam, S. The fog computing for internet of things: Review, characteristics
and challenges, and open issues. Bull. Electr. Eng. Inform. 2024, 13, 1080–1089. [CrossRef]
22. Sharma, M.; Tomar, A.; Hazra, A. Edge computing for industry 5.0: Fundamental, applications and research challenges. IEEE
Internet Things J. 2024, 99, 19070–19093. [CrossRef]
23. Primya, T.; Swetha, M.; Ramya, V.; Taanusri, S.R.; Ridhanya, G.; Sekar, R.A. Data sharing in Cloud-Assisted IoT. In Proceedings
of the 2023 Eighth International Conference on Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics (ICONSTEM), Chennai, India,
6–7 April 2023; pp. 1–8. [CrossRef]
24. Yang, X.; Yi, X.; Khalil, I.; Luo, J.; Bertino, E.; Nepal, S.; Huang, X. Secure and Lightweight Authentication for Mobile-Edge
Computing-Enabled WBANs. IEEE Internet Things J. 2022, 9, 12563–12572. [CrossRef]
25. Datiri, D.D.; Li, M. A Cluster enabled Blockchain-based Data management for IoT systems. In Proceedings of the 2023 24th
International Carpathian Control Conference (ICCC), Miskolc-Szilvasvarad, Hungary, 12–14 June 2023; pp. 88–92. [CrossRef]
26. Salama, A.; Stergioulis, A.; Zaidi, S.A.R.; McLernon, D. Decentralized Federated Learning on the Edge Over Wireless Mesh
Networks. IEEE Access 2023, 11, 124709–124724. [CrossRef]
27. Huang, J.; Wang, M.; Wu, Y.; Chen, Y.; Shen, X. Distributed Offloading in Overlapping Areas of Mobile-Edge Computing for
Internet of Things. IEEE Internet Things J. 2022, 9, 13837–13847. [CrossRef]
28. Hu, H.; Zhou, X.; Wang, Q.; Hu, R.Q. Online computation offloading and trajectory scheduling for UAV-enabled wireless
powered mobile edge computing. China Commun. 2022, 19, 257–273. [CrossRef]
29. Irtija, N.; Anagnostopoulos, I.; Zervakis, G.; Tsiropoulou, E.E.; Amrouch, H.; Henkel, J. Energy Efficient Edge Computing Enabled
by Satisfaction Games and Approximate Computing. IEEE Trans. Green Commun. Netw. 2022, 6, 281–294. [CrossRef]
30. Tang, J.; Wu, G.; Jalalzai, M.M.; Wang, L.; Zhang, B.; Zhou, Y. Energy-optimal DNN model placement in UAV-enabled edge
computing networks. Digit. Commun. Netw. 2023, 10, 827–836. [CrossRef]
31. Li, J.; Yang, Z.; Wang, X.; Xia, Y.; Ni, S. Task offloading mechanism based on federated reinforcement learning in mobile edge
computing. Digit. Commun. Netw. 2023, 9, 492–504. [CrossRef]
32. Sahoo, S.; Sahoo, K.S.; Sahoo, B.; Gandomi, A.H. A learning automata based edge resource allocation approach for IoT-enabled
smart cities. Digit. Commun. Netw. 2023, in press. [CrossRef]
Informatics 2024, 11, 71 21 of 22

33. Feng, H.; Qiao, L.; Lv, Z. Innovative soft computing-enabled cloud optimization for next-generation IoT in digital twins. Appl.
Soft Comput. 2023, 136, 110082. [CrossRef]
34. Moparthi, N.R.; Balakrishna, G.; Chithaluru, P.; Kolla, M.; Kumar, M. An improved energy-efficient cloud-optimized load-
balancing for IoT frameworks. Heliyon 2023, 9, e21947. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
35. Ahmed, M.; Alshahrani, H.M.; Alruwais, N.; Asiri, M.M.; Duhayyim, M.A.; Khan, W.U.; Khurshaid, T.; Nauman, A. Joint
optimization of UAV-IRS placement and resource allocation for wireless powered mobile edge computing networks. J. King Saud
Univ.-Comput. Inf. Sci. 2023, 35, 101646. [CrossRef]
36. Panda, S.K.; Lin, M.; Zhou, T. Energy-Efficient Computation Offloading With DVFS Using Deep Reinforcement Learning for
Time-Critical IoT Applications in Edge Computing. IEEE Internet Things J. 2023, 10, 6611–6621. [CrossRef]
37. Truong, V.T.; Ha, D.B.; Nayyar, A.; Bilal, M.; Kwak, D. Performance analysis and optimization of multiple IIoT devices radio
frequency energy harvesting NOMA mobile edge computing networks. Alex. Eng. J. 2023, 79, 1–20. [CrossRef]
38. Gupta, P.; Chouhan, A.V.; Wajeed, M.A.; Tiwari, S.; Bist, A.S.; Puri, S.C. Prediction of health monitoring with deep learning using
edge computing. Meas. Sensors 2023, 25, 100604. [CrossRef]
39. Li, H.; Shou, G.; Hu, Y.; Guo, Z. Mobile edge computing: Progress and challenges. In Proceedings of the 2016 4th IEEE
International Conference on Mobile Cloud Computing, Services, and Engineering (MobileCloud), Oxford, UK, 29 March–1 April
2016; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2016; pp. 83–84.
40. Gupta, D.; Rani, S.; Raza, S.; Faseeh Qureshi, N.M.; Mansour, R.F.; Ragab, M. Security paradigm for remote health monitoring
edge devices in internet of things. J. King Saud Univ.-Comput. Inf. Sci. 2023, 35, 101478. [CrossRef]
41. Wang, B.; Chen, Y.; Jiang, H.; Zhao, Z. PPeFL: Privacy-Preserving Edge Federated Learning With Local Differential Privacy. IEEE
Internet Things J. 2023, 10, 15488–15500. [CrossRef]
42. García Santaclara, P.; Fernández Vilas, A.; Díaz Redondo, R.P. Prototype of deployment of Federated Learning with IoT devices.
In Proceedings of the 19th ACM International Symposium on Performance Evaluation of Wireless Ad Hoc, Sensor, & Ubiquitous
Networks, Montréal, QC, Canada, 24–28 October 2022; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2022;
pp. 9–16. [CrossRef]
43. Zhou, X.; Jia, Q.; Xie, R. NestFL: Efficient federated learning through progressive model pruning in heterogeneous edge
computing. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing And Networking, Sydney,
Australia 17–21 October 2022; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2022; pp. 817–819. [CrossRef]
44. Zhang, J.; Liu, Y.; Wu, D.; Lou, S.; Chen, B.; Yu, S. VPFL: A verifiable privacy-preserving federated learning scheme for edge
computing systems. Digit. Commun. Netw. 2023, 9, 981–989. [CrossRef]
45. Rajagopal, S.M.; Supriya, M.; Buyya, R. FedSDM: Federated learning based smart decision making module for ECG data in IoT
integrated Edge–Fog–Cloud computing environments. Internet Things 2023, 22, 100784. [CrossRef]
46. Carro-Lagoa, Á.; Barral, V.; González-López, M.; Escudero, C.J.; Castedo, L. Multicamera edge-computing system for persons
indoor location and tracking. Internet Things 2023, 24, 100940. [CrossRef]
47. Zhang, L.; Xin, Y.; Zhang, L. Pedestrian recognition method based on Jetson nano. In Proceedings of the 2023 7th International
Conference on Big Data and Internet of Things, Beijing, China, 11–13 August 2023; Association for Computing Machinery: New
York, NY, USA, 2023; pp. 93–97. [CrossRef]
48. Banabilah, S.; Aloqaily, M.; Alsayed, E.; Malik, N.; Jararweh, Y. Federated learning review: Fundamentals, enabling technologies,
and future applications. Inf. Process. Manag. 2022, 59, 103061. [CrossRef]
49. Zheng, X.; Tian, L.; Hui, B.; Liu, X. Distributed and Privacy Preserving Graph Data Collection in Internet of Thing Systems. IEEE
Internet Things J. 2022, 9, 9301–9309. [CrossRef]
50. Du, X.; Tang, S.; Lu, Z.; Gai, K.; Wu, J.; Hung, P.C.K. Scientific Workflows in IoT Environments: A Data Placement Strategy Based
on Heterogeneous Edge-Cloud Computing. ACM Trans. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2022, 13, 42:1–42:26. [CrossRef]
51. Yang, L.; Liao, Y.; Cheng, X.; Xia, M.; Xie, G. Efficient Edge Data Management Framework for IIoT via Prediction-Based Data
Reduction. IEEE Trans. Parallel Distrib. Syst. 2023, 34, 3309–3322. [CrossRef]
52. Shi, T.; Cai, Z.; Li, Y. Query Recombination: To Process a Large Number of Concurrent Top-k Queries towards IoT Data on
an Edge Server. In Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE 42nd International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS),
Bologna, Italy, 10–13 July 2022; pp. 559–569. [CrossRef]
53. Zhou, L.; Liu, J. IOT Data Storage Solution Based on Hybrid Blockchain Edge Architecture. In Proceedings of the 2021 4th
International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Pattern Recognition, Xiamen, China, 24–26 September 2021; Association
for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2022; pp. 466–471. [CrossRef]
54. Tan, H. An efficient IoT group association and data sharing mechanism in edge computing paradigm. Cyber Secur. Appl. 2023,
1, 100003. [CrossRef]
55. Tlemçani, K.; Jai Andaloussi, S.; Azbeg, K.; Ouchetto, O.; Fetjah, L. An Advanced IoT-Based Architecture for Healthcare Systems:
A Focus on Blockchain-based Edge Computing for Diabetes Management. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on
Networking, Intelligent Systems & Security, Larache, Morocco, 24–26 May 2023; Association for Computing Machinery: New
York, NY, USA, 2023; pp. 1–7. [CrossRef]
56. Xu, X.; Liu, W.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, X.; Dou, W.; Qi, L.; Bhuiyan, M.Z.A. PSDF: Privacy-aware IoV Service Deployment with
Federated Learning in Cloud-Edge Computing. ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol. 2022, 13, 70:1–70:22. [CrossRef]
Informatics 2024, 11, 71 22 of 22

57. Peng, C.; Luo, M.; Wang, H.; Khan, M.K.; He, D. An Efficient Privacy-Preserving Aggregation Scheme for Multidimensional Data
in IoT. IEEE Internet Things J. 2022, 9, 589–600. [CrossRef]
58. Sun, Y.; Yang, Y. Gradient Privacy-Preserving In Federated Learning via Proxy Re-Encryption. In Proceedings of the 2022 the 5th
International Conference on Information Science and Systems, Beijing, China, 26–28 August 2022; Association for Computing
Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2022; pp. 100–106. [CrossRef]
59. Aloufi, R.; Haddadi, H.; Boyle, D. Paralinguistic Privacy Protection at the Edge. ACM Trans. Priv. Secur. 2022, 26, 1–27. [CrossRef]
60. Acostsa, L.H.; Reinhardt, D. Multi-User Privacy with Voice-Controlled Digital Assistants. In Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE
International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshops and other Affiliated Events (PerCom
Workshops), Virtual, 21–25 March 2022; pp. 30–33. [CrossRef]
61. Rawat, P.; Kumar, P. Blockchain based Federated Deep Learning Framework for Malware Attacks Detection in IoT Devices. In
Proceedings of the 2023 14th International Conference on Computing Communication and Networking Technologies (ICCCNT),
Delhi, India, 6–8 July 2023; pp. 1–10, ISSN: 2473-7674. [CrossRef]
62. Zakarya, M.; Gillam, L.; Ali, H.; Rahman, I.U.; Salah, K.; Khan, R.; Rana, O.; Buyya, R. epcAware: A Game-Based, Energy,
Performance and Cost-Efficient Resource Management Technique for Multi-Access Edge Computing. IEEE Trans. Serv. Comput.
2022, 15, 1634–1648. [CrossRef]
63. Carlini, E.; Kavalionak, H.; Dazzi, P.; Ferrucci, L.; Coppola, M.; Mordacchini, M. Network Measurements with Function-as-
a-Service for Distributed Low-latency Edge Applications. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Flexible Resource and
Application Management on the Edge, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 1 July 2022; Association for Computing Machinery: New York,
NY, USA, 2022; pp. 25–28. [CrossRef]
64. Majjari, S.; Anne, K.R.; George, J. Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL) based data analytics framework for Edge based IoT
devices latency and resource optimization. In Proceedings of the 2023 3rd International Conference on Advances in Computing,
Communication, Embedded and Secure Systems (ACCESS), Ernakulam, India, 18–20 May 2023; pp. 137–142. [CrossRef]
65. Ma, H.; Huang, P.; Zhou, Z.; Zhang, X.; Chen, X. GreenEdge: Joint Green Energy Scheduling and Dynamic Task Offloading in
Multi-Tier Edge Computing Systems. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 2022, 71, 4322–4335. [CrossRef]
66. Zhou, R.; Zhang, R.; Wang, Y.; Tan, H.; He, K. Online incentive mechanism for task offloading with privacy-preserving in
UAV-assisted mobile edge computing. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Third International Symposium on Theory, Algorithmic
Foundations, and Protocol Design for Mobile Networks and Mobile Computing, Seoul, Republic of Korea, 17–20 October 2022;
Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2022; pp. 211–220. [CrossRef]
67. Jeyaraj, R.; Balasubramaniam, A.; Kumara, A.; Guizani, N.; Paul, A. Resource Management in Cloud and Cloud-influenced
Technologies for Internet of Things Applications. ACM Comput. Surv. 2023, 55, 242:1–242:37. [CrossRef]
68. Gushev, M. Dew computing architecture for cyber-physical systems and IoT. Internet Things 2020, 11, 100186. [CrossRef]
69. Ageed, Z.S.; Zeebaree, S.R.; Sadeeq, M.A.; Ibrahim, R.K.; Shukur, H.M.; Alkhayyat, A. Comprehensive study of moving from
grid and cloud computing through fog and edge computing towards dew computing. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE 4th
International Iraqi Conference on Engineering Technology and Their Applications (IICETA), Najaf, Iraq, 21–22 September 2021;
pp. 68–74.
70. Gusev, M. What makes Dew computing more than Edge computing for Internet of Things. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE 45th
Annual Computers, Software, and Applications Conference (COMPSAC), Virtual, 12–16 July 2021; pp. 1795–1800.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.