Review Not peer-reviewed version

ROS 2 Key Challenges and Advances: A

Survey of ROS 2 Research, Libraries,
and Applications

Abdulrahman S. Al-Batati * , Anis Koubaa , Mohamed Abdelkader

Posted Date: 15 October 2024

doi: 10.20944/preprints202410.1204.v1

Keywords: ROS; ROS 2; robotic operating system; modularity; real-time capabilities; security; multi-robot
systems; literature review

Preprints.org is a free multidiscipline platform providing preprint service that

is dedicated to making early versions of research outputs permanently
available and citable. Preprints posted at Preprints.org appear in Web of
Science, Crossref, Google Scholar, Scilit, Europe PMC.

Copyright: This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons
Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 15 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.1204.v1

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.

Review
ROS 2 Key Challenges and Advances: A Survey of
ROS 2 Research, Libraries, and Applications
Abdulrahman S. Al-Batati , Anis Koubaa and Mohamed Abdelkader
College of Computer and Information Sciences, Prince Sultan University
* Correspondence: [email protected]
† Current address: 11586 Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
‡ This work was supported by the Robotics & Internet of Things Lab at Prince Sultan University
§ All authors are with the College of Computer and Information Sciences, Prince Sultan University, 11586
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Abstract: This study presents a comprehensive systematic review that addresses the critical transition
from ROS 1 to ROS 2, spotlighting the significant enhancements and the pressing need for a
detailed exploration of ROS 2 within the robotics community. Despite the extensive deployment
and adaptations of ROS in varied robotics applications, literature lacks a cohesive synthesis that
delineates the advancements, limitations, and broader impacts of ROS 2 compared to its predecessor,
ROS 1. Our contribution bridges this gap by assembling the largest database of ROS-related research,
encompassing 7,498 articles, with a focused analysis in this survey on 431 ROS2-specific publications.
We categorize these into i.) articles that discuss and analyze core ROS 2 concepts, ii.) articles
that propose frameworks or tools for ROS 2, and iii.) articles utilizing ROS 2. Furthermore,
we summarize literature findings of ROS 2 challenges, advancements, and future direction in
the fields of a.) security, b.) real-time, c.) middleware, d.) embedded and distributed systems,
e.) communication reliability and QoS, and f.) multi-robot systems. The methodology involved
meticulous data collection and categorization from multiple databases, facilitating an in-depth online
accessible resource. Results underscore ROS2’s enhancements in modularity, real-time capabilities,
and security, extending its applicability across various robotic platforms and industries. However,
challenges in scalability and reliability persist, signaling avenues for future enhancements. This
review not only deepens the understanding of ROS2’s contributions but also charts a path for ongoing
improvements in robotic systems design. The original data presented in the study are openly available
in https://www.ros.riotu-lab.org/

Keywords: ROS; ROS 2; robotic operating system; modularity; real-time capabilities; security;
multi-robot systems; literature review

1. Introduction
Robot Operating System (ROS, aka ROS1) emerged in 2009 and has been evolving as the de facto
standard ecosystem for developing robotics applications, including mobile robots, robotic arms [1],
unmanned aerial systems and drones [2], self-driving cars [3], quadruped robots [4], space robots [5],
and much more. ROS provides easy access to several open-source libraries, making developing robotic
systems and applications faster. For example, open-source libraries like gmapping from OpenSLAM [4]
and cartographer from Google [6] are integrated into ROS to provide a full-fledged navigation system
for building maps and navigation. The OpenCV library [7] for image processing and the Point Cloud
library [8] for point cloud processing are supported by ROS for advanced computer vision applications.
ROS also provides high-level abstractions to low-level hardware drivers, simplifying the burden of
low-level programming. ROS allowed robotics application designers and developers to focus on their
scope of work rather than being distracted by marginal side details. These are just samples of ROS
features that turned it into the most popular robotic framework.
However, at ROSCon 2014 conference, the Open Source Robotics Foundations (OSRF) and the
ROS community started to discuss and identify some gaps in ROS, including (a) single point of failure

© 2024 by the author(s). Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY license.

Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 15 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.1204.v1

2 of 46

with the ROS Master Node, which also limits its scalability (b) nonsupport of multi-robots systems
as ROS was designed for a single robot usage, (c) and the lack of support for real-time guarantee or
quality of service profiles, and thus its reliability was questionable.
The ROS community has formed several working groups to design and develop the
next-generation version of ROS, which is currently called ROS 2. Alpha and Beta versions started
showing up from August 2015 until September 2017, and the first official ROS 2 release, Ardent
Apalone, was launched on December 8th, 2017. Despite the release of ROS 2, ROS was still being used
more actively than ROS 2 until 2023, and the main reason is that ROS 2 has been under continuous
development and has yet to reach the same level of maturity as ROS. In fact, the ROS 2 developers
created the ROS Bridge package to communicate between ROS and ROS 2 when ROS is needed from
missing functionalities in ROS 2.
However, things have changed since late 2021, when ROS 2 has accomplished most of the missing
functionalities, including navigation, transformations, and others. It is expected that ROS 2 will
completely dominate ROS after the EOL of the last ROS distribution (ROS Noetic). Figure 1 shows the
road map to ROS 2 until the Jazzy distribution release.

ROS 2 Timeline
THE ROADMAP TO ROS 2

alpha1-alpha4 release beta1-beta3 and Ardent releases Dashing and Eloquent releases Galactic release Iron release
C data structures, dynamic ROS DDS_Security support (beta 1) Node composition | Improve rclpy Better command-line interfaces and Easier access and understanding of API
Middleware implementations, Execution model in Python (beta 2) to match rclpp, support of QoS, debugging capabilities. documentation generated from code.
initial versions of rclppNext Distributed discovery, publish/subscribe, deadline and lifespan Continued focus on improving the Improved debugging tools for better
Generation ROS request/response communication Support of markup launch files performance and reliability of the ROS troubleshooting.
C++ and Python 3 client libraries (XML, YAML), ros2doctor, turtles, rqt Middleware (RMW) interfaces. New tools for managing callbacks,
(rclcpp.rclpy) and message definition plugins, tf tree, rtobot steering, per- Quality of Service (QoS) Enhancements: essential for handling asynchronous
node logging More granular QoS settings for tailored events in ROS applications.
communication behaviors. rclcpp Executor Updates: Optimized
Significant updates from the ROS executors for better node execution
community, including new packages management and reduced race
and features conditions

2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024

2015 2017 2019 2021 2023

ROSCon 2014 alpha5-alpha8 and beta1 release Bouncy and Crystal releases Foxy release Humble release Jazzy release
Next Generation ROS Support for node composition New launch system | Static (LTS) Release: Supported until 2023, Long-Term Support (LTS): Supported Gazebo Integration: Enhanced
The Start of ROS 2 Design A standard lifecycle for ROS 2 nodes remapping of topics and services | providing stability and long-term until 2027. usability and integration with
Improved support for QoS rclpy improvements | support for maintenance. Security Improvements: Enhanced the Gazebo simulator.
ROS1Bridge three RMW implementations Expanded compatibility with tools for secure communications and Zenoh-RMW
Actions in C/C++, contributed Ubuntu 20.04 (Focal Fossa), RTOS, authentication in ROS 2 networks. Ability to record and replay
packages (gazebo, navigation2, and embedded platforms. Developer Experience: Improved service calls, better handling of
rosbag2, rqt) Improved ROS 2 CLI tools, RViz usability of ROS 2 tools, making ROSBag data.
enhancements, better colcon build development, debugging, and RViz2 Enhancements, and
tool, and a more powerful ROS 2 deployment easier. improved visualization
launch system. Expanded support for various
(SROS2) tools for secure hardware platforms, including
communications. resource-constrained devices

Figure 1. Timeline of ROS 2 until 2022.

1.1. Methodology
The methodology for obtaining and analyzing the literature on ROS 2 involved a comprehensive
search across multiple databases including Google Scholar, IEEE, ACM, ScienceDirect, Springer,
Elsevier, SAGE, and arXiv. From these sources, we collected a total of 7497 articles related to ROS
1 and ROS 2, dating from 2009 to the present. All these articles are recorded in our online database
https://www.ros.riotu-lab.org/, where each entry includes information about which version of ROS
it addresses or utilizes, the research field, the robotic platform used, the article DOI, and its GitHub
repository if available. This database allows users to filter and sort the records to find specific
information, such as all GitHub ROS 2 repositories for UAV swarms.
From the initial collection, we identified 431 articles specifically focused on ROS 2. These articles
were further categorized into three groups as shown in Figure 2, and they are explained as follows:

1. Articles that analyze ROS 2: This group includes 98 articles that discuss various areas that are
core to ROS 2 design, such as Security, Real-Time Capabilities, Communication, and Multi-robot
Systems support. Each research area is explored in depth, providing critical insights into the
literature, motivations for the researchers, their contributions, and current gaps in Section 4.
2. Articles that propose tool-kits for ROS 2: This group comprises 130 articles. These research
works provide open-source software packages for ROS 2 users for different applications such as
ROSGPT [9] for HRI, or CrazyChoir [10] for UAV in MRS settings. We cite some of these articles
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 15 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.1204.v1

3 of 46

with their GitHub repositories in a table in Section 5. This highlights the significant frameworks
and tools developed by the community to support ROS 2.
3. Articles that utilize ROS 2: This group includes 203 research works that use ROS 2 as a
middleware to facilitate their development such as the use of ROS 2 in healthcare research [11].
We provide a taxonomy for these works. We mention some of these articles to showcase
the diverse fields and applications that utilize ROS 2 in Section 6, demonstrating its broad
applicability and impact.

Figure 2. Taxonomy of ROS 2 articles types.

The detailed methodology for literature collection and categorization is illustrated in Figure 3,
which outlines the process from initial database searches to the final categorization of articles. This
approach ensures a comprehensive and systematic review of the ROS 2 literature, providing valuable
insights and resources for researchers and developers in the field.

7498 ROS related article since 2009

431 ROS 2 related papers since 2014

Recorded in
https://ros.riotu-lab.org

98 articles that discuss and 130 articles that propose

203 articles that utilize ROS 2
analyze core ROS 2 concepts frameworks or tools for ROS 2

This is discussed in “Research Topics in This is showcased in “ROS 2 This is showcased in “ROS 2
ROS 2” section and categorized into the Frameworks and Toolkits” section and Applications” section and categorized
following: summarized in a table: into the following:
Benchmarking ROS 2 in Robotics Multi Robotic Systems Pkgs Transportation
Applications Cooperative Robotics & HRI Pkgs Automation
Security Simulating Pkgs Security & Defence
Real-Time Perception Pkgs Agriculture
Middleware Planning Pkgs Healthcare
Embedded & Distributed Systems Integration Pkgs Education
Reliability & QoS Communication Pkgs
Multi-Robot Systems (MRS)

Figure 3. Literature collection methodology.

1.2. Related Surveys

The body of literature surrounding ROS 2 has expanded significantly, with various surveys
addressing specific aspects of this robotic operating system. In this subsection, we highlight key
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 15 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.1204.v1

4 of 46

surveys, their focal points, the gaps they reveal, and how our work contributes to the existing
knowledge base. A summarized comparison is presented in Table 1.
Several noteworthy surveys have examined different facets of ROS 2. For instance, Audonnet et
al. [12] conducted a systematic comparison of simulation software for robotic arm manipulation in ROS
2, while Zhang et al. [13] reviewed innovative architectures and technology readiness for distributed
robotic systems within the edge-cloud continuum, focusing on ROS 2. Macenski et al. [14] offered
a comprehensive survey of modern mobile robotics algorithms in ROS 2, with particular attention
to navigation systems. Additionally, Choi et al. [15] explored priority-driven real-time scheduling in
ROS 2, and Macenski et al. [16] examined the design, architecture, and practical applications of ROS
2 across various environments. Similarly, DiLuoffo et al. [17] addressed the critical need for secure
robotic architectures, advocating for a holistic security approach in ROS 2. Finally, Alhanahnah [18]
evaluated software quality in ROS through static analysis of ROS repositories.
While these surveys contribute valuable insights, each focuses on a narrow aspect of ROS 2. In
contrast, our survey offers a comprehensive review, spanning a wide range of research areas, including
security, multi-robot systems, modularity, and real-time performance. Furthermore, we introduce
a detailed database of ROS and ROS 2 literature, categorized by research domain, targeted robotic
platforms, industry focus, and article type. This extensive scope not only fills the gaps identified in
previous surveys but also provides a holistic view of ROS 2’s ecosystem and its evolving community
contributions.

Table 1. Comparison of ROS 2 Surveys.

Survey Focus Area Gaps Our Contribution
Audonnet et al. [12] Simulation software for robotic arms Limited to simulation software Comprehensive coverage of ROS 2 applications
Zhang et al. [13] Edge-cloud integration Does not cover security, real-time performance Wide range of research topics including security and modularity
Macenski et al. [14] Mobile robotics navigation Focuses only on navigation systems Holistic view including multi-robot systems and real-time performance
Choi et al. [15] Real-time scheduling Limited to real-time performance Inclusion of various research domains
Bonci et al. [19] Industrial autonomy Focused on industrial applications Broader application fields
Macenski et al. [16] ROS 2 architecture and uses Lack of systematic research analysis Systematic review and database of literature
DiLuoffo et al. [17] Security in ROS 2 Focused solely on security Inclusion of multiple research areas
Alhanahnah [18] Software quality assessment Centered on ROS 1 Extensive insights into ROS 2

1.3. Contributions
This survey provides a comprehensive analysis of the Robot Operating System 2 (ROS 2),
highlighting its development, advancements, and applications across various research domains. Our
contributions are summarized as follows:

1. Extensive Literature Review: Our survey systematically reviews the extensive body of literature
on ROS 2, categorizing research topics into key areas such as security, multi-robot systems,
modularity, and real-time performance. We provide detailed summaries and analyses of
significant studies in each area.
2. Community and Ecosystem Contributions: We highlight the significant contributions of the
ROS 2 community, including notable frameworks, tools, and open-source projects. This includes
an overview of influential ROS 2 GitHub repositories and their impact on the robotics ecosystem.
3. Development of a Literature Database: As part of our survey, we introduce a comprehensive
online database that catalogs ROS and ROS 2 literature. This database categorizes articles by
research domain, targeted robotic platform, industry focus, and article type, making it a valuable
resource for researchers and developers.

1.4. Paper Structure

The structure of this paper is as follows: Section 2 provides an overview of ROS & ROS 2,
detailing their development history, and core features. Section 3 discusses ROS 2 architectural
improvements over ROS 1, including a comparison between ROS 1 and ROS 2. Section 4 explores
various research topics within ROS 2, such as security, real-time capabilities, and other significant
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 15 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.1204.v1

5 of 46

areas like middleware and communication. Section 5 discusses the ROS 2 frameworks and toolkits,
including major contributors and notable GitHub repositories. Section 6 reviews the applications of
ROS 2 across different industries and research domains, highlighting specific case studies of successful
implementations. Section 7 introduces the literature database created as part of this survey, providing
an analysis of key insights and trends. Section 8 concludes the paper by summarizing the key findings,
discussing the impact of ROS 2, and emphasizing gaps, future directions, and the importance of
continued research and community collaboration.

2. ROS & ROS 2 Overview

In this section, we will explore the distinctions between ROS and ROS 2. Originating in 2014,
the Open Source Robotics Foundation (OSRF) and the ROS community identified several deficiencies
in ROS, prompting the necessity for an evolved version of ROS. This was driven by the escalating
demands of robotics applications, which necessitated enhancements in aspects such as real-time
guarantees, quality of service, security, and scalability.
We will start by examining the core features of ROS, subsequently shift our focus to the primary
design objectives of ROS 2, and conclude by juxtaposing the two versions. This comprehensive analysis
aims to provide a detailed understanding of the evolution of ROS and the improvements brought
about by the advent of ROS 2.

2.1. ROS

2.1.1. ROS Design Goals

ROS was fundamentally designed to serve as a unified platform for building single-robot
applications. It offers a standard collection of tools, libraries, and conventions that aid in developing a
broad spectrum of robotic applications, spanning from basic prototypes to intricate robotic systems.
One of the salient design objectives of ROS was to promote reusability and modularity, enabling
developers to readily share and consolidate software components, thereby facilitating the creation of
sophisticated robotic applications. Notwithstanding the diverse use cases it covers, ROS’s primary
focus remains on single-robot systems. While there have been initiatives to extend ROS’s capabilities
towards multi-robot systems [20], these efforts were neither seamlessly integrated nor widely adopted.
The next section will provide an overview of ROS Architecture.

2.1.2. ROS Architecture

ROS architecture is depicted in Figure 4 and summarized as follows.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 15 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.1204.v1

6 of 46

Figure 4. ROS 1 Architecture.

Natively Centralized
The Robot Operating System (ROS) primarily serves as a middleware framework, promoting
communication between various processes, called nodes, within a computational machine.
Conceptually, ROS can be envisaged as a network of nodes (processes), exchanging messages to execute
a specific task. This network pivots around a central node, termed the ROS master node (ROSCORE),
which serves as a liaison between all nodes within the ROS network. The functionality of the ROS
network is critically dependent on this master node. It is worth noting that the dependence on a single
master node presents limitations in terms of scalability and introduces a single point of failure.
A ROS node can be a simple C++ program or a Python script, which reads data from other
nodes, processes this data, and subsequently publishes it for other nodes. For instance, a camera node
may acquire images via its drivers and publish this image data through a specified channel or topic
(e.g., /camera/rgb/). Another node may receive this image data, process it using computer vision
algorithms, and send the results to another node for appropriate action.

A Modular and Scalable Architecture

The structure of ROS, characterized by its distributed nodes, closely reflects the concept of
a microservices architecture. In such an architecture, a monolithic application is partitioned into
smaller, standalone services, each performing a specific function. This design is a strategic approach
to managing complexity in large applications, facilitating modularity, and promoting scalability, as
services can be developed, deployed, and scaled independently. Similarly, ROS strongly emphasizes
modularity, allowing its applications to be executed and operated over multiple nodes. Each node
in a ROS application performs a discrete task and can operate independently, analogous to a service
in a microservices architecture. This arrangement allows for simplified debugging, testing, and
understanding of individual components while permitting complex behaviors when the components
interact. Thus, ROS’s modular and distributed nature echoes the microservices architecture principles,
enhancing maintainability and scalability in robotic applications.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 15 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.1204.v1

7 of 46

Communication Patterns
ROS employs several communication mechanisms that enable a seamless exchange of information
between nodes.

• Publisher-Subscriber (Topics): Fundamental to ROS’s communication infrastructure is the

Publisher-Subscriber model, implemented through Topics. In this model, a node that generates
data serves as the Publisher, broadcasting information over a channel known as a Topic. Other
nodes that need this information can subscribe to the respective Topic, thereby consuming the
published data. This decoupled communication model enables a many-to-many data flow,
promoting the distribution of data to all interested nodes. Topics carry ROS messages, which
encapsulate the information to be transmitted. The Publisher-Subscriber paradigm enhances
flexibility, as nodes can dynamically publish or subscribe to Topics, and robustness, as the failure
of one node does not directly impact others.
• Synchronous Client/Server: (Services) Services denote the synchronous client/server model
within ROS. In this paradigm, a client node sends a request to a server node and waits for a
response. The client is unable to perform other tasks until this response is received, indicating a
synchronous operation. This model is applied when the server can complete the task swiftly and
the client requires an immediate response. If the task duration is prolonged, the Services model
becomes unsuitable, and the ROSLib concept is employed instead.
• Asynchronous Client/Server: (ActionLib) The ActionLib model signifies the asynchronous
client/server model in ROS. This model contrasts with ROS Services in that the ActionLib client
is not blocked while waiting for the server’s response. The client can concurrently execute
other tasks while the server processes its mission. In addition, the ActionLib server can send
intermediate results to the client, updating it on the task progress. This model is particularly
useful for tasks such as robot navigation, where the server processes a navigation request over
an extended period, and the client monitors progress while performing other tasks.
• Messages and Services: In ROS, two distinct types of entities are used to facilitate communication:
Messages for Topics and Services for synchronous client-server communication. Messages (rosmsg)
are simple data structures comprising typed fields. They are used when nodes want to transmit
data to one or multiple recipients. On the other hand, Services (rossrv) are defined by a pair
of messages, one for the request and one for the response. They are used for synchronous
RPC-like communication. This division, while serving its purpose, introduced complexity to the
development process, as developers had to work with different types of entities depending on
the communication model employed.

Client Libraries and Communication Middleware

While the fundamental concepts of ROS are retained in ROS 2, substantial differences lie in the
client libraries, the communication middleware, and their underlying implementations.
In ROS, two primary client libraries are used: rospy for Python and roscpp for C++. These
libraries provide the means for creating ROS nodes and handling the communication between them.
Rospy primarily supports Python 2 across all ROS versions, except for the final ROS version, ROS
Noetic, which introduces Python 3 support.
Regarding communication middleware, ROS employs a custom-made middleware: ROSTCP
and ROSUDP, based on the TCP and UDP protocols, respectively. ROSTCP ensures reliable,
connection-oriented communication, while ROSUDP enables connectionless communication with less
overhead but no delivery guarantees. However, these custom protocols present limitations, such as
the lack of real-time capabilities and difficulty in configuring Quality of Service (QoS) settings.
In contrast, ROS 2 introduces new client libraries, namely rclcpp and rclpy, with significant
improvements over their ROS counterparts. More notably, ROS 2 transitions from custom protocols to
the standardized Data Distribution Service (DDS) middleware for its communication infrastructure.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 15 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.1204.v1

8 of 46

This shift addresses the limitations of ROS middleware and will be explored in detail in the following
section.

2.1.3. Limitations of ROS and the Motivation for ROS 2

Despite the significant contributions of ROS to the robotics community, certain limitations have
prompted the development of a more advanced version. The deliberation to address these limitations
began at the ROSCon 2014 conference, where the Open Source Robotics Foundation (OSRF) and the
ROS community collectively identified areas of improvement.

• Single-Robot Focus: The primary limitation of ROS is its exclusive design for single-robot
applications. The absence of inherent support for multi-robot systems presented a challenge
for applications involving swarms or collaborative robots. This is primarily attributed to ROS’s
design requirement of a central ROS Master node, creating an isolated network per robot. In
multi-robot applications, this necessitates additional packages to enable inter-robot cooperation.
ROS 2 has addressed this limitation by removing the requirement for a ROS Master node, which
we will discuss later.
• Lack of Real-Time Guarantees and Quality of Service: Another significant drawback of ROS
is the absence of real-time guarantees and Quality of Service (QoS) profiles for prioritizing
critical messages. ROS’s reliance on TCP and UDP protocols translates to a best-effort service
for message delivery without any assurance of successful transmission. The absence of message
prioritization implies that critical and regular messages are treated on par, making it unsuitable
for industrial-grade applications with stringent real-time and safety requirements, such as
autonomous vehicles or unmanned aerial systems.
• Reliability and Scalability Concerns: Lastly, the reliability and scalability of ROS are challenged
by its dependency on the central ROS Master node. The entire network fails if the ROS Master
node crashes, establishing a single point of failure. This design also constrains the scalability of
ROS.

In the following section, we delve into how ROS 2 has been designed to address and overcome
these limitations.

2.2. ROS 2

2.2.1. ROS 2 Design Goals

The design of ROS 2 was primarily driven by the need to overcome the limitations of ROS, as
discussed in the previous section.

Focus on Swarm Robotics

In contrast to ROS, which was primarily designed for standalone robots, ROS 2 has been
engineered emphasizing swarm robotic applications. The inherent complexity of swarm robotics
necessitates a fully distributed middleware that enables ad-hoc communication between multiple
devices. This distributed communication structure allows for the efficient coordination and collective
behavior that characterize a robot swarm. This shift towards a more distributed architecture is a key
factor differentiating ROS 2 from its predecessor.

Real-Time and QoS Guarantees

ROS’s lack of support for real-time guarantees and Quality of Service (QoS) were significant
limitations, especially for applications with stringent timing and reliability requirements. To address
this, real-time support and QoS guarantees were positioned at the forefront of ROS 2’s design
considerations. The middleware used in ROS 2 is expected to provide sophisticated QoS policies,
ensuring the prioritized and timely delivery of messages based on their importance and urgency. These
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 15 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.1204.v1

9 of 46

features are crucial for applications that require high reliability and deterministic execution, such as
autonomous vehicles and industrial automation systems.

Fast Prototyping and Cross-Platform Compatibility

Another important aspect of ROS 2’s design is its emphasis on enabling a seamless transition
from fast prototyping to production, coupled with cross-platform compatibility. This focus is designed
to facilitate the rapid development and deployment of ROS 2 applications across a variety of platforms
and into production environments. This compatibility and ease of deployment are expected to expedite
the development cycle, a significant improvement over ROS, which presented challenges in these
areas.

Middleware Selection
The above design goals significantly influenced the selection of the communication middleware
for ROS 2. The need for a robust, efficient, and reliable communication infrastructure that could
meet the advanced requirements of real-time processing, Quality of Service, and distributed system
support guided the choice of middleware. After extensive deliberations in 2014, the Data Distribution
Service (DDS) was chosen for its inherent ability to meet these requirements. DDS, a standard
for high-performance, scalable, and interoperable publish-subscribe communication, was deemed
perfectly suited for the task. The choice of DDS as the middleware plays a pivotal role in ensuring that
ROS 2 successfully addresses the limitations of ROS and meets its design objectives.

2.2.2. ROS 2 Architecture

ROS 2’s architecture, as presented in Figure 5, retains similarities with ROS in certain aspects but
also presents a significant evolution to address ROS’s limitations.

Figure 5. ROS vs. ROS 2 Architecture.

Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 15 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.1204.v1

10 of 46

Distributed by Design
In contrast to ROS’s centralized approach, ROS 2 is designed to be inherently distributed. It
eliminates the need for a central ROS master node, thereby addressing the single point of failure and
scalability issues present in ROS. Instead, ROS 2 nodes communicate directly with each other, facilitated
by the underlying DDS middleware. This decentralized design is more fitting for multi-robot systems
and enables more efficient and reliable communication in large-scale, distributed robotic applications.

Maintained Modularity and Enhanced Scalability

Like ROS, ROS 2 upholds the principle of modularity, where each node operates independently
and performs a specific task. However, ROS 2 extends this concept to incorporate the notion of
’Managed Nodes’ that can be governed by a lifecycle manager, thereby providing more control over
the system’s state and behavior. Furthermore, the distributed nature of ROS 2 enhances scalability,
enabling the system to handle a more considerable number of nodes efficiently.

Extended Communication Patterns

ROS 2 inherits the primary communication patterns of ROS, with some notable improvements
and extensions.

• Publisher-Subscriber (Topics): The Publisher-Subscriber model, implemented via Topics, remains

a vital part of ROS 2. However, ROS 2 introduces the concept of Quality of Service (QoS) policies
for Topics, allowing more precise control over message delivery.
• Synchronous Client/Server (Services): The synchronous client/server model, facilitated by
Services, is also retained in ROS 2. Yet, similar to Topics, Services in ROS 2 support QoS
settings, enabling reliable and timely communication based on specific requirements.
• Asynchronous Client/Server (Actions): The asynchronous client/server model, formerly denoted
by ActionLib in ROS, has been incorporated into the core of ROS 2 as Actions. Actions in ROS 2
provide a more streamlined interface and support QoS policies, offering improved reliability and
flexibility.
• Interfaces: In ROS 2, the concept of Interfaces is introduced, which encapsulates the functionality
of Topics, Services, and Action messages. Interfaces replace the separate message types used
in ROS, namely rosmsg and rossrv. This consolidation is an attempt to simplify the message
generation process and to facilitate compatibility between different communication models.
Interfaces enhance the consistency and maintainability of the ROS 2 communication model, as
developers only need to familiarize themselves with a single message type, regardless of the
communication pattern they employ. This simplification also enhances code portability between
different ROS 2 applications, leading to a more robust and flexible system design.

Enhanced Client Libraries and Advanced Communication Middleware

ROS 2 introduces updated client libraries, rclcpp for C++ and rclpy for Python, which are more
robust, maintainable, and feature-rich compared to their ROS counterparts. The most significant shift
in ROS 2 is adopting the Data Distribution Service (DDS) as its communication middleware. DDS is an
industry-standard middleware designed for high-performance, real-time, scalable, and interoperable
publish-subscribe communication. The use of DDS in ROS 2 addresses the limitations of the customs
protocols used in ROS. It provides native support for real-time communication, configurable QoS
policies, and robust security mechanisms. Furthermore, the standardized nature of DDS facilitates
interoperability with other systems and technologies, broadening the scope and applicability of ROS 2.
In the next section, we will further examine the distinctions between ROS 1 and ROS 2 across
various non-architectural aspects.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 15 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.1204.v1

11 of 46

Figure 6. ROS 2 Puplications Catgories.

3. ROS vs. ROS 2

This section discusses the non-architectural differences between ROS and ROS 2 from different
perspectives.

3.1. Programming Languages (C++ and Python Differences)

In ROS 2, both C++ and Python programming languages are embraced, but their utilization
differs from ROS.
C++ in ROS 2: ROS 2 offers enhanced support for modern C++ features, including move semantics
and lambda functions. This improved support leads to better performance and code readability in
ROS 2 applications. Developers can leverage new language features and libraries that were previously
unavailable in the older C++03 version. Notably, certain core libraries in ROS 2 have been upgraded
to support C++14, expanding the range of modern C++ capabilities that can be utilized. These
advancements empower developers to take full advantage of the latest features and functionalities
offered by the C++ programming language.
Python in ROS 2: In contrast to ROS, which predominantly utilized Python 2, ROS 2 adopts
Python 3 as its primary version. Consequently, ROS 2 packages are primarily written in Python 3.
This transition allows developers to leverage recent Python enhancements, such as type hints and
improved asyncio support. By aligning with the broader Python language community, ROS 2 enables
seamless integration with other Python-based tools and libraries. However, it’s important to note that
compatibility updates are required for any existing Python 2 code intended for ROS 2 usage.
Language-Agnostic Communication Interfaces: One of the notable advancements in ROS 2
is the introduction of the Abstract Data Distribution Service (DDS) interface, a language-agnostic
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 15 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.1204.v1

12 of 46

communication protocol. This protocol enables seamless interaction and communication between
nodes written in different programming languages. With DDS, nodes can exchange messages and
information efficiently, regardless of whether they are implemented in C++, Python, or any other
supported language. This language-agnostic approach facilitates interoperability and collaboration
among diverse robotic systems.
These disparities in language support between ROS and ROS 2 emphasize the significance of
staying abreast of the latest language features and standards. By accommodating modern C++ and
Python versions, ROS 2 empowers developers to fully capitalize on the latest advancements in these
languages, enhancing the quality and efficiency of their robotic applications. Ultimately, the choice
between C++ and Python hinges on the specific requirements of the target robotics system, and ROS
2’s language flexibility caters to diverse needs.

3.2. Executors
In ROS 2, executors play a pivotal role in managing the execution of tasks within a node’s lifecycle.
They facilitate communication between nodes and ensure the execution of callbacks for incoming
messages, services, and actions, significantly influencing the overall ROS 2 architecture.
ROS 2 encompasses three executor types each offering distinct characteristics and benefits:

• SingleThreadedExecutor: This executor executes all callbacks within a single thread,

employing a round-robin scheduling approach to ensure fairness between tasks. However,
computationally intensive tasks may experience slower execution due to the shared thread
among all tasks.
• MultiThreadedExecutor: Designed to handle high workloads and computationally intensive
tasks, this executor employs multiple threads to execute callbacks concurrently. While it provides
improved performance, careful synchronization is necessary to avoid potential race conditions
or deadlocks.
• StaticSingleThreadedExecutor: This executor is similar to SingleThreadedExecutor but is
specifically designed for nodes with a fixed set of entities (such as sensors, actuators, or other
components) known during the compilation process. It optimizes runtime costs by scanning
the structure of the node, including subscriptions, timers, service servers, and action servers,
only once during node addition. Unlike other executors, it does not regularly scan for changes.
Therefore, the StaticSingleThreadedExecutor is most suitable for nodes that create all their
subscriptions, timers, and other entities during initialization and do not dynamically add or
remove them during runtime. By eliminating the need for continuous scanning, it improves
performance and efficiency in such static systems.

In contrast, ROS employs a " spinner " mechanism to manage callback execution within a node’s
lifecycle. Two primary spinner types are available:

• ros::spin(): This single-threaded spinner sequentially processes callbacks within a single thread
until the node is shut down. It represents the simplest and most commonly used spinner in ROS.
• ros::AsyncSpinner: This multi-threaded spinner concurrently processes callbacks using multiple
threads, suitable for scenarios involving computationally intensive tasks or varying callback
execution times.

While spinners in ROS serve a similar purpose to executors in ROS 2, the latter offers advanced
features and greater flexibility in task execution, including the StaticSingleThreadedExecutor for static
systems. Moreover, introducing the Data Distribution Service (DDS) middleware in ROS 2 necessitates
a refined and adaptable approach to task execution, effectively addressed by the concept of executors.
Using executors in ROS 2 provides efficient task management and optimal utilization.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 15 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.1204.v1

13 of 46

3.3. Transformations: tf vs tf2

The original library for managing transforms in the Robot Operating System (ROS), known as
tf [21], utilizes a static transform tree to outline the relationships between coordinate frames. However,
tf exhibits certain limitations, including susceptibility to errors during concurrent multi-thread access
to the transform tree and inefficiency when handling large trees.
In contrast, tf2, an advanced version, employs a more efficient data structure for the transform
tree representation, enhancing both speed and robustness. It is designed to be thread-safe, thereby
eliminating the risk of errors during simultaneous access by multiple threads.
A novel feature introduced in tf2 is the Buffer, a sophisticated data structure that oversees the
transform tree. It offers APIs for querying transforms between coordinate frames, thereby increasing
the versatility and usability of the system.
A significant distinction between tf and tf2 lies in their support for coordinate representations.
While tf is limited to the XYZ Euler angle representation for rotations, tf2 supports multiple
representations. These include quaternions, rotation matrices, and angle-axis representations, thereby
offering a more comprehensive and flexible system for users.
Moreover, tf2 introduces several new features, including support for non-rigid transforms and the
capability to interpolate between transforms. It also enhances debugging and visualization support,
thereby simplifying the process of diagnosing issues with the transform tree.
To summarize, due to its superior performance, thread safety, and additional features, tf2 is the
recommended library for managing transforms in ROS 2. Its design and functionality improvements
over tf make it a more robust and efficient tool for managing coordinate frame relationships.

3.4. ROS 2 Navigation Stack: Main Features and Comparison with ROS 1
The ROS 2 Navigation Stack, also known as Navigation2, is a significant upgrade from the
ROS 1 navigation stack, with several key features that enhance its functionality and usability. A
comprehensive description of the ROS 2 Navigation Stack can be found in the following reference: [22].
In what follows, we present a systematic and methodological comparison of the ROS 1 and ROS 2
navigation stacks:

• Task Orchestration using Behavior Trees introduces the use of a behavior tree for task
orchestration, a feature absent in ROS 1. This tree orchestrates planning, control, and recovery
tasks, with each node invoking a remote server to compute one of these tasks using various
algorithm implementations.
• Modularity and Configurability: Navigation2 is designed to be highly modular and configurable,
a marked improvement over ROS 1. It employs a behavior tree navigator and task-specific
asynchronous servers, each of which is a ROS 2 node hosting algorithm plugin. These plugins
are libraries dynamically loaded at runtime, allowing for unique navigation behaviors to be
created by modifying a behavior tree.
• Managed Nodes: ROS 2 introduces the concept of Managed Nodes, servers whose life-cycle
state can be controlled. Navigation2 exploits this feature to create deterministic behavior for each
server in the system, a feature not present in ROS 1.
• Feature Extensions: Navigation2 supports commercial feature extensions, allowing users with
complex missions to use Navigation2 as a subtree of their mission. This is a unique feature not
found in ROS 1.
• Multi-core Processor Utilization: Unlike ROS 1, Navigation2 architecture leverages multi-core
processors and the real-time, low-latency capabilities of ROS 2. This allows for more efficient
processing and faster response times.
• Algorithmic Refreshes: Navigation2 focuses on modularity and smooth operation in dynamic
environments. It includes the Spatio-Temporal Voxel Layer (STVL), layered costmaps, the Timed
Elastic Band (TEB) controller, and a multi-sensor fusion framework for state estimation, Robot
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 15 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.1204.v1

14 of 46

Localization. Each of these supports holonomic and non-holonomic robot types, a feature not as
developed in ROS 1.
• State Estimation: Navigation2 follows ROS transformation tree standards for state estimation,
making use of modern tools available from the community. This includes Robot Localization,
a general sensor fusion solution using Extended or Unscented Kalman Filters. This is a more
advanced approach compared to ROS 1.
• Quality Assurance: Navigation2 includes tools for testing and operations, such as the Lifecycle
Manager, which coordinates the program lifecycle of the navigator and various servers. This
manager steps each server through the managed node lifecycle: inactive, active, and finalized.
This systematic approach to quality assurance is a significant upgrade from ROS 1.

Navigation2 builds on the successful legacy of ROS Navigation but with substantial structural
and algorithmic refreshes. It is more suitable for dynamic environments and a wider variety of modern
sensors, making it a more advanced and versatile navigation stack than its predecessor, ROS 1.

3.5. ROS 2 Security

The key difference in security between ROS and ROS 2 is that ROS 2 has been designed with
security in mind from the ground up, whereas security was not a primary consideration in the initial
development of ROS.
In ROS, security mechanisms such as authentication and encryption were not implemented by
default, leaving systems vulnerable to potential security threats. However, ROS users could implement
security measures manually by using third-party libraries and plugins.
ROS 2, on the other hand, has a built-in security framework that provides authentication,
encryption, and access control by default. This framework enables ROS 2 to support secure
communication between nodes and across networks, even when communicating with nodes that may
not support security natively.
SROS2 (Secure ROS2) [23] is a security extension for ROS 2 that provides additional security
features beyond those provided by the ROS 2 security framework. SROS is designed to address some
of the limitations of the ROS 2 security framework and to provide enhanced security for critical robotic
applications. SROS provides a more flexible and configurable access control system than the default
ROS 2 permission system, allowing administrators to define fine-grained access policies for topics,
services, and nodes. This can help to ensure that sensitive data and resources are protected from
unauthorized access.
Overall, by implementing SROS in ROS 2, users can benefit from additional security features
that are not available in ROS. This can help to ensure the security and integrity of critical robotic
applications while also providing a more flexible and configurable security solution that can be tailored
to the specific needs of each application.

3.6. Comparison of Platform Support in ROS and ROS 2

ROS (Robot Operating System) and its successor, ROS 2, are widely used frameworks for
developing robotic systems. This section explores the level of support and compatibility with different
operating systems in both frameworks. Specifically, we will examine the support for Windows, macOS,
and Linux platforms, highlighting the advancements made in ROS 2.

• Windows Support: When it comes to Windows support, ROS has experimental compatibility,
while ROS 2 boasts more comprehensive and reliable support for Windows 10. The enhanced
support in ROS 2 allows developers to leverage the framework more effectively on Windows
machines, ensuring a stable and efficient environment for building robust robotic applications.
• macOS Support: Both ROS and ROS 2 offer official support for macOS. However, ROS 2
surpasses its predecessor in terms of compatibility with the latest macOS versions. By capitalizing
on the latest macOS features, such as the Metal graphics API, ROS 2 maximizes performance
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 15 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.1204.v1

15 of 46

in specific applications. This advanced compatibility empowers developers to fully exploit the
potential of macOS when constructing sophisticated robotics systems.
• Linux Support: Both ROS and ROS 2 offer comprehensive support for Linux, with official
support for various popular distributions. However, ROS 2 takes a more modular and flexible
approach, making porting the framework to different Linux distributions and architectures easier.
This flexibility is particularly advantageous in heterogeneous computing environments, allowing
developers to deploy ROS 2 on various Linux systems.

The utilization of the Data Distribution Service (DDS), which inherently possesses cross-platform
capabilities, significantly facilitated the seamless compatibility of ROS 2 with Windows, macOS, and
Linux. In contrast, ROS 1 relied on the specific TCPROS and UDPROS protocols, which were more
tightly coupled with the Linux environment, limiting its cross-platform compatibility.
While both ROS and ROS 2 offer support for multiple operating systems, ROS 2 surpasses its
predecessor regarding platform compatibility. With its comprehensive support for Windows 10, better
compatibility with the latest macOS versions, and flexibility in porting to different Linux distributions
and architectures, ROS 2 provides a more robust and versatile framework for building robotic systems.
The technical advancements in ROS 2, such as the use of DDS and modular architecture, further
enhance its compatibility and usability across different operating systems. Developers can leverage
these advancements to create efficient and reliable robotics applications on their preferred platforms.

4. Literature Analysis on Key ROS 2 Design Areas

This section provides a detailed analysis of the current research surrounding critical design areas
in ROS 2, including real-time capabilities, middleware, QoS, security, and support for embedded and
distributed systems, as well as multi-robot systems (MRS). Each of these areas plays a crucial role in
shaping the effectiveness and performance of ROS 2 for modern robotics applications. By examining
the key challenges and recent advances in each domain, we aim to highlight the gaps in the current
literature and ongoing efforts to address them. Table 2 offers a taxonomy of these areas, outlining the
core issues and the technological innovations that are advancing the state of the art.
Following this, we delve into each domain, providing insights into the motivations driving
research, the contributions made, and the existing limitations that researchers and developers continue
to tackle.

4.1. ROS 2 Benchmarking

The evolution from ROS 1 to ROS 2 has successfully addressed crucial shortcomings in real-time
communication, modularity, and support for multi-robot systems (MRS), catering to the increasing
complexity of robotic environments. This shift has catalyzed a wave of scholarly investigation, focusing
on rigorously evaluating ROS 2’s refined features across a spectrum of use cases. In this section, we
explore pivotal research articles that critically assess the core functionalities of ROS 2, as highlighted
in Figure 2. These studies offer insights into the system’s enhanced performance, demonstrating its
potential and identifying areas for further enhancement.

4.1.1. ROS 2 Performance and Software Quality Benchmarking

Several studies, such as [16,18,24,25], explore and benchmark the overall performance of ROS 2
across various parameters. Specifically, [25] examines node composition within ROS 2, contrasting
it with traditional multi-process systems. This benchmarking focuses on memory footprint, CPU
usage, and latency, revealing that node composition, especially with intra-process communication
(IPC), dramatically reduces memory usage by 33% and CPU load by 28%. Notably, the application
of IPC in node composition lowers CPU usage by nearly an order of magnitude for larger messages
and achieves latency reductions as low as 40 µs, closely aligning with the performance of monolithic
applications.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 15 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.1204.v1

16 of 46

Furthermore, [18] conducts an empirical study evaluating the software quality of ROS2 Java
projects using the PMD static analysis tool. The study assesses multiple coding standards, including
security, performance, and code style. It identifies 33,533 alerts, with 62% related to code style issues,
7% to performance, and a smaller percentage related to error-prone issues. Additionally, the study
reveals specific security concerns, such as insecure default settings in ROS2’s DDS implementation,
where key security features like encryption and signing were disabled.

4.1.2. ROS 2 Tools and Navigation Benchmarking

Studies such as [12,14] benchmark various tools and developments for ROS 2. For instance, [12]
systematically evaluates five simulation software tools—Ignition, Webots, Isaac Sim, PyBullet, and
Coppeliasim—focusing on robotic manipulation tasks like pick-and-place and throwing. The results
indicate that no single tool excels in all areas. Webots and Ignition demonstrated the most stability
and accuracy in Task 1, with Webots achieving a task success rate of 88% (without GUI) and using
144% CPU and 1191 MB RAM (162% CPU and 1322 MB RAM in GUI mode). Ignition showed similar
performance, with a task success rate of 91% and consuming 202% CPU and 686 MB RAM (205% CPU
and 775 MB RAM in GUI mode). Isaac Sim, while offering advanced features like machine learning
integration, exhibited a high memory usage of 10,070 MB RAM and achieved a task success rate of
89% but failed to maintain consistency across runs.
Meanwhile, PyBullet and Coppeliasim were more resource-efficient but showed lower task
success rates, with PyBullet achieving only 18% task success in Task 1 and using 117% CPU and 663
MB RAM (140% CPU and 919 MB RAM in GUI mode), and Coppeliasim showing a 92% success rate
but consuming 135% CPU and 860 MB RAM (100% CPU and 850 MB RAM in GUI mode). For Task 2,
Webots demonstrated better throwing consistency, with a cube movement success rate of up to 50%,
while Coppeliasim had a 50% success rate but a higher failure rate of 32%. Isaac Sim exhibited an 83%
success rate for cube movement but suffered from inconsistent motion behavior, impacting overall
performance.
Similarly, [14] focuses on the ROS 2 Nav2 project, benchmarking path and trajectory planners
across various robot types, including quadrupeds and Ackermann-steering vehicles. The study
presents a comprehensive analysis of planners such as NavFn, Lazy Theta*-P, Smac 2D-A*, Smac
Hybrid-A*, and Smac State Lattice, with Smac Hybrid-A* achieving the best performance in plan time
(38.77 ms) and Lazy Theta*-P providing the shortest path length (50.28 meters). In terms of trajectory
planners, benchmarks show Model Predictive Path Integral (MPPI) operating at 125 Hz and Regulated
Pure Pursuit achieving frequencies above 4,000 Hz. Path smoothers, such as the Simple Smoother and
Constrained Smoother, significantly improved path quality, with the Constrained Smoother yielding
the best smoothness at 87.85. Additionally, state estimators like fuse demonstrated improved accuracy
(with an error of 2.81 meters over a 542-meter route) compared to robot localization, though at a higher
CPU cost (5.19% vs. 1.38%). These findings highlight significant improvements in ROS 2 over ROS 1,
including enhanced flexibility, performance, and better support for modern robotic platforms. ROS
2 is shown to be well-suited for product-grade applications, and ongoing developments continue to
push its capabilities forward, making it ideal for complex and large-scale robotics projects.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 15 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.1204.v1

17 of 46

Table 2. Summary of Key Challenges and Advances in ROS 2.

Research Area Key Challenges Advances

Security Inflexible access control, DDS ABAC frameworks, blockchain
vulnerabilities, trade-offs integration, CAESAR
between performance and encryption, forensic
security investigation tools, optimized
security configurations
Real-Time Systems Callback scheduling Priority-based schedulers,
unpredictability, poor scalability, formal response-time analysis,
network delays dynamic GPU management,
containerized architectures
Middleware Inefficient intra-node Dynamic DDS binding, Zenoh
communication, DDS middleware for wireless
interoperability issues, poor environments, optimizations for
performance in wireless distributed systems
environments
Embedded and Real-time performance in lossy FPGA-based acceleration,
Distributed Systems networks, scalability, resource Micro-ROS for constrained
constraints environments, edge computing
for distributed systems
Quality of Service (QoS) Message loss with RELIABLE Caching mechanisms, QoS
setting, latency-security balancing, dynamic QoS
trade-offs, lack of proactive management for wireless
QoS verification networks, DSL for design-time
QoS specification
Multi-Robot Systems Synchronization issues in Velocity-aware middleware,
(MRS) heterogeneous environments, optimized communication
communication inefficiency architectures, cache-control
under high network loads, algorithms, Zenoh middleware
real-time performance in for mesh networks
resource-constrained systems

4.2. ROS 2 Security

As robotic systems are deployed in critical sectors such as healthcare, defense, and autonomous
transportation, ensuring robust security in ROS 2 becomes vital. The transition to ROS 2 has brought
improvements in communication and modularity, but security remains a critical challenge, particularly
in terms of access control, communication integrity, and forensic capabilities. This section synthesizes
recent advancements, limitations, and ongoing challenges in securing ROS 2 systems.
Challenges in ROS 2 Security: Access control and communication security are two key areas
where significant challenges persist. The traditional role-based access control (RBAC) mechanisms,
such as those implemented in SROS2, have been criticized for their rigidity and lack of scalability in
complex, multi-robot environments. The fixed nature of RBAC often leads to inefficiencies in managing
permissions dynamically, particularly in distributed systems [26,27]. Additionally, vulnerabilities in
the Data Distribution Service (DDS) communication layer, such as unauthorized access, credential
masquerading, and denial-of-service (DoS) attacks, have exposed ROS 2 to threats in high-risk
environments [28,29].
Advances and Solutions: Addressing these challenges, research has focused on developing
more flexible access control systems. Attribute-based access control (ABAC) frameworks, combined
with blockchain technology, have emerged as a solution to overcome the limitations of RBAC by
allowing fine-grained control over user permissions in dynamic environments [26,27]. In terms of
communication security, there has been a shift towards adopting stronger encryption methods. Studies
have evaluated the effectiveness of CAESAR encryption algorithms like Ascon and Deoxys-II, which
offer enhanced security without significantly compromising performance [30]. These encryption
protocols have been particularly valuable in securing UAV swarms and multi-robot systems operating
over wireless networks, where latency is a critical factor [31].
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 15 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.1204.v1

18 of 46

Another area of progress is forensic investigation and anomaly detection. Tools such as
ROS2Tester have been developed to provide runtime verification and vulnerability detection, enabling
better monitoring of distributed systems [32]. However, research continues to highlight gaps in
post-attack forensic capabilities, particularly in recovering tampered data in collaborative robotic
environments [33]. These gaps point to a need for more sophisticated runtime verification techniques,
such as the POLAR-Express framework for neural network-driven systems, which enhances anomaly
detection and system introspection [34].
Open Challenges and Future Directions: A significant challenge remains the trade-off between
security and system performance. Studies consistently show that enabling security features—such as
encryption and authentication—introduces latency and reduces throughput, particularly in wireless
and resource-constrained environments [35,36]. Moreover, ROS 2 lacks a holistic security framework
that addresses vulnerabilities across all layers of the system, from hardware to application-level security.
Research in this area is focusing on multi-layered security architectures that provide comprehensive
protection without compromising performance [17].
While considerable advancements have been made in ROS 2 security, there is still a need for
more adaptive and scalable solutions. Future research should focus on improving the balance
between security and performance, particularly in real-time and resource-constrained environments.
Additionally, enhancing forensic tools and anomaly detection mechanisms will be critical for ensuring
the long-term security and reliability of ROS 2 systems. Table 3 summarizes the key challenges and
advancements discussed.

Table 3. Summary of Security Research in ROS 2.

Security Area Challenges Advances

Access Control Inflexible RBAC, lack of ABAC frameworks,
scalability blockchain-based
solutions [26,27]
Communication Security DDS vulnerabilities, weak CAESAR encryption
encryption algorithms, secure UAV
communication [30,31]
Forensic Investigation Lack of post-attack recovery ROS2Tester for runtime
tools verification, POLAR-Express for
anomaly detection [32,34]
Performance vs Security Increased latency with security Optimized cryptographic
features practices [35,36]
Anomaly Detection Inadequate tools for real-time Basic AD systems,
anomaly detection improvements in
introspection [37,38]
Holistic Security Framework Incomplete security coverage Multi-layered security
across layers frameworks [17,39]

4.3. ROS 2 Real-Time Systems

As robotic systems evolve in complexity, real-time capabilities become crucial, especially for
applications such as autonomous vehicles, multi-agent systems, and safety-critical robotic systems.
Robot Operating System 2 (ROS 2) has gained attention for its potential to meet these demands
through its support for Data Distribution Service (DDS) middleware and improvements over ROS 1 in
scheduling and real-time operations. However, ROS 2 still faces challenges in ensuring predictable
performance, reducing latency, and maintaining real-time constraints in diverse operating conditions.
This section provides an aggregated discussion of the advancements, limitations, and open challenges
in ROS 2 real-time systems based on recent literature.
Challenges in ROS 2 Real-Time Systems: The primary challenges stem from the unpredictability
in callback scheduling, task prioritization, and worst-case response time (WCRT) guarantees. Many
works identify that ROS 2’s standard executors lack the necessary mechanisms for efficient real-time
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 15 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.1204.v1

19 of 46

execution, particularly in distributed and multi-threaded environments. The default callback execution
order and lack of priority mechanisms result in high execution-time variability, causing issues like
missed deadlines and buffer overflows [40–42]. Moreover, ROS 2 suffers from performance degradation
under stress and scalability issues when applied to complex, distributed setups [43,44].
Advances and Solutions: A key trend in addressing these challenges has been the development
of customized schedulers and executors. Notable efforts include the introduction of priority-based
scheduling frameworks such as PiCAS, which incorporates callback prioritization and resource
allocation to reduce end-to-end latency [45,46]. Other solutions focus on formal real-time analysis
frameworks to provide tighter bounds on WCRT for multi-threaded systems, helping designers
guarantee that critical tasks meet their deadlines [47,48].
Another significant advance is the exploration of containerization and microservice architectures
for improving real-time performance in ROS 2, particularly for SDVs and autonomous systems [49,50].
These studies have shown that containerized deployments can lead to better latency management
and system resource utilization compared to bare-metal configurations. Furthermore, dynamic GPU
management frameworks such as ROSGM offer improved processing efficiency, especially for tasks
that require intensive computational power [51].
Open Challenges and Future Directions: Despite these advancements, several gaps remain.
Current solutions often fail to provide scalable, flexible, and holistic real-time performance for highly
distributed systems, where network delays and jitter introduce significant unpredictability [52,53].
Furthermore, while various priority-driven schedulers have been proposed, integrating these into
existing ROS 2 frameworks without introducing additional overhead remains a challenge. There is
also a growing need for tools that can provide fine-grained runtime monitoring and online latency
management to ensure real-time constraints are continuously met in dynamic conditions [51,54].
The development of real-time systems in ROS 2 has made significant strides, but further
advancements are needed to overcome scalability, flexibility, and overhead challenges. Future work
should focus on enhancing distributed real-time performance, integrating more adaptive scheduling
frameworks, and developing robust online monitoring tools. Table 4 summarizes the key trends,
challenges, and solutions discussed.

Table 4. Summary of Real-Time Research in ROS 2.

Research Area Challenges Advances

Callback Scheduling Unpredictability in execution PiCAS, priority-based
order, lack of priority handling schedulers [45,46]
Multi-Threaded Executors Poor response time guarantees, Formal response-time analysis
high variability frameworks [44,47]
Distributed Real-Time Systems Network delays, jitter, and Dynamic GPU management,
scalability issues ROSGM [51]
Containerization Latency management, system Microservice architectures,
resource utilization containerized SDVs [49,50]

4.4. ROS 2 Middleware

The middleware layer in ROS 2 plays a crucial role in enabling efficient communication between
distributed nodes in robotic systems. The Data Distribution Service (DDS) is the default middleware
in ROS 2, providing real-time data-centric communication. However, challenges remain, especially in
optimizing inter-node communication, handling varying Quality of Service (QoS) requirements, and
improving reliability in complex and resource-constrained environments. This section discusses key
advancements and challenges in middleware technologies within ROS 2, focusing on recent literature
that explores optimizations, alternative middleware, and mechanisms to enhance communication
performance.
Challenges in DDS Implementation: Despite the advantages of DDS in enabling real-time
communication, it has limitations in scenarios involving intra-node communication, heterogeneous
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 15 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.1204.v1

20 of 46

environments, and dynamic QoS requirements. Research has identified inefficiencies when ROS 2 relies
on network-based communication mechanisms, even for local interactions, leading to unnecessary
latency and overhead [55]. To address this, studies have proposed dynamic DDS binding mechanisms
that allow switching between DDS implementations based on the communication characteristics of
each node [56]. This approach optimizes resource usage and reduces latency by selecting the most
appropriate communication method for each task.
Interoperability and Security Concerns: Another significant area of concern is the interoperability
between different DDS implementations. While ROS 2 supports multiple DDS vendors (e.g., Fast DDS,
Cyclone DDS, RTI Connext), studies highlight challenges when different implementations are used
simultaneously, particularly with security features enabled [57]. The performance overhead introduced
by security configurations varies significantly across DDS vendors, requiring careful consideration
in critical systems. These studies suggest that ensuring seamless interoperability and minimizing
security-related overheads remain open challenges.
Zenoh Middleware and Dynamic Switching: An important milestone in ROS 2’s communication
capabilities was the introduction of Zenoh in the Jazzy distribution. Zenoh offers a novel approach
to ROS 2 communication, particularly in environments where traditional DDS may face challenges.
The ‘rmw_zenoh_cpp‘ middleware interface maps the ROS 2 RMW API onto Zenoh APIs, enabling
ROS 2 to utilize Zenoh for data exchange. This integration is depicted in Figure 7, which illustrates
the structure of the middleware and how Zenoh sessions interact with each other and with the Zenoh
router. Notably, Zenoh sessions rely on peer-to-peer communication for data transfer while using a
Zenoh router for discovery and gossip scouting. This architecture provides flexibility and performance
advantages, particularly in distributed systems with varying network conditions.

Figure 7. Default Configuration for Zenoh Sessions in ROS 2 Jazzy.

Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 15 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.1204.v1

21 of 46

The dynamic switching mechanism further enhances performance by allowing ROS 2 systems to
switch between different middleware protocols based on network conditions and application demands.
For instance, Zenoh excels in wireless environments, where it outperforms DDS in terms of latency
and throughput, especially in edge-to-cloud communication [58].
While DDS remains central to ROS 2 middleware, alternative solutions like Zenoh and dynamic
DDS switching mechanisms address the limitations posed by static middleware configurations
and challenging network environments. Future research should focus on refining these dynamic
approaches, improving security interoperability, and expanding middleware support for diverse
real-time applications. Table 5 summarizes the key trends, challenges, and solutions discussed.

Table 5. Summary of Middleware Research in ROS 2.

Research Area Challenges Advances

Intra-node Communication Inefficiencies in local IPC-based DDS
communication implementations, dynamic
DDS binding [55,56]
Interoperability DDS vendor incompatibilities, Evaluations of different DDS
security overhead implementations [57]
Alternative Middleware Limited performance in Zenoh middleware for ROS
wireless/cloud environments 2, dynamic middleware
switching [58]
Real-time Performance High latency in distributed Middleware optimizations (e.g.,
systems Zenoh, PubSubBinder) [55,58]

4.5. ROS 2 Embedded Systems and Distributed Systems

The integration of ROS 2 into embedded and distributed systems has gained significant attention
in recent years, primarily due to the growing demand for scalable, real-time, and efficient robotic
systems. Embedded systems, such as those found in autonomous vehicles, space missions, and IoT
devices, present unique challenges due to their constrained resources and real-time requirements.
Distributed systems, on the other hand, necessitate efficient communication protocols, particularly
when leveraging edge-cloud technologies or containerized environments. This section discusses key
advances in these areas within the ROS 2 framework, highlighting the contributions and addressing
critical gaps in the literature.
Trends in Embedded Systems: One prominent trend in embedded systems is the adaptation
of ROS 2 for real-time, safety-critical applications such as automotive and aerospace systems [59,60].
Efforts like Apex.OS extend ROS 2’s capabilities to meet the stringent requirements of automotive-grade
environments by integrating best practices from traditional microcontroller-based systems like OSEK.
Similarly, the development of Micro-ROS enables ROS 2 to be scaled down for resource-constrained
platforms like CubeSats, demonstrating the framework’s adaptability across various hardware
configurations [60].
Moreover, hardware acceleration, particularly using FPGAs, has emerged as a key solution to
overcome the limitations of traditional CPU-based implementations. ROS 2-centric architectures that
facilitate the integration of FPGAs, such as fpgaDDS and ReconROS, address the inefficiencies in
communication between hardware and software nodes [61,62]. These solutions significantly enhance
real-time performance by leveraging parallel processing and reducing communication bottlenecks,
enabling low-latency, high-speed operations in robotics applications.
Advances in Distributed Systems: The shift towards edge-cloud architectures in robotics
is another significant trend, with ROS 2 playing a pivotal role in enabling distributed robotic
systems [63]. Technologies like containerization and orchestration, using platforms such as Docker
and Kubernetes, allow for scalable, platform-agnostic deployment of robotic applications. However,
ROS 2’s communication protocols face challenges in such environments, particularly concerning
real-time performance and scalability. Recent research proposes optimization frameworks and
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 15 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.1204.v1

22 of 46

orchestration-aware communication protocols to address these limitations [64]. Additionally, edge

computing has proven essential in distributed autonomous driving systems, offloading computational
tasks from vehicles to external edge units, thus enabling higher levels of autonomy without the need
for expensive on-board resources [65].
Challenges and Future Directions: Despite these advances, several challenges remain. The
scalability of ROS 2 in lossy, wireless networks, particularly in the context of unmanned assets,
continues to be a limitation, with research showing increased latency and message loss when security
features are enabled [66]. The integration of ROS 2 with IoT devices also faces resource constraints,
although progress has been made with lightweight operating systems like RIOT [67]. Furthermore,
while hardware acceleration shows promise, optimizing the dynamic mapping between hardware and
software nodes, especially in event-driven environments, remains a challenge.
Significant strides have been made in adapting ROS 2 for embedded and distributed systems, but
challenges in real-time performance, scalability, and resource optimization persist. Future work should
focus on refining dynamic communication protocols, improving interoperability across hardware
platforms, and further optimizing the integration of edge computing and orchestration in distributed
robotic systems. Table 6 summarizes the key trends, challenges, and solutions discussed.

Table 6. Summary of Key Advances and Challenges in ROS 2 Embedded and Distributed Systems.

Research Area Challenges Advances

Real-Time Performance Scalability in lossy networks, Micro-ROS for constrained
message latency environments, FPGA-based
acceleration [60,61]
Distributed Systems Interoperability, edge-cloud Edge computing,
integration orchestration-aware
communication protocols [63,64]
Hardware Acceleration Dynamic mapping of nodes, fpgaDDS, ReconROS executor
event-driven execution for FPGA acceleration [62]

4.6. ROS 2 Quality of Service (QoS)

As robotic systems increasingly operate in complex, dynamic environments, managing Quality
of Service (QoS) in ROS 2 has emerged as a critical research focus. QoS in ROS 2 is essential for
ensuring reliable communication between nodes, particularly in real-time applications like multi-robot
coordination, remote surgery, and autonomous driving. While ROS 2 introduces flexible QoS profiles
to manage data transmission, several challenges persist in optimizing performance, reliability, and
security across varied network conditions. This section synthesizes recent research trends, addressing
both the advancements and the ongoing limitations in ROS 2 QoS management.
Challenges in ROS 2 QoS: A primary challenge is the reliability of the communication
framework, especially when employing the RELIABLE QoS setting. Despite its intention to guarantee
message delivery, this setting often struggles in high-data-rate environments or under constrained
buffer conditions, leading to message loss in multi-robot systems and aggregated processing
architectures [68,69]. Additionally, balancing QoS parameters like DEADLINE and DEPTH can
be difficult, particularly in real-time applications where both reliability and latency are critical.
Advances and Solutions: To address these issues, research has introduced caching mechanisms
that store redundant data locally to reduce communication load and mitigate message loss [70]. These
systems have shown promise in improving overall performance by optimizing data transmission
efficiency, especially in environments with high communication demands. Moreover, careful balancing
of QoS parameters has been shown to significantly enhance system reliability and timeliness, especially
in multi-robot setups.
Another important focus has been the trade-off between QoS and security. ROS 2’s use of the
DDS standard introduces robust security features, but these features often introduce additional latency,
especially in mission-critical environments like unmanned military vehicles [71]. Research in this
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 15 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.1204.v1

23 of 46

area emphasizes the need to optimize security-aware QoS configurations, where encryption and
authentication protocols are balanced with performance requirements to minimize communication
delays without compromising security.
Design-Time QoS Specification: Another significant development is the move toward
design-time QoS specification. Traditional ROS 2 systems primarily check QoS profiles at runtime,
leaving room for unexpected performance issues. To mitigate this risk, researchers have proposed
domain-specific languages (DSLs) to formalize QoS requirements before deployment. This proactive
approach ensures that systems meet performance and reliability expectations in varying conditions,
particularly in multi-agent systems with fluctuating network environments [72].
QoS in Wireless Networks: The challenges of managing QoS in wireless networks, such as those
used in remote driving and teleoperated systems, have also been widely studied. Wireless networks
introduce additional latency and data interference, necessitating more dynamic QoS management
strategies. Solutions like WiROS dynamically adjust network parameters, such as Enhanced Distributed
Channel Access (EDCA), to prioritize critical data flows in congested network environments, ensuring
that latency-sensitive applications continue to perform effectively [73].
Open Challenges and Future Directions: Despite significant progress in QoS management,
challenges remain in balancing latency, reliability, and security in diverse deployment scenarios.
Research should continue to explore adaptive QoS strategies that incorporate real-time feedback from
the network and optimize security mechanisms to minimize their impact on system performance.
Future work should also focus on extending dynamic QoS management strategies to better support
complex, distributed systems.Table 7 provides a summary of the key challenges and solutions discussed
in ROS 2 QoS research.

Table 7. Summary of Key Advances and Challenges in ROS 2 QoS Optimization.

Research Area Challenges Advances

RELIABLE QoS Limitation Message loss, buffer size Caching mechanisms, QoS
constraints balancing (DEADLINE and
DEPTH) [68,70]
QoS and Security Trade-offs Latency overhead from security Optimized security-aware QoS
features configurations [71]
Design-Time QoS Specification Lack of proactive QoS DSL for formal specification of
verification QoS requirements [72]
Wireless Networks QoS Latency and data interference WiROS for dynamic QoS
management over WiFi [73]

4.7. ROS 2 Multi-Robot Systems (MRS)

The development of multi-robot systems (MRS) within ROS 2 has led to significant advancements
in communication flexibility and real-time coordination, largely enabled by the Data Distribution
Service (DDS) protocol. Despite these improvements, challenges such as synchronization,
communication efficiency, and real-time performance remain key concerns, particularly in
heterogeneous environments where robots, such as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and ground
vehicles (UGVs), interact under varying network conditions. This section provides a synthesized
discussion of the progress, limitations, and future directions in MRS research within ROS 2.
Challenges in ROS 2 MRS: Synchronization between multiple robots in heterogeneous systems
presents a primary challenge, especially when integrating different simulators or real-world robots in
real-time, masterless environments. Traditional synchronization techniques from ROS 1 are insufficient,
often resulting in high latency and packet loss. These issues are particularly pronounced in scenarios
involving varying communication protocols and robot velocities, such as UAV-UGV collaboration [74].
Additionally, communication architecture inefficiencies, especially in centralized multi-agent systems,
further complicate performance. The choice between one-to-one and many-to-one communication
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 15 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.1204.v1

24 of 46

architectures can significantly impact key performance metrics, such as data age and data miss
ratio [75].
Advances and Solutions: Research has proposed novel middleware solutions aimed at improving
synchronization and reducing latency. For example, velocity-aware middleware has been introduced
to optimize the coordination between heterogeneous robots, minimizing packet loss and improving
real-time communication [74]. In centralized multi-agent systems, studies have highlighted the
importance of selecting appropriate communication architectures to optimize system robustness and
communication efficiency. Comparative studies of DDS vendors, such as CycloneDDS and FastDDS,
provide valuable insights for optimizing real-time communication under heavy network loads [75].
Another key advancement is in managing real-time performance under constrained resources,
particularly in low-cost robotic systems. Aggregated processing architectures and cache-control
algorithms have shown to reduce latency and prevent data processing failures by offloading
computational tasks to centralized environments. Experimental results demonstrate significant
improvements in communication efficiency and system reliability, even in resource-constrained
settings [76].
Middleware for Extreme Environments: The use of ROS 2 middleware in extreme environments,
such as planetary exploration, has further expanded the field’s understanding of middleware
performance in dynamic mesh networks. Zenoh, a ROS 2 middleware implementation, has shown
superior performance in delay reduction and CPU efficiency, making it a suitable candidate for space
exploration missions where reliable and efficient communication is critical [77].
Open Challenges and Future Directions: Despite these advancements, several challenges remain
in optimizing middleware, communication architectures, and real-time performance in MRS. The
scalability of middleware solutions and the integration of adaptive QoS strategies are crucial areas
that require further exploration. Additionally, enhancing the interoperability of heterogeneous robotic
systems and improving real-time synchronization across diverse environments will be critical to
advancing MRS research. Table 8 provides a summary of the key challenges and solutions discussed
in ROS 2 MRS research.

Table 8. Summary of Key Challenges and Advances in ROS 2 MRS.

Research Area Challenges Advances

Synchronization in High latency, packet loss Velocity-aware middleware,
Heterogeneous Systems real-time synchronization [74]
Communication Architecture Data age, data miss ratio, high One-to-one communication,
Efficiency network load DDS vendor performance
optimization [75]
Real-Time Performance in Latency, data processing failures Aggregated processing,
Low-Cost Systems cache-control algorithms [76]
Middleware in Extreme Dynamic mesh network Zenoh for reduced delay, CPU
Environments reliability efficiency [77]
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 15 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.1204.v1

25 of 46

Figure 8. Taxonomy of different fields that utulizes ROS 2.

Programming Physics CAD files Multithreading Headless Open

Name API support Family of robots Supported actuators ML Support Supported sensors
language Engine support enabled? Support Source
SDF/URDF
ODE Supports a wide range of Camera Sensor, Depth
OBJ Motors (position and velocity),
Bullet robots, including wheeled camera sensor, Distance and
C++, Python C++, Python STL Yes servos, and force-torque External Full Yes
Simbody robots, legged robots, and Proximity Sensors, Laser,
COLLADA actuators.
DART drones. Force Sensors
Gazebo (.dae)
Brake, Connector, Display, Accelerometer, Camera,
Supports a wide range of
Emitter, Linear Motor, Muscle, Compass, Distance Sensor,
C, C++, Python, C++, Python, WBT, VRML, robots, including humanoids,
ODE Yes Pen, Propeller, Rotational External Partial Yes GPS, Gyro, Lidar, Position
Java, MATLAB ROS 2 API X3D drones, wheeled robots, and
Motor, Speaker, Track Sensor, Receiver, Touch
custom designs.
Webots (Conveyor Belt or tank robots) Sensor
Vision Sensor
C, C++,
OBJ, STL, Force Sensor
Python, ODE, Bullet,
DXF, 3DS, Revolute (and some variants), Proximity Sensor
Lua Java, Urbi, Vortex, No Mobile, Humanoid, Industrial External Full No
Collada, Prismatic and Spherical Motors Accelerometers Gyro
Matlab, Newton
URDF Lasers
CoppeliaSim Octave
Lidars
NVidia FBX,
C# C# PhysX, Collada, Yes Mobile, Humanoid, Industrial Revolute and Prismatic Joints External Full No Cameras
Box2D DXF, OBJ
Unity
Cameras, LIDAR, IMUs, GPS,
STL, Supports a wide range of
DART, Motors (velocity, position, and sonar, force-torque sensors,
COLLADA robots, including wheeled
C++, Python C++, Python Bullet, TPE, Yes torque control), servos, and External Full Yes and many other sensors
(.dae), and robots, humanoids, drones,
and ODE. custom actuators. through the use of plugins
OBJ. and more.
Ignition and sensor models.
URDF, OBJ,
Cameras, LIDAR, IMUs, GPS,
Python API, FBX, USD Focuses on industrial robots,
Motors, servos, position, force-torque sensors, and
C++, and (Universal mobile robots, manipulators,
Python, C++ PhysX Yes velocity, and force control Integrated Full No many others through the
ROS 2 API Scene drones, and custom robot
actuators. extensive sensor model
integration Description) designs.
Isaac Sim support in Isaac Sim.
.
Supports a variety of robots,
Cameras, LIDAR, IMUs, force
Python API URDF, SDF, especially manipulators and Motors (position, velocity, and
sensors, and custom sensor
Python, C++ (primarily), Bullet STL and No mobile robots, often used for torque control), force actuators, External Full Yes
implementations through
C++ OBJ. robotics research and and custom actuators.
scripting.
PyBullet reinforcement learning.
C API, Focuses on manipulators, IMUs, force-torque sensors,
Python API URDF and humanoids, legged robots, and Motors (position, velocity, and touch sensors, cameras, and
C, Python (via
(via bindings Mujoco MJCF, OBJ No custom robots, widely used in torque control), muscle models, External Full Yes various custom sensors
bindings)
like mujoco- and STL research on robotics and and force/torque actuators. through scripting and
Mujoco py) control. configuration files.

Figure 9. ROS 2 Simulators.

5. Literature Analysis on Key ROS 2 Frameworks and Toolkits

The adaptability and extensive ecosystem of ROS 2 have facilitated the development of numerous
frameworks and toolkits, enhancing its utility across a variety of applications. Key frameworks such
as Nav2, MoveIt, and Autoware exemplify ROS 2’s capability to handle complex tasks in navigation,
manipulation, and autonomous driving, respectively. These frameworks provide robust and flexible
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 15 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.1204.v1

26 of 46

solutions for path planning, motion control, and vehicle autonomy, significantly advancing the state of
robotic software development.
Nav2, for instance, is a comprehensive navigation framework that supports modular and scalable
navigation solutions for mobile robots. It leverages ROS 2’s advanced middleware to deliver reliable
path planning and obstacle avoidance in dynamic environments. MoveIt extends ROS 2’s capabilities
to robotic manipulation, offering tools for motion planning, control, and 3D perception. Autoware,
on the other hand, focuses on autonomous driving, providing a full-stack solution for self-driving
vehicles, including perception, planning, and control. Table 10 shows different libraries and their
application.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 15 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.1204.v1

27 of 46

Table 9. ROS 2 Open Source Packages.

Category Citation
Multi Robotic Aerostack2 [78], CrazyChoir [10], KubeROS [79], ROS2SWARM [80], The Cambridge
Systems RoboMaster [81], Toychain [82], TestbedROS2Swarm [83], ChoiRbot [84], ROS2BDI [85],
Cooperative ChoiRbot [84], ROSGPT [9], opendr [86,87], NAO [88], qml_ros2_plugin [89], PointIt [90],
Robotics & HRI ros2-foxy-wearable-biosensors [91]

Simulators MVSim [92], HuNavSim [93], LGSVL Simulator [94], LunarSim [95], MAES [96], UUV
simulator [97]
Computer HawkDrive [98], ROSGPT_Vision [99], GLIM [100], UAV Volcanic Plume Sampling [101],
Vision YOLOX [102], direct_visual_lidar_calibration [103], Bridging 3D Slicer and ROS2 [104],
Video Encoding and Decoding for High-Definition Datasets [105],
Reinforcement ros2-forest [106], gym-gazebo2 [107], drl_grasping [108], LPAC [109], opendr [86,87],
Learning ros2learn [110], An Educational Kit for Simulated Robot Learning in ROS 2 [111], [112]
Performance ChoiRbot [84], [113], FogROS2 [114], DriveEnv-NeRF [115], RobotPerf [116]
Evaluation
Real-Time CARET [113,117], ros2_tracing [118]

Cyber Security Bobble-Bot [119], Hyperledger Fabric Blockchain [120], rvd [121], KISS-ICP [122],
RCTF [123], SROS2 [124],

Software Aztarna [125], CFV2 [126], SkiROS2 [127], SMARTmBOT [128], Space ROS [129],
Platforms ros2-3gppSA6-mapper [130]

State MixNet [131], FusionTracking [132], NanoMap [133], wayp [134], lidar_cluster_ros2 [135]
Estimation
& Prediction
Planning navigation2 [136], PlanSys2 [137], SAILOR [138], YASMIN [139]

Navigation mola [140], depth_nav_tools [141], nav2_accountability_explainability [142], Navigation

Approach based on Bird’s-Eye View [143], DeRO [144], vox_nav [145,146],
evo [147], FlexMap Fusion [148], Mobile MoCap [149], MOCAP4ROS2 [150],
Multi-Robot-Graph-SLAM [151], pointcloudset [152], flexible_navigation [153], The
Marathon 2 [22],

Embedded & embeddedRTPS [154], forest [155], ReconROS [156,157], FogROS [158], FogROS2 [159–161],
Distributed ros2-message-flow-analysis [162], PAAM [163], RobotCore [164]
Systems
UAV anafi_ros [165], CrazyChoir [10], UAV Volcanic Plume Sampling [101], HyperDog [166],
Aerostack2 [78], MPSoC4Drones [167]
UUV SUAVE [168], Angler [169], UUV simulator [97]
Self-driving Autoware_Perf [170], DriveEnv-NeRF [115], XTENTH-CAR [171]
Cars
Service Robots MERLIN & MERLIN2 [172,173],

Product libiiwa [174], HRIM [175], kmriiwa [176], LBR-Stack [177], MeROS [178], OtterROS [179],
Integration RCLAda [180], RoboFuzz [181], Wrapyfi [112]
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 15 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.1204.v1

28 of 46

Table 10. ROS 2 Meta-Libraries and Their Applications.

ROS 2 Meta-Library Application

MoveIt 2 Motion planning for manipulators and humanoid robots
Navigation2 (Nav2) Autonomous navigation for wheeled and legged robots
Perception (PCL, OpenCV) 3D perception, object recognition, and environment mapping
TF2 (Transform Library) Coordinate transformations between multiple frames for robots
Gazebo Physics-based simulation for robotic systems and environments
RTI Connext DDS Middleware for real-time communication in distributed robotic
systems
ros_control Hardware abstraction, low-level control, and hardware interfaces
for robots
BehaviorTree.CPP Task and decision-making frameworks for autonomous robots
ROS2 Bag Data recording and playback for debugging and analysis
Rviz 3D visualization tool for robot models and sensor data
Autoware.Auto Autonomous driving stack for self-driving cars
CyberRT Autonomous driving framework developed by Apollo for vehicle
control and sensor fusion
Cartographer Real-time 2D and 3D SLAM (Simultaneous Localization and
Mapping)
Micro-ROS ROS 2 for microcontrollers, used in embedded systems and
resource-constrained robots
MAVROS Communication interface between ROS 2 and MAVLink-based
drones (e.g., multi-rotor UAVs)
Underwater ROS (UUV Simulator) Simulation and control of underwater vehicles
Quadruped ROS (ROS 2 Quadruped) Framework for controlling four-legged robotic platforms
SROS2 (Secure ROS 2) Security features like authentication, encryption, and access
control for ROS 2 systems
Fast-RTPS Real-time communication middleware for distributed robotic
systems (DDS implementation)
Lifecycle Lifecycle management for ROS 2 nodes, handling transitions
between states
SMACC State machine framework for robot decision-making in ROS 2
ROS 2 Control Advanced control framework for managing robot hardware and
drivers
PlotJuggler Real-time data visualization and plotting tool for ROS 2
Foxy Simulator (Foxglove) Browser-based visualization tool for exploring robotic data
DDS-Security Security plugins for encryption, authentication, and access
control in DDS
Rosbridge JSON API for ROS 2, enabling interaction with web interfaces
and mobile devices
Orocos Real-time control framework for complex robot control tasks,
integrated with ROS 2
RViz2 Plugins Custom plugins for extended visualization of data in RViz2

Simulation and visualization tools are integral to the development and testing of robotic systems.
Gazebo and Webots are widely used simulators that integrate seamlessly with ROS 2, allowing for
high-fidelity simulation of robots and environments. Gazebo supports complex physics simulations
and is extensively used for testing algorithms in a controlled setting. Webots provides a user-friendly
interface and supports a wide range of robotic platforms, making it ideal for both educational and
research purposes. Figure 9 shows different simulators for ROS 2 along with different specifications.
Moreover, datasets generated using ROS 2 play a crucial role in training and validating machine
learning models and other data-driven approaches in robotics. For example, Merzlyakov and
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 15 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.1204.v1

29 of 46

Macenski [182] compared modern visual SLAM approaches, while Amano et al. [183] generated
datasets for object recognition using FPGA nodes in ROS 2. Hallyburton et al. [184] created a
multi-agent security testbed, and Rosende et al. [185] provided an urban traffic dataset for intelligent
transportation systems. These datasets are crucial for benchmarking and improving the performance
of various robotic applications.

Table 11. Datasets and Tools Generated by ROS 2.

Title Authors Description

An Urban Traffic Dataset Composed of Visible Images and Their Rosende et al. [185] Urban traffic dataset for training
Semantic Segmentation Generated by the CARLA Simulator computer vision algorithms
Are you a robot? Detecting Autonomous Vehicles from Behavior Maresca et al. [186] Dataset and framework for
Analysis detecting autonomous vehicles
Co-driver: VLM-based Autonomous Driving Assistant with [187] VLM dataset for Understanding
Human-like Behavior and Understanding for Complex Road for Complex Road Scenes
Scenes
HawkDrive: A Transformer-driven Visual Perception System for Guo et al. [98] Visual perception system for
Autonomous Driving in Night Scene night-time autonomous driving
Learning to Grasp on the Moon from 3D Octree Observations [108] simulation environment with
with Deep Reinforcement Learning procedurally-generated datasets
is created to train agents
under challenging conditions
in unstructured scenes with
uneven terrain and harsh
illumination
Multimodal Mobile Robotic Dataset for a Typical Mediterranean [188] dataset designed explicitly
Greenhouse: The GREENBOT Dataset for challenging agricultural
environments
Race Against the Machine: A Fully-Annotated, Open-Design [189] Open-Design Dataset of
Dataset of Autonomous and Piloted High-Speed Flight Autonomous and Piloted
High-Speed Flight
ROSPaCe: Intrusion Detection Dataset for a ROS2-Based Puccetti et al. [190] Intrusion detection dataset for
Cyber-Physical System and IoT Networks ROS 2-based systems
Safe Road-Crossing by Autonomous Wheelchairs: a Novel Grigioni et al. [191] Dataset for safe road-crossing
Dataset and its Experimental Evaluation decisions by autonomous
wheelchairs
Skeleton Tracking Based Complex Human Activity Recognition Anjum et al. [192] Dataset for human activity
Using Kinect Camera recognition using Kinect camera
Swarm-SLAM: Sparse Decentralized Collaborative Simultaneous Lajoie, C-SLAM framework for
Localization and Mapping Framework for Multi-Robot Systems Beltrame [193] multi-robot systems
Survey on Datasets for Perception in Unstructured Outdoor [194] compare publicly available
Environments datasets available in
unstructured outdoor
environments

Simulation tools also play a critical role in the development and testing of ROS 2 applications.
Gazebo, for example, is frequently used for simulating complex robotic scenarios with high-fidelity
physics, making it invaluable for testing navigation, manipulation, and sensor integration. Webots,
another popular simulator, provides a comprehensive environment for developing and testing robots,
supporting a wide array of sensors and actuators. Additionally, the CARLA simulator has been used
to generate urban traffic datasets, which are essential for training autonomous driving systems [185].
Frameworks and toolkits provided by the literature further extend the capabilities of ROS 2. For
instance, FogROS2 by Ichnowski et al. [159] enables cloud and fog robotics, enhancing computational
capabilities and resource utilization. MERLIN2 by González-Santmarta et al. [173] offers a hybrid
cognitive architecture for symbolic planning and decision-making in service robots. Wrapyfi by Abawi
et al. [112] provides a Python wrapper for integrating robots, sensors, and applications across multiple
middleware platforms.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 15 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.1204.v1

30 of 46

Table 9 shows a list of open source packages for different applications and research fields.

6. Literature Analysis on ROS 2 Fields of Applications

The versatility of ROS 2 has enabled its deployment across a wide array of robotic platforms and
applications, demonstrating its adaptability and robustness in diverse scenarios such as autonomous
vehicles, unmanned aerial systems (UAVs), unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs), healthcare,
industrial automation, and human-robot interaction (HRI). This section highlights several applications
from the literature, showcasing the breadth of ROS 2’s capabilities. Figure 8 shows an approximate
taxonomy of the research applications of ROS 2.
ROS 2 has shown significant advancements in the field of autonomous vehicles, facilitating
seamless integration of sensors, decision-making algorithms, and vehicle control mechanisms. Studies
such as those by Lu et al. [195] and Maresca et al. [186] have highlighted its critical role in intelligent
and cooperative driving, as well as behavior analysis for differentiating autonomous vehicles from
human-driven ones. Similarly, the field of UAVs has benefited from ROS 2’s capabilities, with works
by Park et al. [196] and Chen et al. [197] showcasing advancements in real-time path planning and
multi-agent coordination.
In the realm of UUVs, Djizi et al. [198] demonstrated the potential of ROS 2 in hand gesture
control for real-time operations, reflecting broader efforts to enhance intuitive control mechanisms
in underwater environments. Additionally, the incorporation of digital twin technology for drone
forensics by Almusayli et al. [199] represents a novel approach to enhance investigation accuracy and
efficiency.
Healthcare robotics has also seen innovative applications of ROS 2, such as the knee rehabilitation
system by Arcos et al. [11] and the autonomous floor-cleaning robot with UV sterilization by Mohan and
Krishnan [200]. These studies underscore ROS 2’s robustness in ensuring precise control and navigation
in medical environments. In industrial automation, Pandey et al. [201] developed an autonomous robot
assistant, while Kołcon et al. [202] showcased the use of micro-ROS in smart warehouses, highlighting
the system’s effectiveness in navigating complex environments and managing tasks efficiently.
Furthermore, ROS 2’s application in enhancing human-robot interaction is exemplified by
Sobrín-Hidalgo et al. [203], who utilized large language models to generate explanations for
autonomous robot actions, improving transparency and trust in robotic systems. The educational
sector has also benefited, with Lages [204] demonstrating the use of ROS 2 as a teaching platform for
robotics control and dynamics, providing students with hands-on experience in sophisticated tools.
In military UAV deployments, works such as those by Lu et al. [195], Park et al. [196], and Chen
et al. [197] have utilized ROS 2 in both simulation and experimental settings, showcasing its versatility
and effectiveness. Similarly, in logistics and manufacturing, ROS 2’s ability to integrate various sensors
and algorithms has been highlighted in studies such as those by Pandey et al. [201] and Kołcon et
al. [202].

7. Literature Database and Analysis

As part of our comprehensive survey on ROS 2, we have created an extensive online database
to catalog and analyze the wealth of literature available on ROS 1 and ROS 2. This database serves
as a valuable resource for researchers and practitioners in the field of robotics, offering a centralized
repository of information on various research domains, targeted robotic platforms, industries of focus,
and types of articles.
The database comprises a total of 7498 articles published since 2009, meticulously categorized to
facilitate easy access and navigation. Each entry in the database includes detailed metadata such as
the version of ROS addressed or utilized, the specific field of application, the robotic platform used,
the article DOI, and links to any associated GitHub repositories. This level of detail ensures that users
can quickly locate relevant research and resources tailored to their specific needs.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 15 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.1204.v1

31 of 46

To enhance usability, the database features advanced filtering and sorting capabilities. Users can
filter articles based on specific criteria such as research domain, robotic platform, industry of focus,
and article type. For example, a user interested in finding all GitHub repositories related to ROS 2 for
UAV swarms can easily do so with just a few clicks. This functionality significantly reduces the time
and effort required to find pertinent information. For example, Figure 6 shows a sunburst chart of ROS
2 publications taxonomy.
Our literature database is not only a repository but also an analytical tool. By aggregating and
categorizing the research, we have been able to identify key trends, gaps, and emerging areas in ROS 2
research. This analysis is invaluable for guiding future research directions and fostering collaborations
within the robotics community. As an example, Figure 10 shows the trend lines of ROS 1 and ROS 2
number of publications. We can notice the gap between the two and also the rise of ROS 2 publication,
adding the fact that ROS 1 support will end after 2025, we suspect a decline in the trend line.

Figure 10. Number of Articles vs Year (ROS1 vs ROS2).

In Figure 11 we can notice that ROS 2 has already exceeded ROS 1 publications, that could indicate
ROS 2 support for hardware acceleration applications and research.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 15 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.1204.v1

32 of 46

Figure 11. Number of Articles vs Year for FPGA (ROS1 vs ROS2).

In additition, Figure 12 shows that middleware research on ROS 2 is also comparative to the
mature ROS 1. Which suggest huge research contributions to the DDS gaps existing today and
improving upon it.

Figure 12. Number of Articles vs Year for Middleware (ROS1 vs ROS2).

Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 15 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.1204.v1

33 of 46

As a final example, Figure 13 shows clear sign of the security community favoritism towards ROS
2 research. Indicating ROS 2 bright future in the field of cyber security.

Figure 13. Number of Articles vs Year for Security (ROS1 vs ROS2).

8. Conclusions
This survey provides a comprehensive examination of the current state and potential of ROS
2, emphasizing its evolution from ROS 1 and highlighting the significant advancements that make
ROS 2 a powerful framework for modern robotic applications. Our analysis demonstrates that ROS 2
introduces key architectural and functional improvements, including better modularity, scalability, and
real-time performance—features that are crucial for developing reliable and complex robotic systems.
Through a comparative analysis of ROS 1 and ROS 2, we have shown that ROS 2 effectively
addresses the limitations of its predecessor. Specifically, ROS 2 overcomes challenges such as
dependency on a central master node, the lack of real-time guarantees, and limited support for
multi-robot systems. The transition to a more decentralized, scalable, and real-time framework
positions ROS 2 as a leading solution for a wide range of applications, including industrial automation,
healthcare, and autonomous vehicles.

8.1. Key Research Findings

Our research identifies several key areas of active investigation within the ROS 2 ecosystem,
reflecting the ongoing efforts to enhance its performance and reliability. These include:

• Security Improvements: ROS 2 incorporates built-in security mechanisms such as encryption,

authentication, and access control. While these mechanisms significantly enhance security for
critical robotic applications, balancing performance and security remains a challenge, particularly
in resource-constrained environments.
• Real-Time and Multi-Robot Systems (MRS): With its real-time capabilities, supported by the
Data Distribution Service (DDS) middleware, ROS 2 greatly improves communication reliability
and timing for multi-robot systems. While custom schedulers and priority-driven executors have
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 15 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.1204.v1

34 of 46

been proposed to further optimize real-time performance, challenges such as latency in complex
environments persist.
• Middleware Advancements: Dynamic DDS implementations and middleware options such
as Zenoh offer optimized communication across various network conditions, especially in
edge-cloud and distributed systems. These enhancements strengthen ROS 2’s scalability and
real-time coordination, particularly in multi-robot scenarios.
• Modularity and Hardware Acceleration: ROS 2’s modularity and compatibility with hardware
acceleration platforms, such as FPGAs, enable efficient deployment in resource-intensive
applications like autonomous vehicles and robotic arms. This feature offers a pathway to
better performance in AI-driven and industrial robotics.
• Quality of Service (QoS): ROS 2’s flexible QoS settings allow for fine-tuned control over
communication reliability and latency. These settings are critical in real-time applications such as
autonomous driving and healthcare robotics. However, finding the right balance between QoS
parameters and security requirements remains an ongoing area of research.
• Containerization and Cloud Integration: ROS 2’s adaptability to containerized environments
and its integration with orchestration tools such as Kubernetes provide robust support for
scalable deployment in distributed robotic systems, particularly in edge-cloud architectures.

The key challenges and advances in each of these areas are summarized in Table 2.

8.2. Answers to Research Questions

• What are the key challenges in transitioning from ROS 1 to ROS 2?
ROS 1’s limitations, such as reliance on a central master node, lack of real-time guarantees, and
challenges in supporting multi-robot systems, have been effectively addressed in ROS 2 through
decentralized architecture, real-time DDS middleware, and enhanced scalability.
• How does ROS 2 improve scalability and reliability in multi-robot systems compared to ROS
1?
By removing the single point of failure (the master node) and introducing dynamic middleware
switching and advanced synchronization protocols, ROS 2 significantly improves scalability and
reliability in multi-robot systems.
• What are the advancements in real-time performance with ROS 2, and what limitations
remain?
ROS 2’s real-time performance has been improved through the introduction of priority-based
schedulers and dynamic QoS management. However, limitations such as callback
unpredictability, network delays, and latency in distributed systems still require further
refinement.
• How effective are ROS 2’s built-in security features in mitigating vulnerabilities?
ROS 2 introduces native security features like SROS2, enhancing security in robotic
applications. However, performance overhead from encryption and authentication, especially in
resource-limited systems, remains a challenge.
• What are the performance differences between different DDS implementations in ROS 2?
Performance varies among DDS vendors, such as FastDDS and CycloneDDS, particularly when
security features are enabled. Middleware choices should therefore be made based on specific
network and performance needs.
• How does ROS 2 support containerization and orchestration in distributed robotic
applications?
ROS 2 supports distributed systems through containerization tools like FogROS2, which enable
cloud and edge integration, facilitating scalable robotic applications across diverse network
environments.
• How has ROS 2 enabled advancements in robot navigation, motion planning, and control
frameworks?
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 15 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.1204.v1

35 of 46

ROS 2’s modularity and real-time capabilities have been leveraged in frameworks such as Nav2,
MoveIt, and Autoware to enhance path planning, motion control, and autonomous navigation,
establishing ROS 2 as an essential platform for advanced robotics solutions.
• What are the benefits and challenges of using ROS 2 in embedded systems and
resource-constrained environments?
Micro-ROS extends ROS 2 to resource-constrained devices, supporting applications in embedded
systems like IoT and CubeSats. However, challenges remain in optimizing real-time performance
in these resource-limited settings.
• How do ROS 2’s QoS settings balance between performance, security, and communication
reliability?
ROS 2’s QoS settings enable fine-tuned control over data transmission, improving both
performance and reliability. However, optimizing the balance between security features and
communication efficiency remains a challenge.
• Is ROS 2 mature right now?
ROS 2 has reached a high level of maturity, especially with the completion of core functionalities
such as navigation, transformations, and multi-robot support. Its widespread adoption in
industries like healthcare, autonomous driving, and industrial robotics underscores its readiness
for complex real-world applications. However, challenges such as maintaining real-time
performance under high network loads and refining security without compromising performance
indicate that ongoing improvements are still necessary to meet the demands of large-scale,
mission-critical deployments. Tools like FogROS2 and Micro-ROS further reflect the ecosystem’s
maturity in handling distributed and embedded systems.

8.3. Summary and Future Directions

This survey comprehensively explores the current state of ROS 2, illustrating its evolution from
ROS 1 and emphasizing significant advancements that reinforce its status as a leading framework
for modern robotics. Key architectural improvements—such as enhanced modularity, scalability, and
real-time performance—have been instrumental in establishing ROS 2 as a robust and reliable platform
for developing sophisticated robotic systems.
Several key research areas within ROS 2, including security, multi-robot systems, hardware
acceleration, and real-time capabilities, are actively being investigated. These efforts reflect the
community’s drive to continually improve ROS 2’s performance and reliability, with diverse
applications ranging from industrial automation to healthcare and autonomous vehicles.
Furthermore, this survey provides a full taxonomy of open-source ROS 2 packages (Table 9),
summarizing critical frameworks for multi-robot systems (MRS), human-robot interaction (HRI),
reinforcement learning (RL), security, and other domains. This taxonomy facilitates easy access to
essential tools for researchers across various fields.
The applications section highlights ROS 2’s versatility, showcasing its broad use across different
robotic platforms and fields of application, as summarized in Figure 8. Additionally, the ecosystem’s
richness is evident in the discussion of meta frameworks such as Nav2, MoveIt, and Autoware, along
with simulation and visualization tools like Gazebo and Webots, all of which support comprehensive
development and testing environments.
Finally, our literature database, accessible at https://www.ros.riotu-lab.org/, offers an invaluable
resource for the robotics community. Supported by advanced filtering and sorting capabilities, the
database helps researchers navigate the vast array of research articles and resources. Figures 10, 11, 13,
and 12 provide further analysis of ROS 2’s growth and adoption across multiple sectors.
In conclusion, ROS 2 represents a significant leap forward in the evolution of robotic operating
systems. It delivers a scalable, flexible, and robust framework that meets the demands of modern
robotics applications. Ongoing community collaboration and continuous development within the
ROS 2 ecosystem are vital to overcoming existing challenges and unlocking new possibilities for
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 15 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.1204.v1

36 of 46

robotics. We hope this survey serves as a valuable reference for researchers and practitioners, fostering
innovation and progress in the field.

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement: The original data presented in the study are openly available in https://www.ros.
riotu-lab.org/.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank Prince Sultan University for their support.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Quigley, M.; Conley, K.; Gerkey, B.; Faust, J.; Foote, T.; Leibs, J.; Wheeler, R.; Ng, A. ROS: an open-source
Robot Operating System. ICRA Workshop on Open Source Software, 2009.
2. Shim, D.; Kim, S.H.; Cho, K. Open-source robotic platforms in ROS for advanced robotics research.
International Journal of Control, Automation and Systems 2016, 14, 1205–1215.
3. Bojarski, M.; Del Testa, D.; Dworakowski, D.; Firner, B.; Flepp, B.; Goyal, P.; Jackel, L.D.; Monfort, M.; Muller,
U.; Zhang, J.; others. End to end learning for self-driving cars. arXiv preprint arXiv:1604.07316 2016.
4. Xie, L.; Hu, J.; Li, J.; Zhang, H.; Wang, Y. A novel mechanical design of a quadruped robot with force-position
hybrid control. International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems 2018, 15, 1729881418810173.
5. Badger, J.; Gooding, D.; Ensley, K.; Hambuchen, K.; Thackston, A., ROS in Space: A Case Study on Robonaut
2. In Robot Operating System (ROS): The Complete Reference (Volume 1); Koubaa, A., Ed.; Springer International
Publishing: Cham, 2016; pp. 343–373. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-26054-9\_13.
6. Gao, H.; Wu, Z.; Liu, J. Cartographer: a system that provides real-time simultaneous localization and
mapping (SLAM) in 2D and 3D across multiple platforms and sensor configurations. IEEE Robotics and
Automation Letters 2018, 3, 750–757.
7. Bradski, G. The OpenCV Library. Dr. Dobb’s Journal of Software Tools 2000.
8. Rusu, R.B.; Cousins, S. 3D is here: Point Cloud Library (PCL). IEEE International Conference on Robotics
and Automation (ICRA); , 2011.
9. Koubaa, A. ROSGPT: Next-Generation Human-Robot Interaction with ChatGPT and ROS, 2023.
doi:10.20944/preprints202304.0827.v1.
10. Pichierri, L.; Testa, A.; Notarstefano, G. CrazyChoir: Flying Swarms of Crazyflie Quadrotors in ROS 2. ArXiv
2023, abs/2302.00716.
11. Arcos, L.; Vicente, K.; Cruz, P.; Abad, J.; Zambrano, I. A ROS2 based Trajectory Tracking Controller of a
3UPS-1RPU Parallel Robot for Knee Rehabilitation. 2022 IEEE Sixth Ecuador Technical Chapters Meeting
(ETCM), 2022, pp. 1–6. doi:10.1109/ETCM56276.2022.9935755.
12. Audonnet, F.P.; Hamilton, A.; Aragon-Camarasa, G. A Systematic Comparison of Simulation Software for
Robotic Arm Manipulation using ROS2, 2022. doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2204.06433.
13. Zhang, J.; Keramat, F.; Yu, X.; Hernández, D.M.; Queralta, J.P.; Westerlund, T. Distributed Robotic Systems in
the Edge-Cloud Continuum with ROS 2: a Review on Novel Architectures and Technology Readiness.
2022 Seventh International Conference on Fog and Mobile Edge Computing (FMEC), 2022, pp. 1–8.
doi:10.1109/FMEC57183.2022.10062523.
14. Macenski, S.; Moore, T.; Lu, D.V.; Merzlyakov, A.; Ferguson, M. From the desks of ROS maintainers: A
survey of modern and capable mobile robotics algorithms in the robot operating system 2. Robotics and
Autonomous Systems 2023, 168, 104493. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2023.104493.
15. Choi, H.S.; Enright, D.; Sobhani, H.; Xiang, Y.; Kim, H. Priority-Driven Real-Time Scheduling in ROS 2:
Potential and Challenges. 1st International Workshop on Real-time And intelliGent Edge computing (RAGE),
2022.
16. Macenski, S.; Foote, T.; Gerkey, B.; Lalancette, C.; Woodall, W. Robot Operating System
2: Design, architecture, and uses in the wild. Science Robotics 2022, 7, eabm6074,
[https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/scirobotics.abm6074]. doi:10.1126/scirobotics.abm6074.
17. DiLuoffo, V.; Michalson, W.R.; Sunar, B. Robot Operating System 2: The need for a holistic security approach
to robotic architectures. International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems 2018, 15, 1729881418770011,
[https://doi.org/10.1177/1729881418770011]. doi:10.1177/1729881418770011.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 15 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.1204.v1

37 of 46

18. Alhanahnah, M. Software Quality Assessment for Robot Operating System, 2020, [arXiv:cs.SE/2012.07196].
19. Bonci, A.; Gaudeni, F.; Giannini, M.C.; Longhi, S. Robot Operating System 2 (ROS2)-Based Frameworks for
Increasing Robot Autonomy: A Survey. Applied Sciences 2023, 13. doi:10.3390/app132312796.
20. Koubâa, A.; Sriti, M.; Bennaceur, H.; Ammar, A.; Javed, Y.; Alajlan, M.; Al-Elaiwi, N.; Tounsi, M.; Shakshuki,
E.M. COROS: A Multi-Agent Software Architecture for Cooperative and Autonomous Service Robots. In
Cooperative Robots and Sensor Networks 2015; Koubâa, A.; de Dios, J.R.M., Eds.; Springer, 2015; Vol. 604, Studies
in Computational Intelligence, pp. 3–30. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-18299-5\_1.
21. Foote, T. tf: The transform library. Technologies for Practical Robot Applications (TePRA),
2013 IEEE International Conference on, 2013, Open-Source Software workshop, pp. 1–6.
doi:10.1109/TePRA.2013.6556373.
22. Macenski, S.; Martín, F.; White, R.; Clavero, J.G. The Marathon 2: A Navigation System. 2020
IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2020, pp. 2718–2725.
doi:10.1109/IROS45743.2020.9341207.
23. Vilches, V.M.; White, R.; Caiazza, G.; Arguedas, M. SROS2: Usable Cyber Security Tools for ROS 2, 2022.
doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2208.02615.
24. Henle, J.; Stoffel, M.; Schindewolf, M.; Nägele, A.T.; Sax, E. Architecture platforms for future vehicles: a
comparison of ROS2 and Adaptive AUTOSAR. 2022 IEEE 25th International Conference on Intelligent
Transportation Systems (ITSC), 2022, pp. 3095–3102. doi:10.1109/ITSC55140.2022.9921894.
25. Macenski, S.; Soragna, A.; Carroll, M.; Ge, Z. Impact of ROS 2 Node Composition in Robotic Systems, 2023,
[arXiv:cs.RO/2305.09933].
26. Salimi, S.; Keramat, F.; Westerlund, T.; Queralta, J.P. A Customizable Conflict Resolution and Attribute-Based
Access Control Framework for Multi-Robot Systems, 2023, [arXiv:cs.RO/2308.16482].
27. Fu, L.; Salimi, S.; Queralta, J.P.; Westerlund, T. Event-driven Fabric Blockchain - ROS 2 Interface: Towards
Secure and Auditable Teleoperation of Mobile Robots, 2023, [arXiv:cs.RO/2304.00781].
28. Patel, Y.; Rughani, P.H.; Desai, D. Analyzing Security Vulnerability and Forensic Investigation of
ROS2: A Case Study. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Robotics and Artificial
Intelligence; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2023; ICRAI ’22, p. 6–12.
doi:10.1145/3573910.3573912.
29. DiLuoffo, V.; Michalson, W.R.; Sunar, B. Credential Masquerading and OpenSSL Spy: Exploring ROS 2 using
DDS security. ArXiv 2019, abs/1904.09179.
30. Takemoto, S.; Nishida, K.; Nozaki, Y.; Yoshikawa, M.; Honda, S.; Kurachi, R. Performance Evaluation of
CAESAR Authenticated Encryption on SROS2. Proceedings of the 2019 2nd Artificial Intelligence and Cloud
Computing Conference; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2020; AICCC 2019, p.
168–172. doi:10.1145/3375959.3375976.
31. Rotta, R.; Mykytyn, P. Secure Multi-hop Telemetry Broadcasts for UAV Swarm Communication, 2024,
[arXiv:cs.CR/2401.11915].
32. Yang, S.; Guo, J.; Rui, X. Formal Analysis and Detection for ROS2 Communication Security Vulnerability.
Electronics 2024, 13. doi:10.3390/electronics13091762.
33. Patel, Y.; Rughani, P.H.; Desai, D. Network Forensic Investigation of Collaborative Robots: A Case Study.
2022 7th International Conference on Mechanical Engineering and Robotics Research (ICMERR), 2022, pp.
51–54. doi:10.1109/ICMERR56497.2022.10097787.
34. Yang, F.; Zhan, S.S.; Wang, Y.; Huang, C.; Zhu, Q. Case Study: Runtime Safety Verification of Neural Network
Controlled System, 2024, [arXiv:cs.RO/2408.08592].
35. Kim, J.; Smereka, J.M.; Cheung, C.; Nepal, S.; Grobler, M. Security and Performance Considerations in ROS
2: A Balancing Act. ArXiv 2018, abs/1809.09566.
36. Sandoval, S.; Thulasiraman, P. Cyber Security Assessment of the Robot Operating System 2
for Aerial Networks. 2019 IEEE International Systems Conference (SysCon), 2019, pp. 1–8.
doi:10.1109/SYSCON.2019.8836824.
37. Gupta, R.; Kurtz, Z.T.; Scherer, S.; Smereka, J.M. Open Problems in Robotic Anomaly Detection, 2018,
[arXiv:cs.RO/1809.03565].
38. Goerke, N.; Timmermann, D.; Baumgart, I. Who Controls Your Robot? An Evaluation of ROS Security
Mechanisms. 2021 7th International Conference on Automation, Robotics and Applications (ICARA), 2021,
pp. 60–66. doi:10.1109/ICARA51699.2021.9376468.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 15 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.1204.v1

38 of 46

39. Tanadechopon, T.; Kasemsontitum, B. Proposed Technique for Data Security with the AES Algorithm in
Robot Operating System (ROS). 2023 27th International Computer Science and Engineering Conference
(ICSEC), 2023, pp. 153–156. doi:10.1109/ICSEC59635.2023.10329645.
40. Casini, D.; Blaß, T.; Lütkebohle, I.; Brandenburg, B.B. Response-Time Analysis of ROS 2 Processing Chains
Under Reservation-Based Scheduling. 31st Euromicro Conference on Real-Time Systems (ECRTS 2019);
Quinton, S., Ed.; Schloss Dagstuhl–Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik: Dagstuhl, Germany, 2019; Vol. 133,
Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), pp. 6:1–6:23. doi:10.4230/LIPIcs.ECRTS.2019.6.
41. Park, S.; Choi, J.; Hwang, S.; Lee, C.G. ROS2 Extension of Functionally and Temporally Correct Real-Time
Simulation of Cyber Systems for Automotive Systems. 2021 International Symposium on Electrical,
Electronics and Information Engineering; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2021;
ISEEIE 2021, p. 185–189. doi:10.1145/3459104.3459137.
42. Teper, H.; Betz, T.; Von Der Brüggen, G.; Chen, K.H.; Betz, J.; Chen, J.J. Timing-Aware ROS 2 Architecture and
System Optimization. 2023 IEEE 29th International Conference on Embedded and Real-Time Computing
Systems and Applications (RTCSA), 2023, pp. 206–215. doi:10.1109/RTCSA58653.2023.00032.
43. Park, J.; Delgado, R.; Choi, B.W. Real-Time Characteristics of ROS 2.0 in Multiagent Robot Systems: An
Empirical Study. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 154637–154651. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3018122.
44. Tang, Y.; Feng, Z.; Guan, N.; Jiang, X.; Lv, M.; Deng, Q.; Yi, W. Response Time Analysis and Priority
Assignment of Processing Chains on ROS2 Executors. 2020 IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium (RTSS),
2020, pp. 231–243. doi:10.1109/RTSS49844.2020.00030.
45. Choi, H.; Xiang, Y.; Kim, H. PiCAS: New Design of Priority-Driven Chain-Aware Scheduling for ROS2. 2021
IEEE 27th Real-Time and Embedded Technology and Applications Symposium (RTAS), 2021, pp. 251–263.
doi:10.1109/RTAS52030.2021.00028.
46. Sobhani, H.; Choi, H.; Kim, H. Timing Analysis and Priority-driven Enhancements of ROS 2 Multi-threaded
Executors. 2023 IEEE 29th Real-Time and Embedded Technology and Applications Symposium (RTAS),
2023, pp. 106–118. doi:10.1109/RTAS58335.2023.00016.
47. Tang, Y.; Guan, N.; Jiang, X.; Luo, X.; Yi, W. Real-Time Performance Analysis of Processing Systems on ROS
2 Executors. 2023 IEEE 29th Real-Time and Embedded Technology and Applications Symposium (RTAS),
2023, pp. 80–92. doi:10.1109/RTAS58335.2023.00014.
48. Patel, D.; Maiti, C.; Muthuswamy, S. Real-Time Performance Monitoring of a CNC Milling Machine using
ROS 2 and AWS IoT Towards Industry 4.0. IEEE EUROCON 2023 - 20th International Conference on Smart
Technologies, 2023, pp. 776–781. doi:10.1109/EUROCON56442.2023.10199020.
49. Betz, T.; Wen, L.; Pan, F.; Kaljavesi, G.; Zuepke, A.; Bastoni, A.; Caccamo, M.; Knoll, A.; Betz, J. A
Containerized Microservice Architecture for a ROS 2 Autonomous Driving Software: An End-to-End
Latency Evaluation, 2024, [arXiv:cs.RO/2404.12683].
50. Blaß, T.; Casini, D.; Bozhko, S.; Brandenburg, B.B. A ROS 2 Response-Time Analysis Exploiting Starvation
Freedom and Execution-Time Variance. 2021 IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium (RTSS), 2021, pp. 41–53.
doi:10.1109/RTSS52674.2021.00016.
51. Li, R.; Hu, T.; Jiang, X.; Li, L.; Xing, W.; Deng, Q.; Guan, N. ROSGM: A Real-Time GPU Management
Framework with Plug-In Policies for ROS 2. 2023 IEEE 29th Real-Time and Embedded Technology and
Applications Symposium (RTAS), 2023, pp. 93–105. doi:10.1109/RTAS58335.2023.00015.
52. Kronauer, T.; Pohlmann, J.; Matthé, M.; Smejkal, T.; Fettweis, G. Latency Analysis of ROS2 Multi-Node
Systems. 2021 IEEE International Conference on Multisensor Fusion and Integration for Intelligent Systems
(MFI), 2021, pp. 1–7. doi:10.1109/MFI52462.2021.9591166.
53. Randolph, C. Improving the Predictability of Event Chains in ROS 2. Master’s thesis, Electrical Engineering,
Mathematics and Computer Science, Delft University of Technology, 2021.
54. Parmar, N.; Ranga, V.; Simhachalam Naidu, B. editor=Ranganathan, G.; Chen, J.; Rocha, Á. Syntactic
Interoperability in Real-Time Systems, ROS 2, and Adaptive AUTOSAR Using Data Distribution Services:
An Approach. Inventive Communication and Computational Technologies; Springer Singapore: Singapore,
2020; pp. 257–274.
55. Katsuya, M.; Ren, M.; Sho’ji, S. A Study of Optimizing Inter-node Communication with an IPC-based DDS
Implementation in ROS 2. Asia Pacific Conference on Robot IoT System Development and Platform 2019
(APRIS2019), 2020.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 15 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.1204.v1

39 of 46

56. Morita, R.; Matsubara, K. Dynamic Binding a Proper DDS Implementation for Optimizing Inter-Node
Communication in ROS2. 2018 IEEE 24th International Conference on Embedded and Real-Time Computing
Systems and Applications (RTCSA), 2018, pp. 246–247. doi:10.1109/RTCSA.2018.00043.
57. Aartsen, M.; Banga, K.; Talko, K.; Touw, D.; Wisman, B.; Meïnsma, D.; Björkqvist, M. Analyzing
Interoperability and Security Overhead of ROS2 DDS Middleware. 2022 30th Mediterranean Conference on
Control and Automation (MED), 2022, pp. 976–981. doi:10.1109/MED54222.2022.9837282.
58. Zhang, J.; Yu, X.; Ha, S.; Queralta, J.P.; Westerlund, T. Comparison of DDS, MQTT, and Zenoh in Edge-to-Edge
and Edge-to-Cloud Communication for Distributed ROS 2 Systems, 2023, [arXiv:cs.RO/2309.07496].
59. Pöhnl, M.; Tamisier, A.; Blass, T. A Middleware Journey from Microcontrollers to Microprocessors.
2022 Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference & Exhibition (DATE), 2022, pp. 282–286.
doi:10.23919/DATE54114.2022.9774609.
60. Mamani-Saico, A.; Yanyachi, P.R. Implementation and Performance Study of the Micro-ROS/ROS2
Framework to Algorithm Design for Attitude Determination and Control System. IEEE Access 2023,
11, 128451–128460. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3330441.
61. Lienen, C.; Middeke, S.H.; Platzner, M. fpgaDDS: An Intra-FPGA Data Distribution Service for ROS 2
Robotics Applications, 2023, [arXiv:cs.RO/2303.00532].
62. Lienen, C.; Platzner, M. ReconROS Executor: Event-Driven Programming of FPGA-accelerated ROS 2
Applications. ArXiv 2022, abs/2201.07454.
63. Zhang, J.; Keramat, F.; Yu, X.; Hernández, D.M.; Queralta, J.P.; Westerlund, T. Distributed Robotic Systems in
the Edge-Cloud Continuum with ROS 2: a Review on Novel Architectures and Technology Readiness.
2022 Seventh International Conference on Fog and Mobile Edge Computing (FMEC), 2022, pp. 1–8.
doi:10.1109/FMEC57183.2022.10062523.
64. De Marchi, M.; Bombieri, N. Orchestration-Aware Optimization of ROS2 Communication Protocols.
2024 Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference & Exhibition (DATE), 2024, pp. 1–6.
doi:10.23919/DATE58400.2024.10546777.
65. Yu, Y.; Lee, S. Measurements of the Benefits of Edge Computing on Autonomous Driving. 2022 13th
International Conference on Information and Communication Technology Convergence (ICTC), 2022, pp.
2155–2159. doi:10.1109/ICTC55196.2022.9952693.
66. Thulasiraman, P.; Chen, Z.; Allen, B.; Bingham, B. Evaluation of the Robot Operating System 2 in
Lossy Unmanned Networks. 2020 IEEE International Systems Conference (SysCon), 2020, pp. 1–8.
doi:10.1109/SysCon47679.2020.9275849.
67. Dauphin, L.; Baccelli, E.; Adjih, C. RIOT-ROS2: Low-Cost Robots in IoT Controlled via Information-Centric
Networking. 2018 IFIP/IEEE International Conference on Performance Evaluation and Modeling in Wired
and Wireless Networks (PEMWN), 2018, pp. 1–6. doi:10.23919/PEMWN.2018.8548798.
68. Jalil, A.; Kobayashi, J. Efficacy of Local Cache for Performance Improvement of Reliable Data Transmission
in Aggregated Robot Processing Architecture. 2022 22nd International Conference on Control, Automation
and Systems (ICCAS), 2022, pp. 1339–1344. doi:10.23919/ICCAS55662.2022.10003765.
69. Jalil, A.; Kobayashi, J.; Saitoh, T. Performance Improvement of Multi-Robot Data Transmission in
Aggregated Robot Processing Architecture with Caches and QoS Balancing Optimization. Robotics 2023, 12.
doi:10.3390/robotics12030087.
70. Jalil, A.; Kobayashi, J.; Saitoh, T. QoS Balancing Optimization in Aggregated Robot Processing Architecture:
Rate and Buffer. Journal of Advances in Artificial Life Robotics 2023, 3, 209–213. doi:10.57417/jaalr.3.4_209.
71. Fernandez, J.; Allen, B.; Thulasiraman, P.; Bingham, B. Performance Study of the Robot Operating System 2
with QoS and Cyber Security Settings. 2020 IEEE International Systems Conference (SysCon), 2020, pp. 1–6.
doi:10.1109/SysCon47679.2020.9275872.
72. Parra, S.; Schneider, S.; Hochgeschwender, N. Specifying QoS Requirements and Capabilities for
Component-Based Robot Software. 2021 IEEE/ACM 3rd International Workshop on Robotics Software
Engineering (RoSE), 2021, pp. 29–36. doi:10.1109/RoSE52553.2021.00012.
73. Jaiswal, B.; Tyagi, H.; Gopalan, A.; Sevani, V. WiROS: A QoS Software Solution for ros2 in a WiFi Network.
2023 15th International Conference on COMmunication Systems & NETworkS (COMSNETS), 2023, pp.
216–218. doi:10.1109/COMSNETS56262.2023.10041412.
74. Dey, E.; Walczak, M.; Anwar, M.S.; Roy, N. A Reliable and Low Latency Synchronizing Middleware for
Co-simulation of a Heterogeneous Multi-Robot Systems, 2022. doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2211.05359.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 15 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.1204.v1

40 of 46

75. Dust, L.J.; Persson, E.; Ekström, M.; Mubeen, S.; Dean, E. Quantitative analysis of communication handling
for centralized multi-agent robot systems using ROS2. 2022 IEEE 20th International Conference on Industrial
Informatics (INDIN), 2022, pp. 624–629. doi:10.1109/INDIN51773.2022.9976160.
76. Jalil, A.; Kobayashi, J. Experimental Analyses of an Efficient Aggregated Robot Processing with
Cache-Control for Multi-Robot System. 2020 20th International Conference on Control, Automation
and Systems (ICCAS), 2020, pp. 1105–1109. doi:10.23919/ICCAS50221.2020.9268225.
77. Chovet, L.P.; Garcia, G.M.; Bera, A.; Richard, A.; Yoshida, K.; Olivares-Mendez, M.A. Performance
Comparison of ROS2 Middlewares for Multi-robot Mesh Networks in Planetary Exploration, 2024,
[arXiv:cs.RO/2407.03091].
78. Fernandez-Cortizas, M.; Molina, M.; Arias-Perez, P.; Perez-Segui, R.; Perez-Saura, D.; Campoy, P. Aerostack2:
A Software Framework for Developing Multi-robot Aerial Systems, 2023, [arXiv:cs.RO/2303.18237].
79. Zhang, Y.; Wurll, C.; Hein, B. KubeROS: A Unified Platform for Automated and Scalable Deployment of
ROS2-based Multi-Robot Applications. 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation
(ICRA), 2023, pp. 9097–9103. doi:10.1109/ICRA48891.2023.10160632.
80. Kaiser, T.K.; Begemann, M.J.; Plattenteich, T.; Schilling, L.; Schildbach, G.; Hamann, H. ROS2SWARM - A
ROS 2 Package for Swarm Robot Behaviors. 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation
(ICRA), 2022, pp. 6875–6881. doi:10.1109/ICRA46639.2022.9812417.
81. Blumenkamp, J.; Shankar, A.; Bettini, M.; Bird, J.; Prorok, A. The Cambridge RoboMaster: An Agile
Multi-Robot Research Platform, 2024, [arXiv:cs.RO/2405.02198].
82. Pacheco, A.; Denis, U.; Zakir, R.; Strobel, V.; Reina, A.; Dorigo, M. Toychain: A Simple Blockchain for
Research in Swarm Robotics, 2024, [arXiv:cs.RO/2407.06630].
83. Castillo-Sánchez, J.B.; González-Parada, E.; Cano-García, J.M. A novel testbed for evaluating ROS 2 robot
swarm wireless communications. 2024 IEEE 22nd Mediterranean Electrotechnical Conference (MELECON) 2024,
pp. 68–73.
84. Testa, A.; Camisa, A.; Notarstefano, G. ChoiRbot: A ROS 2 Toolbox for Cooperative Robotics. IEEE Robotics
and Automation Letters 2021, 6, 2714–2720. doi:10.1109/LRA.2021.3061366.
85. Alzetta, F.; Giorgini, P. Towards a Real-Time BDI Model for ROS 2. Workshop From Objects to Agents, 2019.
86. Passalis, N.; Pedrazzi, S.; Babuska, R.; Burgard, W.; Dias, D.; Ferro, F.; Gabbouj, M.; Green, O.; Iosifidis,
A.; Kayacan, E.; Kober, J.; Michel, O.; Nikolaidis, N.; Nousi, P.; Pieters, R.; Tzelepi, M.; Valada, A.; Tefas,
A. OpenDR: An Open Toolkit for Enabling High Performance, Low Footprint Deep Learning for Robotics.
Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (to appear),
2022.
87. Angleraud, A.; Ekrekli, A.; Samarawickrama, K.; Sharma, G.; Pieters, R. Sensor-based human–robot
collaboration for industrial tasks. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 2024, 86, 102663.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcim.2023.102663.
88. Bono, A.; Brameld, K.; D’Alfonso, L.; Fedele, G. Open Access NAO (OAN): a ROS2-based software
framework for HRI applications with the NAO robot, 2024, [arXiv:cs.RO/2403.13960].
89. Fabian, S.; Stryk, O.v. Open-Source Tools for Efficient ROS and ROS2-based 2D Human-Robot
Interface Development. 2021 European Conference on Mobile Robots (ECMR), 2021, pp. 1–6.
doi:10.1109/ECMR50962.2021.9568801.
90. Abbate, G.; Giusti, A.; Paolillo, A.; Gromov, B.; Gambardella, L.; Rizzoli, A.E.; Guzzi, J. PointIt: A ROS
Toolkit for Interacting with Co-Located Robots Using Pointing Gestures. Proceedings of the 2022 ACM/IEEE
International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. IEEE Press, 2022, HRI ’22, p. 608–612.
91. Jo, W.; Wilson, R.; Kim, J.; McGuire, S.; Min, B. Toward a Wearable Biosensor Ecosystem on ROS 2 for
Real-time Human-Robot Interaction Systems. CoRR 2021, abs/2110.03840, [2110.03840].
92. Blanco-Claraco, J.L.; Tymchenko, B.; Mañas-Alvarez, F.J.; Cañadas-Aránega, F.; Ángel López-Gázquez.;
Moreno, J.C. MultiVehicle Simulator (MVSim): lightweight dynamics simulator for multiagents and mobile
robotics research, 2023, [arXiv:cs.RO/2302.11033].
93. PÃl’rez-Higueras, N.; Otero, R.; Caballero, F.; Merino, L. HuNavSim: A ROS 2 Human Navigation Simulator
for Benchmarking 1416 Human-Aware Robot Navigation, 2023. [arXiv:cs.RO/2305.01303].
94. Rong, G.; Shin, B.H.; Tabatabaee, H.; Lu, Q.; Lemke, S.; Možeiko, M.; Boise, E.; Uhm, G.; Gerow, M.; Mehta,
S.; Agafonov, E.; Kim, T.H.; Sterner, E.; Ushiroda, K.; Reyes, M.; Zelenkovsky, D.; Kim, S. LGSVL Simulator:
A High Fidelity Simulator for Autonomous Driving, 2020, [arXiv:cs.RO/2005.03778].
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 15 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.1204.v1

41 of 46

95. Pieczyński, D.; Ptak, B.; Kraft, M.; Drapikowski, P. LunarSim: Lunar Rover Simulator Focused on High
Visual Fidelity and ROS 2 Integration for Advanced Computer Vision Algorithm Development. Applied
Sciences 2023, 13. doi:10.3390/app132212401.
96. Andreasen, M.; Holler, P.; Jensen, M.; Albano, M. MAES: a ROS 2-compatible simulation tool for exploration
and coverage algorithms. Artificial Life and Robotics 2023.
97. Manhães, M.M.M.; Scherer, S.A.; Voss, M.; Douat, L.R.; Rauschenbach, T. UUV Simulator: A Gazebo-based
package for underwater intervention and multi-robot simulation. OCEANS 2016 MTS/IEEE Monterey.
IEEE, 2016. doi:10.1109/oceans.2016.7761080.
98. Guo, Z.; Perminov, S.; Konenkov, M.; Tsetserukou, D. HawkDrive: A Transformer-driven Visual Perception
System for Autonomous Driving in Night Scene, 2024, [arXiv:cs.CV/2404.04653].
99. Benjdira, B.; Koubaa, A.; Ali, A.M. ROSGPT_Vision: Commanding Robots Using Only Language Models’
Prompts, 2023, [arXiv:cs.RO/2308.11236].
100. Koide, K.; Yokozuka, M.; Oishi, S.; Banno, A. GLIM: 3D range-inertial localization and mapping
with GPU-accelerated scan matching factors. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 2024, 179, 104750.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2024.104750.
101. Rolland, E.G.A.; Grøntved, K.A.R.; Christensen, A.L.; Watson, M.; Richardson, T. Autonomous UAV Volcanic
Plume Sampling Based on Machine Vision and Path Planning. 2024 International Conference on Unmanned
Aircraft Systems (ICUAS), 2024, pp. 1064–1071. doi:10.1109/ICUAS60882.2024.10556912.
102. Ge, Z.; Liu, S.; Wang, F.; Li, Z.; Sun, J. YOLOX: Exceeding YOLO Series in 2021. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.08430
2021.
103. Koide, K.; Oishi, S.; Yokozuka, M.; Banno, A. General, Single-shot, Target-less, and Automatic LiDAR-Camera
Extrinsic Calibration Toolbox. 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA),
2023, pp. 11301–11307. doi:10.1109/ICRA48891.2023.10160691.
104. Connolly, L.; Deguet, A.; Leonard, S.; Tokuda, J.; Ungi, T.; Krieger, A.; Kazanzides, P.; Mousavi, P.; Fichtinger,
G.; Taylor, R.H. Bridging 3D Slicer and ROS2 for Image-Guided Robotic Interventions. Sensors 2022, 22.
doi:10.3390/s22145336.
105. Li, J.; Xu, B.; Schwertfeger, S. High-Quality, ROS Compatible Video Encoding and Decoding for
High-Definition Datasets, 2024, [arXiv:cs.RO/2408.00538].
106. Leal, D.P.; Sugaya, M.; Amano, H.; Ohkawa, T. FPGA Acceleration of ROS2-Based Reinforcement Learning
Agents. 2020 Eighth International Symposium on Computing and Networking Workshops (CANDARW),
2020, pp. 106–112. doi:10.1109/CANDARW51189.2020.00031.
107. Lopez, N.G.; Nuin, Y.L.E.; Moral, E.B.; Juan, L.U.S.; Rueda, A.S.; Vilches, V.M.; Kojcev, R. gym-gazebo2, a
toolkit for reinforcement learning using ROS 2 and Gazebo. ArXiv 2019, abs/1903.06278.
108. Orsula, A.; Bøgh, S.; Olivares-Mendez, M.; Martinez, C. Learning to Grasp on the Moon from 3D Octree
Observations with Deep Reinforcement Learning. 2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent
Robots and Systems (IROS), 2022, pp. 4112–4119. doi:10.1109/IROS47612.2022.9981661.
109. Agarwal, S.; Muthukrishnan, R.; Gosrich, W.; Kumar, V.; Ribeiro, A. LPAC: Learnable
Perception-Action-Communication Loops with Applications to Coverage Control, 2024,
[arXiv:cs.RO/2401.04855].
110. Nuin, Y.L.E.; Lopez, N.G.; Moral, E.B.; Juan, L.U.S.; Rueda, A.S.; Vilches, V.M.; Kojcev, R. ROS2Learn: a
reinforcement learning framework for ROS 2, 2019. doi:10.48550/ARXIV.1903.06282.
111. Almeida, F.; Leão, G.; Sousa, Armando editor=Marques, L.; Santos, C.; Lima, J.L.; Tardioli, D.; Ferre, M. An
Educational Kit for Simulated Robot Learning in ROS 2. Robot 2023: Sixth Iberian Robotics Conference;
Springer Nature Switzerland: Cham, 2024; pp. 513–525.
112. Abawi, F.; Allgeuer, P.; Fu, D.; Wermter, S. Wrapyfi: A Python Wrapper for Integrating Robots, Sensors,
and Applications across Multiple Middleware. Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Conference on
Human-Robot Interaction (HRI ’24). ACM, 2024. doi:10.1145/3610977.3637471.
113. Peng, B.; Hasegawa, A.; Azumi, T. Scheduling Performance Evaluation Framework for ROS 2 Applications.
2022 IEEE 24th Int Conf on High Performance Computing & Communications; 8th Int Conf on Data Science
& Systems; 20th Int Conf on Smart City; 8th Int Conf on Dependability in Sensor, Cloud & Big Data Systems
& Application (HPCC/DSS/SmartCity/DependSys), 2022, pp. 2031–2038.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 15 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.1204.v1

42 of 46

114. Ichnowski, J.; Chen, K.; Dharmarajan, K.; Adebola, S.; Danielczuk, M.; Mayoral-Vilches, V.; Jha, N.; Zhan, H.;
LLontop, E.; Xu, D.; Kubiatowicz, J.; Stoica, I.; Gonzalez, J.; Goldberg, K. FogROS2: An Adaptive Platform
for Cloud and Fog Robotics Using ROS 2, 2022. doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2205.09778.
115. Shen, M.Y.; Hsu, C.C.; Hou, H.Y.; Huang, Y.C.; Sun, W.F.; Chang, C.C.; Liu, Y.L.; Lee, C.Y. DriveEnv-NeRF:
Exploration of A NeRF-Based Autonomous Driving Environment for Real-World Performance Validation,
2024, [arXiv:cs.RO/2403.15791].
116. Mayoral-Vilches, V.; Jabbour, J.; Hsiao, Y.S.; Wan, Z.; Crespo-Álvarez, M.; Stewart, M.; Reina-Muñoz, J.M.;
Nagras, P.; Vikhe, G.; Bakhshalipour, M.; Pinzger, M.; Rass, S.; Panigrahi, S.; Corradi, G.; Roy, N.; Gibbons,
P.B.; Neuman, S.M.; Plancher, B.; Reddi, V.J. RobotPerf: An Open-Source, Vendor-Agnostic, Benchmarking
Suite for Evaluating Robotics Computing System Performance, 2024, [arXiv:cs.RO/2309.09212].
117. Kuboichi, T.; Hasegawa, A.; Peng, B.; Miura, K.; Funaoka, K.; Kato, S.; Azumi, T. CARET: Chain-Aware
ROS 2 Evaluation Tool. 2022 IEEE 20th International Conference on Embedded and Ubiquitous Computing
(EUC), 2022, pp. 1–8. doi:10.1109/EUC57774.2022.00010.
118. Bédard, C.; Lütkebohle, I.; Dagenais, M. ros2_tracing: Multipurpose Low-Overhead Framework
for Real-Time Tracing of ROS 2. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 2022, 7, 6511–6518.
doi:10.1109/LRA.2022.3174346.
119. Moore, M.; Sooknanan, J.; Holley, J. Bobble-Bot: An educational platform for real-time control with ROS. 2019
IEEE International Symposium on Measurement and Control in Robotics (ISMCR), 2019, pp. B3–2–1–B3–2–7.
doi:10.1109/ISMCR47492.2019.8955713.
120. Salimi, S.; Queralta, J.P.; Westerlund, T. Hyperledger Fabric Blockchain and ROS 2 Integration for
Autonomous Mobile Robots. 2023 IEEE/SICE International Symposium on System Integration (SII),
2023, pp. 1–8. doi:10.1109/SII55687.2023.10039326.
121. Vilches, V.M.; Juan, L.U.S.; Dieber, B.; Carbajo, U.A.; Gil-Uriarte, E. Introducing the robot vulnerability
database (rvd). arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.11299 2019.
122. Vizzo, I.; Guadagnino, T.; Mersch, B.; Wiesmann, L.; Behley, J.; Stachniss, C. KISS-ICP: In Defense of
Point-to-Point ICP – Simple, Accurate, and Robust Registration If Done the Right Way. IEEE Robotics and
Automation Letters (RA-L) 2023, 8, 1029–1036. doi:10.1109/LRA.2023.3236571.
123. Mendia, G.O.; Juan, L.U.S.; Bascaran, X.P.; Calvo, A.B.; Cordero, A.H.; Ugarte, I.Z.; Rosas, A.M.; Vilches,
D.M.; Carbajo, U.A.; Kirschgens, L.A.; Vilches, V.M.; Gil-Uriarte, E. Robotics CTF (RCTF), a playground for
robot hacking, 2021, [arXiv:cs.CY/1810.02690].
124. Vilches, V.M.; White, R.; Caiazza, G.; Arguedas, M. SROS2: Usable Cyber Security Tools for ROS 2, 2022.
doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2208.02615.
125. Vilches, V.M.; Mendia, G.O.; Baskaran, X.P.; Cordero, A.H.; Juan, L.U.S.; Gil-Uriarte, E.; de Urabain,
O.O.S.; Kirschgens, L.A. Aztarna, a footprinting tool for robots. arXiv e-prints 2018, p. arXiv:1812.09490,
[arXiv:cs.CR/1812.09490].
126. Morales, C.; Fuenzalida, C.; Sierra, G. CFV2: an Open-Source Robot Controller Board for Education
and Research. 2023 IEEE CHILEAN Conference on Electrical, Electronics Engineering, Information and
Communication Technologies (CHILECON), 2023, pp. 1–6. doi:10.1109/CHILECON60335.2023.10418618.
127. Mayr, M.; Rovida, F.; Krueger, V. SkiROS2: A Skill-Based Robot Control Platform for ROS. 2023
IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2023, pp. 6273–6280.
doi:10.1109/IROS55552.2023.10342216.
128. Jo, W.; Kim, J.; Wang, R.; Pan, J.; Senthilkumaran, R.K.; Min, B.C. SMARTmBOT: A ROS2-based Low-cost
and Open-source Mobile Robot Platform, 2022. doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2203.08903.
129. Probe, A.B.; Deans, M.C. Space ROS-ACO: Space Robot Operating System. Game Changing Development
Anual Review, 2022.
130. Szabó, G. Toward the Automatic Network Resource Management of Robot Operating System in
Programmable Mobile Networks. IEEE Access 2023, 11, 65934–65955. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3289922.
131. Karle, P.; Török, F.; Geisslinger, M.; Lienkamp, M. MixNet: Physics Constrained Deep Neural Motion
Prediction for Autonomous Racing. IEEE Access 2023, 11, 85914–85926. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3303841.
132. Karle, P.; Fent, F.; Huch, S.; Sauerbeck, F.; Lienkamp, M. Multi-Modal Sensor Fusion and Object Tracking for
Autonomous Racing. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles 2023, pp. 1–13. doi:10.1109/TIV.2023.3271624.
133. Walker, V.; Vanegas, F.; Gonzalez, F. NanoMap: A GPU-Accelerated OpenVDB-Based Mapping and
Simulation Package for Robotic Agents. Remote Sensing 2022, 14. doi:10.3390/rs14215463.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 15 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.1204.v1

43 of 46

134. Horváth, E.; Pozna, C.; Kőrös, P.; Hajdu, C.; Ballagi, A. Theoretical background and application of
multiple goal pursuit trajectory follower. Hungarian Journal of Industry and Chemistry 2020, 48, 11–17.
doi:10.33927/hjic-2020-03.
135. Unger, M.; Horváth, E.; Pup, D.; Pozna, C.R. Towards Robust LIDAR Lane Clustering for Autonomous
Vehicle Perception in ROS 2. 2024 IEEE International Conference on Mobility, Operations, Services and
Technologies (MOST), 2024, pp. 229–234. doi:10.1109/MOST60774.2024.00031.
136. Macenski, S.; Booker, M.; Wallace, J. Open-Source, Cost-Aware Kinematically Feasible Planning for Mobile
and Surface Robotics, 2024, [arXiv:cs.RO/2401.13078].
137. Martín, F.; Clavero, J.G.; Matellán, V.; Rodríguez, F.J. PlanSys2: A Planning System Framework for ROS2.
2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2021, pp. 9742–9749.
doi:10.1109/IROS51168.2021.9636544.
138. GonzÃa˛lez-Santamarta, M.Ã.; Rodrà guez-Lera, F.J.; Olivera, V.M. SAILOR: Perceptual Anchoring For
Robotic Cognitive 1526 Architectures, 2023. [arXiv:cs.RO/2303.08204].
139. González-Santamarta, M.Á.; Rodríguez-Lera, F.J.; Matellán-Olivera, V.; Fernández-Llamas, C. YASMIN: Yet
Another State MachINe. ROBOT2022: Fifth Iberian Robotics Conference; Tardioli, D.; Matellán, V.; Heredia,
G.; Silva, M.F.; Marques, L., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, 2023; pp. 528–539.
140. Blanco-Claraco, J.L. A flexible framework for accurate LiDAR odometry, map manipulation, and localization,
2024, [arXiv:cs.RO/2407.20465].
141. Drwi˛ega, M.; Jakubiak, J. A set of depth sensor processing ROS tools for wheeled mobile robot navigation.
Journal of Automation, Mobile Robotics & Intelligent Systems (JAMRIS) 2017. doi:10.14313/JAMRIS_2-2017/16.
142. Fernández-Becerra, L.; González-Santamarta, M.A.; Sobrín-Hidalgo, D.; Guerrero-Higueras, Á.M.; Lera,
F.J.R.; Olivera, Vicente Matellán editor=García Bringas, P.; Pérez García, H.; Martínez de Pisón, F.J.;
Martínez Álvarez, F.; Troncoso Lora, A.; Herrero, Á.; Calvo Rolle, J.L.; Quintián, H.; Corchado, E.
Accountability and Explainability in Robotics: A Proof of Concept for ROS 2- And Nav2-Based Mobile
Robots. International Joint Conference 16th International Conference on Computational Intelligence in
Security for Information Systems (CISIS 2023) 14th International Conference on EUropean Transnational
Education (ICEUTE 2023); Springer Nature Switzerland: Cham, 2023; pp. 3–13.
143. Galvis, J.; Pediaditis, D.; Almazrouei, K.S.; Aspragathos, N. An Autonomous Navigation Approach based on
Bird’s-Eye View Semantic Maps. 2023 27th International Conference on Methods and Models in Automation
and Robotics (MMAR). IEEE, 2023, pp. 81–86.
144. Do, H.V.; Kim, Y.H.; Lee, J.H.; Lee, M.H.; Song, J.W. DeRO: Dead Reckoning Based on Radar Odometry With
Accelerometers Aided for Robot Localization. 2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots
and Systems (IROS)., to be published, 2024.
145. Atas, F.; Cielniak, G.; Grimstad, L. Elevation State-Space: Surfel-Based Navigation in Uneven Environments
for Mobile Robots. 2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2022,
pp. 5715–5721. doi:10.1109/IROS47612.2022.9981647.
146. Atas, F.; Grimstad, L.; Cielniak, G. Evaluation of Sampling-Based Optimizing Planners for Outdoor Robot
Navigation. CoRR 2021, abs/2103.13666, [2103.13666].
147. Grupp, M. evo: Python package for the evaluation of odometry and SLAM. https://github.com/
MichaelGrupp/evo, 2017.
148. Leitenstern, M.; Sauerbeck, F.; Kulmer, D.; Betz, J. FlexMap Fusion: Georeferencing and Automated
Conflation of HD Maps with OpenStreetMap, 2024, [arXiv:cs.RO/2404.10879].
149. Lvov, G.; Zolotas, M.; Hanson, N.; Allison, A.; Hubbard, X.; Carvajal, M.; Padir, T. Mobile MoCap:
Retroreflector Localization On-The-Go, 2023, [arXiv:cs.RO/2303.13681].
150. Martin, F.; Guerrero, J.M.; Garcia, A.A.; Rodriguez, F.; Matellan, V. MOCAP4ROS2: An Open Source
Framework for Motion Capture Systems in Robotics. Proceedings of the 18th International Symposium
on Open Collaboration; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2022; OpenSym ’22.
doi:10.1145/3555051.3555076.
151. Serov, A.; Clemens, J.; Schill, K. Multi-Robot Graph SLAM Using LIDAR. 2024 10th
International Conference on Automation, Robotics and Applications (ICARA), 2024, pp. 339–346.
doi:10.1109/ICARA60736.2024.10553070.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 15 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.1204.v1

44 of 46

152. Goelles, T.; Schlager, B.; Muckenhuber, S.; Haas, S.; Hammer, T. ‘pointcloudset‘: Efficient Analysis
of Large Datasets of Point Clouds Recorded Over Time. Journal of Open Source Software 2021, 6, 3471.
doi:10.21105/joss.03471.
153. Zutell, J.M.; Conner, D.C.; Schillinger, P. ROS 2-Based Flexible Behavior Engine for Flexible Navigation.
SoutheastCon 2022, 2022, pp. 674–681. doi:10.1109/SoutheastCon48659.2022.9764047.
154. Kampmann, A.; Wüstenberg, A.; Alrifaee, B.; Kowalewski, S. A Portable Implementation of the Real-Time
Publish-Subscribe Protocol for Microcontrollers in Distributed Robotic Applications. 2019 IEEE Intelligent
Transportation Systems Conference (ITSC), 2019, pp. 443–448. doi:10.1109/ITSC.2019.8916835.
155. Leal, D.P.; Sugaya, M.; Amano, H.; Ohkawa, T. Automated Integration of High-Level Synthesis FPGA
Modules with ROS2 Systems. 2020 International Conference on Field-Programmable Technology (ICFPT),
2020, pp. 292–293. doi:10.1109/ICFPT51103.2020.00052.
156. Lienen, C.; Platzner, M. Design of Distributed Reconfigurable Robotics Systems with ReconROS. ACM Trans.
Reconfigurable Technol. Syst. 2022, 15. doi:10.1145/3494571.
157. Lienen, C.; Platzner, M.; Rinner, B. ReconROS: Flexible Hardware Acceleration for ROS2 Applications.
2020 International Conference on Field-Programmable Technology (ICFPT), 2020, pp. 268–276.
doi:10.1109/ICFPT51103.2020.00046.
158. Chen, K.; Yuan, J.; Jha, N.; Ichnowski, J.; Kubiatowicz, J.; Goldberg, K. FogROS G: Enabling Secure,
Connected and Mobile Fog Robotics with Global Addressability, 2022, [arXiv:cs.RO/2210.11691].
159. Ichnowski, J.; Chen, K.; Dharmarajan, K.; Adebola, S.; Danielczuk, M.; Mayoral-Vilches, V.; Jha, N.; Zhan,
H.; Llontop, E.; Xu, D.; Buscaron, C.; Kubiatowicz, J.; Stoica, I.; Gonzalez, J.; Goldberg, K. FogROS2: An
Adaptive Platform for Cloud and Fog Robotics Using ROS 2. 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics
and Automation (ICRA), 2023, pp. 5493–5500. doi:10.1109/ICRA48891.2023.10161307.
160. Chen, K.; Hoque, R.; Dharmarajan, K.; LLontop, E.; Adebola, S.; Ichnowski, J.; Kubiatowicz, J.;
Goldberg, K. FogROS2-SGC: A ROS2 Cloud Robotics Platform for Secure Global Connectivity, 2023,
[arXiv:cs.RO/2306.17157].
161. Ichnowski, J.; Chen, K.; Dharmarajan, K.; Adebola, S.; Danielczuk, M.; Mayoral-Vilches, V.; Jha, N.; Zhan, H.;
LLontop, E.; Xu, D.; Kubiatowicz, J.; Stoica, I.; Gonzalez, J.; Goldberg, K. FogROS2: An Adaptive Platform
for Cloud and Fog Robotics Using ROS 2, 2022. doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2205.09778.
162. Bédard, C.; Lajoie, P.Y.; Beltrame, G.; Dagenais, M. Message flow analysis with complex
causal links for distributed ROS 2 systems. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 2023, 161, 104361.
doi:10.1016/j.robot.2022.104361.
163. Enright, D.; Xiang, Y.; Choi, H.; Kim, H. PAAM: A Framework for Coordinated and Priority-Driven
Accelerator Management in ROS 2, 2024, [arXiv:cs.RO/2404.06452].
164. Mayoral-Vilches, V.; Neuman, S.M.; Plancher, B.; Reddi, V.J. RobotCore: An Open Architecture for Hardware
Acceleration in ROS 2. 2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS),
2022, pp. 9692–9699. doi:10.1109/IROS47612.2022.9982082.
165. Sarabakha, A. anafi_ros: from Off-the-Shelf Drones to Research Platforms, 2023, [arXiv:cs.RO/2303.01813].
166. Mudalige, N.D.W.; Zhura, I.; Babataev, I.; Nazarova, E.; Fedoseev, A.; Tsetserukou, D.
HyperDog: An Open-Source Quadruped Robot Platform Based on ROS2 and micro-ROS, 2022.
doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2209.09171.
167. Nyboe, F.F.; Malle, N.H.; Ebeid, E. MPSoC4Drones: An Open Framework for ROS2, PX4, and FPGA
Integration. 2022 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS), 2022, pp. 1246–1255.
doi:10.1109/ICUAS54217.2022.9836055.
168. Silva, G.R.; Päßler, J.; Zwanepol, J.; Alberts, E.; Tarifa, S.L.T.; Gerostathopoulos, I.; Johnsen, E.B.;
Corbato, C.H. SUAVE: An Exemplar for Self-Adaptive Underwater Vehicles. 2023 IEEE/ACM 18th
Symposium on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems (SEAMS), 2023, pp. 181–187.
doi:10.1109/SEAMS59076.2023.00031.
169. Palmer, E.; Holm, C.; Hollinger, G. Angler: An Autonomy Framework for Intervention Tasks with
Lightweight Underwater Vehicle Manipulator Systems. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and
Automation, 2024.
170. Li, Z.; Hasegawa, A.; Azumi, T. Autoware_Perf: A tracing and performance analysis
framework for ROS 2 applications. Journal of Systems Architecture 2022, 123, 102341.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sysarc.2021.102341.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 15 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.1204.v1

45 of 46

171. Sivashangaran, S.; Eskandarian, A. XTENTH-CAR: A Proportionally Scaled Experimental Vehicle Platform
for Connected Autonomy and All-Terrain Research, 2022, [arXiv:cs.RO/2212.01691].
172. González-Santamarta, M.Á.; Rodríguez-Lera, F.J.; Álvarez-Aparicio, C.; Guerrero-Higueras, Á.M.;
Fernández-Llamas, C. MERLIN a cognitive architecture for service robots. Applied Sciences 2020, 10, 5989.
173. González-Santmarta, M.A.; Rodríguez-Lera, F.J.; Fernández-Llamas, C.; Matellán-Olivera,
V. MERLIN2: MachinEd Ros 2 pLanINg. Software Impacts 2023, 15, 100477.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.simpa.2023.100477.
174. Serrano-Muñoz, A.; Elguea-Aguinaco, Í.; Chrysostomou, D.; Bøgh, S.; Arana-Arexolaleiba, N. A Scalable and
Unified Multi-Control Framework for KUKA LBR iiwa Collaborative Robots. 2023 IEEE/SICE International
Symposium on System Integration (SII). IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–5.
175. Zamalloa, I.; Muguruza, I.; Hernández, A.; Kojcev, R.; Mayoral, V. An information model for modular robots:
the Hardware Robot Information Model (HRIM). arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.01459 2018.
176. Heggem, C.; Wahl, N.M.; Tingelstad, L. Configuration and Control of KMR iiwa Mobile Robots using ROS2.
2020 3rd International Symposium on Small-scale Intelligent Manufacturing Systems (SIMS), 2020, pp. 1–6.
doi:10.1109/SIMS49386.2020.9121554.
177. Huber, M.; Mower, C.E.; Ourselin, S.; Vercauteren, T.; Bergeles, C. LBR-Stack: ROS 2 and Python Integration
of KUKA FRI for Med and IIWA Robots, 2023, [arXiv:cs.RO/2311.12709].
178. Winiarski, T. MeROS: SysML-based Metamodel for ROS-based Systems, 2023, [arXiv:cs.RO/2303.08254].
179. Sears, T.M.C.; Cooper, M.R.; Button, S.R.; Marshall, J.A. OtterROS: Picking and Programming an Uncrewed
Surface Vessel for Experimental Field Robotics Research with ROS 2, 2024, [arXiv:cs.RO/2404.05627].
180. Mosteo, A.R. RCLAda, or Bringing Ada to the Robot Operating System. Ada Lett. 2020, 39, 35–40.
doi:10.1145/3394514.3394518.
181. Kim, S.; Kim, T. RoboFuzz: fuzzing robotic systems over robot operating system (ROS) for finding correctness
bugs. Proceedings of the 30th ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on
the Foundations of Software Engineering; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2022;
ESEC/FSE 2022, p. 447–458. doi:10.1145/3540250.3549164.
182. Merzlyakov, A.; Macenski, S. A Comparison of Modern General-Purpose Visual SLAM Approaches.
2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2021, pp. 9190–9197.
doi:10.1109/IROS51168.2021.9636615.
183. Amano, H.; Mori, H.; Mizutani, A.; Ono, T.; Yoshimoto, Y.; Ohkawa, T.; Tamukoh, H. A dataset generation
for object recognition and a tool for generating ROS2 FPGA node. 2021 International Conference on
Field-Programmable Technology (ICFPT), 2021, pp. 1–4. doi:10.1109/ICFPT52863.2021.9609880.
184. Hallyburton, R.S.; Hunt, D.; Luo, S.; Pajic, M. A Multi-Agent Security Testbed for the Analysis of Attacks
and Defenses in Collaborative Sensor Fusion, 2024, [arXiv:cs.RO/2401.09387].
185. Rosende, S.B.; Gavilán, D.S.J.; Fernández-Andrés, J.; Sánchez-Soriano, J. An Urban Traffic Dataset Composed
of Visible Images and Their Semantic Segmentation Generated by the CARLA Simulator. Data 2024, 9.
doi:10.3390/data9010004.
186. Maresca, F.; Grazioli, F.; Albanese, A.; Sciancalepore, V.; Negri, G.; Costa-Perez, X. Are you a robot? Detecting
Autonomous Vehicles from Behavior Analysis, 2024, [arXiv:cs.RO/2403.09571].
187. Guo, Z.; Lykov, A.; Yagudin, Z.; Konenkov, M.; Tsetserukou, D. Co-driver: VLM-based Autonomous
Driving Assistant with Human-like Behavior and Understanding for Complex Road Scenes, 2024,
[arXiv:cs.RO/2405.05885].
188. Cañadas-Aránega, F.; Blanco-Claraco, J.L.; Moreno, J.C.; Rodriguez-Diaz, F. Multimodal Mobile
Robotic Dataset for a Typical Mediterranean Greenhouse: The GREENBOT Dataset. Sensors 2024, 24.
doi:10.3390/s24061874.
189. Bosello, M.; Aguiari, D.; Keuter, Y.; Pallotta, E.; Kiade, S.; Caminati, G.; Pinzarrone, F.; Halepota, J.; Panerati,
J.; Pau, G. Race Against the Machine: A Fully-Annotated, Open-Design Dataset of Autonomous and Piloted
High-Speed Flight. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 2024, 9, 3799–3806. doi:10.1109/LRA.2024.3371288.
190. Puccetti, T.; Nardi, S.; Cinquilli, C.; Zoppi, T.; Ceccarelli, A. ROSPaCe: Intrusion Detection
Dataset for a ROS2-Based Cyber-Physical System and IoT Networks. Scientific Data 2024, 11, 481.
doi:10.1038/s41597-024-03311-2.
191. Grigioni, C.; Corradini, F.; Antonucci, A.; Guzzi, J.; Flammini, F. Safe Road-Crossing by Autonomous
Wheelchairs: a Novel Dataset and its Experimental Evaluation, 2024, [arXiv:cs.RO/2403.08984].
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 15 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.1204.v1

46 of 46

192. Anjum, M.L.; Ahmad, O.; Rosa, S.; Yin, J.; Bona, B. Skeleton tracking based complex human activity
recognition using kinect camera. Social Robotics: 6th International Conference, ICSR 2014, Sydney, NSW,
Australia, October 27-29, 2014. Proceedings 6. Springer, 2014, pp. 23–33.
193. Lajoie, P.Y.; Beltrame, G. Swarm-SLAM : Sparse Decentralized Collaborative Simultaneous Localization and
Mapping Framework for Multi-Robot Systems, 2023, [arXiv:cs.RO/2301.06230].
194. Mortimer, P.; Maehlisch, M. Survey on Datasets for Perception in Unstructured Outdoor Environments,
2024, [arXiv:cs.CV/2404.18750].
195. Lu, J.; Hossain, S.; Lam, W.; Sheng, W.; Bai, H. A Research Testbed for Intelligent and Cooperative
Driving in Mixed Traffic. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 2024, pp. 1–13.
doi:10.1109/TITS.2024.3375297.
196. Park, J.; Shim, J.; Lee, G.; Choi, S. Deep Reinforcement Learning based Real-Time Path Planning and Flight
Validation of small UAS Application. AIAA SCITECH 2024 Forum, 2024, p. 1711.
197. Chen, L.; Wang, Y.; Miao, Z.; Feng, M.; Zhou, Z.; Wang, H.; Wang, D. Reciprocal Velocity Obstacle
Spatial-Temporal Network for Distributed Multirobot Navigation. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics
2024, pp. 1–11. doi:10.1109/TIE.2024.3379630.
198. Djizi, H.; Lakehal, A.; Zahzouh, Z. A quadrotor controlled in real-time using hand gestures and ROS2
multi-node communication within GAZEBO 3D environment. International Journal of Automation and
Control 2024, 18, 214–231, [https://www.inderscienceonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1504/IJAAC.2024.137069].
doi:10.1504/IJAAC.2024.137069.
199. Almusayli, A.; Zia, T.; Qazi, E.u.H. Drone Forensics: An Innovative Approach to the Forensic Investigation of
Drone Accidents Based on Digital Twin Technology. Technologies 2024, 12. doi:10.3390/technologies12010011.
200. Mohan, A.; Krishnan, A.R. Design and Simulation of an Autonomous Floor Cleaning Robot with Optional
UV Sterilization. 2022 IEEE 2nd Mysore Sub Section International Conference (MysuruCon), 2022, pp. 1–6.
doi:10.1109/MysuruCon55714.2022.9972558.
201. Pandey, K.K.; Shah, T.; Yadrave, S.; Shinde, S.; Pagare, V. Design and Development of an Autonomous Robot
Assistant. Intelligent Manufacturing Systems in Industry 4.0; Springer Nature Singapore: Singapore, 2023.
202. Kołcon, T.; Malki, A.; Maciaś, M. Smart Warehouse as an Example of Micro-ROS Application. Automation
2022: New Solutions and Technologies for Automation, Robotics and Measurement Techniques; Szewczyk,
R.; Zieliński, C.; Kaliczyńska, M., Eds. Springer International Publishing, 2022.
203. Sobrà n-Hidalgo, D.; GonzÃa˛lez-Santamarta, M.A.; ÃA˛ngel M. Guerrero-Higueras.; Rodrà guez-Lera, F.J.;
MatellÃa˛n-Olivera, V. Explaining Autonomy: Enhancing Human-Robot Interaction through Explanation
Generation with Large Language Models, 1683 2024. [arXiv:cs.RO/2402.04206].
204. Lages, W.F. Remote Teaching of Dynamics and Control of Robots Using ROS 2. IFAC-PapersOnLine 2022,
55, 279–284. 13th IFAC Symposium on Advances in Control Education ACE 2022.

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.