sensors

Review
Self-* Capabilities of Cloud-Edge Nodes: A Research Review
Raúl S-Julián , Ignacio Lacalle , Rafael Vaño , Fernando Boronat * and Carlos E. Palau

Communications Department, Universitat Politècnica de València (UPV), 46022 Valencia, Spain

* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Most recent edge and fog computing architectures aim at pushing cloud-native traits at
the edge of the network, reducing latency, power consumption, and network overhead, allowing
operations to be performed close to data sources. To manage these architectures in an autonomous
way, systems that materialize in specific computing nodes must deploy self-* capabilities minimizing
human intervention across the continuum of computing equipment. Nowadays, a systematic classifi-
cation of such capabilities is missing, as well as an analysis on how those can be implemented. For a
system owner in a continuum deployment, there is not a main reference publication to consult to
determine what capabilities do exist and which are the sources to rely on. In this article, a literature
review is conducted to analyze the self-* capabilities needed to achieve a self-* equipped nature in
truly autonomous systems. The article aims to shed light on a potential uniting taxonomy in this
heterogeneous field. In addition, the results provided include conclusions on why those aspects are
too heterogeneously tackled, depend hugely on specific cases, and shed light on why there is not a
clear reference architecture to guide on the matter of which traits to equip the nodes with.

Keywords: self-* capabilities; heterogeneous nodes; computing continuum; computational nodes;

edge-cloud nodes; Internet of Things; review

1. Introduction
The concept of the “cloud” appeared in the telecommunications world about thirty
Citation: S-Julián, R.; Lacalle, I.; years ago, in the 1990s, when the first Virtual Private Networks (VPN) began to be used.
Vaño, R.; Boronat, F.; Palau, C.E. Self-* Cloud computing (CC) appeared sometime later as a new way of computing, seeking to
Capabilities of Cloud-Edge Nodes: A offer scalable virtual environments to meet the new needs of users [1].
Research Review. Sensors 2023, 23, Today, CC is one of the most widespread and used methods for performing com-
2931. https://doi.org/10.3390/ plex calculations that require a large number of computing cycles or for the analysis and
s23062931 processing of large amounts of data that require the highest possible speed of execution.
Academic Editors: Weizhe Zhang Additionally, it is considered one of the most important changes in the field of Information
and Ibrahim A. Elgendy Technology (IT) for society [2]. In 2011, the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) of the United States Department of Commerce defined CC as a model for enabling
Received: 20 January 2023
anywhere, convenient, on-demand network access to a set of shared and configurable
Revised: 15 February 2023
computing resources (servers, storage, services, etc.) that can be provided and released
Accepted: 27 February 2023
quickly and with very little effort. This model is mainly composed of three service models:
Published: 8 March 2023
Software as a Service (SaaS), Platform as a Service (PaaS), and Infrastructure as a Service
(IaaS) [3].
CC architecture consists of a large network of servers from different providers, dis-
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors. tributed worldwide and connected to the internet, capable of running large workloads
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. or making services available to users for free or for a fee. There are three types of cloud
This article is an open access article models: public, private, and hybrid [4]. These servers began by organizing themselves in
distributed under the terms and small cores that grew and are interconnected exponentially over time to form a complex
conditions of the Creative Commons network. The purpose of CC is the efficient combination of distributed resources to perform
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// tasks that require large computing power or offer services [4]. The scalability, the large
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ amount of data that it is capable of processing, and the practically unlimited processing
4.0/).

Sensors 2023, 23, 2931. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23062931 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sensors

Sensors 2023, 23, 2931 2 of 27

and execution capacity of calculations are some of the characteristics that make CC a valid
solution for most cases [5].
However, despite the great computing and data storage capacity of this paradigm,
CC presents several shortcomings that are difficult to solve for certain situations. The
aforementioned great work capacity requires big computing centers that are generally
far away from the source of data generation. Among many others, this produces some
disadvantages such as high latency and low response times, as the information has to travel
through many points across the network [5]. These drawbacks prevent calculations and
data processing in real time, with low response times, far from the source of information.
Moreover, these data centers consume a lot of energy, generating a huge carbon footprint.
This high and inefficient energy consumption has become a big problem today, partially
rooted in the lack of exploitation of renewable energies to feed such big centers [6]. In
fact, depending on the geographical area, the energy mix may vary. In countries where
emissions regulations are tougher, renewable energies predominate. This means that part of
the energy consumed by these data centers comes from renewable energy sources, reducing
the carbon footprint generated. However, in countries with laxer or non-existent emissions
regulations, fossil energy is usually the predominant one in the energy mix, which implies
a greater environmental impact in its use.
In order to carry out these operations in real time, with very low latency and greater
security in the transfer of information, the edge computing paradigm was created. This
new way of working with information was empowered by the traits of the expansion of
the Internet of Things (IoT), allowing calculations and data processing to be performed
on nodes at the edge of the network, rather than on the cloud [7]. The idea was to reduce
the energy impact and response times without noticing too much of a decrease in global
capacity based on less powerful computing equipment at the edge of the network (closer
to the data sources). In this way, all the information that was produced in the edge nodes
was also processed within them. This should make it possible to reduce the workload
of the data centers, avoiding network congestion and reducing the execution time of the
time-sensitive applications [8].
However, this paradigm shift is not without challenges, starting from its definition as a
concept. There are currently several ways to define edge computing. The Edge Computing
Consortium defines it as an open, distributed platform at the edge of the network, close
to data sources and integrating computing and data storage capabilities [9]. For Zhang
et al. [10], edge computing is a novel form of computing that allows the storage and
processing of resources near the source of the data, providing intelligent services that
collaborate with CC. Shi et al. [8] define edge computing as enabling technologies that
allow computations to be performed at the edge of the network, in the proximity of data
sources. Not only do these nodes consume data, but they also produce and process data.
All in all, the advent of edge computing, in addition to fog computing, enabled the
expansion of the so-called computing continuum to the edge of the network [11]. In order
to control the small sets of IoT devices, alongside other equipment that globally comprise
the edge computing system, autonomous systems -that do not require human intervention
to function or to resolve errors that can occur- are needed. Thanks to the great evolution of
the learning systems, such as reinforcement learning or deep learning [12], these intelligent
systems are increasingly autonomous and require less human intervention.
To devise such autonomy, the elements that form the continuum (or computing
fabric)—from now on, “nodes”—must embed certain self-* capabilities that allow for their
independence of use as intelligent components in the network [13]. Self-* naming is adopted
(and used across this work) due to its own capacity to realize certain characteristics that
actually make them intelligent and independent. Over time, the number of self-* capabil-
ities has been noticeable. Whereas many of them are essential in making a whole edge
computing environment autonomous, others might be deemed dispensable, depending on
the specific field of application.
Sensors 2023, 23, 2931 3 of 27

This work mainly focuses on the exploration of the different self-* capabilities of
existing autonomous intelligent systems and on the selection of those that are considered
essential to declare an edge computing intelligent system “autonomous”. An analysis of the
most relevant practical use cases currently available is carried out for each self-* capability.
This detailed study of the self-* capabilities allows for the depiction of an up-to-date global
vision of this research field. From a research perspective, this paper can be devised as a
comprehensive review of the self-* capabilities of heterogeneous nodes of the continuum.
However, especially most recently in the edge-cloud field, sources such as open-source
development projects, public code repositories, blogs, or websites are being increasingly
used for innovation reporting rather than delivering formalized scientific publications. This
article covers a very wide spectrum (self-* capabilities); therefore, it has dug deep into the
literature, adjusting the efforts to deliver usable information that could be later leveraged
in further works.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, the analysis of the context and
the compelling need for such a review is carried out. In Section 3, a description of the
methodology used and a discussion of the obtained results are provided. In Section 4, the
classification of nodes in the computing continuum is described, and the definition of basic
concepts is presented. In Section 5, the literature review and a comparative analysis of self-*
capabilities are developed. Finally, in Section 6, the conclusions of the work carried out
are drawn.

2. Background
While many reports and works [14] have concluded that CC is essential to digital
transformation and digitalization for companies’ competitiveness, it is an undeniable
truth that trends in the computing field of distributed systems pass through moving
computation and intelligence to the edge of the network. Apart from some technical
disadvantages associated with CC that have been outlined in Section 1, CC seems to
go against the democratization of the computing industry [15], which should pursue a
model of geographically dispersed “local grids” of lower-cost small-cloud capacity nodes
(grasping the true potential of edge-cloud computing [16]). In addition, recent market
studies estimate that the global edge computing market size will reach EUR 1.352 M by
2025 and EUR 7.013 M by 2028, responding to an average Compound Annual Growth Rate
(CAGR) of 36.2% in that period.
According to the strategic agenda of relevant entities, such as the European Commis-
sion (EC), more data processing and decision making must be shifted to the edge to obtain
competitive, smarter systems worldwide [17]). Here, reports such as H-CLOUD’s whitepa-
per [14], EAIDCE [18], FCC [19], and EAA&BI [20] coincide in pointing to the edge-to-cloud
hybrid paradigm as a strategic technology towards leadership in the digital space [21].
Advances in this field might help the industry at large to maintain and establish the full
control of data flows, and how they are processed and stored, from the edge to high-density
clouds, providing on-demand, secure data conduits supporting full user autonomy and
fostering the applicability of data sovereignty initiatives. This impact could be affected by
the high centralization of cloud infrastructures and by the move of the so-called exa-scalers
to occupy the edge space. Many sectors will benefit from a proper implementation of
the continuum, leveraging more intelligence delegated into heterogeneous nodes, such as
energy infrastructure (smart grid, renewable energies, electric vehicle charging stations,
etc.), national security (maritime ports, cybersecurity, logistics, traceability of goods, etc.),
or healthcare (personalized dynamic treatment per patient, monitoring, pharmaceutical
supply chain, etc.), among others [22].
As a matter of fact, the EC has launched an ambitious initiative: EUCloudEdgeIoT [23],
which aims at bringing together all European research actions seeking to devise the com-
puting continuum with a common stack of open-source technologies. This is aligned with
the increasing presence of the continuum and its computing elements in official texts such
as those for funding tenders, including the quest for meta-operating systems to be installed
Sensors 2023, 23, 2931 4 of 27

in heterogeneous nodes [24] or the smart orchestration of the computing fabric leveraging
Artificial Intelligence (AI) [25].
This is very relevant for understanding the background of this article. The authors
heavily rely on their experience in research actions funded by the EC. Realizing the previous
facts, this work aims at paving the way for a reference architecture of the self-* capabilities
of nodes in the computing continuum, building upon the European principles of openness
and governance.
In particular, the context of this work has roots in the research guided by relevant
European-funded actions. On the one hand, the project ASSIST-IoT is an ongoing initiative
that intends to devise the reference architecture for the next-generation IoT deployments.
Building on top of cloud-native principles and the usage of orchestrated Kubernetes(K8s)-
like distributions, diverse computing elements (clusters) are controlled to deliver advanced
IoT characteristics and services. Here, leveraging K8s-assimilable nodes that can be het-
erogeneous equipment in the continuum opened the door for implementing certain self-*
capabilities. Concretely, that project has advanced the comprehension of a system as an
intelligent entity, including the self-awareness and semi-autonomous behavior of services
(containers) deployed across the network. In addition, it has served the authors in under-
standing the field of action (self-* capabilities in a distributed environment), leading to the
devising of the content of this article. On the other hand, the project aerOS aims at deliv-
ering a meta-operating system for governing the computing continuum. Here, a special
focus is put on the Infrastructure Elements (IEs) that compose such a continuum. The IEs
are actually heterogeneous computing nodes that include IoT devices, smart components,
network elements with execution capacity, personal computers, micro servers, data centers,
etc. One of the key aspects of achieving the governance of the continuum is allowing
these nodes to be more aware (in a distributed, decentralized way) of their surrounding
environment such that more capacities in the edge open up. It is in the context of this action
that the authors of this work considered it necessary to conduct comprehensive research on
the specific field.
Some works have been found addressing similar topics from a survey/review perspec-
tive; however, none of them adjusted to the above-mentioned scope. In [26], a taxonomy
describing the continuum as an evolution of IoT and dynamic resources is proposed, as well
as the different components related to cloud-native principles and edge paradigm fitting
technologies. In that very work, the need for future viability studies on particular aspects
of the continuum is called for. On another note, [27] digs deep into a survey of optimal
application placement over the cloud-to-thing continuum, which can be considered a self-*
quality of automated systems including heterogeneous nodes. It helps to categorize the
issues in application placement in micro-services deployment through an inspiring review
methodology but does not examine other self-characteristics. Additionally, the review [28]
goes over diverse concepts that are very useful for achieving self-capabilities in the target
scope of this work. First, autonomic computing lays the foundations for the self, and in
that review, a deep analysis of closed and open-loop systems is performed. Second, AI
promises to be a key element in (almost) any self-characteristic, as monitoring and inference
will allow for introducing intelligence to the various nodes. However, that review only
provides a global overview of those concepts, without explicitly tackling the wide spectrum
of autonomous features, and it also covers topics further away from the work in this article,
such as quantum computing. All in all, it is feasible to conduct a review, as proposed
in this article, going beyond the current coverage to fill the gap in the self-capabilities of
heterogeneous nodes of the computing continuum.

3. Research Methodology
A review of the literature on the different self-* capabilities was conducted to obtain an
up-to-date vision of research and practical examples to understand the status of the field.
In order to carry out a precise search and to be able to discover and analyze the
largest number of research works across the available literature, a method consisting of
Sensors 2023, 23, 2931 5 of 27

three steps has been followed. First, different sources of information have been selected to
obtain the necessary works for the review. IEEE Xplore has been the main database used,
complemented by other sources, such as the ResearchGate and ScienceDirect databases.
Second, in-depth iterative searches have been carried out, combining the different keywords
for each selected self-* capability in order to obtain more precise results that are close to
the established search criteria. For each self-* capability, results have been obtained that
made it possible to obtain definitions and practical use cases. In addition, from the searches
carried out, those works of the greatest interest with the following characteristics have
been selected:
• Written in English.
• Preference was given to those works published between 2015 and 2023. Although,
due to their relevance, some works published previously have also been selected.
Mainly containing the keywords “cloud computing”, “edge computing”, “hetero-
geneous nodes”, “computing continuum”, “IoT”, “self-awareness”, “self-orchestration”,
“self-diagnose”, “self-healing”, “self-scaling”, “self-configuration”, “self-optimization”,
“self-adaptation”, and “self-learning”.
In addition, the review also included those articles of interest referenced in the works
selected in the main search, looping into an iterative, cross-referenced approach. The last
step consisted of analyzing all the selected articles and synthesizing the most important
information from each one.
As a by-product of the conducted review, the authors also propose a taxonomy and
terminology for the research in the field, which is depicted in Section 4. This was carried
out after observing the inconsistency in the terms used across different papers. According
to the authors, this is a consequence of the lack of reference articles tackling the narrow
field of the self-* capabilities of heterogeneous computing nodes from a comprehensive
perspective. Many works focus on one aspect or another, but an exercise of holistically
analyzing the characteristics that make a wide edge computing system “autonomous” had
not been carried out yet. More details on this reflection are provided in Sections 4 and 6.

Results
As a result of the search, a total of 77 papers have been selected. A total of 24% of them
(18 papers) were published before 2015. The remaining 76% (59 papers) were published
between 2015 and 2023, as it can be seen in Figure 1. This is a relevant milestone
Sensors 2023, 23, x FOR PEER REVIEW to be
6 of 28
highlighted, as it is considered that edge computing, as a used concept in the field of IoT
and the continuum, was born in late 2015.

Numberofofpublications
Figure1.1.Number
Figure publicationsbefore
before and
and after
after 2015.
2015.

The fact that, approximately, three-quarters of the research articles referenced in the
review date from after 2015 is a clear indication of the interest in intelligent and autono-
mous edge computing systems and nodes and the need for their use in certain fields (es-
pecially since the advent of practical edge and fog computing systems). As will be seen
Sensors 2023, 23, 2931 6 of 27

Figure 1. Number of publications before and after 2015.

The
The fact that,
that, approximately,
approximately,three-quarters
three-quartersofofthe the research
research articles
articles referenced
referenced in
in the
the review
review datedate
fromfrom
afterafter
2015 2015 is a indication
is a clear clear indication
of the of the interest
interest in intelligent
in intelligent and
and autono-
autonomous edge computing
mous edge computing systems systems and nodes
and nodes and theandneed
the need for their
for their use inusecertain
in certain fields
fields (es-
(especially
pecially sincesince
thethe advent
advent of practical
of practical edgeedge
andandfog fog computing
computing systems).
systems). As will
As will be
be seen
seen later, almost all implementations found in the literature are
later, almost all implementations found in the literature are developments adapted to developments adapted
to specific
specific useusecases,
cases,lacking
lackinganyanysort
sortofof“reference
“reference architecture”
architecture” in the field.field. By
By analyzing
analyzing
the
the selected
selectedpublications
publicationsbased basedon onthe
thekeywords
keywordsthat thatappear
appearin inthethetitles
titlesor
orininthe
the abstract
abstract
or
or understanding
understanding the the main
main themes
themes that
that they
they develop
develop (as(as depicted
depicted in in Figure
Figure 2),
2), several
several
conclusions
conclusions areare obtained.
obtained. There
There areare 10
10 articles
articles covering
covering cloud,
cloud, fog,
fog, or
or edge-related
edge-related topics
topics
that include any self-related capability. A total of 16 papers thoroughly
that include any self-related capability. A total of 16 papers thoroughly describe aspects describe aspects
related
relatedtotoautomation.
automation. A A total
total of
of 21
21 articles
articles are
aredirectly
directlyrelated
relatedto tothe
theIoT
IoTworld.
world.A Atotal
totalof
of
75
75 papers contain in their title or abstract one of the self-* capabilities selected for the study.
papers contain in their title or abstract one of the self-* capabilities selected for the study.

Self-* capabilities

IoT

Automation

Cloud, fog, or edge

0 20 40 60 80

Number of publications

Figure2.2. Number
Figure Number of
of publications
publicationsby
bytopic.
topic.

AAtotal
totalofofseventy-five
seventy-five (75)
(75) articles
articles werewere analyzed
analyzed that that referred
referred directlydirectly
to oneto
(orone (or
more)
more)capability
self-* self-* capability out of
out of those those described
described above, asabove,
drilledasdown
drilled down in
in Figure Figure
3. It 3. It was
was observed
Sensors 2023, 23, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 28
that self-adaptation
observed is the most
that self-adaptation investigated
is the trait, with
most investigated 12 with
trait, devoted papers papers
12 devoted in total.inThis
total.
is followed
This by self-awareness,
is followed by self-awareness,with 11; self-configuration,
with with with
11; self-configuration, 10; self-healing and self-
10; self-healing and
learning, with 9; self-diagnose and self-orchestration, with 8 items; and self-optimization
self-learning, with 9; self-diagnose and self-orchestration, with 8 items; and self-optimiza-
and
tion self-scaling,
and self-scaling,with
with7 items.
7 items.The
The average number
average number of of articles
articles per per
self-*self-* capability
capability is is nine.
Itnine.
is worth mentioning that those papers focus almost exclusively on
It is worth mentioning that those papers focus almost exclusively on the indicated the indicated single
feature (leaving
single feature asideaside
(leaving or keeping
or keepingmarginal
marginalthe
the others).
others).

Self-adaptation
Self-awareness
Self-configuration
Self-healing
Self-learning
Self-diagnose
Self-orchestration
Self-scaling
Self-optimization

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Number of publications

Figure 3. Number of publications by self-* capability.

Figure 3. Number of publications by self-* capability.
This detailed analysis of the research articles found in the search related to self-* ca-
pabilities provides an overview of which capabilities are the most referenced (and there-
fore necessary) when developing an intelligent and autonomous edge computing system
composed of heterogeneous nodes. Self-adaptation, self-awareness, self-learning, self-
configuration, and self-healing could be considered part of the most basic pillars of these
Sensors 2023, 23, 2931 7 of 27

This detailed analysis of the research articles found in the search related to self-*
capabilities provides an overview of which capabilities are the most referenced (and there-
fore necessary) when developing an intelligent and autonomous edge computing sys-
tem composed of heterogeneous nodes. Self-adaptation, self-awareness, self-learning,
self-configuration, and self-healing could be considered part of the most basic pillars of
these systems.

4. Terminology and Taxonomy

The computing continuum (also called the digital continuum, IoT-edge-cloud con-
tinuum [29], computing fabric, or transcontinuum) is the combination of resources and
services at the center of the network (cloud), at its border (edge), and in transit (fog). Data
are generated and pre-processed at the edge, partially processed by intermediate nodes,
and, if necessary, transferred to the cloud [30]. A node is a physical (or virtualized) de-
vice that is part of a network and has the capability to execute certain computations and
communicate with other nodes. Today, there is a wide variety of nodes that can connect
to the continuum. All these nodes have different characteristics and architectures that
make them unique. For this reason, it is appropriate to refer to them as “heterogeneous
nodes”. There are several ways to classify them, depending on their architecture, type,
location in the network, etc. Drawing from the nature of this work, a primary classification
option for these heterogeneous nodes has been carried out according to their spot on the
continuum (an illustrative diagram is provided in Figure 4). Within each category, a variety
of capacities, features, powers, sizes, and specific characteristics also exist:
• Cloud nodes: high-performance servers and high-capacity storage systems that pro-
vide services to their users. They allow complex calculations to be executed and are
capable of permanently storing a large amount of data [31]. Topologically, these are
normally placed on a central location (data center).
• MEC (Mobile or Multi-Access Edge Computing) nodes: smart nodes, normally IT
servers tied to radiocommunications infrastructure (e.g., in base stations [32]), that en-
able the capabilities of cloud services closer to the users’ devices (namely, smartphones
or end terminals).
• Edge nodes: any device with computing, storage, and network-attached capabilities,
which are capable of dividing and distributing large amounts of work. Examples
of these devices are access points, routers, small servers, computers, base stations,
etc. [33].
• Far-edge nodes: hardware devices capable of running algorithms that collect and
pre-process information received from IoT devices or versatile computing nodes [34].
• Versatile computing nodes: geographically distributed physical devices closer to the
end user such as commercial devices, such as Raspberry Pis, SIEMENS SIMATIC edge
elements, personal computers, laptops, smartphones, tablets, wearables, smart cards,
smart vehicles, etc., with enough computing power to execute tasks [31]. Versatile
computing nodes can sometimes also be considered far-edge nodes; they are very
close terms that vary mainly in their topological and geographical position, as well as
in their role in an edge computing distributed system.
• IoT nodes: physical devices such as sensors, readers, surveillance cameras, actuators,
embedded devices, etc. They are able to detect events or characteristics of real objects
and transmit them to the upper layer for processing [5,31]. In most recent deployments,
IoT nodes are increasingly improving their embedded computing capabilities, starting
to act as versatile computing nodes. These are known as smart devices and are a
genuine part of the Next-Generation IoT [35].
To reduce the response time, the security risks associated with the cloud, and the
computing limitations of end nodes, MEC and Edge nodes have been proposed to address
these and other related issues. However, MEC nodes have a much higher computing
capacity than edge nodes [36]. For this reason, MEC nodes are commonly used to replace
cloud nodes in the heaviest tasks.
 starting to act as versatile computing nodes. These are known as smart devices and
are a genuine part of the Next-Generation IoT [35].
To reduce the response time, the security risks associated with the cloud, and the
computing limitations of end nodes, MEC and Edge nodes have been proposed to address
these and other related issues. However, MEC nodes have a much higher computing ca-
Sensors 2023, 23, 2931 8 of 27
pacity than edge nodes [36]. For this reason, MEC nodes are commonly used to replace
cloud nodes in the heaviest tasks.

Figure
Figure4.4.Classification
Classificationofofthe
theheterogeneous
heterogeneousnodes
nodesaccording
accordingto
totheir
theirspot
spoton
onthe
thecontinuum.
continuum.

AsAsmentioned,
mentioned,aacomputing
computingcontinuum
continuumisisaacombination
combinationofofheterogeneous
heterogeneousnodes nodesthatthat
can connect with each other and cooperate, forming a network (or fabric). This involves aa
can connect with each other and cooperate, forming a network (or fabric). This involves
myriadofofchallenges
myriad challengesininterms
termsofofvirtualization
virtualizationandandorchestration
orchestration(see (seeSection
Section2).2).Several
Several
works discussing this heterogeneity have been
works discussing this heterogeneity have been analyzed. analyzed.
OnOnthe
theone
one hand,
hand, Razzaque
Razzaque etet al.
al. [37]
[37] comment
comment that
thatone
oneofofthe
themain
maincharacteristics
characteristicsof
these nodes is the heterogeneity, as mentioned above. On the other
of these nodes is the heterogeneity, as mentioned above. On the other hand, Xiao hand, Xiaoet etal.
al.[38]
[38]
state that this heterogeneity of the nodes makes their configuration more varied
state that this heterogeneity of the nodes makes their configuration more varied and their and their
physicalconditions
physical conditionsmoremore complex
complex andand changing,
changing, making
making theirtheir orchestration
orchestration difficult.
difficult. Alt-
hough every node might be, potentially, running its own architecture, it is necessary toto
Although every node might be, potentially, running its own architecture, it is necessary
ensurethat
ensure thatservices
servicesare
arealways
alwaysexecuted
executedregardless
regardlessof
ofthetheunderlying
underlyingconfiguration.
configuration.This This
system not only has to be able to connect these nodes with the edge computing
system not only has to be able to connect these nodes with the edge computing continuum, continuum,
butititalso
but alsomust
mustbe beable
abletotomanage
managethem
themautomatically
automaticallyso sothat
thateach
eachandandevery
everyone oneofofthem
them
has an autonomy of use. There is a current quest for searching for such
has an autonomy of use. There is a current quest for searching for such a tool; several a tool; several
works and research projects are pursuing this goal [39].
works and research projects are pursuing this goal [39].
Cluster computing and grid computing are other forms of computing that exist to-
day. According to [40], cluster computing is a form of computing in which two or more
computing nodes are connected in a local network to offer certain computing capacities
or services to users. On the other hand, ref. [40] defines grid computing as a form of
computing in which two or more hyper-distributed computing nodes are interconnected in
the same network aiming to combine their resources to execute calculations that require
many computing cycles. On another note, ref. [41] refers to the capability of self-deciding to
offload tasks within a cooperative network of nodes in a vehicular computing continuum.
Concepts such as fog colonies have appeared to describe the self-controlled, context-aware
grouping of heterogeneous nodes by sharing contextual information and policy rulebooks
in a decentralized approach [42].
The goal of this work is not to review the characteristics and self-* capabilities of the
nodes of these forms of computing but rather to explore the different self-* capabilities
needed in autonomous intelligent systems that are part of the computing continuum and
to select those that are considered essential to declare a computing node ”autonomous”.
While holistic governance and orchestration are under investigation, this paper focuses
on the relevance of looking at the capacity of the nodes to apply certain features to help
this automation materialize. To obtain a true global intelligent continuum system, there
is the claim that more intelligent and independent computing nodes must be achieved.
This is what the authors depend on to devise the so-called self-* capabilities that must be
intrinsically offered by such nodes. A self-* capability is a property of a heterogeneous node
that, together with other basic self-* capabilities, allows it to operate independently, without
the intervention of the upper layers of the continuum. According to the literature, there is a
wide variety of self-* capabilities, organized and named in different ways depending on
the chosen criteria. For instance, in [43], IBM explains that the essence of an autonomous
Sensors 2023, 23, 2931 9 of 27

system is self-management. Drawing from this statement, the four main aspects of self-
management would be:
• Self-configuration: autonomous systems are capable of configuring themselves and
their components, following high-level policies.
• Self-optimization: the capacity to continually improve their performance by monitor-
ing and identifying their resources to become more efficient.
• Self-healing: automatic diagnosis and resolution of hardware and software faults.
• Self-protection: the ability to anticipate and avoid problems and autonomously defend
against external attacks or internal failures with self-healing measures.
Berns et al. [44] define a more complete list of self-* capabilities, which are: self-
management, self-stabilization, self-healing, self-organization, self-protection, self-optimization,
self-configuration, and self-scaling. They also include two self-* capabilities from their own
understanding:
• Self-immunity: the system is capable of restoring security predicates after an attack,
eventually preventing them from being compromised again.
• Self-containment: the ability to keep functional parts of the system uncompromised
by a malicious attack.
Sterritt et al. [45] expose a list of self-* capabilities by completing the one in [44] with
the following: self-anticipating, self-assembling, self-awareness, self-chop, self-critical,
self-defining, self-governing, self-installing, self-reflecting, self-similar, self-simulation,
and selfware.
For this review, based on the previous references and the authors’ experiences in
several research projects in the IoT, edge, and CC fields, it was decided to select the
following self-* capabilities, reflected as well in the Venn diagram of Figure 5:
Sensors 2023, 23, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 28
• Self-awareness.
• Self-orchestration.
• Self-diagnose.
•• Self-scaling.
Self-healing.
•• Self-configuration.
Self-scaling.
•• Self-optimization.
Self-configuration.
•• Self-adaptation.
Self-optimization.
•• Self-learning.
Self-adaptation.
• Self-learning.

Classificationofof
Figure5.5.Classification
Figure the
the self-capabilities
self-capabilities defined
defined for for
thisthis article.
article.

The practical application of these self-* capabilities should allow for autonomy of use
and the awareness of the environment. If this is achieved, the global management of het-
erogeneous nodes towards an orchestration of the whole continuum would be hugely fa-
cilitated.
Sensors 2023, 23, 2931 10 of 27

The practical application of these self-* capabilities should allow for autonomy of
use and the awareness of the environment. If this is achieved, the global management
of heterogeneous nodes towards an orchestration of the whole continuum would be
hugely facilitated.

5. Literature Review and Analysis

This section provides the main review corpus of the paper. First, it describes what
every self-* capability means according to the authors, based on the literature and their own
research. Second, it delves into the investigation of each self-* capability in the available
sources. The main goal has been to identify the constructive elements and concepts of the
self-* features as well as to recognize any tools or methods used to materialize them. Finally,
a comparison considering the depth and abundance of work per trait is provided.

5.1. Sensors and Systems of Sensors Overview

IoT sensors are devices that collect data from the surrounding environment (temper-
ature, humidity, movement, etc.) to send it to the upper layers of the systems in which
they are integrated and that can be processed for further analysis and interpretation. In
sensor networks or systems, self-* capabilities are also used to control and automate the
IoT devices (sensors) that comprise them.
In [46], Yeh et al. propose a fault self-diagnosis technique for sensor networks based
on FBG (Fiber Bragg Grating). With this technique, when a network or sensor failure
occurs, the exact location can be detected. Zhu et al. [47] developed a self-diagnosis and
self-detection system for integrated sensor networks capable of receiving and processing
information from the environment. This system predicts the data captured by the sensors
in real time and compares them with the real data to determine the accuracy of the data
acquisition, that is, the correct operation of the sensors. Furthermore, if a sensor failure
is detected, the system can diagnose the cause. Richardson and Cheneler [48] present a
set of ideas for the self-diagnosis, self-adaptation, and self-healing of autonomous sensors
integrated into electronic systems through software algorithms. The objective is to increase
the reliability of the data generated by the sensors and allow them to repair themselves,
emulating the resilience of living beings. Bicocchi et al. [49] present a framework for
carrying out unsupervised training between sensors in the same network. The objective
is to exchange information between the sensors so that they learn a model using the data
obtained by other sensors. To do this, they use, as a use case, the combination of a camera
and an accelerometer to identify the movements of the users.

5.2. Analysis of Self-* Capabilities Research Status

5.2.1. Self-Awareness
Götzinger et al. [50] define self-awareness as an ability of computer systems to observe
and analyze the environment surrounding them and themselves, with the aim of making
changes in their behavior, according to the observations made. They also comment that
self-awareness is the base in an autonomous system for all other self-* capabilities. In [51],
the authors explain that self-aware computing systems need to gain knowledge about the
controlled resources and their environment. This knowledge can be extracted from the
analysis of the execution time of tasks, employing machine learning (ML) algorithms over
internal and external data or from other sources. In systems with hierarchical architectures,
knowledge can be affected due to the loss of a part between higher and lower levels. This
is the case of the computing continuum as understood in this work. Although the goal is
to conceive all available resources as a single entity to be managed, geographically and
topologically, each node is constrained to its direct visibility, living in an inner hierarchical
layout. Esterle and Brown [52] state that the nodes of a network must be aware of other
systems and devices further away from their immediate environment.
Articles [52,53] propose five levels of self-awareness of connected systems that have
access to network resources and network monitoring parameters (such as the performance
Sensors 2023, 23, 2931 11 of 27

of different model-building algorithms, the objectives of other systems, trade-offs between

targets, etc.):
• Networked stimulus-awareness: allows the system to know how to respond to events
in its environment with the stimuli received.
• Networked interaction-awareness: determines that the stimuli received and the actions
performed form relationships with the surrounding environment.
• Networked time-awareness: obtains information about historical stimuli in order to
predict future stimuli and their effect on other nodes.
• Networked goal-awareness: having knowledge of the objectives, goals, constraints,
and preferences of the rest of the nodes allows them to know how it affects them,
based on specific tables dependent on network information.
• Networked meta-self-awareness: the system is capable of determining its own level of
network self-awareness and how it is exercised.
In [54], Anzanpour et al. propose a monitoring and control system for the health
of hospital patients with a self-aware design. This system is based on wearable devices
(with limitations such as power consumption or performance) that obtain data through
sensors such as heart rate, blood oxygen, blood pressure, or body temperature. This
information is sent to cloud servers for their storage and processing. This system provides
personalized care, self-organization, and autonomy of use for remote monitoring and
intelligent decision making based on the situation for patients. Here, the principles of self-
awareness are delegated to the cloud, pulling away from the edge computing nodes (sensors
and smartphones); however, the mechanisms still apply for a potential self-awareness
system design. Andrade and Torres [55] propose a conceptual model of cognitive security,
with self-awareness as the main element. Here, a computer system (potentially assimilable
to a heterogeneous node) is capable of generating learning models (based on self-aware
knowledge) and reasoning models (created from the defined learning models).
Approaching self-awareness and control formalization, IBM [56] proposed a feedback
loop for autonomic control called “MAPE-K”. This model has five phases:
• Monitor: obtain data and information from the environment for the node self-awareness.
• Analyze: the most important information obtained in the monitoring phase is selected
and studied.
• Plan: the necessary actions for achieving goals and objectives are defined and built.
• Execute: the procedures for the execution of the plans are defined.
• Knowledge: the information used in the four previous phases is stored as shared
knowledge.
Any self-awareness methodology or tool to be embedded in a heterogeneous node in
the continuum should consider this methodological approach in its design.
In [57], Elhabbash et al. proposed a generic system that uses symbiotic simulation to
address the difficulty of analyzing the quality of knowledge and achieving the capacity
of meta-self-awareness of the system, which allows it to know its levels of consciousness.
Ref. [58] introduced a framework, based on the analysis and extension of three bio-inspired
theories, for descriptive and generative dynamic models that strengthen the capacity of
self-awareness of autonomous systems. The three bio-inspired theories are the models of
Damasio, Haykin and Friston et al., and Zhang et al. [59], who discuss cognitive digital
twins, examine the concepts of digital twins and self-awareness together, and explore the
possibility of harnessing different levels of self-awareness for cognitive digital twin design.
In summary, self-awareness has been tackled in the literature from three main per-
spectives: (1) the formal methodology -MAPE-K-, defining the steps to be performed to
feed a system back towards such awareness; (2) based on the network to understand its
own needs and act upon the context and a series of objectives; and (3) from a list of specific
cases, mostly related to health applications, without going further and placing awareness
on heterogeneous nodes of the continuum.
Sensors 2023, 23, 2931 12 of 27

5.2.2. Self-Orchestration
The synchronous and sequential execution of services is called orchestration. Orches-
tration systems include the application logic needed to manage services [60]. This is one
of the most important capabilities in distributed systems because it allows applications
to meet the requirements of end users in a specific order, and associated complexity is
managed by proper internal components. Moreover, it improves the scalability of appli-
cations and minimizes failures between inner modules [61]. Based on the definition of
orchestration in [62], the authors adopt the definition of self-orchestration as the self-*
capability of nodes to configure themselves, manage themselves, and coordinate with each
other to achieve common goals and objectives. That is, it focuses on the architecture of the
system, the applications that compose it, and the data they manage with the requirements
of the business.
In [60], Delamer and Lastra describe the difficulties in providing rapid reconfigura-
bility in current and future manufacturing systems in the industrial sector. Based on this,
the authors analyze the concepts and definitions of self-orchestration and choreography
oriented to web services at the node level and propose the use of self-orchestrated semantic
web services to solve the problem. Khebbeb et al. [62] present a rewriting-based specifica-
tion developed in Maude to design and verify the self-adaptive and orchestration behaviors
of the cloud and fog layers in order to manage the reconfiguration of the architecture
and manage the self-adaptation and orchestration of the cloud and fog layers based on a
centralized control pattern to achieve low latency and resources quantity trade-offs.
The authors of the paper [63] propose a new reference for Building Automation
Systems (BAS). This paradigm is heavily inspired by social network interrelationship
models for improving the self-configuration and self-orchestration of nodes in the home
and smart building automation. The developed framework is based on social objects
and semantic descriptions of resources and services. This increases the autonomy of
the use of the devices, their capabilities to configure themselves, and the relationship
between them and the environment that surrounds them. These devices take on the role
of intelligent agents, which can self-configure, self-coordinate, and self-orchestrate. The
proposed model was implemented on Arduino boards and on Intel Edison and Zolertia
single-board computers with more resources.
In [64], Schulz focuses on the development of a model whose objective is to define
the self-management and self-organization of a network as if it were a subsystem within
automation systems. In this way, all components of the communication architecture are
defined, implemented, and maintained in an automated manner. The model is applied to
Intranets within companies at an industrial level, orchestrating the transport of information
through IP and legacy protocols as well as wired and wireless connections interchangeably.
The author intends that the developed model serve as a reference for other research and as
a standard in IoT networks at an industrial level.
Regarding self-orchestration, it can be concluded that there is not a common under-
standing of which kind of self-orchestration can be achieved. However, there are several
documented attempts to orchestrate inner networks and the use of their own resources in
the form of intelligent agents.

5.2.3. Self-Diagnose
Self-diagnosis is the self-* capability of a smart node or device to continuously monitor
its health status [65]. The node has the ability to detect the error and its origin, which allows
for the development of highly reliable and energy-efficient applications [66]. However,
the term self-diagnosis is also applied to networks made up of intelligent nodes that are
capable of self-diagnosis or of sending their health status to central nodes for further
analysis. Examples of these networks can be found in [67–70].
Discenzo et al. [65] evaluated the need for IoT devices for the self-diagnosis of com-
ponents in the industry. Thanks to a small engine together with a microprocessor, they
developed a model for self-diagnosing its status and preventing possible future failures.
Sensors 2023, 23, 2931 13 of 27

In [67], the author addresses the development of “Promising”, a model capable of self-
diagnosing the state of a network and its nodes. The method is based on the use of a highly
reliable checking component to evaluate the state of the nodes of a network. In addition,
the author recommends monitoring in a decentralized manner to minimize network traffic.
Rahem et al. [68] describe possible failures that can occur in data aggregation. This
technique is commonly used to analyze and diagnose the status of Wireless Sensor Net-
works (WSN) due to their low power and bandwidth consumption, reduced execution
time, etc. In this work, in addition, an analysis is carried out on the data added by the
central node in the cluster to evaluate the energy consumption, using self-diagnosis. This
node manages all the operations and devices that compose the controlled group. In [69],
Harte et al. also develop a model to monitor the health status of nodes within a WSN
using self-diagnosis. The authors focus primarily on detecting physical problems in devices
caused by impacts or them not being properly oriented.
In order to identify failures and errors in ad hoc mobile networks and wireless mesh
networks, the authors of [70] proposed a novel self-diagnosis model called “Adaptive-
DSDP”. This protocol is based on comparison, where tasks are assigned to pairs of nodes,
and the results obtained are analyzed and compared.
Sensors 2023, 23, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 28
As it can be realized, self-diagnosis is tackled in the literature not as a characteristic of
the nodes themselves but as part of a group or a network. Whether this is due to a lack of
usage of the term self-diagnosis or to the dismission of its own health diagnostic, the reality
reality
is is that,
that, for for modern
modern edge computing
edge computing environments,
environments, this aspect
this aspect will needwilltoneed to be thor-
be thoroughly
oughly tackled in the
tackled in the near future. near future.
In the ASSIST-IoT project,
In project, aamodular
modularsoftware
softwarewaswasdeveloped
developed (see Figure
(see 6) that
Figure al-
6) that
lows forfor
allows thethe
self-monitoring
self-monitoring of edge device
of edge functionalities,
device logs,logs,
functionalities, etc. and
etc. the
andgeneration
the genera-of
notifications
tion if a failure
of notifications if a occurs. This module
failure occurs. is part ofisthe
This module partself-* vertical
of the self-* plane enablers
vertical plane
[71,72]. [71,72].
enablers

Figure 6.
Figure 6. Self-monitoring
Self-monitoring approach,
approach, as
as proposed
proposed by
by ASSIST-IoT.
ASSIST-IoT. Source:
Source: the
the authors’
authors’ own
own diagram,
diagram,
based on [73].
based on [73].

5.2.4. Self-Healing
5.2.4. Self-Healing
Self-healing
Self-healing is is the
the part
part of
of autonomous
autonomous systems
systems that
that is responsible
responsible for for independently
independently
managing
managing the recovery of the parties affected by a failure or attack without human inter-
vention.
vention. This mechanism provides the ability to maintain and resume the the system
system in in an
an
automatically
automatically set condition
condition [74]. Khalil et al. [75] also also include
include failure
failure detection
detection as as part
part of
of
self-healing.
self-healing. In [43], IBM IBM explains
explains that self-healing
self-healing is
is the
the self-*
self-* capability
capability toto automatically
automatically
diagnose
diagnose and
and resolve
resolve bothboth hardware
hardwareand andsoftware
softwarefailures.
failures.
Yang
Yang et
et al.
al. [76]
[76]developed
developed andand implemented
implemented aa self-healing
self-healing system
system forfor the
the electrical
electrical
network
network made up of several Easergy T300 controllers installed in medium-voltage feeders
made up of several Easergy T300 controllers installed in medium-voltage feeders
(20.000
(20.000 V)
V) that
that monitor
monitor the the state
state ofof the
the electrical
electrical network
network through
through an an analysis
analysis andand self-
self-
healing
healing algorithm
algorithm in in real-time
real-time to
to detect
detect failures
failures and
and avoid
avoid prolonged
prolonged power
power outages.
outages. TheThe
controllers
controllersanalyze
analyzethe theload
loadofof
the
thefeeders,
feeders,obtaining
obtainingdata on the
data temperature
on the temperatureof theofdevices,
the de-
energy, etc. inetc.
vices, energy, order to manage
in order the network.
to manage Thanks
the network. to thetoself-healing
Thanks algorithm,
the self-healing the
algorithm,
system is capable of identifying the type of fault and its location, isolating
the system is capable of identifying the type of fault and its location, isolating the sectorthe sector of the
of the network with problems and reconfiguring the network to re-energize the areas af-
fected by the fault. In this way, the duration of power outages can be reduced from hours
to just seconds autonomously. The methodological principles of this work are very rele-
vant for a potential shift of the self-reparation to heterogeneous computing nodes instead
of high-voltage network controllers.
Sensors 2023, 23, 2931 14 of 27

network with problems and reconfiguring the network to re-energize the areas affected
by the fault. In this way, the duration of power outages can be reduced from hours to
just seconds autonomously. The methodological principles of this work are very relevant
for a potential shift of the self-reparation to heterogeneous computing nodes instead of
high-voltage network controllers.
In [77], the authors also develop an autonomous control system for the monitoring
and self-healing of the smart distribution network based on distribution automation and
advanced distribution automation. The self-healing of the system includes preventive
self-healing, fault self-healing, and economical self-healing. This intelligent system is able
to adapt to the complex environment formed by these networks, continuously monitoring
and managing resources. Thanks to this, the system is able to ensure and improve the
electrical supply of the network in the event of a problem thanks to the use of resources such
as power generators widely distributed throughout the network, energy storage devices,
and even electric vehicles connected to the network (V2G).
The control of autonomic systems, through monitoring their health status, is one of the
essential parts of self-healing algorithms, which is connected to the self-diagnose capability
treated above. Other works [74] propose a monitor model that can improve the self-healing
performance by decreasing the number of resources spent on the self-healing-affected parts
of the system.
There are works that propose using Neural Networks (NN) to avoid failures in dis-
tributed computing systems. In particular, there are self-healing algorithms that are based
on replacing defective hardware nodes, which cause system overloads [75], with new ones.
NNs are complex algorithms used in a wide variety of applications [75], especially in the
field of AI. From another viewpoint, Khalil et al. [75] propose a novel method to be applied
to self-healing NNs; using a single node per layer, it is possible to replace any defective
node. If a node fails, its neighbor will also perform its tasks (apart from those already
assigned to it) sequentially. If the neighboring node fails, only the spare node will take over,
reducing the load on the system.
Liu et al. [78] show the design and implementation of a zero-time self-healing com-
munication network for real-time ship monitoring. This network is capable of connecting
sensors, control devices, and computers to interact with the ship’s maintenance team.
Through various control and surveillance mechanisms, it is capable of automating many of
the tasks carried out on ships. The objective of this novel design is to solve the transmission,
reliability, and real-time problems of network communications. To do this, it transmits
the information through several routes to have a seamless and instantaneous self-healing
network. Thanks to this network, the maintenance of the ship becomes easier and faster.
In [79], as in [76,77], the author exposes a model for the automatic reconstruction of the
electrical network with self-healing capacity to avoid power outages to users and reduce
the cost of repairing the electricity network.
In the case of the self-healing capability, the majority of the found literature focuses
on the electrical power of devices (either computing or not) or the electrical distribution
network. Some works also explore the self-healing of computing nodes that can be part
of a continuum. However, there are only a few mentions of the self-recovery of the
communications or the functioning of single nodes—for instance, when the connection is
down or faulty.
In ASSIST-IoT, a self-healing modular software (as per the diagram in Figure 7) was
developed in order to recover from failures to the IoT devices that incorporate it. This
recovery is based on an already existing schedule of routines. This enabler is divided into
three components:
• Self-detector: its purpose is to obtain information from the device on which it works.
• Self-monitor: check the health status of the IoT device, analyzing the information
obtained by the self-detector component. From these data, health score metrics are
extracted, which are compared with thresholds to determine if the device is OK or not.
 developed in order to recover from failures to the IoT devices that incorporate it. This
recovery is based on an already existing schedule of routines. This enabler is divided into
three components:
• Self-detector: its purpose is to obtain information from the device on which it works.
Sensors 2023, 23, 2931 • Self-monitor: check the health status of the IoT device, analyzing the information 15 ofob-
27
tained by the self-detector component. From these data, health score metrics are ex-
tracted, which are compared with thresholds to determine if the device is OK or not.
•• Self-remediator: if the
Self-remediator: the self-monitor
self-monitor component
component detects a bad bad state
state of
of health
health ofof the
the
device, it sends a notification to this component to try to recover (through
device, it sends a notification to this component to try to recover (through a series of a series of
operations)the
operations) thegood
goodstate
state
ofof health.
health. If this
If this is not
is not possible,
possible, other
other operations
operations are ap-
are applied
plied
to to recover
try to try to recover theofstate
the state of health
health again. again.
Thismodule
This moduleisispart
partof
ofthe
theself-*
self-*horizontal
horizontalplane
planeenablers
enablers[72,80].
[72,80].

Figure7.7.Self-healing
Figure Self-healingstructure,
structure,asasproposed
proposedbyby ASSIST-IoT.
ASSIST-IoT. Source:
Source: thethe authors’
authors’ ownown diagram,
diagram, based
based on
on [73]. [73].

5.2.5.
5.2.5. Self-Scaling
Self-Scaling
Based
Basedon
onthe
the definition
definition offered
offeredbybyHerbst
Herbst etet al.
al. [81]
[81] on
on scalability,
scalability,the
theauthors
authorsdefine
define
self-scaling
self-scalingas
asthe
theself-*
self-*capability
capabilityof
ofan
anintelligent
intelligentnode
nodeto toincrease
increaseorordecrease
decreasethe
theuse
useof
of
its resources depending on the volume of work to be carried out. If the workload increases,
the node is able to increase its resource usage automatically. Otherwise, it will remove part
of its resources to accommodate the volume of incoming work.
Herrera and Moltó [82] introduce two novel biology-inspired algorithms that en-
able self-scaling in architectures based on the execution of self-managed containers. The
algorithms described are:
• Self-scaling self-sufficient cell model (SCM): this model is characterized by the lack of
direct interactions between containers. This design, in turn, is subdivided into three
variants (SCM-A, SCM-B, and SCM-C).
• Self-scaling interactive cell model (ICM): this model is characterized by containers
that have information about the containers that are in their environment. The ex-
change of information can be carried out directly (between containers) or through
intermediate services.
In [83], the authors describe a model for self-scaling the resources of a network based
on the task execution times of each instance of virtual network functions (VNF). The
resources used by each instance (both physical and virtual) are assigned per cycle unit
using a weighting factor. The system is made up of two components: a self-scaling
application (which includes several control and management modules) and a monitoring
module based on micro-services.
Nikravesh et al. [84] propose an architecture for a self-scaling prediction ensemble
based on empirical studies, which is capable of selecting the best prediction algorithm
based on the amount of real-time workload.
Casalicchio and Perciballi [85] present a self-scaling algorithm called “KHPA-A” that
connects to the Kubernetes controller and is based on absolute metrics rather than relative
metrics. The use of this type of metric allows the system to reduce the response time
of the applications compared to the current K8s self-scaling algorithm. In addition, this
algorithm can make use of the input parameters used by the original “KHPA” algorithms
to obtain the number of containers to be instantiated. Similar to this approach, in the
research project ASSIST-IoT, an improved alternative to the Horizontal Pod Autoscaler
(HPA) of Kubernetes based on time series inference (rooting on Facebook Prophet NN)
and custom logic is proposed and developed: the “resource provisioning enabler” [72,86].
This software is able to horizontally scale (up or down) the resources devoted to a specific
enabler (custom software packaged as a Helm chart and following a set of predefined
encapsulation principles) within a K8s node in a dynamic fashion [87].
Sensors 2023, 23, 2931 16 of 27

Chattopadhyay et al. [88] propose a self-scaling orchestration model for IoT applica-
tions called “Aloe”. This framework dynamically deploys lightweight controller instances
close to IoT devices (which are resource-constrained) to ensure a high availability and low
set-up time. It is fault-tolerant, can migrate instances from one site to another in cases of
problems with part of the network, and uses Docker as a base to support migration.
As a reflection, self-scaling is the capability that has been brought to practice more
frequently and successfully, mostly due to its capacity of making use of already existent
tools provided by container management frameworks, as well as other applications.

5.2.6. Self-Configuration
According to [89], the self-configuration of an application or autonomous system is
the self-* capability to configure and reconfigure itself automatically and independently
in any type of possible condition. In [43], IBM explains that self-configuration is the self-*
capability of autonomous systems to configure themselves and their components, following
high-level policies.
Yang et al. [90] developed a model to self-configure connected terminals in 4G net-
works and heterogeneous communication and service environments. When a terminal
connects to the network, the framework puts it in pre-operational mode until the node
self-configures, at which point the node becomes operational within the network. When a
terminal leaves the network, the TMS (Terminal Management System) notifies the rest of
the nodes so that they are aware of the new state and reconfigure themselves appropriately.
Wang and Vanninen [91] describe and compare different protocols for individual peers to
self-configure the P2P network. To determine which is the best protocol, they simulate
small-scale P2P networks and compare the quality of self-configured networks.
Mombello et al. [92] presented a self-configuring system for a photodetector sensor.
Its goal is to use a control unit that can be programmed to find the center of the light
beam hitting the sensor and then set the detection pattern. This model allows for the
automation of the alignment of the light beam with the detection pattern. For this, the
model is capable of obtaining data from the light sensor to reprogram the behavior of
the photodetector sensor in real-time. In [93], the authors describe a self-configuration
algorithm for a modular robotic system (MRS). This system is made up of robots which
move through a virtual grid until they reach their optimal position in the configuration
space. Through local communications, the robots can analyze and plan routes within the
grid to change position.
One of the advantages of self-configuration for heterogeneous nodes would be to facil-
itate better CI/D of services in computing elements at the edge of the network. Currently,
as occurs with millions of serve-providing applications, updates on firmware and software
versions must be carried out offline, requiring disconnection or rebooting of the compo-
nents, including hardware. Achieving self-configuration in real time would smooth these
processes that usually underserve the requesting users, which can be highly inconvenient
in specific applications. Abdellaoui et al. [94] propose a real-time self-configuration system
that is capable of automatically connecting and disconnecting the modules (components)
that make up the applications to reduce service outages and cause the least possible inter-
ruptions. Each connected object in the application is considered as a software module that
is added or removed to be updated separately. This could be a nice approach towards the
self-configuration of heterogeneous nodes in the continuum.
Yao et al. [95] designed a system that automates the self-configuration of the use of
virtualized shared resources in graphics cards of cloud servers intended for cloud-gaming.
This framework is made up of four modules:
• Sensor module: gathers preliminary system and application data.
• Modeling module: automatically analyzes raw data from the sensor module.
• Controller module: for each virtual machine running on the graphics card, an agent
monitors its performance and sends the information to a scheduler. This analyzes
Sensors 2023, 23, 2931 17 of 27

the information of all the virtual machines and sends an instruction to activate the
control system.
• Self-control-configuration module: manages the self-configuration of the controller
parameters.
In [96], the authors present a novel self-configuration model, based on software-
defined networks (SDN) for time-sensitive networks. In existing configuration meth-
ods, end nodes send their data to a central management node. These methods require
the manual configuration of the hosts. The proposed algorithm allows resources to
be obtained in a transparent and automated manner, facilitating self-configuration in
heterogeneous environments.
In the ASSIST-IoT project, a self-configuration modular software (see Figure 8) was
developed that allows heterogeneous services and devices to remain synchronized with
their configurations. In addition, it allows to detect changes in the surrounding environment
and update the configuration automatically, if necessary. On the other hand, the user can
change the configuration manually and define configurations to be applied in cases of
detecting a failure in a node [72,97].
Self-configuration is a characteristic that might bring multiple benefits to systems
implementing the computing continuum. Nonetheless, research has focused on specific
distributed systems (cloud-gaming, radiocommunications, etc., even within sensors that
require calibration to properly function). Methodological approaches that drill down the
Sensors 2023, 23, x FOR PEER REVIEW
process in various functional blocks also exist, opening the door to developments that18could
of 28
be applied to the heterogeneous node of the computing continuum.

Figure 8.8.AAself-configuration
Figure self-configurationstructure,
structure,
asas
perper enablers
enablers described
described in ASSIST-IoT.
in ASSIST-IoT. Source:
Source: the au-
the authors’
thors’ own diagram, based
own diagram, based on [73]. on [73].

5.2.7. Self-configuration
Self-Optimization is a characteristic that might bring multiple benefits to systems im-
plementing
In 2003,the
IBMcomputing continuum. Nonetheless,
listed self-optimization as one of theresearch
four basichas focused
pillars of anonautonomous
specific dis-
tributed IBM
system. systems (cloud-gaming,
defined the conceptradiocommunications,
of self-optimization inetc., even within
autonomous sensors that
computing re-
as the
quire calibration
continuous to properly
improvement of thefunction).
performanceMethodological
and efficiencyapproaches that drill
of an autonomous down[43].
system the
process
For Namiinandvarious
Bertels functional blocks also exist,
[98], self-optimization is theopening
ability ofthe
an door to developments
autonomous that
system to allo-
could
cate be applied
resources andtousethethem
heterogeneous
in the mostnode of the
efficient waycomputing continuum.
possible, meeting user requirements.
In addition, they also state that autonomous system workload management and resource
5.2.7. Self-Optimization
usage are two important points in self-optimization. Unlike self-scaling, self-optimization
constantly monitors
In 2003, IBM listedscaled resources to optimize
self-optimization as one of their
theoperation
four basicand performance.
pillars For the
of an autonomous
authors, the definition
system. IBM defined the provided
conceptby ofIBM is more accurate
self-optimization when considering
in autonomous computing the field of
as the
the distributed computing continuum, as the horizontal resource allocation
continuous improvement of the performance and efficiency of an autonomous system [43]. to maintain
the
Forquality
Nami andof service
Bertels(including acting in advance)
[98], self-optimization is theisability
a competence of the self-scalability
of an autonomous system to
of nodes.
allocate resources and use them in the most efficient way possible, meeting user require-
Zheng
ments. et al. [99]they
In addition, defined
also astate
model
thatbased on autonomous
autonomous system computing to automatically
workload management and
optimize services offered to users. When the system changes internally, that
resource usage are two important points in self-optimization. Unlike self-scaling, self-op- is, the param-
timization constantly monitors scaled resources to optimize their operation and perfor-
mance. For the authors, the definition provided by IBM is more accurate when consider-
ing the field of the distributed computing continuum, as the horizontal resource allocation
to maintain the quality of service (including acting in advance) is a competence of the self-
Sensors 2023, 23, 2931 18 of 27

eters that influence the performance of the services provided to users change during its
execution, dynamic self-optimization is executed. This improves the performance of the
service to make it more efficient. When there are no big changes internally in the system, the
static self-optimization prediction is executed. Both methods are combined to automatically
improve the performance and efficiency of the services that the system provides to users.
These are good principles that could be applied to the functioning of heterogeneous nodes
of the continuum.
Moving away from the performance optimization of single elements, the authors
of [100], propose a method to automatically optimize handover parameters for 5G networks.
In these networks, the configuration of handover control parameter (HCP) settings is carried
out manually or through self-optimization functions. Due to the large number of devices
connected to the network, offering a stable connection over time has become one of the
priorities in this type of network. Device handover occurs when a node moves between two
cells of a network. The authors also classify the current algorithms as central optimization
models, that is, the optimization is performed based on the performance of the network
as a whole and not individually for each connected device. In [101], Sánchez-González
et al. propose a rule-based self-optimization model for mobile networks that improves and
speeds up convergence in the search for solutions. These rules are really information on
how to solve specific problems. In addition, the authors state that this system has been
fine-tuned to improve coverage and cell overlap within the same network.
Also rooted in network parameters optimization, in [102], the authors implement a
self-optimization model for the nodes of cognitive wireless home networks, called the
“Home Cognitive Resource Manager” (HCRM). The system uses several self-optimization
algorithms and information captured from the execution environment in order to perform
efficient radio resource management. To achieve its goal, the framework uses utility-based
reasoning and compliance with policy regulations.
Trumler et al. [103] presented a model for creating self-organizing autonomous sys-
tems that are based on nodes located in the network. This system employs a mode of
operation based on the hormonal system of humans. Each node sends information for
self-organization through messages without using any extra communication system to
avoid overloading the network. The objective of these messages is to know the consump-
tion of the resources of the nodes to be able to optimize them in the most efficient way.
The algorithm works in conjunction with a middleware also developed by the authors of
the paper.
Looking at specific verticals of application, Wang et al. describe in the paper [104]
an autonomous system for the self-optimization of the course of a ship. To do this, the
objective to be achieved by the system is established, and, through various algorithms, it
determines the most optimal and efficient control parameters of the ship’s course.

5.2.8. Self-Adaptation
Self-adaptation is the self-* capability of the autonomous systems to adjust their
behavior during execution in real-time. This adaptation is made to respond to changes in
the perception of its environment and of the system itself [105,106].
Amiri et al. [107] propose an autonomous system that uses a dynamic router architec-
ture capable of adapting at runtime. Several studies by the authors of the paper indicate
that centralized routings offer greater reliability, while decentralized ones offer more per-
formance. This system performs multi-criteria analysis to optimize and self-adapt the
architecture between more centralized or more distributed routing to deliver the highest
reliability and maximize performance.
The work described in [108] deals with the variation in the Particle Swarm Optimiza-
tion (PSO) algorithm with dual self-adaptation and dual variation to improve the premature
convergence problems of the standard version. The goal is to widen the search range for
the optimal solution and improve the search accuracy, the algorithm’s rate of convergence,
and its response speed. The authors affirm that, applied to the optimization of objective
Sensors 2023, 23, 2931 19 of 27

functions, their version of the PSO improves performance and results compared to the
standard version.
Ardito [109] developed a system to self-adapt the operation of smartphone applica-
tions in real-time depending on the current battery consumption of the device. The goal
is to reduce the energy consumption of smartphones and extend the life of their batteries.
The method has several phases of operation. First, the power management module of
the operating system obtains the consumption values through the hardware. Second, the
module analyzes and divides the energy expenditure between each running application
based on the current use of each one. Finally, it sends the information with a maximum
threshold that must not be exceeded. If the application exceeds the threshold, the oper-
ating system sends it a warning to modify its operation, adapting itself according to its
energy consumption.
In [110], Yuan et al. present a self-adaptive model called “CASC”, based on “MAPE” [56],
to adapt the composition of services in real time. Self-adaptive composite services can
automatically adjust in real time to changes in their surrounding environments. This system
is capable of self-adapting by selecting new services or generating new schemes for the
composition of the service.
While self-adaptation is a term used in wider communication environments (see
above), applied to heterogeneous nodes in the continuum, self-adaptation would be the
capacity to adapt the applications (containers, services, etc.) being run by such a node
depending on the current execution of those (taking too long, consuming more resources
than expected, requiring extra bandwidth, etc.) in runtime. Specifically related to this
definition, the authors of [111] describe a multi-tier self-adaptation model for microservice
systems that aims to improve the self-adaptation capabilities of microservice frameworks.
In addition, they also present a self-adaptive description language with which to determine
the adaptation logic at the different levels of microservice systems and a platform called
“AdaptiveK8s” to provide support as a Kubernetes extension. The goal of all these efforts is
to specify self-adaptation requirements at the different levels and to provide the necessary
components to improve self-adaptation in microservice systems. Besides, Nallur and
Bahsoon [112] propose a decentralized model in the cloud that uses heuristics so that service-
based applications can self-adapt at runtime to the quality of service (QoS) requirements
they offer to users.
Likewise, Boyapati and Szabo [113] developed a self-adaptive system for large-scale
microservice architectures, based on “MAPE-K” [56]. The system is composed of two inde-
pendent networks. In a network, the “MAPE-K” loop monitors the environment, analyzes
the information received, and schedules tasks. On the other network, the scheduled tasks
are executed in the managed system. All components are deployed on Docker and are
related to each other by exposing REST APIs. The authors emphasize the use of open-source
tools for the development and implementation of the proposed system.
In [114], the authors present a self-adaptive fog monitoring software that uses a
hierarchical P2P architecture that is capable of modifying its operation based on an “MAPE-
K” feedback loop. This variation in its behavior is possible thanks to the data that the
system collects from its environment.
Self-adaptation in the literature implies the existence of various components (namely,
services or microservices in modern distributed environments) whose execution can be
modified in runtime to meet user requirements. The methodology “MAPE-K” seems to be
widely employed in most practical implementations proposed in the found references.

5.2.9. Self-Learning
Based on [115], self-learning is defined as the self-* capability of an autonomous
system to improve its performance using unsupervised AI and ML over time. Although the
usage of AI is applied to achieve other self-* capabilities (e.g., self-scaling), the exercise of
valuing unlabeled historic data for self-improvement purposes can be considered a relevant
capability by itself.
Sensors 2023, 23, 2931 20 of 27

With the fast expansion of the IoT, a new concept called Internet of Vehicles (IoV)
appeared. The calculations that these vehicles execute (with limited resources) are in-
creasingly computationally expensive. To solve this, Vehicular Edge Computing (VEC)
appeared, which allows vehicles to send these more expensive tasks to them. However, it
is a problem that many vehicles compete for these computing resources at the same time.
For this reason, Luo et al. [116] proposed a distributed computational offloading algorithm
called “DISCO”, based on self-learning, where each vehicle gets its best offloading decision
based on its information and the offloading decision of other vehicles. In [117], Srinivasan
proposes a low-cost system for monitoring and predicting the status of the mechanical
components of a car. To do this, through sensors installed in the vehicle, the necessary
data are collected in real time. These data are sent to the cloud for processing using a
self-learning algorithm, which predicts the future status of the monitored components.
Finally, the analyzed information is sent to a mobile application so that it can be viewed
by users.
In recent years, the use of drones has grown exponentially. They are used for military
applications, agriculture, the analysis of aerial photographs, and even for civil use. In
some of these more specific applications, drones need to perform operations that they
cannot execute due to their limited resources. As a solution, the use of MEC nodes has
been proposed to perform these calculations. Sacco et al. [118] developed a self-learning
algorithm that allows the drone to decide whether to send the task to the MEC nodes using
two different methodologies: time series and ML regressors. This decision is taken based
on the predicted behavior of the drone.
In [119], Sudharsan et al. present an algorithm called “Train++” that allows for the
training of ML models on IoT devices (such as sensors) with very limited resources. In
this way, these types of components do not need to increase their performance and can
dispense with ML model training services in the cloud to become intelligent self-learning
devices at the edge of the network. Tam et al. [120], proposed a resource-optimized
communication scheme for federated learning at the edge of the network. The objective is
to perform classifications of images detected by remote IoT devices (sensors) in real time,
using convolutional neural network algorithms. For this, a self-learning agent is used that
communicates with the network orchestrator and the architecture to optimize the control
of the resources of the IoT devices.
Shen et al. [121] present a self-learning algorithm for building energy management
systems. This software uses the network formed by the IoT sensors (which should allow
for calculations in the fog) to analyze, in a distributed way, the data obtained by the IoT
sensors. The purpose of this system is to reduce the energy used, process the data from the
sensors in the fog (instead of in the cloud), improve the comfort of the users, and increase
the accuracy of the data predictions.
Some works have proposed the usage of self-learning to obtain ratings (positive,
neutral, and negative) of status (e.g., comments of hotel reviews) [122], which could be
very interesting in rating the capacity of a node to react to specific circumstances.
Considering that AI is one of the most researched fields in the current literature, the
term self-learning presents difficulties in its association with heterogeneous nodes in the
continuum. Only a few references express the need to use such capacities in computing
elements in a network.

5.3. Literature Comparison

In this subsection, Table 1 is presented, comparing the works evaluated throughout
the section. For each self-* capability, those articles related to each type of node capable of
connecting to the computing continuum are reflected.
Sensors 2023, 23, 2931 21 of 27

Table 1. Evaluated works for each self-* capability and their spot in the continuum.

Cloud Nodes MEC Nodes Edge Nodes Far-Edge Nodes Versatile Comp. IoT Nodes
Nodes
Self-awareness [54–57,59] [54–57,59] [55,56,59] [56,59] [54,56–59] [54,56–59]
Self-orchestration [62] [62] [60,62,64] [60,62,64] [52,53] [60,62–64]
Self-diagnose [71–73] [71–73] [47,70–73] [47,48,67–73] [67,70–73] [46–48,65,67–73]
Self-healing [72,73,80] [72,73,80] [72,73,78,80] [48,72–74,76–80] [72–75,78,80] [48,72–74,76–80]
Self-scaling [72,82–87] [72,82–87] [72,86,87] [72,86,87] [72,86] [72,86–88]
Self- [72,73,94,95,97] [72,73,94,95,97] [72,73,97] [72,73,93,97] [72,73,90,91,93,96,97] [72,73,91,92,97]
configuration
Self-optimization [99,102] [99,102] [100–102] [100–102,104] [100–104] [100–102,104]
Self-adaptation [107,110–113] [107,110–114] [48,114] [109,114] [48,114]
Self-learning [117,119,122] [116,118,121] [49,116,120] [49,116–121] [117] [49,116–121]

As can be seen in the table above, there are certain trends in the use of self-* capabilities
depending on the spot on the continuum where they are applied. Self-configuration and
self-scaling are the self-* capabilities that are most applied in all types of nodes described
equally. Self-scaling and self-adaptation are the two self-* capabilities that are mostly
applied in cloud servers and MEC nodes due to the importance of adapting and scaling the
resources used to optimize them and reduce the energy consumption that these nodes need.
Self-awareness and self-configuration are applied to servers and terminal nodes mainly
due to the importance of knowing the environment that surrounds them and being able
to reconfigure themselves appropriately based on changes in the environment. Finally,
self-orchestration, self-diagnose, self-healing, and self-learning apply primarily to terminal
nodes. This is because many of these nodes work together to achieve common goals. On
the one hand, coordination is an important part in the organization of these nodes, as
well as learning and predicting data through algorithms that collect information from
the environment around them through sensors. On the other hand, the diagnosis and
resolution of problems (or their prevention) is another important factor in this type of node
for avoiding performance reductions in the networks they form due to their limited work
capacity compared to large servers located in the cloud.

6. Future Research Directions

In the future, there will still be the need to deepen the coverage and deployment
approaches of the selected self-* capabilities, identify and analyze new ones, and advance
in the definition of standards that may allow for the creation of related open-source tools.
The search for up-to-date use cases of monitoring tools should be enhanced, and surveys
of experts in the field to find out their vision of the implementation and expansion of
self-* capabilities today might be realized. Finally, following the reflection on this article’s
limitation, the scope of the review should be expanded to include alternative sources such
as open-source repositories or blogs. The authors of this paper look forward to performing
such evolvements in future articles.

7. Conclusions
Over time, CC has led to new, more efficient, and more effective forms of comput-
ing: fog and edge computing. These offer advantages that the “cloud” is not capable of
providing, such as lower energy consumption and better response times. This requires
management by autonomous intelligent systems, which, apart from a holistic orchestration,
might benefit from the implementation of self-* capabilities brought by heterogeneous
computing nodes. Out of all the identified self-* capabilities, only a small group are really
considered essential for those systems, and, as has been observed, there are hardly any
references in the literature or systems that can be used as a basis for multiple solutions. The
vast majority of the proposed solutions are customized systems that focus on very specific
use cases (mostly distributed networks), which increases fragmentation and reduces the
Sensors 2023, 23, 2931 22 of 27

possibility of creating open standards and solid foundations that are valid for any field
of application.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, I.L., F.B. and R.S.-J.; methodology, I.L. and F.B.; formal
analysis, R.V. and R.S.-J.; investigation, R.S.-J. and R.V.; writing—original draft preparation, R.S.-J.
and I.L.; writing—review and editing, I.L., R.V. and F.B.; visualization, R.S.-J.; supervision, C.E.P. and
F.B.; project administration, I.L. and C.E.P.; funding acquisition, C.E.P. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the European Commission, under the Horizon Europe project
aerOS, grant number 101069732.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design
of the study; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References
1. Kaufman, L.M. Data Security in the World of Cloud Computing. IEEE Secur. Priv. 2009, 7, 61–64. [CrossRef]
2. Liu, W. Research on Cloud Computing Security Problem and Strategy. In Proceedings of the 2012 2nd International Conference on
Consumer Electronics, Communications and Networks (CECNet), Yichang, China, 21–23 April 2012; pp. 1216–1219. [CrossRef]
3. Mell, P.; Grance, T. The NIST Definition of Cloud Computing; Recommendations of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology; National Institute of Standards and Technology: Gaithersburg, MA, USA, 2011. [CrossRef]
4. Jadeja, Y.; Modi, K. Cloud Computing—Concepts, Architecture and Challenges. In Proceedings of the 2012 International
Conference on Computing, Electronics and Electrical Technologies (ICCEET), Nagercoil, India, 21–22 March 2012; pp. 877–880.
[CrossRef]
5. Yu, W.; Liang, F.; He, X.; Hatcher, W.G.; Lu, C.; Lin, J.; Yang, X. A Survey on the Edge Computing for the Internet of Things. IEEE
Access 2017, 6, 6900–6919. [CrossRef]
6. Xu, M.; Buyya, R. Managing Renewable Energy and Carbon Footprint in Multi-Cloud Computing Environments. J. Parallel
Distrib. Comput. 2020, 135, 191–202. [CrossRef]
7. Satyanarayanan, M. The Emergence of Edge Computing. Computer 2017, 50, 30–39. [CrossRef]
8. Shi, W.; Cao, J.; Zhang, Q.; Li, Y.; Xu, L. Edge Computing: Vision and Challenges. IEEE Internet Things J. 2016, 3, 637–646.
[CrossRef]
9. Edge Computing Reference Architecture 2.0. Available online: http://en.ecconsortium.net/Uploads/file/20180328/15222323764
80704.pdf (accessed on 11 January 2023).
10. Zhang, J.; Chen, B.; Zhao, Y.; Cheng, X.; Hu, F. Data Security and Privacy-Preserving in Edge Computing Paradigm: Survey and
Open Issues. IEEE Access 2018, 6, 18209–18237. [CrossRef]
11. Carvalho, L.I.; Da Silva, D.M.A.; Sofia, R.C. Leveraging Context-Awareness to Better Support the IoT Cloud-Edge Contin-
uum. In Proceedings of the 2020 Fifth International Conference on Fog and Mobile Edge Computing (FMEC), Paris, France,
20–23 April 2020; pp. 356–359. [CrossRef]
12. Tang, Y.; Zhao, C.; Wang, J.; Zhang, C.; Sun, Q.; Zheng, W.X.; Du, W.; Qian, F.; Kurths, J. Perception and Navigation in Autonomous
Systems in the Era of Learning: A Survey. IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn. Syst. 2022, 1–21. [CrossRef]
13. Schieferdecker, I. Quality Assurance for Autonomous Systems—A Review of Model-Based Methods. In Proceedings of the 8th
International Symposium on Autonomous Decentralized Systems (ISADS’07), Sedona, AZ, USA, 21–23 March 2007; pp. 305–307.
[CrossRef]
14. H-CLOUD White Paper Consultation—EU Agenda. Available online: https://euagenda.eu/events/2022/02/24/hcloud-white-
paper-consultation (accessed on 11 January 2023).
15. Strategy. Available online: https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/industry/strategy_en (accessed on 11 January 2023).
16. A 2021 Perspective on Edge Computing White Paper Scientific Community. Available online: https://atos.net/wp-content/
uploads/2021/08/atos-2021-perspective-on-edge-computing-white-paper.pdf (accessed on 11 January 2023).
17. IoT and the Future of Edge Computing in Europe|Shaping Europe’s Digital Future. Available online: https://digital-strategy.ec.
europa.eu/en/news/iot-and-future-edge-computing-europe (accessed on 11 January 2023).
18. European Industrial Technology Roadmap for the Next Generation Cloud-Edge Offering. Available online: https:
//ec.europa.eu/newsroom/repository/document/2021-18/European_CloudEdge_Technology_Investment_Roadmap_
for_publication_pMdz85DSw6nqPppq8hE9S9RbB8_76223.pdf (accessed on 11 January 2023).
19. Future Cloud Research Roadmap—Google Drive. Available online: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Qw-PIR5D4H-ZZ4-CZ1
pXRkf8lUZjLMzE/view (accessed on 11 January 2023).
Sensors 2023, 23, 2931 23 of 27

20. Energy-Efficient Cloud Computing Technologies and Policies for an Eco-Friendly Cloud Market|Shaping Europe’s Digital Future.
Available online: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/energy-efficient-cloud-computing-technologies-and-policies-
eco-friendly-cloud-market (accessed on 11 January 2023).
21. Top 8 Cloud Trends to Watch in 2021 & Beyond. Available online: https://www.veritis.com/blog/top-8-cloud-trends-to-watch-
in-2021-and-beyond/ (accessed on 11 January 2023).
22. Pourabdollahian, G.; Gole, J.; Eisenträger, M.; Giuffrida, M. Understanding Cloud-Edge-IoT: Challenges and Opportunities—Webinar
Slides; Zenodo: Geneva, Switzerland, 2022. [CrossRef]
23. EUCloudEdgeIOT—Building the European Cloud Edge IoT Continuum for Business and Research. Available online: https:
//eucloudedgeiot.eu/ (accessed on 11 January 2023).
24. Funding & Tenders. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/opportunities/
topic-details/horizon-cl4-2021-data-01-05 (accessed on 11 January 2023).
25. Funding & Tenders. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/opportunities/
topic-details/horizon-cl4-2022-data-01-02 (accessed on 11 January 2023).
26. Hu, G.J.; Vardanega, T. An Architectural View on the Compute Continuum: Challenges and Technologies. SSRN Electron. J. 2023.
[CrossRef]
27. Islam, M.M.; Ramezani, F.; Lu, H.Y.; Naderpour, M. Optimal Placement of Applications in the Fog Environment: A Systematic
Literature Review. J. Parallel Distrib. Comput. 2023, 174, 46–69. [CrossRef]
28. Gill, S.S.; Xu, M.; Ottaviani, C.; Patros, P.; Bahsoon, R.; Shaghaghi, A.; Golec, M.; Stankovski, V.; Wu, H.; Abraham, A.; et al. AI for
next Generation Computing: Emerging Trends and Future Directions. Internet Things 2022, 19, 100514. [CrossRef]
29. An Open Ecosystem for European Strategic Autonomy and Interoperability across the Computing Continuum In-
dustry|OpenContinuum Project|Fact Sheet|HORIZON|CORDIS|European Commission. Available online: https:
//cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101070030 (accessed on 11 January 2023).
30. Rosendo, D.; Costan, A.; Valduriez, P.; Antoniu, G. Distributed Intelligence on the Edge-to-Cloud Continuum: A Systematic
Literature Review. J. Parallel Distrib. Comput. 2022, 166, 71–94. [CrossRef]
31. Hu, P.; Dhelim, S.; Ning, H.; Qiu, T. Survey on Fog Computing: Architecture, Key Technologies, Applications and Open Issues.
J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 2017, 98, 27–42. [CrossRef]
32. Yu, Y. Mobile Edge Computing towards 5G: Vision, Recent Progress, and Open Challenges. China Commun. 2016, 13, 89–99.
[CrossRef]
33. Wu, X.; Dunne, R.; Zhang, Q.; Shi, W. Edge Computing Enabled Smart Firefighting: Opportunities and Challenges. In Proceedings
of the Fifth ACM/IEEE Workshop on Hot Topics in Web Systems and Technologies, San Jose, CA, USA, 14 October 2017;
Volume 17. [CrossRef]
34. Antonini, M.; Pincheira, M.; Vecchio, M.; Antonelli, F. Tiny-MLOps: A Framework for Orchestrating ML Applications at the Far
Edge of IoT Systems. In Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE International Conference on Evolving and Adaptive Intelligent Systems
(EAIS), Larnaca, Cyprus, 25–26 May 2022. [CrossRef]
35. Ang, L.M.; Seng, K.P.; Wachowicz, M. Embedded Intelligence and the Data-Driven Future of Application-Specific Internet of
Things for Smart Environments. Int. J. Distrib. Sens. Netw. 2022, 18, 15501329221102371. [CrossRef]
36. Shakarami, A.; Shakarami, H.; Ghobaei-Arani, M.; Nikougoftar, E.; Faraji-Mehmandar, M. Resource Provisioning in Edge/Fog
Computing: A Comprehensive and Systematic Review. J. Syst. Archit. 2022, 122, 102362. [CrossRef]
37. Razzaque, M.A.; Milojevic-Jevric, M.; Palade, A.; Cla, S. Middleware for Internet of Things: A Survey. IEEE Internet Things J. 2016,
3, 70–95. [CrossRef]
38. Xiao, A.; Lu, Z.; Du, X.; Wu, J.; Hung, P.C.K. ORHRC: Optimized Recommendations of Heterogeneous Resource Configurations
in Cloud-Fog Orchestrated Computing Environments. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE International Conference on Web Services
(ICWS), Beijing, China, 19–23 October 2020; pp. 404–412. [CrossRef]
39. Projects Aeros Meta-Operating Systems for the Next-Generation IoT and Edge Computing. Available online: https:
//ec.europa.eu/newsroom/repository/document/2022-25/Factsheet__Horizon_Europe_metaOS_projects_8aBnKLInqjY1
Epj4HIvU4vzlY_87827.pdf (accessed on 11 January 2023).
40. Comparison between Cloud Computing, Grid Computing, Cluster Computing and Virtualization. Available online:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271531358_Comparison_between_Cloud_Computing_Grid_Computing_Cluster_
Computing_and_Virtualization (accessed on 13 February 2023).
41. Zeng, F.; Tang, J.; Liu, C.; Deng, X.; Li, W. Task-Offloading Strategy Based on Performance Prediction in Vehicular Edge Computing.
Mathematics 2022, 10, 1010. [CrossRef]
42. Nikolopoulos, V.; Nikolaidou, M.; Voreakou, M.; Anagnostopoulos, D. Fog Node Self-Control Middleware: Enhancing Context
Awareness towards Autonomous Decision Making in Fog Colonies. Internet Things 2022, 19, 100549. [CrossRef]
43. Kephart, J.O.; Chess, D.M. The Vision of Autonomic Computing. Computer 2003, 36, 41–50. [CrossRef]
44. Berns, A.; Ghosh, S. Dissecting Self-* Properties. In Proceedings of the 2009 Third IEEE International Conference on Self-Adaptive
and Self-Organizing Systems, San Francisco, CA, USA, 14–18 September 2009; pp. 10–19. [CrossRef]
45. Sterritt, R.; Hinchey, M. SPAACE IV: Self-Properties for an Autonomous & Autonomic Computing Environment—Part IV a
Newish Hope. In Proceedings of the 2010 Seventh IEEE International Conference and Workshops on Engineering of Autonomic
and Autonomous Systems, Oxford, UK, 22–26 March 2010; pp. 119–125. [CrossRef]
Sensors 2023, 23, 2931 24 of 27

46. Yeh, C.H.; Tsai, N.; Zhuang, Y.H.; Chow, C.W.; Liu, W.F. Fault Self-Detection Technique in Fiber Bragg Grating-Based Passive
Sensor Network. IEEE Sens. J. 2016, 16, 8070–8074. [CrossRef]
47. Zhu, M.; Li, J.; Wang, W.; Chen, D. Self-Detection and Self-Diagnosis Methods for Sensors in Intelligent Integrated Sensing System.
IEEE Sens. J. 2021, 21, 19247–19254. [CrossRef]
48. Richardson, A.; Cheneler, D. Self-Monitoring, Self-Healing Biomorphic Sensor Technology. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE 25th
International Symposium on On-Line Testing and Robust System Design, IOLTS 2019, Rhodes, Greece, 1–3 July 2019; pp. 121–124.
[CrossRef]
49. Bicocchi, N.; Mamei, M.; Prati, A.; Cucchiara, R.; Zambonelli, F. Pervasive Self-Learning with Multi-Modal Distributed Sensors.
In Proceedings of the 2008 Second IEEE International Conference on Self-Adaptive and Self-Organizing Systems Workshops,
Venice, Italy, 20–24 October 2008; pp. 61–66. [CrossRef]
50. Gotzinger, M.; Juhasz, D.; Taherinejad, N.; Willegger, E.; Tutzer, B.; Liljeberg, P.; Jantsch, A.; Rahmani, A.M. RoSA: A Framework
for Modeling Self-Awareness in Cyber-Physical Systems. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 141373–141394. [CrossRef]
51. Diaconescu, A.; Porter, B.; Rodrigues, R.; Pournaras, E. Hierarchical Self-Awareness and Authority for Scalable Self-Integrating
Systems. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE 3rd International Workshops on Foundations and Applications of Self* Systems
(FAS*W), Trento, Italy, 3–7 September 2018; pp. 168–175. [CrossRef]
52. Esterle, L.; Brown, J.N.A. Levels of Networked Self-Awareness. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE 3rd International Workshops on
Foundations and Applications of Self* Systems (FAS*W), Trento, Italy, 3–7 September 2018; pp. 237–238. [CrossRef]
53. Lewis, P.R.; Chandra, A.; Faniyi, F.; Glette, K.; Chen, T.; Bahsoon, R.; Torresen, J.; Yao, X. Architectural Aspects of Self-Aware and
Self-Expressive Computing Systems: From Psychology to Engineering. Computer 2015, 48, 62–70. [CrossRef]
54. Anzanpour, A.; Azimi, I.; Gotzinger, M.; Rahmani, A.M.; Taherinejad, N.; Liljeberg, P.; Jantsch, A.; Dutt, N. Self-Awareness in
Remote Health Monitoring Systems Using Wearable Electronics. In Proceedings of the Design, Automation & Test in Europe
Conference & Exhibition (DATE), Lausanne, Switzerland, 27–31 March 2017; pp. 1056–1061. [CrossRef]
55. Andrade, R.; Torres, J. Self-Awareness as an Enabler of Cognitive Security. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE 9th Annual
Information Technology, Electronics and Mobile Communication Conference (IEMCON), Vancouver, BC, Canada, 1–3 November
2018; pp. 701–708. [CrossRef]
56. An Architectural Blueprint for Autonomic Computing. Available online: https://www-03.ibm.com/autonomic/pdfs/AC%20
Blueprint%20White%20Paper%20V7.pdf (accessed on 11 January 2023).
57. Elhabbash, A.; Bahsoon, R.; Tino, P.; Lewis, P.R.; Elkhatib, Y. Attaining Meta-Self-Awareness through Assessment of Quality-
of-Knowledge. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE International Conference on Web Services (ICWS), Chicago, IL, USA,
5–10 September 2021; pp. 712–723. [CrossRef]
58. Regazzoni, C.S.; Marcenaro, L.; Campo, D.; Rinner, B. Multisensorial Generative and Descriptive Self-Awareness Models for
Autonomous Systems. Proc. IEEE 2020, 108, 987–1010. [CrossRef]
59. Zhang, N.; Bahsoon, R.; Theodoropoulos, G. Towards Engineering Cognitive Digital Twins with Self-Awareness. In Proceedings
of the 2020 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC), Toronto, ON, Canada, 11–14 October 2020;
pp. 3891–3896. [CrossRef]
60. Delamer, I.M.; Martinez Lastra, J.L. Self-Orchestration and Choreography: Towards Architecture-Agnostic Manufacturing
Systems. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications—Volume
1 (AINA’06), Vienna, Austria, 18–20 April 2006; Volume 2, pp. 5–9. [CrossRef]
61. Wen, Z.; Yang, R.; Garraghan, P.; Lin, T.; Xu, J.; Rovatsos, M. Fog Orchestration for Internet of Things Services. IEEE Internet
Comput. 2017, 21, 16–24. [CrossRef]
62. Khebbeb, K.; Hameurlain, N.; Belala, F. A Maude-Based Rewriting Approach to Model and Verify Cloud/Fog Self-Adaptation
and Orchestration. J. Syst. Archit. 2020, 110, 101821. [CrossRef]
63. Ruta, M.; Scioscia, F.; Loseto, G.; Di Sciascio, E. A Semantic-Enabled Social Network of Devices for Building Automation. IEEE
Trans. Ind. Inform. 2017, 13, 3379–3388. [CrossRef]
64. Schulz, D. Intent-Based Automation Networks: Toward a Common Reference Model for the Self-Orchestration of Industrial
Intranets. In Proceedings of the IECON 2016—42nd Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society, Florence, Italy,
23–26 October 2016; pp. 4657–4664. [CrossRef]
65. Discenzo, F.M.; Unsworth, P.J.; Loparo, K.A.; Marcy, H. Self-Diagnosing Intelligent Motors: A Key Enabler for next Generation
Manufacturing Systems. In Proceedings of the IEE Colloquium on Intelligent and Self-Validating Sensors (Ref. No. 1999/160),
Oxford, UK, 21 June 1999; pp. 15–18. [CrossRef]
66. Hoang, V.-T.; Julien, N.; Berruet, P. On-Line Self-Diagnosis Based on Power Measurement for a Wireless Sensor Node. In
Proceedings of the First IEEE Workshop on Highly-Reliable Power-Efficient Embedded Designs, Shenzhen, China, February 2013.
67. Volotka, V. Methods of Self-Diagnosing in Telecommunication Networks. In Proceedings of the 2015 Second International
Scientific-Practical Conference Problems of Infocommunications Science and Technology (PIC S&T), Kharkiv, Ukraine,
13–15 October 2015; pp. 131–134. [CrossRef]
68. Raheem, S.A.; Prabhakar, M.; Venugopal, C. Comb Needle Model for Data Aggregation Using Self-Diagnose Cluster in WSN. In
Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Smart Technologies For Smart Nation (SmartTechCon), Bengaluru, India,
17–19 August 2017; pp. 390–394. [CrossRef]
Sensors 2023, 23, 2931 25 of 27

69. Harte, S.; Rahman, A.; Razeeb, K.M. Fault Tolerance in Sensor Networks Using Self-Diagnosing Sensor Nodes. In IEE International
Workshop on Intelligent Environments, 2005 (Ref. No. 2005/11059); IET: Colchester, UK; pp. 7–12. [CrossRef]
70. Elhadef, M.; Boukerche, A.; Elkadiki, H. Self-Diagnosing Wireless Mesh and Ad-Hoc Networks Using an Adaptable Comparison-
Based Approach. In Proceedings of the The Second International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security (ARES’07),
Vienna, Austria, 10–13 April 2007; pp. 983–990. [CrossRef]
71. Monitoring and Notifying Enabler—ASSIST-IoT 0.1 Documentation. Available online: https://assist-iot-enablers-documentation.
readthedocs.io/en/latest/verticals/self/monitoring_and_notifying_enabler.html (accessed on 11 January 2023).
72. Szmeja, P.; Fornés-Leal, A.; Lacalle, I.; Palau, C.E.; Ganzha, M.; Pawłowski, W.; Paprzycki, M.; Schabbink, J. ASSIST-IoT: A
Modular Implementation of a Reference Architecture for the Next Generation Internet of Things. Electronics 2023, 12, 854.
[CrossRef]
73. Architecture for Scalable, Self-Human-Centric, Intelligent, Secure, and Tactile next Generation IoT D5.2 Transversal Enablers
Development-Preliminary Version. 2021. Available online: https://assist-iot.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/ASSIST-IoT_D5
.2-Transversal-Enablers-Development-Preliminary-Version-v1.0.pdf.
74. Dong, X.; Wang, H.; Lv, H. A Comprehensive Monitor Model for Self-Healing Systems. In Proceedings of the 2010 International
Conference on Multimedia Information Networking and Security, Nanjing, China, 4–6 November 2010; pp. 751–756. [CrossRef]
75. Khalil, K.; Eldash, O.; Kumar, A.; Bayoumi, M. Self-Healing Approach for Hardware Neural Network Architecture. In Proceedings
of the 2019 IEEE 62nd International Midwest Symposium on Circuits and Systems (MWSCAS), Dallas, TX, USA, 4–7 August 2019;
pp. 622–625. [CrossRef]
76. Yang, L.; Xiao, F.; Chen, H.; Lai, Y.; Chollot, Y. The Experiences of Decentralized Self-Healing Grid. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE
8th International Conference on Advanced Power System Automation and Protection (APAP), Xi’an, China, 21–24 October 2019;
pp. 1864–1867. [CrossRef]
77. Liu, W.; Kang, T.; Cheng, W.; Zhao, F. The Modeling of Self-Healing Control System for Distribution Network Based on UML. In
Proceedings of the 2015 5th International Conference on Electric Utility Deregulation and Restructuring and Power Technologies
(DRPT), Changsha, China, 26–29 November 2015; pp. 1435–1439. [CrossRef]
78. Liu, Z.; Gui, C.; Ma, C. Design and Verification of Integrated Ship Monitoring Network with High Reliability and Zero-Time
Self-Healing. In Proceedings of the 2019 Chinese Control and Decision Conference (CCDC), Nanchang, China, 3–5 June 2019;
pp. 2348–2351. [CrossRef]
79. Hou, J. A Method of Distribution Network Reconstruction Based on Self-Healing Technology. In Proceedings of the 2021 China
International Conference on Electricity Distribution (CICED), Shanghai, China, 7–9 April 2021; pp. 784–788. [CrossRef]
80. Self-Healing Device Enabler—ASSIST-IoT 0.1 Documentation. Available online: https://assist-iot-enablers-documentation.
readthedocs.io/en/latest/verticals/self/self_healing_device_enabler.html (accessed on 11 January 2023).
81. Elasticity in Cloud Computing: What It Is, and What It Is Not. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26
4942137_Elasticity_in_Cloud_Computing_What_it_is_and_What_it_is_Not (accessed on 11 January 2023).
82. Herrera, J.; Molto, G. Toward Bio-Inspired Auto-Scaling Algorithms: An Elasticity Approach for Container Orchestration
Platforms. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 52139–52150. [CrossRef]
83. Mehmood, A.; Khan, T.A.; Diaz Rivera, J.J.; Song, W.C. Dynamic Auto-Scaling of VNFs Based on Task Execution Patterns.
In Proceedings of the 2019 20th Asia-Pacific Network Operations and Management Symposium (APNOMS), Matsue, Japan,
18–20 September 2019. [CrossRef]
84. Nikravesh, A.Y.; Ajila, S.A.; Lung, C.H. Towards an Autonomic Auto-Scaling Prediction System for Cloud Resource Provisioning.
In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE/ACM 10th International Symposium on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing
Systems, Florence, Italy, 18–19 May 2015; pp. 35–45. [CrossRef]
85. Casalicchio, E.; Perciballi, V. Auto-Scaling of Containers: The Impact of Relative and Absolute Metrics. In Proceedings of
the 2017 IEEE 2nd International Workshops on Foundations and Applications of Self* Systems (FAS*W), Tucson, AZ, USA,
18–22 September 2017; pp. 207–214. [CrossRef]
86. Consortium, A.-I. D5.3—Transversal Enablers Development Intermediate Version. 2022. Available online: https://assist-
iot.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/D5.3_Transversal-Enablers-Development-Intermediate-Version.pdf (accessed on
15 January 2023).
87. Resource Provisioning Enabler—ASSIST-IoT 0.1 Documentation. Available online: https://assist-iot-enablers-documentation.
readthedocs.io/en/latest/verticals/self/resource_provisioning_enabler.html (accessed on 11 January 2023).
88. Chattopadhyay, S.; Chatterjee, S.; Nandi, S.; Chakraborty, S. Aloe: An Elastic Auto-Scaled and Self-Stabilized Orchestration
Framework for IoT Applications. In Proceedings of the IEEE INFOCOM 2019—IEEE Conference on Computer Communications,
Paris, France, 29 April–2 May 2019; pp. 802–810. [CrossRef]
89. Parashar, M.; Hariri, S. Autonomic Computing: An Overview. Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. 2005, 3566, 257–269. [CrossRef]
90. Yang, G.; Liang, H. Self Configuration of 4G Network Terminals. In Proceedings of the 2010 2nd International Asia Conference on
Informatics in Control, Automation and Robotics (CAR 2010), Wuhan, China, 6–7 March 2010; Volume 1, pp. 80–83. [CrossRef]
91. Wang, J.Z.; Vanninen, M. Self-Configuration Protocols for Small-Scale P2P Networks. IEEE Symp. Rec. Netw. Oper. Manag. Symp.
2006, 1–4. [CrossRef]
Sensors 2023, 23, 2931 26 of 27

92. Mombello, L.; Calarco, N.; Quintian, F.P. System-on-Chip Implementation of a Self-Configuration System for a Programmable
Photodetector ASIC. In Proceedings of the 2020 Argentine Conference on Electronics (CAE), Buenos Aires, Argentina,
27–28 February 2020; pp. 99–103. [CrossRef]
93. Guan, E.; Liu, J.; Zhao, Y. Self-Configuration Strategy Design for Unit-Compressible Modular Robotic System. In Proceedings
of the CSAA/IET International Conference on Aircraft Utility Systems (AUS 2020), Online Conference, 18–21 September 2020;
pp. 232–237. [CrossRef]
94. Abdellaoui, G.; Megnafi, H.; Bendimerad, F.T. A Novel Model Using Reo for IoT Self-Configuration Systems. In Proceedings of
the 2020 1st International Conference on Communications, Control Systems and Signal Processing (CCSSP), El Oued, Algeria,
16–17 May 2020; pp. 80–84. [CrossRef]
95. Yao, J.; Lu, Q.; Qi, Z. Automated Resource Sharing for Virtualized GPU with Self-Configuration. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE
36th Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems (SRDS), Hong Kong, China, 26–29 September 2017; pp. 250–252. [CrossRef]
96. Bulbul, N.S.; Ergenc, D.; Fischer, M. SDN-Based Self-Configuration for Time-Sensitive IoT Networks. In Proceedings of the 2021
IEEE 46th Conference on Local Computer Networks (LCN), Edmonton, AB, Canada, 4–7 October 2021; pp. 73–80. [CrossRef]
97. Automated Configuration Enabler—ASSIST-IoT 0.1 Documentation. Available online: https://assist-iot-enablers-documentation.
readthedocs.io/en/latest/verticals/self/automated_configuration_enabler.html (accessed on 11 January 2023).
98. Nami, M.R.; Bertels, K. A Survey of Autonomic Computing Systems. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on
Autonomic and Autonomous Systems (ICAS’07), Athens, Greece, 19–25 June 2007; p. 26. [CrossRef]
99. Zheng, R.; Zhang, M.; Wu, Q.; Li, G.; Wei, W. A Service Self-Optimization Algorithm Based on Autonomic Computing.
In Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Granular Computing, Nanchang, China, 17–19 August 2009;
pp. 805–808. [CrossRef]
100. Shayea, I.; Ergen, M.; Azizan, A.; Ismail, M.; Daradkeh, Y.I. Individualistic Dynamic Handover Parameter Self-Optimization
Algorithm for 5G Networks Based on Automatic Weight Function. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 214392–214412. [CrossRef]
101. Sánchez-González, J.; Pérez-Romero, J.; Sallent, O. A Rule-Based Solution Search Methodology for Self-Optimization in Cellular
Networks. IEEE Commun. Lett. 2014, 18, 2189–2192. [CrossRef]
102. Meshkova, E.; Wang, Z.; Rerkrai, K.; Ansari, J.; Nasreddine, J.; Denkovski, D.; Farnham, T.; Riihijarvi, J.; Gavrilovska, L.; Mahonen,
P. Designing a Self-Optimization System for Cognitive Wireless Home Networks. IEEE Trans. Cogn. Commun. Netw. 2017, 3,
684–702. [CrossRef]
103. Trumler, W.; Thiemann, T.; Ungerer, T. An Artificial Hormone System for Self-Organization of Networked Nodes. IFIP Int. Fed.
Inf. Process. 2006, 216, 85–94. [CrossRef]
104. Wang, L.; Liu, J.; Wu, Q.; Wang, X. Ship Course Control Based on BSO-PID Online Self-Optimization Algorithm. In Proceedings
of the 2019 5th International Conference on Transportation Information and Safety (ICTIS), Liverpool, UK, 14–17 July 2019;
pp. 1405–1411. [CrossRef]
105. Cheng, B.H.C.; De Lemos, R.; Giese, H.; Inverardi, P.; Magee, J.; Andersson, J.; Becker, B.; Bencomo, N.; Brun, Y.; Cukic, B.; et al.
Software Engineering for Self-Adaptive Systems: A Research Roadmap. Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. 2009, 5525, 1–26. [CrossRef]
106. Krupitzer, C.; Roth, F.M.; Vansyckel, S.; Schiele, G.; Becker, C. A Survey on Engineering Approaches for Self-Adaptive Systems.
Pervasive Mob. Comput. 2015, 17, 184–206. [CrossRef]
107. Amiri, A.; Zdun, U.; van Hoorn, A.; Dustdar, S. Automatic Adaptation of Reliability and Performance Trade-Offs in Service- and
Cloud-Based Dynamic Routing Architectures. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE 21st International Conference on Software Quality,
Reliability and Security (QRS), Haikou, China, 6–10 December 2021; pp. 434–445. [CrossRef]
108. Chen, M.; Wang, Y.; Li, P.; Fu, H. Research on an Improved PSO Algorithm with Dual Self-Adaptation and Dual Variation. In Pro-
ceedings of the 2022 IEEE International Conference on Mechatronics and Automation (ICMA), Guilin, China, 7–10 August 2022;
pp. 646–650. [CrossRef]
109. Zhang, S.; Zhang, M.; Ni, L.; Liu, P. A Multi-Level Self-Adaptation Approach for Microservice Systems. In Proceedings of the 2019
IEEE 4th International Conference on Cloud Computing and Big Data Analysis (ICCCBDA), Chengdu, China, 12–15 April 2019;
pp. 498–502. [CrossRef]
110. Nallur, V.; Bahsoon, R. A Decentralized Self-Adaptation Mechanism for Service-Based Applications in the Cloud. IEEE Trans.
Softw. Eng. 2013, 39, 591–612. [CrossRef]
111. Ardito, L. Energy Aware Self-Adaptation in Mobile Systems. In Proceedings of the 2013 35th International Conference on Software
Engineering (ICSE), San Francisco, CA, USA, 18–26 May 2013; pp. 1435–1437. [CrossRef]
112. Yuan, Y.; Zhang, W.; Zhang, X. A Context-Aware Self-Adaptation Approach for Web Service Composition. In Proceedings of
the 2018 3rd International Conference on Information Systems Engineering (ICISE), Shanghai, China, 4–6 May 2018; pp. 33–38.
[CrossRef]
113. Boyapati, S.R.; Szabo, C. Self-Adaptation in Microservice Architectures: A Case Study. In Proceedings of the 2022 26th International
Conference on Engineering of Complex Computer Systems (ICECCS), Hiroshima, Japan, 26–30 March 2022; pp. 42–51. [CrossRef]
114. Colombo, V.; Tundo, A.; Ciavotta, M.; Mariani, L. Towards Self-Adaptive Peer-To-Peer Monitoring for Fog Environments. In
Proceedings of the 17th Symposium on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems, SEAMS 2022, Pittsburgh,
PA, USA, 18–23 May 2022; pp. 156–166. [CrossRef]
115. Poslad, S. Autonomous Systems and Artificial Life. Ubiquitous Comput. 2009, 317–341. [CrossRef]
Sensors 2023, 23, 2931 27 of 27

116. Luo, Q.; Li, C.; Luan, T.H.; Shi, W.; Wu, W. Self-Learning Based Computation Offloading for Internet of Vehicles: Model and
Algorithm. IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun. 2021, 20, 5913–5925. [CrossRef]
117. Srinivasan, A. IoT Cloud Based Real Time Automobile Monitoring System. In Proceedings of the 2018 3rd IEEE International
Conference on Intelligent Transportation Engineering, ICITE 2018, Singapore, 3–5 September 2018; pp. 231–235. [CrossRef]
118. Sacco, A.; Esposito, F.; Marchetto, G.; Montuschi, P. A Self-Learning Strategy for Task Offloading in UAV Networks. IEEE Trans.
Veh. Technol. 2022, 71, 4301–4311. [CrossRef]
119. Sudharsan, B.; Yadav, P.; Breslin, J.G.; Intizar Ali, M. Train++: An Incremental ML Model Training Algorithm to Create Self-
Learning IoT Devices. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE SmartWorld, Ubiquitous Intelligence and Computing, Advanced
and Trusted Computing, Scalable Computing and Communications, Internet of People, and Smart City Innovations, Smart-
World/ScalCom/UIC/ATC/IoP/SCI 2021, Atlanta, GA, USA, 18–21 October 2021; pp. 97–106. [CrossRef]
120. Tam, P.; Math, S.; Nam, C.; Kim, S. Adaptive Resource Optimized Edge Federated Learning in Real-Time Image Sensing
Classifications. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. 2021, 14, 10929–10940. [CrossRef]
121. Shen, Z.; Yokota, K.; Jin, J.; Tagami, A.; Higashino, T. In-Network Self-Learning Algorithms for BEMS through a Collaborative Fog
Platform. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE 32nd International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications
(AINA), Krakow, Poland, 16–18 May 2018; pp. 1162–1169. [CrossRef]
122. Abeysinghe, P.; Bandara, T. A Novel Self-Learning Approach to Overcome Incompatibility on TripAdvisor Reviews. Data Sci.
Manag. 2022, 5, 1–10. [CrossRef]

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.