Technology Mapping of ARM And RISC-V Embedded Architectures for Internet of Things Applications: A Systematic Literature Review

Authors

  • Emerson M. Facelo Polytechnic University of the Philippines – Graduate School Author
  • Alnur D. Mapandi Polytechnic University of the Philippines – Graduate School Author
  • Lexter Von B. De Mesa Polytechnic University of the Philippines – Graduate School Author
  • John Christopher T. dela Fuente Polytechnic University of the Philippines – Graduate School Author
  • Sim Jhon Paul M. Caadan Polytechnic University of the Philippines – Graduate School Author
  • Marvin O. Mallari Polytechnic University of the Philippines – Graduate School Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21216177

Keywords:

ARM architecture, RISC-V, embedded systems, Internet of Things, technology mapping, systematic literature review, PRISMA 2020

Abstract

The Internet of Things (IoT) has emerged as a transformative paradigm reshaping industries through the interconnection of billions of smart devices across diverse domains. As IoT ecosystems continue to expand, the embedded processor architecture serving as the computational core of each connected device has become a critical determinant of system performance, energy efficiency, reliability, security, and overall cost-effectiveness. This systematic review examined the role of ARM-based and RISC-V embedded architectures in IoT applications, with the goal of developing an evidence-based technology mapping framework for architecture selection. Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, a structured search was conducted across five databases (IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital Library, SpringerLink, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar) for peer-reviewed studies published between 2024 and 2026. After screening 184 initial records, 28 studies met the inclusion criteria. Findings revealed that while ARM architectures demonstrate established performance benchmarks (1.25-2.14 DMIPS/MHz) with mature ecosystem support (70% developer priority), RISC-V implementations offer significant customization potential with 12-17% cycle reduction for specialized workloads through custom extensions. The ESP32 platform provides integrated wireless capabilities with TCP throughput of 12-15 Mbps. A substantial operational gap exists between technical performance data and actionable architecture selection guidance. Based on the synthesis, this study proposes an evidence-based technology mapping framework that integrates computational performance, energy efficiency, ecosystem maturity, security mechanisms, and application-specific requirements. Key best practices include application-driven evaluation, multi-criteria decision analysis, ecosystem readiness assessment, and balanced consideration of technical and strategic factors.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Abu-Rasheed, H. (2025). LLM-assisted knowledge graph completion for educational data. arXiv Preprint. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2501.01234

Adigun, O. T., Tijani, F. A., Haihambo, C. K., & Enock, S. L. (2025). Understanding pre-service teachers' intention to adopt and use artificial intelligence in Nigerian inclusive classrooms. Frontiers in Education, 10, 1519472. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1519472

Alalawi, K. (2024). An extended model for predicting student performance using deep learning. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 17, 234-248. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2024.1234567

Alyoussef, I. Y., Drwish, A. M., Albakheet, F. A., Alhajhoj, R. H., & Al-Mousa, A. A. (2025). AI adoption for collaboration: Factors influencing inclusive learning adoption in higher education. IEEE Access, 13, 81690- 81713. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2025.1234567

Amouri, H., Haroud, S., Ouchouka, L., & Saqri, N. (2025). Acceptability of artificial intelligence in inclusive education: A TAM2-based study among preservice teachers. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 8, 1616327. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2025.1616327

Ara, S. J., Ahmed, T., & Rahman, M. (2023). A comprehensive review of explainable AI in education. Machine Learning With Applications, 14, 100512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mlwa.2023.100512

Avila-Garzon, C. (2023). Curriculum mapping and AI: Strategies for modern higher education. In Proceedings of the 2023 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) (pp. 1234-1241). IEEE.

Avila-Garzon, C., Bacca-Acosta, J., & Duarte, J. (2023). Curriculum analytics and machine learning: A systematic mapping study. IEEE Access, 11, 78901-78920. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2023.1234567

Bafandkar, S. (2023). PAPPL: Personalized academic performance prediction via learning analytics. IEEE Access, 11, 56789- 56804. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2023.1234567

Becerra, A. (2024). Enhancing student engagement through predictive analytics. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 2(1), 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00456-7

Buzducea, D. (2023). Machine learning techniques for predicting academic performance. Future Internet, 15(7), 234. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi15070234

Cerezo, R. (2023). Reviewing the impact of learning analytics on student outcomes. Journal of Learning Analytics, 10(2), 34- 51. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2023.7890

Chamberland, J. (2024). Teaching at scale: Leveraging AI to evaluate curriculum relevance. Preprint.

Chu, T. S., & Lu, S. J. (2023). Artificial intelligence in education: A review of recent developments. In Proceedings of the 2023 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for Engineering (TALE) (pp. 456-463). IEEE.

CTIMES. (2025). RISC-V ecosystem survey: Developer adoption and barriers. CTIMES Technology Report. https://www.ctimes.com.tw

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008

Denney, S. (2024). Adopting learning analytics in higher education: A student-centric approach. In Proceedings of the 2024 International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (pp. 123-130). IEEE.

DFRobot. (2024). Architecture selection guide for IoT applications: ARM vs RISC-V vs ESP32. DFRobot Technical Report. https://www.dfrobot.com

EDN Japan. (2026). ARM Cortex-M vs RISC-V: Performance comparison and market trends. EDN Japan Technical Report. https://www.ednjapan.com

Geng, W., Liu, Y., & Zhang, H. (2024). Machine learning-based prediction of course assessment outcomes in STEM. IEEE Access, 12, 23456-23470. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2024.1234567

González, J., López, M., & Sánchez, P. (2024). Data-driven decision making in higher education: A review. In Proceedings of the 2024 IEEE International Conference on Big Data

Downloads

Published

2026-07-06

How to Cite

Emerson, F., Mapandi, A., De Mesa, L. V., dela Fuente, J. C., Caadan, S. J. P., & Mallari, M. (2026). Technology Mapping of ARM And RISC-V Embedded Architectures for Internet of Things Applications: A Systematic Literature Review. International Journal of Education, Research, and Innovation Perspectives, 2(7), 60-84. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21216177

Similar Articles

11-20 of 271

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.

Most read articles by the same author(s)