Next Article in Journal
IIT’s Scientific Counter-Revolution: A Neuroscientific Theory’s Physical and Metaphysical Implications
Previous Article in Journal
Relationship between Age and Value of Information for a Noisy Ornstein–Uhlenbeck Process
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Leveraging Stochasticity for Open Loop and Model Predictive Control of Spatio-Temporal Systems

Entropy 2021, 23(8), 941; https://doi.org/10.3390/e23080941
by George I. Boutselis 1,†, Ethan N. Evans 1,*,†, Marcus A. Pereira 2,† and Evangelos A. Theodorou 1,2
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Entropy 2021, 23(8), 941; https://doi.org/10.3390/e23080941
Submission received: 3 June 2021 / Revised: 30 June 2021 / Accepted: 14 July 2021 / Published: 23 July 2021

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

See attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The authors would like to express our deep gratitude for reviewer #1's comprehensive review of our work. In the attached response letter, we do our best to respond to each of your major and minor concerns. The updated manuscript contains red text which highlights the changes made due to the concerns brought up in your review. We believe that your review has significantly improved the quality of our work, and welcome further discussion on any/all of these concerns and how we address them.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I have no suggestions. It is a well written article, with originality, on a timely topic of wide interest. The main theme is a variational optimization framework for controlling stochastic fields. Perhaps connections with recent literature and developments on Schroedinger bridges as a means for uncertainty control might be noted, but I leave this to the authors.

Author Response

The authors would like to express our deep appreciation to reviewer #2 for their review of our work. We thank reviewer #2 for their appreciation of our approach, and our manuscript overall.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

All my previous concerns have been adequately addressed in the revised draft. I commend the authors for the nice work they have done. 

Just a minor typo: on line 106 \rho should be positive. 

Back to TopTop