Enhancing Intersection Performance for Tram and Connected Vehicles through a Collaborative Optimization

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thanks for the opportunity to review this paper.

My biggest concern is this study simulated a very narrow and specific scenario (fully connected, under-saturated, bimodal (CV and tram)), which significantly limits its application in a real-world setting. Meanwhile, the method part is poorly structured. The proposed simulation consists of several models, algorithms, and pre-set simulation parameters. What’s the connection/relationship between different models? Why choose these algorithms (e.g., genetic algorithm) over others for what purposes in this study? How do you determine the parameters in your simulation settings? All these questions are important but poorly addressed in this study, making it hard to follow. Therefore, I think the current version is way lower than the expectation for a publishable paper.

Some minor suggestions are listed below.

The first paragraph of the Introduction needs to be improved. It looks more like a literature review.

 You can briefly introduce the general workflow of genetic algorithms and collaborative optimization methods in your section 2.

Section 3 could be a sub-section in your Section 2.

Some words (e.g., Tram, Connected) are mistakenly capitalized in the middle of some sentences.

In the Introduction, you said, “The study proposed to apply CDG…”. Then, your literature review is all about CTO and GAs. You need to clearly explain the relations between CDG, CTO, and GA.

In Section 3, you listed 7 limitations of existing studies. Are you going to address all these limitations in this study? If yes, you need to better explain how these limitations were addressed in Discussion section.

There are several typos which need to be corrected. For example, “arear” in Figure 1, “grater” in line 203.

The resolution of figures is low and needs to be improved.

Figure 6 doesn’t match the pattern you described.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for his pertinent comments. We have addressed his concerns in the revised manuscript. A detailed letter addressing these comments has been provided. We have also revised the manuscript to enhance the English level.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Editor,

Please find the attached Document for Comments . 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for acknowledging the English level of the article. We thank the reviewer for agreeing that the content is succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic. In addition, we thank the reviewer for considering our empirical research and the results are clearly presented.

We have addressed the issue raised by the reviewer related to the references in the revised manuscript. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for his time evaluating our manuscript. We have improved the main reviewer concerns, which are:

• The coherence of arguments and discussion of findings;
• the clarity of empirical research and results;
• Contributions and their relation with the literature review limitations.

All updates are highlighted in blue in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript tackles a pervasive problem in connected transportation networks: the issue 1 of conflicting right-of-way between trams and Connected Vehicles (CV) at intersections. The study introduces a Transit Signal Priority (TSP) system and a guidance framework that seeks to minimize unintended delays for trams while minimizing the negative impact on CV, passenger comfort, energy consumption, and overall travel time. The findings demonstrate that the proposed framework is highly effective in reducing energy consumption, delays, and transit time when compared to traditional methods. The subject is worth of investigation. I have the following comments:
1. The Introduction section needs a major revision in terms of providing more accurate and informative literature review and the pros and cons of the available approaches and how the proposed method is different comparatively. Also, the motivation and contribution should be stated more clearly.
2. As the manuscript deals with themodeling and collaborative control of connected vehicles, the authors forgot to mention the important findings e.g., Zhai C., Wu W.T., and Xiao Y.P. (2022), Applied Mathematical Modelling, 108: 770-786; Zhai C. and Wu W.T. (2021), Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation, 95: 105667
3. Please explain the rationality of Table 2 or give the source of the data in Table 2
4. What makes the proposed method suitable for this unique task? What new development to the proposed method have the authors added (compared to the existing approaches)? These points should be clarified.
5. The performance of the proposed method should be better analyzed, commented and visualized in the experimental section.
6. The authors should clearly emphasize the contribution of the study. Please note that the up-to-date of references will contribute to the up-to-date of your manuscript.
7. Explanation of the equations, algorithms and results should be more in natural language.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for his time evaluating our manuscript. We have provided a letter addressing his comments. We hope he found the revised manuscript suitable for publication.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Editor,

A. Still need some minor changes especially in the literature section. It is recommended that add some recent techniques in the area of cooperative environment, such as,

1.      Nikumani Khan, Muhammad Altaf and Nasralla, Moustafa M and Umar, Muhammad Muneer and Khan, Shafiullah and Choudhury.”An Efficient Multilevel Probabilistic Model for Abnormal Traffic Detection in Wireless Sensor Networks, 2022”.

2.      Rehman, Muhammad Zubair, Iqbal Qasim, Afzal Badshah, Zafar Mahmood, Muhammad Aslam, Syeda Fizah Jilani, “EMS: Efficient Monitoring System to Detect Non-Cooperative Nodes in IoT-Based Vehicular Delay Tolerant Networks (VDTNs), 2023”.

 

B. There are still some Spelling and Grammar mistakes. It is recommended that rectify al such mistakes.

Author Response

A. Still need some minor changes especially in the literature section. It is recommended that add some recent techniques in the area of cooperative environment, such as:

1. Nikumani Khan, Muhammad Altaf and Nasralla, Moustafa M and Umar, Muhammad Muneer and Khan, Shafiullah and Choudhury.”An Efficient Multilevel Probabilistic Model for Abnormal Traffic Detection in Wireless Sensor Networks, 2022”.
2. Rehman, Muhammad Zubair, Iqbal Qasim, Afzal Badshah, Zafar Mahmood, Muhammad Aslam, Syeda Fizah Jilani, “EMS: Efficient Monitoring System to Detect Non-Cooperative Nodes in IoT-Based Vehicular Delay Tolerant Networks (VDTNs), 2023”.

Answer:

We thank the reviewer for his suggestions. Both references have been considered in the revised manuscript. Please refer to lines 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, and 67 in the Section Related Work. The updates are highlighted in blue.

B. There are still some Spelling and Grammar mistakes. It is recommended that rectify al such mistakes.

Answer:

A general revision of the manuscript has been performed to check and fix mistakes in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 4 Report

The comments have been addressed

Author Response

The comments have been addressed.

Answer

We thank the reviewer for acknowledging our efforts.