Performance Comparisons of Bio-Micro Genetic Algorithms on Robot Locomotion

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have made substantial changes to the manuscript and the figures according to the questions I have raised in my previous revision request. I believe now that the manuscript is clearly expressing the contributions of the authors. Authors also have improved the visual quality of the figures, which convey messages to the reader much clearly.

I think the current state of the manuscript is highly improved scientifically and visually; therefore I thank the authors for their meticulous revision.

Author Response

Thanks for your comments

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript has been improved compared to the last version. But a comprehensive check on english language is still required. For example, the last sentence in the abstract "gives a feasible solutions", etc. 

Author Response

Thanks for your comments

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

In this paper, the authors present a performance comparison of four different genetic algorithms on reptile-inspired quadruped locomotion. In particular, the article suggests that a micro-segmented genetic algorithm shows the best comping performance (13% of the cycle). The proposed algorithms are implemented on a reptile-inspired quadruped robot. The authors also demonstrated the performance with sequential and parallel processing. The proposed work is exciting and thoroughly experimented with complete details. However, writing looks poor. Please edit it carefully. 

Here are a few minor comments, 

1) Please edit your paper carefully, there many grammatical mistakes 

2) In the paper,  proposed algorithms are only implemented on reptile-inspired quadruped locomotion, which makes the proposed title too general. 

3) GA is always limited to scale with complexity evolution and still limited to high computational cost. It is recommended that the authors put a brief discussion of the standard controller approach and machine learning-based approach with the GA approach. 

4) Specialized literature is a vague word, and please change. 

5) Youtube link is missing. Please check it carefully. 

6) The experiment section could be converted into a flow chart. 

7) In figure 15-19, authors can use two annotations and captions for each figure. It will have better clarification. For example, Figure 15a and Figure 15b. 

8) It would be good to add the quantitative results in the abstract. 

9) Please add this citation. 

Shriyam, S., Mishra, A., Nayak, D. and Thakur, A., 2014. Design, fabrication and gait planning of alligator-inspired robot. Int. J. Curr. Eng. Technol, pp.567-575.

 

Author Response

Thanks for your comments

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf