Next Article in Journal
Design Considerations for the Liquid Air Energy Storage System Integrated to Nuclear Steam Cycle
Next Article in Special Issue
Manipulation Planning for Large Objects through Pivoting, Tumbling, and Regrasping
Previous Article in Journal
Remaining Useful Life Prediction of the Concrete Piston Based on Probability Statistics and Data Driven
Previous Article in Special Issue
Design and Verification of Multi-Agent Systems with the Use of Bigraphs
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

A Method of Enhancing Rapidly-Exploring Random Tree Robot Path Planning Using Midpoint Interpolation

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11(18), 8483; https://doi.org/10.3390/app11188483
by Jin-Gu Kang 1, Yong-Sik Choi 2 and Jin-Woo Jung 1,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11(18), 8483; https://doi.org/10.3390/app11188483
Submission received: 8 July 2021 / Revised: 8 September 2021 / Accepted: 9 September 2021 / Published: 13 September 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Industrial Robotics and Intelligent Systems)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper deals with new method for path planning. The topic is interesting and the main idea of the paper seems to be correct. However there are many issues which need to be corrected. Here are my suggestions and comments to the authors:

  1. The reference list is too short. The authors are not able to do relevant state of the art in this area only with 12 references and only 5 of them are not older than 5 years. The list of references should be expanded with relevant previous works in the investigated area.
  2. You have written: "The goal of path planning [1] is to plan a path for a mobile robot to proceed...". This is not suitable sentence. Path planning is not only for mobile robots. Path planning is ussualy used also for example for end-effector motion of manipulator. And the manipulator is not mobile robot. So, please be more precise in your explanations. 
  3. Why do you start the sentence with small letter ?
  4. The introduction is very poor and it doesn't meet standards. Your review of previous works is weak. This part has to be significantly improved. You should show on the previous works any "free areas" or "gaps" and from this should arise your motivation for your work. Subsequently from this should also arise the novelty of your paper. The introduction has to be completely rewritten.
  5. The end of the introduction usually contains the content of the paper.
  6. 2nd section is too short. It means your composition of the paper is not chosen correctly. It should be reorganized.
  7. The main idea of the paper seems to be corerct but the paper presentation is not correct. The paper need to be rewritten according to research papers standards.
  8. 4th section: you should clearly defined what are the aims of the experiments, conditions, hardware, etc.
  9. Your English is not suitable. It has to be corrected.
  10. Which algorithm have you used for RRT method ? You compare your results with RRT method, and therefore it should be more clearly presented. 
  11. The results between your method and RRT are almost the same (from the view of time [ms]). How many experiments have you done ? The length of the path is singificantly shorter in you r method. What is the reason ?
  12. Conclusion: you can also mention your future work in this research area.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The article deals with the issue of navigation and obstacle avoiding for mobile robots. The introduction to the article is very brief and insufficient. In the introduction, it is necessary to critically evaluate the current state in this area with references to relevant articles in renowned scientific journals and in this journal.

Proposed Post Triangular Processing Method of Midpoint Interpolation is presented in the paper. The algorithm is based on the triangular inequality principle. The proposed methods is clearly described and presented. Algorithm is shown as the pseudocode of the proposed Post Triangular Processing of Midpoint Interpolation method. It is mainly composed of Post Triangular function and Interpolation function.

Important part of the paper are simulation results. Many case study simulations have been executed. Results from simulation experiments look good and also planning time is sufficient, but I am not sure i fit will be also so fast on smaller computing system implemented inside smaller mobile robots. The speed of movement of the mobile robot and the response of sensors and actuators must also be taken into account.

They evaluate positively the large number of performed simulation experiments, which prove the functionality of the proposed methodology.

The conclusion of the article is very brief and insufficient. There is a lack of critical evaluation of the achieved results and an outline of a possible implementation into a real mobile robot. There is also a lack of draft plans for the future on how the authors will continue this research and what are the other forecasts.

There are a large number of interesting articles in this field in renowned scientific journals and in this journal. Why don't authors provide links to these articles? A good scientific article must be based on a detailed current state documented by references to relevant articles.

Reference 1 is not complete (missing publication info).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The contribution of this work is very good and deserves publication. The authors answered he questions of the reviewers properly

The title has been formulated unambiguously conveying the focus of the study.  The accurate interpretation  of outcomes, well substantiated by the results of the analysis has been achieved by them. The presentation of the results in terms of the research objectives has been successfully made.

Nevertheless, the method should be better clarified. In some points the paper is not easy to be read.

In fig. 7 a Flowchart of the triangular processing is shown.

The same question arises Looking at all algorithms proposed in the paper. Please discuss the stop criteria of the proposed algorithm more in depth.

Question: Is the algorithm stable? Please discuss conditions of instability or conditions in which it could happen situations in which the algorithm cannot proceed ahead! Please address this point!

The following papers can help the reader to understand the technical context better.

 

Lindner, L., Sergiyenko, O. et al. Machine vision system errors for unmanned aerial vehicle navigation (2017) IEEE International Symposium on Industrial Electronics, pp. 1615-1620.

Garcia-Cruz, X.M., Sergiyenko, O.Yu. et al. Optimization of 3D laser scanning speed by use of combined variable step (2014) Optics and Lasers in Engineering, 54, pp. 141-151. Ivanov, M., Kartashov, V. et al. Individual scans fusion in virtual knowledge base for navigation of mobile robotic group with 3D TVS (2018) Proceedings: IECON 2018 - 44th Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society, pp. 3187-3192.

Sergiyenko, O. et al. Machine Vision and Navigation (2019) Machine Vision and Navigation, pp. 1-851.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

You have again problems with template. Please, learn how to work with template because from the formal side it is not acceptable. 

Your "previous works" section contains minimum information. It has only few rows.

It is very hard to read  this paper from the formal side. 

Please, read some scientific papers and check how would the research paper be written.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The title of the article has been slightly modified.

The introduction and conclusion to the article are reworked with better quality. The pseudocode of RRT Algorithm and Pseudocode of Triangular Rewiring Method for RRT Algorithm have been added to the article. Explanations and pictures have also been added to these methods.

Two references were added to the article and the missing publication information was added at the same time.

Grammar is also improved.

By incorporating all the comments, the authors significantly improved the technical processing of the article. The article after revision has a higher quality of processing and is ready for publication in a journal.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper has been improved.

Back to TopTop