Automated Vehicle’s Overtaking Maneuver with Yielding to Oncoming Vehicles in Urban Area Based on Model Predictive Control

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

The peer-reviewed article is devoted to the actual topic of developing algorithms for unmanned vehicles. The obtained results are interesting, but there are several reasons why I cannot recommend the article for publication in its current form.

1. The title of the manuscript should reflect the main idea of the research.  Please shorten the title.

2. The introduction should reflect the contribution and novelty of the research. It is not entirely clear where the idea of the proposed solution comes from, and why exactly it will help to overcome the problems mentioned.

3. It is worth explicitly indicating the units of measurement for distances. Is it meters?

4. It is necessary to clarify the letter designations in Fig. 2.3.

5. The article does not compare the proposed strategy with other approaches to solving this problem.

6. It is of interest to study the speed of decision-making in the algorithm since this is an important characteristic of the algorithms used in the navigation systems of unmanned vehicles.

Thus, my decision is major revisions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. This paper presents an interesting application of Model Predictive Control for the motion planning of automated vehicles. The authors present the theoretical analysis and numerical simulation to validate the proposed motion planning schemes.

2. Please indicate what types of sensors will be employed to obtain the positions and velocities of the vehicles in the target scenario, as shown in Fig. 1, and it will be nice to see more experimental results.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I have minor comments only, intended to help the authors improve their paper.  Just about none of these are required as the paper reads fairly well as is.

Some grammatical mistakes but nothing significant.  A proofreading of the paper might catch some of these.

In the intro, I'm not sure its relevant to mention IoT. 

On line 78 you introduce the term "ego vehicle".  Is this a term commonly used in the literature?  If not, I suggest changing it, perhaps to the "target vehicle", "control vehicle" or the "vehicle with CA".  You also mention in the intro about the crashes caused by human inattentativeness, but what research has been done to prove that autonomous control for CA is an improvement?  This should be cited in the intro if any such literature is available.

Line 135:  "parked" vehicle, not "parking" (parking would be a car in the action of parking)

In your scenario you might mention how the car knows the distances and speeds and how accurate those measurements are, especially if conditions are not optimal (rain, snow, night/poor visibility).

Line 171:  you refer to PET without first defining it (it was defined as BR-PET earlier), I wonder if you should also spell out PET in its first use, or back in the intro, define PET and then BR-PET.

Figure 4 is extremely detailed, you should spend more time describing its parts.

Line 191:  this line should not be indented.

You do not reference figure 6, let alone describe it.  Another complex figure, you should spend some time on it.

How is PETsafe computed given PET maxsafe and PET minsafe?  An average?  the minimum?  If unsafe, how quickly does the car try to decelerate?  Do you take into account traffic behind the car when computing the deceleration?

Line 229:  shouldn't be indented.  Same for 248 and presumably 256.  Also 279, 287, 291, 298, 302, 335, 353, 368, 405, .  Line 357:  "Where" I believe should be "where" and not indented.

You keep using the word "So".  You might try to find other words like "Thus", "Because" or just remove "So" in some instances.

Figure 10 is very blurry, try to improve its quality in the final paper.

Figure 12 is also of lesser quality, especially c, and should be improved.  Figure 13, the lower left part is also a bit blurry.  Same can be said for figures 14-17.  In figure 15, there are many short lines coming out of the curves, explain what those represent (in the text).

In your experiments, you mention urban driving.  Is there a maximum speed you used?  A table of results would be nice that lists each experiment, the parameters (distance, speeds) and result.  It might also be helpful to give an indication of the time it took to run your algorithm to make sure decisions can be made real-time.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for taking my recommendations into account. I recommend accepting the manuscript for publication as it is.

Author Response

Thank you for your approval of the revised manuscript. And We would like to thank you again for taking the time to review our manuscript.