Event-Sampled Adaptive Neural Course Keeping Control for USVs Using Intermittent Course Data

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors should go through the following review points to improve the quality of the manuscript.

1.     This manuscript is having plagiarism issues. It should be reduced to less than 10%.

2.    Abstract section should be improved.

3.      Introduction section should be expanded by maintaining the proper work flow.

4.      The related works section should be added by briefly describing minimum 15-20 recent relevant works with their identified gaps in a separate table.

5.      The methodology section should be improved by describing the concerned workflow diagram, algorithms, methods, etc. 

6.      The authors should add more graphs, tables, figures, etc. in the results and discussion section to improve the quality of the manuscript.

7.      The conclusion section should be improved.

8.      The authors should mention the future scope of this work clearly.

9.      The authors should add some more recent relevant references in the references section and cite them properly in the text.

10.     The authors should go through the entire manuscript and remove all the typo/grammatical errors from it.

It should be improved

Author Response

Please find attached the response letter.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The abstract should be rewritten to clarify to the reader what is the purpose of the article, its main goals, USV size, and the advantage of the model.

The word rudder should be replaced in line 18.

In line 21 eliminate etc. Also add and after [10].

The sentence from line 21 to 24 has to be rewritten. Do not start with a verb, do not finish with etc, and avoid writing with “great many”.

Eliminate etc in line 40.

Change in line 42 “little data as possible be transmitted” by “minimum data is transmitted”.

Rewrite lines 44-48 so that there is clarity and less word repetition.

In line 175 in heading 4.1 control should have capital letter.

 

In figure 2 heading it should be Tracking error variation. Which is the variable? Figure 3 and figure 4 headings should also be fixed to X1 variation and x2 variation.

The paragraph from line 250 to 261 should be rewritten as it doesn’t give to the reader any knowledge and information of the data obtained.

It lacks clarity how you obtain the model parameters, for your particular USV.

References

In all the references the publication year should appear in bold.

There are many errors in the writing. It should be rewritten in several sections

Author Response

Please find attached the response letter.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

- Please put together all symbols and markings used in the article with explanations.
- Please describe the scenario of the conducted research and present the error of the method. Please explain source of the data used into the experiment. How they were chosen.
- Please explain the originality of the project and the possibility of the practical application.
Plesae explain future work.

1. Paper uses intermittent course data to focus on event-sampled adaptive neural course control for unmanned surface vehicles (USVs). The authors declare the following achievements of the work: Development of an innovative state observer based on neurons; Expected benefits of using the proposed solution: the transmitted data is reduced due to the exclusion of the course speed from the transmission, the state of discontinuous course data is reconstructed.

2. The topic, due to the achievements presented earlier, is up-to-date. Expected benefits of using the proposed solution: the transmitted data is reduced due to the exclusion of the course speed from the transmission, the state of discontinuous course data is reconstructed.

3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material? Notes as above: transmitted data is reduced due to the exclusion of course speed from the transmission, reconstruction of discontinuous course data is performed.

4. Please describe the scenario of the conducted research and present the error of the method. Reading and understanding the content of the article will be easier. Please explain source of the data used into the experiment. How they were chosen. Reading and understanding the content of the article will be easier.  Whether the work is theoretical with the use of a model or practical one? In the case of theoretical work, what difficulties are possible in adapting the proposed solution in practice? Please explain the originality of the project and the possibility of the practical application. Reading and understanding the content of the article will be easier. Please explain better future work.

5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed? This chapter needs to be developed taking into account the following elements: what was the motivation for taking up the issue, indicating its originality, describe the achievements of work in the field of modeling and the experiment, discuss the correctness of the results obtained, formulate practical conclusionsThe topic, due to the achievements presented earlier, is up-to-date. Expected benefits of using the proposed solution: the transmitted data is reduced due to the exclusion of the course speed from the transmission, the state of discontinuous course data is reconstructed.

Author Response

Please find attached the response letter.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper presents an event-triggered observer-based control scheme for a class of unmanned sea vehicles (USVs). Event-triggered mechanisms (ETMs) are implemented both between the system and observer, and the controller and system. There are several issues in the paper.

1. The writing in the Abstract is not clear. What are the meanings of `avoid transmission of heading rate, which only involves the intermittent course data' and `without the information of heading rate and any parameters'?

2. Cite sources for the Nomoto and Norbbin models used in subsection 2.1. In particular, elaborate on the details and how the Norbbin model is more applicable than the Nomoto model.

3. The sources for the lemmas under subsection 2.2 must also be cited, or the proofs given.

4. The mathematical proofs and notation in various parts of the paper are very unclear, which makes it difficult to prove later parts and demonstrate the contributions of the work:
a) Check the notation in the first line of (3), and define N
b) The derivation of (13) is not clear, and there are incorrect terms. The derivation needs to be provided in full detail.

c) The differentiation of \hat{\chi}_2 would also result in the term \dot{\breve{\chi}}_1. During the interval this term goes to zero (i.e., \dot{\breve{\chi}}_1=0 \forall t\in[ t_k,t_{k+1} )), but this is not the case at switching instances (i.e., at t_{k+1}). This is important, as the impulse terms could cause later results (which omit them) to be invalid, and since one of the contributions is that the observer can be discontinuous (as stated in Remark 2).

d) The stability proof for the observer in Theorem 1 should also include the structures (14)--(23). The inequality used to derive (16)--(22) also needs to be stated.
e) What are i and \rho in (18)--(19)? How is (20) obtained? What is L_{V0} in (23)?

5. What is the definition of Zeno behaviour as used in this paper? The proof for the exclusion of Zeno behaviour in the final paragraph of the proof of Theorem 2 is also not clear.

6. There are many design parameters in this scheme, and their selection is not stated beyond the statements of Theorems 1 and 2. A design algorithm needs to be provided.

7. The simulation uses the Nomoto model instead of the proposed Norbbin model. Is this correct? It is also not clear how the design parameters are chosen.

- `deigned' should be `designed'

- The meanings of `As one of the most concerned objects' and `transmission of state data can not be resolved' are not clear.

- The following errors are present in multiple locations:
- `event' is often misspelled as `even'
- `inequations' should be `inequalities'
- `Neural network' is often misrepresented as `Neural' (e.g., neural-based)

Author Response

Please find attached the response letter.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors attempts to address the reviewer's comments. However, the authors should add some statistical analysis output in the results section to improve the quality of the manuscript. Still, the plagiarism is not reduced satisfactorily. 

Should be improved

Author Response

Please find attached the response letter.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The following comments are addressed after the second review of:

Event-sampled adaptive neural course control for USVs using intermittent course data

The paper is much better and please consider:

 

Inside the brackets put the number instead a question mark in line 24.

Rewrite line 42 as in the same sentence the word triggering appears twice.

What does the square in line 138 mean? Check also the square in line 176.

The letters inside Fig 1 should be greater unless during edition the figure size is increased.

Headings of Fig 3, 4 and 5 are two short. They should be like a sentence. Variation of what? And consider you have two lines which are not understood. For example lines 195, 196 explain better the figures.

English quality OK

Author Response

Please find attached the response letter.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

While the authors have improved the paper, there are still various issues remaining in the revision:

1. Related to my previous comment 2, the citations for the Nomoto and Norbbin models should be made after the models are first mentioned, so readers can immediately look up the models.

2. On my previous comment 4, the inequality used to derive (16)--(22) needs to be stated. What inequality was used? Is this a case of Young's inequality?

3. Related to my previous comment 6, a separate design algorithm needs to be provided because there are many distinct parameters and steps involved.

1. `USV as one of the most concerned objects' implies that the USV is concerned or worried about something.

2. Remark 5: `state observe (11)'

Author Response

Please find attached the response letter.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx