Trajectory-Tracking Control of Unmanned Vehicles Based on Adaptive Variable Parameter MPC

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please read the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language overall is satisfactory. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

From the title to Section2, reader is in doubt about what is the topic, becuase there is a bit of confusion about the Unmanned Vehicles (which Unmanned vehicle?) and because the abstract and introduction does not clearly state the innovation of the research. Apart from these issues, that I suggest to improve for the quality of the manuscript, all the sections about the model and results are perfectly done, with accurate figures, graphs, maths and explanations.

For this reason, I detail all the suggestions, section by section to let you make the quality of the article uniform and to address the issues detected to provide your valid contribution.

Abstract:

First three lines are too long. The abstract should address more clearly and specifically the key points of research. Avoid acronyms if you do not explain them before. It is useful for making the text clear for all the readers.

Introduction:

The introduction is well-written. However the goal/the application of the model seems uncertain until the end of the section. Try to introduce better the field of application and the desired goals of the research.

I woul duggest to use Unmanned Ground vehicle and to specify which ones, like cars. Because Unmanned vehicles include several type of vehicles, ground and aerial too. To clearify which you are referring to, try to be more specific.

Section 2-3-4:

The explanations and graphs are detailed and accurate. The mathematics is correct and suitable for the purpose of research. I would like to express my congratulations for the development and accuracy of these sections explaining the methodology at the base of the model.

Section 5:

Perfect synthesis of the outcomes.

Conclusions:

I would suggest to improve this section. The conclusions too synthetic and without  brief wrap-up of the contents.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx