Research on Path Tracking of Articulated Steering Tractor Based on Modified Model Predictive Control

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments for the Authors

The study’s novelty and contribution to science were not clearly explained in the text. In the section Materials and Methods lacks details of tractor testing conditions and used statistical methods. The presentation and explanations of the used equations should be improved. Furthermore, the discussion of the results needs to be improved. In section Results and Discussion only Figures and Tables are commented, there is no discussion with other authors at all.

For the author Liu is missing et al. and four reference numbers are given [16-19] (lines 50-52).  I did not find reference 30 in the text. The ranges of prediction time-domain are shown as reference numbers which confuses the readers (lines 247-248).

Path tracking is an important area of research in autonomous navigation and research on path tracking of articulated steering tractors based on modified model predictive control is a promising area of study that could improve the efficiency and safety of these tractors. Model predictive control (MPC) is a popular control technique that can be used to solve the path tracking problem for tractors. Without citing any previous research, it may be difficult to properly contextualize the results of the current study and authors may overlook important findings that could add to the importance of their own research. I suggest that the authors revisit their discussion and consider incorporating previous research to provide more context and a stronger foundation for their findings.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The work presented by the authors is compatible with the current research trends. The use of both virtual model and empirical approaches is interesting and underlines a deep investigation of the subject by the authors. However, there are few aspects that, in my opinion, are improvable in order to make the paper more clear and understandable:

-          Subsection 2.3.2: genetic algorithm general description is limited and might be not enough.

-          The quality of the figures should be improved.

-          Line 218: “make” instead of “male”.

-          Line 247-248: the square brackets to indicate prediction and control time-domains should be substituted because they could be misunderstood for references.

-          Line 416: the first letter of the word “the” must be in capitol letter.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors designed the article to study the “Research on path tracking of articulated.

steering tractor based on modified model predictive control”. The author studied the control

accuracy and driving stability which affect the operating safety and efficiency of the

articulated steering tractors.

The objective of the study is to be improving the real-time performance of the traditional model predictive control (MPC) algorithm, the study proposed an adaptive time-domain parameter with MPC in path tracking control of the articulated steering tractor.

The article is interested and acceptable for publication after following revisions to improve the quality of the article.

 

Specific Comments

1.     The article abstracts need to be revised completely. Kindly mention the methodology of the article in the abstract with the novelty.

2.     Kindly revise the keywords, don’t use the same keywords which are already used in the article title.

3.     Please revise the article introduction and increase the literature review. Moreover, also add the novelty statement in the last paragraph of the introduction section.

4.     L95 to L102, kindly write those lines in the paragraph.

5.     L114 to L141, kindly write them in the paragraph.

6.     Explain the figure 7, 8 and 9 with more details.

7.     Explain the figure 12, 13 and 14 in more details.

8.     In your article, the discussion section is not included. The results are not discussed with the previous related studies. Please prove your results from the past studies to strengthen your point of view based on your results.  

9.     The conclusion of the article needs to be revised. The key results of the study should be added.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors accepted all my suggestions and corrected the manuscript according to them, so I agree that this paper should be accepted in present form.

Reviewer 3 Report

accept in present form.