Mobile Robot Path Planning Algorithm Based on RRT_Connect
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper proposes a Mobile robot path-planning algorithm based on RRT-Connect. The proposed scheme improves. The navigation movement time(s)and the navigation movement time(s). The author should compare their scheme with state of art schemes. Complexity should be addressed in the paper.
Authors need to modify the harmony of the paper and represent it in a good way.
Author Response
Point 1: This paper proposes a Mobile robot path-planning algorithm based on RRT-Connect. The proposed scheme improves. The author should compare their scheme with state of art schemes. Complexity should be addressed in the paper.
Response 1：We thank the expert reviewers for their questions, however,we are temporarily unable to realize the latest research results of the research content of this paper are compared to prove that the algorithm proposed in this paper has a later effect. We hope to get the understanding and support of reviewers and agree to publish our paper.
Point 2: Authors need to modify the harmony of the paper and represent it in a good way.
Response 2：We have checked the English expressions in the paper and corrected some grammatical errors. We hope that the reviewers can support the journal in publishing our manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper proposes an improved RRT_Connect algorithm to optimize the searched nodes and part of planned paths in the path planning of mobile robots. The algorithm is based on destination and searched node bias strategy and is optimized for the cost of path planning by figuring out valid new nodes and parent nodes of adjacent nodes within a certain range. Experimental results show that the improved RRT_Connect algorithm can shorten the time and length of path planning, as well as decrease the number of search iterations and nodes.
My observations are as follows:
1. There must be a comparison table.
2. Limitations of the study are not covered.
3. It is advised to check your use of the English language for clarity.
4. The entire paper suffers from formatting issues.
5. Pictures might be enhanced.
According to my understanding, the paper on quality of English language is 7 out of 10. There are typos, formatting issues, long sentences in it.
Author Response
Point 1: There must be a comparison table.
Response 1：We have combined Tables 1-3 from the paper into a single comparison table, as shown in Table 1 of the revised paper.
Point 2: Limitations of the study are not covered.
Response 2：The limitations of this study are described in the last paragraph of the paper. As shown in the paper :Although the improved RRT_Connect algorithm outperformed the traditional algorithm by improving the search efficiency and the quality of planned paths, it was still subjected to great variation in the length of optimized paths due to the characteristics of random sampling, inducing the necessary processes of evaluation, screening or filtering in path optimization. Furthermore, in the present research of path planning, the designed simulation scenes and actual scenes were all in static states despite certain complexity. In the future, therefore, dynamic scenes including dynamic obstacles and dynamic target points should be incorporated for further research and discussion.
Point 3: It is advised to check your use of the English language for clarity.
Response 3：We have checked the English expressions in the paper and corrected some grammatical errors. We hope that the reviewers will support the journal in publishing our manuscript.
Point 4: The entire paper suffers from formatting issues.
Response 4：We have corrected the format of the paper according to the journal template. We hope that the reviewers will support the journal in publishing our manuscript.
Point 5: Pictures might be enhanced.
Response 5：We thank the expert reviewers for their questions. We have enhanced the pictures and enlarged it appropriately, then re-arranged it to make it look clearer. We hope the reviewers to understand and support us to publish the paper.
Point 6: According to my understanding, the paper on quality of English language is 7 out of 10. There are typos, formatting issues, long sentences in it.
Response 6：We checked the English expressions in the paper and corrected some typos and formatting issues. We hope that the reviewers can support the journal in publishing our manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is interesting but should be improved before being accepted for publication. The research design is appropriate.
The Abstract should be improved. The current version does not introduce the readers to the field of study and does not state clearly what the paper aims for.
The introduction provides sufficient background and includes relevant references. In addition, it describes the structure of the paper. I recommend the authors state the aim of their study in the Introduction section.
The RRT algorithm and RRT_Connect algorithm are well explained.
Section 2 is missing.
The methods are not adequately described. I recommend the authors add figures that present steps in the random sampling processes, the method of optimizing parent node new x selection and the steps of the improved RRT_Connect algorithm.
The results from experiments are clearly explained and support conclusions. It is good that the authors state their plan for future work and the limitations of the paper in the Conclusion.
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Point 1: The paper is interesting but should be improved before being accepted for publication. The research design is appropriate.The Abstract should be improved. The current version does not introduce the readers to the field of study and does not state clearly what the paper aims for.The introduction provides sufficient background and includes relevant references. In addition, it describes the structure of the paper. I recommend the authors state the aim of their study in the Introduction section.
Response 1：We have added the purpose of the study in the introduction section, which is highlighted in red in the text. In addition, we have improved the format and syntax of the abstracts.
Point 2: The RRT algorithm and RRT_Connect algorithm are well explained. Section 2 is missing.The methods are not adequately described. I recommend the authors add figures that present steps in the random sampling processes, the method of optimizing parent node new x selection and the steps of the improved RRT_Connect algorithm.
Response 2：We have added flow charts for improving the random sampling function, optimizing the xnew parent node selection and optimizing the searched node xnebr parent node selection in the paper. As shown in Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5 of the paper. The algorithm steps for improving RRT_Connect are a comprehensive description of the previous algorithm improvement process, which would be too complicated to explain in a flow chart that overlaps with the previous flowchart. It would be clearer to describe the process of improving the RRT_Connect algorithm directly in terms of algorithm steps. We hope the reviewers to understand and support us in publishing the paper.
Point 3: Minor editing of English language required.
Response 3：We have checked the English expressions in the paper and corrected some grammatical errors. We hope that the reviewers can support the journal in publishing our manuscript.
Reviewer 4 Report
electronics-2410438
1. There are many grammatical mistakes and typos in the paper that must be removed with detailed proofreading. I can see many errors in the abstract as well as in the remaining paper. Such as in the abstract there are many sentences with no spacing.
2. In the abstract, the authors mentioned that “proposed in this thesis”, Is it thesis or paper? I think the authors have just copy pasted their thesis without any changes which represent the carelessness of the authors.
3. The introduction part is very wordy and having very long paragraphs which makes the reader confusing and boring while reading. Therefore, it is suggested to shorten the introduction, especially split the larger paragraphs into brief and concise paragraphs.
4. Moreover, the authors should further highlight the key contribution of this work. In this regard, I suggest to add the key contribution in bullet form at the last second paragraph of the introduction section.
5. The comparison of the proposed algorithm is weak as the authors have compared the two algorithms “RRT_ Connect algorithm and improved RRT_ Connect algorithm.” The authors should compare the proposed algorithms with other algorithms as well to properly validate the performance of their algorithm. Especially, I would suggest to compare with the latest algorithms from the recent years.
6. To know more about mobile robot localization, the authors can refer to “A Localization based on Unscented Kalman Filter and Particle Filter Localization Algorithms,” IEEE ACCESS.”
7. Figures 3-5 and adjacent tables are confusing because the authors have just changed some parameters and presented in a separate figure which tends to confusion. Therefore, I suggest to present these three figures in one and the tables in one sperate table instead of three tables.
Must be improved
Author Response
Point 1: There are many grammatical mistakes and typos in the paper that must be removed with detailed proofreading. I can see many errors in the abstract as well as in the remaining paper. Such as in the abstract there are many sentences with no spacing.
Response 1：Thank you for the questions raised by the expert reviewers, this is our negligence. We have fixed the problem with spaces in sentences in the summary.
Point 2: In the abstract, the authors mentioned that “proposed in this thesis”, Is it thesis or paper? I think the authors have just copy pasted their thesis without any changes which represent the carelessness of the authors.
Response 2：Thank you for the questions raised by the expert reviewers, this is our negligence. We have changed the word "thesis" to "paper" in the abstract.
Point 3: The introduction part is very wordy and having very long paragraphs which makes the reader confusing and boring while reading. Therefore, it is suggested to shorten the introduction, especially split the larger paragraphs into brief and concise paragraphs.
Response 3：We have improved the introductory section and broken up the larger paragraphs into short, concise paragraphs.
Point 4: Moreover, the authors should further highlight the key contribution of this work. In this regard, I suggest to add the key contribution in bullet form at the last second paragraph of the introduction section.
Response 4：We have added key contributions in the form of bullets in the penultimate paragraph of the introduction.
Point 5: The comparison of the proposed algorithm is weak as the authors have compared the two algorithms “RRT_ Connect algorithm and improved RRT_ Connect algorithm.” The authors should compare the proposed algorithms with other algorithms as well to properly validate the performance of their algorithm. Especially, I would suggest to compare with the latest algorithms from the recent years.
Response 5： We thank the expert reviewers for their questions, however, due to limited ability to reproduce other recent research results, there is no way to revise this point in accordance with the comments of the manuscript application experts. We hope the reviewers to understand and support us in publishing the paper.
Point 6: To know more about mobile robot localization, the authors can refer to “A Localization based on Unscented Kalman Filter and Particle Filter Localization Algorithms,” IEEE ACCESS.”
Response 6：The reviewers' suggestions and comments were excellent. We downloaded the paper recommended by the reviewers to read. It is indeed an excellent paper. We have cited it in the paper, as shown in reference 1.
Point 7: Figures 3-5 and adjacent tables are confusing because the authors have just changed some parameters and presented in a separate figure which tends to confusion. Therefore, I suggest to present these three figures in one and the tables in one sperate table instead of three tables.
Response 7：We have combined Figures 3-5 into one image as per the comments, as shown in Figure 6 of the revised paper. Then, we put the three tables in a separate table as shown in Table 1 of the revised paper.
Point 8: The quality of the English language must be improved
Response 8：We have checked the English expressions in the paper and corrected some grammatical errors. We hope that the reviewers can support the journal in publishing our manuscript.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors consider my comments.
The Authors consider my comments
Author Response
Point 1: The authors consider my comments.
Response 1： We thank the reviewer for your professional comments on our paper. Because of your suggestions, the revised article has become better and readers can get more valuable information.
Point 2: The authors consider my comments.
Response 2：Thank the reviewers for agreeing to publish our paper.
Reviewer 2 Report
Only some rearrangement of text, tables' data, picture enhancement, and English correction has been done by you. The comparison table on literature review was required.
Please see Table 1 of this article as a sample
https://downloads.hindawi.com/journals/wcmc/2022/3813841.pdf
English is fine now. Some minor changes are still required especially on the formatting side.
Author Response
Point 1: Only some rearrangement of text, tables' data, picture enhancement, and English correction has been done by you. The comparison table on literature review was required. Please see Table 1 of this article as a sample.
Response 1：We have made a literature review comparison table as required, as shown in Table 1. We hope that the reviewers can support the journal in publishing our manuscript.
Point 2: English is fine now. Some minor changes are still required especially on the formatting side.
Response 2：We have revised the English format of the paper. We hope that the reviewers can support the journal in publishing our manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper can be accepted
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Point 1: The paper can be accepted.
Response 1： Thank the reviewer for agreeing to publish our paper.
Point 2: Minor editing of English language required.
Response 2：We have checked the English expressions in the paper and corrected some grammatical errors. We hope that the reviewer can support the journal in publishing our manuscript.
Reviewer 4 Report
NA
NA
Author Response
Point 1: NA
Response 1：Thank the reviewer for agreeing to publish our paper.
Point 2: NA
Response 2： We thank the reviewer for your professional comments on our paper. Because of your suggestions, the revised article has become better and readers can get more valuable information.
