Multi-Vehicle Trajectory Tracking towards Digital Twin Intersections for Internet of Vehicles

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The digital twin is getting more importance these days and the authors have connected it with IoV. They have proposed the MVT2DTI framework and tested it with live datasets and also generate a few datasets based on certain scenarios. They have applied STT, LSTM, and GAT to extract the features.

The flow of the document is commendable along with clearly highlighting the contributions.

Figure names are too lengthy. You can shorten it and include the explanations in the text. It will confuse the readers.

In line 16, three papers were cited. What is the specific work the authors would like to refer to? Please avoid citing more than one paper.

The related work (Section 2) needs more explanation - There are more works cited, but the gap in the existing literature needs to be highlighted.

The formulas on page 6 to 10 needs additional explanations(preferably examples from the data sets to show how it works).

The arguments can be strengthened for the selection of Metrics. 

I believe you have re-created the data sets based on existing datasets - Please clarify.

Figure 9 is too hard to read - Is there a better way to represent the data?

The results are promising considering the overall research is at an early stage. Could you highlight the limitations of the current work and some pointers to improve it?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

overall paper seems fine.

First paragrpah of the introduction can have following latest works:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0264275122002335
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2210670721002560
Figure 1 can be illustrated in more efficient way.

- The introduction provides a good description of the current state of the art in the field of study. However, it would be desirable that, in addition to the data on the precision and usefulness of each methodology, the advantages and the shortcomings of the cited works be commented in greater detail to show more clearly the challenges that remain unsolved. 

- Authors should summarize the recent works in the form of a table.

- Authors should reduce the first pronounce such as we our from the paper

- Authors should further explain equations and maths. It is too hard to udnerstnad at the moemnt. Secondly, if these are general maths easily available on the internet, then authors should remove it and add reference instread.

- In Conclusion, future directions and challenges should be explained more.

- There are English language mistakes in the manuscript, therefore, authors rectify these mistakes. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

It seems the paper has been corrected based on the list provided.

Reviewer 2 Report

Accepted