A Task Planning Method for UAV Swarm Dynamic Reconstruction Based on a Fourth-Order Motif

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

In general, the paper is well-written, and it sounds scientifically correct. However, I still have some suggestions to improve the paper further. Authors must perform major revisions, as well as perform an in-depth English review, to not only check the grammar and misspellings but also to improve the writing. Major revisions:

1 - Improve the introduction by giving more justifications for the contributions of this manuscript. More related work is required. 

2 - Insert the name of the authors cited in Table 1. 

3 - Insert a brief discussion about the content presented in section 2. This is a brief conclusion about the disadvantages and advantages of what is being proposed. 

4 - Check the algorithm presented in the methodology section;

5 - Authors must insert a discussion about the results obtained compared to the most recent results from the literature.

6 - Check grammar

Author Response

Thank you very much for your guidance. I have revised the paper and made a detailed reply. Please see the attachment for details

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

In the paper authors proposes the reconstruction algorithm for UAV swarm mission planning.

Following issues should be improved.

1.     In Fig.3, the labels of x and y axes are missing.

2.     In Fig.6 and 10, the font of axis labels should be the same with those used in the text, and the size is too small.

3.     Overall, the text editing work is required to presents the novelty of the paper clearly.

4.     Abstraction part should be more concise.

5.     Introduction part needs more detail explanation on the research motivation and background in the same context with the abstract part of the paper. Also, more detail explanation on Fig. 1 is required.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your guidance. I have revised the paper and made a detailed reply. Please see the attachment for details

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

There are no comments or suggestions for the authors.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your precious time and your recognition of our work. Your encouragement has greatly given us the courage and confidence to continue our research.

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Authors have studied a scheduling problem of hybrid UAVs under an uncertain environment. The proposed solution to the problem is interesting and technically sound.  I have the following minor comments to improve the paper.

1.  Full form of UAV at first occurrence should be included in the abstract.

2. A few lines on the basics of UAV should be included in the introduction.

3.  Reference citations should be in increasing order. For example, authors have cited ref [20] in line no. 34 after ref. [2] in the introduction.   It should be [3].

 

4.  Format the algorithm -1 properly. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your guidance. I have revised the paper and made a detailed reply. Please see the attachment for details

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report (New Reviewer)

In this paper, the authors investigate the problem of hybrid UAV planning in an uncertain environment. First, the system-opportunity-task organizational structure is defined and quantified, laying the foundation for dynamic future organizational adjustments. Then, in combination with flexible network and elastic network management theory, a model is calculated and a linear transformation function and fuzzy theory are used to stratify and cluster the opportunity levels. On this basis, four motive structures for abnormal nodes in the dynamic tuning process are introduced, and a DRA-M group dynamic reconstruction algorithm is created. Finally, time and communication load metrics are determined and an alternative strategy for the failure point is developed. An alternative strategy is developed for the failure point. The performance of the classical scheduling algorithm is evaluated by benchmarking under different conditions. The results show that the algorithm has a good dynamic correction capability in case of a UAV swarm emergency.

Some of my comments are:

Figure 3: Why was this type of membership function chosen?

Line 238: What does this "Where" refer to?

Formula (15): These indices (like e1) look strange.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your guidance. I have revised the paper and made a detailed reply. Please see the attachment for details

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

The authors performed the required suggestions. As a final request, as this is a journal paper, the manuscript must be presented in good quality in terms not only of the content but also of presentation. In this sense, the authors must improve the quality of figures 7, 8, and 9. Besides, all texts inside the figures must be in the same size and font. So, please correct this. Also, I suggest that the authors check if all Equations variables are being explained. In the end, an English review must be performed.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments. We have revised according to your comments. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. The structure of the paper is very hard to understand. Sentence construction is very bad. Authors need to re-write the abstract, ist paragraph of section 3, and conclusion. 

2. Need a separate section to state the problem statement.

3. Figure 1 needs to be corrected and clearly defined. Need to provide the outputs/variables in each phase. Need to show the relationships. 

4. What does "if commander?" means in figure 1? What variable(s) pass through the blue arrow? 

5. Most of the figure details are not mentioned in the text. 

6. Authors need to properly define all the terms used in the model structure.

7. Need to provide the pseudocode of the Dynamic Reconstruction Algorithm. 

8. The research gap is not identified properly.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The review simply could not understand the paper.  The paper was supposed to be about UAV swarms, but the reviewer didn't understand the research problem.  Why do swarms need to reconfigure?  Is it the swarms reconfiguring or the human operators?  The introduction should have been much longer.  

Recent papers like Visage: Enabling Timely Analytics for Done Imagery inform my understanding of the space.  However, this work was not cited.  Nor were similar works.  It was really unclear what the problem the paper was trying to solve.