AFTEA Framework for Supporting Dynamic Autonomous Driving Situation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work covered in this paper is aimed at presenting a framework for assessing vital aspects of AI solutions and their algorithms in terms of adaptability, fairness, transparency, explainability, and accountability. The previous works on explainable AI were focused on the fairness, transparency, explainability, and accountability factors, whereas the aspect of adaptability is introduced in the paper that is necessary for applications such as dynamic autonomous driving. 

Overall, the paper is focused on describing the need for adaptability, fairness, transparency, explainability, and accountability considerations in AI applications. However, many of the same details have been repeated numerous times throughout the article and should be revised for comprehensiveness. Furthermore, the diagram in Figure 1 is intended to illustrate the AFTEA architecture and the need to consider each of the five aspects simultaneously. However, it is not clear from the figure how this interaction is conveyed and does not adequately convey the mechanics of the proposed architecture. 

The purpose of the proposed and revised framework is to include "adaptability" and to demonstrate its necessity for dynamic autonomous driving applications. However, the details provided on its needs in such applications, along with the other FTEA factors, are very limited. In addition, the details are more focused on the need for these factors but with little insight on how they can be applied and/or accomplished. I believe that this paper should expand on the details of the proposed framework's application and in the context of dynamic autonomous driving applications.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors of this manuscript propose the AFTEA framework to create a stable and reliable autonomous driving environment in dynamic situations. The Fairness, Accountability, Transparency, and Ethics (FATE) of autonomous driving is a critically timely topic and should be discussed more in the literature.

Besides introducing the critical parameters of the AFTEA framework, the paper can benefit from more quantitative discussions on how to use AFTEA to model the FATE of autonomous driving.

I would also encourage the authors to use more figures and tables to better illustrate the proposed processes.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript under review introduces a novel architectural framework, termed Adaptability, Fairness, Transparency, Explainability, and Accountability (AFTEA), which builds upon the established FAY and FATE models. This topic is highly relevant given the rapid advancements and adoption of autonomous vehicle technology. The framework addresses critical aspects of this emerging field, making it a timely and significant contribution. However, certain sections of the manuscript require revision for enhanced clarity and coherence.

Abstract:

Please clarify whether the letter "E" in acronym FATE is intended to represent "Ethics" or "Explainability," as this will help ensure that the framework’s components are accurately and clearly defined?

Introduction:

• Lines 108-110: Please include a relevant citation to support the statements made in this section.

Literature Review:

• The literature review should be expanded to include a more comprehensive discussion of existing studies on adaptability, particularly those relevant to the new framework proposed. This will provide a clearer context and justification for the novel aspects of the AFTEA framework.

• When citing references, please provide the author’s last name and the publication year before listing the reference number. For example: (Last Name et al., Year).

• Lines 66, 215-212: Ensure that acronyms are defined in full at their first occurrence to maintain clarity and readability.

Conclusion:

• The conclusion section should address the limitations of the study and discuss the policy implications of the proposed framework. An explanation of the practical implications for policymakers and industry stakeholders would significantly enhance the manuscript's contribution and relevance.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

• Several typographical errors are present throughout the manuscript, including missing spaces between words and incorrect references. Additionally, ensure that acronyms are defined in full at their first occurrence.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for addressing the comments from the reviews in the revised manuscript. However, the purpose and details of Figure 1 are still not clear to me, and Figure 2 seems sufficient to replace Figure 1.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have diligently addressed all the comments and have significantly improved the manuscript. These changes have enhanced the clarity and depth of the research, making it suitable for publication.