Predictor-Based Motion Tracking Control for Cloud Robotic Systems with Delayed Measurements
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is well written and really sound in my opinion.
I suggest only few items that can improve the understanding of the text:
1) Please insert a figure explaining the scheme of the two-DOF robot system considered (row 109);
2) Please better describe the sentence (row 110) : we assume that the mathematical model of robot manipulator is entirely unknown in the simulations;
3) Please do explain for fig 3, 4 and 5 the meaning of q1, q2, ... related to robot scheme;
Author Response
Thank you very much for your positive comments and constructive suggestions on our manuscript. In the revised version of the paper, we have addressed your valuable comments point-by-point. Please see the uploaded PDF file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In this paper, the author proposes a motion prediction and tracking control problem for cloud robotic system with time-varying delay in measurement. A numerical simulation is given to shows the effectiveness of the proposed predictor.
In my opinion, the contribution or originality is not clearly explained. The author should convince the readers. Some comments are given as follows:
1) What is the contribution of this paper? What is the difference between this work and those proposed in [18,19,20], please explain the novelty of this paper compared to the cited papers.
2) Some variables are not defined, as example: in (13), β and Ko are not defined?
3) I think there is an error in equation (20), the second derivative of x is defined before?
4) In the simulation section, the author should compare the proposed approach with other approaches, for example with the one proposed in [18], to show its advantages.
Author Response
Many thanks for your constructive suggestions and valuable comments on our manuscript. The comments are useful for improving the quality of our paper significantly. All the comments have been addressed point-by-point. Please see the uploaded PDF file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper deals with the motion prediction and tracking control problem for cloud robotic system with time-varying delay in measurements. This paper is well organized through whole paper and well express the previous work. I would like to point out following as:
1. In introduction, this paper well describe the previous work including history of motion prediction and tracking control problem and related theories, however, the object and subject of this paper is little bit ambiguous. I hope authors should add more detailed and clear object of this paper.
2. As possible as authors should mention about advantage and disadvantage for mentioned paper in previous work. Now authors mainly describe the title of paper even though some papers describe more detailed advantage and disadvantage of papers. Authors also consider more related topic in reference and introduction.
3. Block diagram of control part is required even though authors already depicted figure 1.
4. Please add new published paper in reference.
(1) Mohammed Rabah, Ali Rohan, Yun-Jong Han, and Sung-Ho Kim, Design of Fuzzy-PID Controller for Quadcopter Trajectory-Tracking, International Journal of Fuzzy Logic and Intelligent Systems, International Journal of Fuzzy Logic and Intelligent Systems Vol. 18, No. 3, September 2018, pp. 204-213, http://doi.org/10.5391/IJFIS.2018.18.3.204
(2) Do Khac Tiep, Kinam Lee, Dae-Yeong Im, Bongwoo Kwak, and Young-Jae Ryoo, Design of Fuzzy-PID Controller for Path Tracking of Mobile Robot with Differential Drive, International Journal of Fuzzy Logic and Intelligent Systems, Vol. 18, No. 3, September 2018, pp. 220-228, http://doi.org/10.5391/IJFIS.2018.18.3.220
Author Response
Thank you very much for your positive and constructive suggestions on our manuscript. All the comments have been addressed point-by-point. Please see the uploaded PDF file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper well revised according to reviewer's point out. Thus I would like to decide as "accept".
