Classical and Heuristic Approaches for Mobile Robot Path Planning: A Survey

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper presents a survey on classical and heuristic approaches for mobile robot path planning. In general, the topic is interesting and some comments are given as follows:

1.      Most of the pictures in the article have a low proportion and are relatively blurred, so the clarity of each picture should be improved. What is worth noting is Figure 19. The font in this figure shows tension and compression, and the normal display level is lost.

2.      The algorithm flow chart can be appropriately added with parameter descriptions to reduce text descriptions.

3.      The relevant content of the literature review can be further classified to reduce the occurrence of literature listing.

4.      Figure 2 is a grid map, or a schematic diagram of path planning. If it is a schematic diagram, the name of the legend should be changed; if not, should the grid map be added with a grid like Figure 3.

5.      Table 1 in this paper shows the analysis of path planning algorithm. Please use the three-line table format for this table, and when the table spans pages, you need to add a continuation table format.

6.      Check the font of the title and keep the font style of the title at all levels uniform. The number fonts in subsection 2.2 are notably inconsistent.

7.      Check spelling and punctuation throughout the text. Includes hyphenated forms of English words.

8.      Avoid situations where a paragraph is too long. Paragraphs that are too long are difficult for readers to read. At the same time, further classification and segmentation can reflect the rigor and meticulousness of the research investigation.

9.    Path planning approaches using deeping learning should also be embedded, e.g., A Neural Network-Based Navigation Approach for Autonomous Mobile Robot Systems, Applied Sciences 12 (15), 7796

Minor editing of English language is required.

Author Response

Author Response:

First, we would like to express my thankfulness to the editor and the anonymous reviewers for their valuable suggestions and valuable comments which enhance the quality of my work out. In the revised version, I have addressed all the editor and reviewers’ concerns and comments clearly, where my revision is corrected. In this response report, I will present one-to-one responses to individual comments.

Reviewer 1

1. Most of the pictures in the article have a low proportion and are relatively blurred, so the clarity of each picture should be improved. What is worth noting is Figure 19. The font in this figure shows tension and compression, and the normal display level is lost.

Author Response:

Thank you for pointing this out. I revised the figures and redrew Figure 19 to make them clearer.

2. The algorithm flow chart can be appropriately added with parameter descriptions to reduce text descriptions.

Author Response:

Thank you for this suggestion. In order for the readers to understand some of the flowcharts' lengthy sentences, I have written them in this way.

3. The relevant content of the literature review can be further classified to reduce the occurrence of literature listing.

Author Response:

Thank you very much. Changes have been made

4. Figure 2 is a grid map, or a schematic diagram of path planning. If it is a schematic diagram, the name of the legend should be changed; if not, should the grid map be added with a grid like Figure 3.

Author Response:

Corrected, and thanks for this notation.

5. Table 1 in this paper shows the analysis of path planning algorithm. Please use the three-line table format for this table, and when the table spans pages, you need to add a continuation table format.

Author Response:

Corrected, and thanks for this notation.

6. Check the font of the title and keep the font style of the title at all levels uniform. The number fonts in subsection 2.2 are notably inconsistent.

Author Response:

Corrected, and thanks for this notation.

7. Check spelling and punctuation throughout the text. Includes hyphenated forms of English words.

Author Response:

I double-checked and followed the instructions. Thank you

8. Avoid situations where a paragraph is too long. Paragraphs that are too long are difficult for readers to read. At the same time, further classification and segmentation can reflect the rigor and meticulousness of the research investigation.

Author Response:

Corrected, and thanks for this notation.

9. Path planning approaches using deeping learning should also be embedded, e.g., A Neural Network-Based Navigation Approach for Autonomous Mobile Robot Systems, Applied Sciences 12 (15), 7796

Author Response:

Done. Seven new references are added to the research survey in the introduction section and highlighted in red.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Classical and Heuristic Approaches for Mobile Robot Path Planning: A Survey

 The paper provides a review of robot path planning covering the navigation strategies for mobile robots i.e. Roadmap approach (RM), cell decomposition (CD), and artificial potential fields (APF), The paper also attempts to cover the various algorithms like the roadmap approach (RM), cell decomposition (CD) and artificial potential fields (APF), in addition to eleven heuristic approaches including genetic algorithm (GA), ant colony optimization (ACO), artificial bee colony (ABC), grey wolf optimization (GWO), shuffled frog leaping algorithm (SFLA) and whale optimization algorithm (WOA), bacterial foraging optimization (BFO), firefly algorithm (FF), cuckoo search (CS) and bat algorithm (BA) used in Robot path planning (RPP).

 Comments:

1.      The authors do not follow any systematic research methodology for instant PRISMA. The inclusive and exclusive criteria, research databases included, must be mentioned.

2.      The timeline in review papers is very important to encompass research articles and the research scope under study. For instance, Machine Learning Approaches to Robotic Path-Planning are missing in the present research.

3.      Authors provide basic information on several occasions, hence careful rereading is required.

4.      Line no.16:"firefly algorithm (FF)," should be "firefly (FF) algorithm"

5.      Line no.150: 4 Navigation approaches may be improved or may be adapted from:

Sanyal, A., Nayab Zafar, M., Mohanta, J.C. and Faiyaz Ahmed, M., 2021. Path planning approaches for mobile robot navigation in various environments: a review. Advances in Interdisciplinary Engineering: Select Proceedings of FLAME 2020, pp.555-572.

6.      Some of the review papers on path planning are excluded:

The following papers are not covered: Authors may provide their pros or cons of review analysis or some research method used on a similar theme of papers:

(a)Sanyal, A., Nayab Zafar, M., Mohanta, J.C. and Faiyaz Ahmed, M., 2021. Path planning approaches for mobile robot navigation in various environments: a review. Advances in Interdisciplinary Engineering: Select Proceedings of FLAME 2020, pp.555-572.

(b)Patle, B.K., Pandey, A., Parhi, D.R.K. and Jagadeesh, A.J.D.T., 2019. A review: On path planning strategies for navigation of mobile robot. Defence Technology, 15(4), pp.582-606.

(c) Lin, S., Liu, A., Wang, J. and Kong, X., 2022. A Review of Path-Planning Approaches for Multiple Mobile Robots. Machines, 10(9), p.773.

(d) Campbell, S., O'Mahony, N., Carvalho, A., Krpalkova, L., Riordan, D. and Walsh, J., 2020, February. Path planning techniques for mobile robots a review. In 2020 6th International Conference on Mechatronics and Robotics Engineering (ICMRE) (pp. 12-16). IEEE.

(e) Rafai, A.N.A., Adzhar, N. and Jaini, N.I., 2022. A Review on Path Planning and Obstacle Avoidance Algorithms for Autonomous Mobile Robots. Journal of Robotics, 2022.

Etc…

7.      How the present work is different from the recently published similar review may be highlighted to add research contribution.

8.      Lines no.169 and 171: “The authors, Yang et al. (2018), “ and “Wein et al. (2019),’ should be properly reformatted to include reference numbers. Similar to line no.176 “Sanchez et al. [21]’

9.      Line nos100 to 103: The configuration space C should be C , …the Cforb and Cfree should be C_forb and C_free. Similarly, other symbols used with various variables must be in italics.

10.  Line no.183: “Huang et al. present in  [24] with and without prior knowledge of the environment” needs to be rewritten

11.  Line no 274: ” The informed RRT* algorithm” is unclear. Please include Rapidly-exploring Random Tree Star (RRT*) algorithm

12.  Line no. 284 and 285: “Several attempts were then introduced to enhance those classic methods such as Probabilistic Roadmaps (PRM), rapidly exploring Random Trees (RRT).” Since RRT* is an optimized version of RRT, the statement will be incorrect. Replace RRT with RRT*.

13.  Lines no.502 and 503: “For navigation in a static environment, Refs. [[105]–[106]] when faced with multiple obstacles, use the same strategy.” Is unclear.

14.  Line nos 578 and 579: “A mobile robot navigational approach using FF has been presented by Hidalgo-Paniagua et al. [126] Whenever there is a static obstacle.’ is unclear and may be rewritten.

15.  Line no.842 and 843 ”Between 1970 and 2022, the popularity of the heuristic approach rose from 0% to 95%, while that of the classical approaches fell from 95% to 5%.” How can it be concluded?

16.  Line no.902: Figure 24. Analysis of RPP techniques based on four factors bat should be BAT, abc should be ABC

17.  Fig. should be Figure used at several places

18.   Full forms and abbreviations are repeatedly used, distracting the reading flow. For instance, Whale Optimization Algorithm (WOA), Gray Wolf Optimizer (GWO) , etc. 

19. Some of the contents of the discussion section could have been under the result section as finding

Classical and Heuristic Approaches for Mobile Robot Path Planning: A Survey

The manuscript has several typos, incorrect references, and English grammatical errors, hence needs careful editing:

1.      Lines no. 20 and 21: “A discussion with a thorough table and a collection of charts …” should be “A discussion thorough tables and charts..…”

2.      Line no.47: “target destination. .” should be “target destination..”

3.      Line no.76: “Local Path Planning, Planning a local route…”  should be corrected

4.      Line no 65: Figure 1: "Where was i..." should be " Where was I..." similarly, other Robot navigation problems should be corrected.

5.      Line no.189: Zhang et al. [25] proposes should be “Zhang et al. [25] propose” Similarly line no 252:” Shi et al. [53] deals”

6.      Line no.198: “Figure 5. (a) visibility graph….” should be “Figure 5. (a) Visibility graph …..”

7.      Line no.238 : Figure 6. exact cell decomposition example should be Figure 6. Exact cell decomposition example

8.      Lines no 253 and 254: “ In the references [44], [45], It is done to analyze” should be rewritten

9.      Lines no 284 and 285: Probabilistic Roadmaps (PRM), rapidly exploring Random Trees (RRT).should be “Probabilistic Roadmaps (PRM), and rapidly exploring Random Trees (RRT).”

10.  Lines no. 328 and 329:” Patle et al. [66] To address the moving target problem, a matrix-based’ should be rewritten

11.  Line no.424: Tang X. et al. [87] dealt should be “Tang et al. [87] dealt’

12.  Line no.477: “Chen et al. [101] makes” should be “Chen et al. [101] make”

13.  Line no.500: “Coelho et al. [104]'s A BFO algorithm…” needs correction.

14.  Line no.551: “…..Li et al. [121] Employing” should be “…Li et al. [121] employing”

15.  Line no.849: “Tables 1 provide” should be “Table 1 provide”

Author Response

First, we would like to express my thankfulness to the editor and the anonymous reviewers for their valuable suggestions and valuable comments which enhance the quality of my work out. In the revised version, I have addressed all the editor and reviewers’ concerns and comments clearly, where my revision is corrected. In this response report, I will present one-to-one responses to individual comments.

1. The authors do not follow any systematic research methodology for instant PRISMA. The inclusive and exclusive criteria, research databases included, must be mentioned.

Author Response:

Dear Reviewer, Thanks for your helpful comments. As this is a review paper, we have not followed a specific research methodology as it primarily summarizes the state of the art Classical and Heuristic Approaches for Mobile Robot Path Planning: A Survey
However, thanks for mentioning the PRISMA methodology, as we have not used it before and it will be helpful to use it for future works. The manuscript is updated (revised) now following your comments.

2. The timeline in review papers is very important to encompass research articles and the research scope under study. For instance, Machine Learning Approaches to Robotic Path-Planning are missing in the present research.

Author Response:

Done. Seven new references are added to the research survey in the introduction section and highlighted in red.

3. Authors provide basic information on several occasions; hence careful rereading is required.

Author Response:

Thank you very much. Changes have been made

4. Line no.16:"firefly algorithm (FF)," should be "firefly (FF) algorithm"

Author Response:

Corrected, and thanks for this notation.

5. Line no.150: 4 Navigation approaches may be improved or may be adapted from:

Sanyal, A., Nayab Zafar, M., Mohanta, J.C. and Faiyaz Ahmed, M., 2021. Path planning approaches for mobile robot navigation in various environments: a review. Advances in Interdisciplinary Engineering: Select Proceedings of FLAME 2020, pp.555-572.

Author Response:

Thank you for pointing this out. I revised the figures and redrew Figure 4 to make them clearer.

6. Some of the review papers on path planning are excluded:

The following papers are not covered: Authors may provide their pros or cons of review analysis or some research method used on a similar theme of papers:

(a)Sanyal, A., Nayab Zafar, M., Mohanta, J.C. and Faiyaz Ahmed, M., 2021. Path planning approaches for mobile robot navigation in various environments: a review. Advances in Interdisciplinary Engineering: Select Proceedings of FLAME 2020, pp.555-572.

(b)Patle, B.K., Pandey, A., Parhi, D.R.K. and Jagadeesh, A.J.D.T., 2019. A review: On path planning strategies for navigation of mobile robot. Defence Technology, 15(4), pp.582-606.

(c) Lin, S., Liu, A., Wang, J. and Kong, X., 2022. A Review of Path-Planning Approaches for Multiple Mobile Robots. Machines, 10(9), p.773.

(d) Campbell, S., O'Mahony, N., Carvalho, A., Krpalkova, L., Riordan, D. and Walsh, J., 2020, February. Path planning techniques for mobile robots a review. In 2020 6th International Conference on Mechatronics and Robotics Engineering (ICMRE) (pp. 12-16). IEEE.

(e) Rafai, A.N.A., Adzhar, N. and Jaini, N.I., 2022. A Review on Path Planning and Obstacle Avoidance Algorithms for Autonomous Mobile Robots. Journal of Robotics, 2022.

Etc…

Author Response:

Done. Three new references are added to the research survey in the introduction section.

7. How the present work is different from the recently published similar review may be highlighted to add research contribution.

Author Response:

Thank you for pointing this out. I modified the last paragraph in the introduction by adding the key contribution, and I think it is clearer now.

8. Lines no.169 and 171: “The authors, Yang et al. (2018), “ and “Wein et al. (2019),’ should be properly reformatted to include reference numbers. Similar to line no.176 “Sanchez et al. [21]’

Author Response:

Corrected, and thanks for this notation.

9. Line nos100 to 103: The configuration space C should be C , …the Cforb and Cfree should be Cforb and Cfree. Similarly, other symbols used with various variables must be in italics.

Author Response:

Corrected, and thanks for this notation.

10. Line no.183: “Huang et al. present in [24] with and without prior knowledge of the environment” needs to be rewritten

Author Response:

corrected by reformulating, and thanks for this notation. 

11. Line no 274: ” The informed RRT* algorithm” is unclear. Please include Rapidly-exploring Random Tree Star (RRT*) algorithm

Author Response:

corrected, and thanks for this notation. 

12. Line no. 284 and 285: “Several attempts were then introduced to enhance those classic methods such as Probabilistic Roadmaps (PRM), rapidly exploring Random Trees (RRT).” Since RRT* is an optimized version of RRT, the statement will be incorrect. Replace RRT with RRT*.

Author Response:

corrected, and thanks for this notation.

13. Lines no.502 and 503: “For navigation in a static environment, Refs. [[105]–[106]] when faced with multiple obstacles, use the same strategy.” Is unclear.

Author Response:

corrected by reformulating, and thanks for this notation. 

14. Line nos 578 and 579: “A mobile robot navigational approach using FF has been presented by Hidalgo-Paniagua et al. [126] Whenever there is a static obstacle.’ is unclear and may be rewritten.

Author Response:

corrected by reformulating, and thanks for this notation. 

15. Line no.842 and 843 ”Between 1970 and 2022, the popularity of the heuristic approach rose from 0% to 95%, while that of the classical approaches fell from 95% to 5%.” How can it be concluded?

Author Response:

The classical methods appeared before Heurstic, so the researchers resorted at the beginning of those periods to using the classical methods, and with the advent of modern methods and their superiority, the majority of researchers resorted to Heurstic methods in implementing the robot path. Based on the published works, it shows that the popularity of heuristic approaches has increased from 0% to 95%, whereas the popularity of classical approaches has decreased from 95% to 5% in the years 1970–2023.

16. Line no.902: Figure 24. Analysis of RPP techniques based on four factors bat should be BAT, abc should be ABC

Author Response:

corrected, and thanks for this notation. 

17. Fig. should be Figure used at several places

Author Response:

corrected, and thanks for this notation. 

18. Full forms and abbreviations are repeatedly used, distracting the reading flow. For instance, Whale Optimization Algorithm (WOA), Gray Wolf Optimizer (GWO) , etc.

Author Response:

Corrected by removing the repeated abbreviations, and thanks for this notation.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

1. Lines no. 20 and 21: “A discussion with a thorough table and a collection of charts …” should be “A discussion thorough tables and charts..…”

Author Response:

corrected, and thanks for this notation. 

2. Line no.47: “target destination. .” should be “target destination..”

Author Response:

corrected, and thanks for this notation. 

3. Line no.76: “Local Path Planning, Planning a local route…” should be corrected

Author Response:

corrected by reformulating, and thanks for this notation. 

4. Line no 65: Figure 1: "Where was i..." should be " Where was I..." similarly, other Robot navigation problems should be corrected

Author Response:

corrected, and thanks for this notation. 

5. Line no.189: Zhang et al. [25] proposes should be “Zhang et al. [25] propose” Similarly line no 252:” Shi et al. [53] deals”

Author Response:

corrected, and thanks for this notation. 

6. Line no.198: “Figure 5. (a) visibility graph….” should be “Figure 5. (a) Visibility graph …..”

Author Response:

corrected, and thanks for this notation. 

7. Line no.238 : Figure 6. exact cell decomposition example should be Figure 6. Exact cell decomposition example

Author Response:

corrected, and thanks for this notation. 

8. Lines no 253 and 254: “ In the references [44], [45], It is done to analyze” should be rewritten

Author Response:

corrected, and thanks for this notation. 

9. Lines no 284 and 285: Probabilistic Roadmaps (PRM), rapidly exploring Random Trees (RRT).should be “Probabilistic Roadmaps (PRM), and rapidly exploring Random Trees (RRT).”

Author Response:

corrected, and thanks for this notation.

10. Lines no. 328 and 329:” Patle et al. [66] To address the moving target problem, a matrix-based’ should be rewritten

Author Response:

corrected, and thanks for this notation. 

11. Line no.424: Tang X. et al. [87] dealt should be “Tang et al. [87] dealt’

Author Response:

corrected, and thanks for this notation.

12. Line no.477: “Chen et al. [101] makes” should be “Chen et al. [101] make”

Author Response:

corrected, and thanks for this notation. 

13. Line no.500: “Coelho et al. [104]'s A BFO algorithm…” needs correction.

Author Response:

corrected, and thanks for this notation

13. Line no.500: “Coelho et al. [104]'s A BFO algorithm…” needs correction.

Author Response:

corrected, and thanks for this notation

14. Line no.551: “…..Li et al. [121] Employing” should be “…Li et al. [121] employing”

Author Response:

corrected, and thanks for this notation

15. Line no.849: “Tables 1 provide” should be “Table 1 provide”

Author Response:

corrected, and thanks for this notation

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

robotics-2445398

In this paper, the authors presented a survey on Classical and Heuristic Approaches for Mobile Robot Path Planning which is currently under consideration of many researchers but the current work possesses several limitations, some of them are listed below. To properly reach the publications, the authors must address the following comments:

1.      The key contribution of this review paper is not clear which needs to be highlighted further throughout the paper. More specially, the key contribution should be added at the last paragraph of the introduction section (I suggest to add the key contribution in bullet form for better understanding).

2.      The authors should add a paper organization paragraph at the end of the introduction section.

3.      This review paper, possesses several deficiencies being a review paper. A review paper not just simply mean to summarize the existing literature but also must point out the current solutions, existing challenges, and then add some future perspectives and possible solutions to the existing challenges. But unfortunately, the current paper is missing the current challenges and their possible solutions. Moreover, the one should summarize the current work by clearly highlighting the current gap of his/her work with the already existing work.

4.      There are several grammatical mistakes and typos that must be corrected with detailed proofreading.

5.      For the mobile robot localization, the author’s can also refer to “A Localization based on Unscented Kalman Filter and Particle Filter Localization Algorithms,” IEEE ACCESS.”

6.      There are so many wordy and lengthy paragraphs that makes the reader confusing and boring, I suggest to split all those lengthy paragraphs into 2-3 brief and concise paragraphs, such as in section 2.2, and so on.

7.      The authors have added a series of figures and tables (i.e., Figures 19-24 and tables also) without any proper explanation. The authors must explain every figure and table properly.

8.      Moreover, the authors should avoid the unnecessary figures such as the authors have added a flow charts in every section in which most of them identical.

Must be improved with detailed proofreading. 

Author Response

First, we would like to express my thankfulness to the editor and the anonymous reviewers for their valuable suggestions and valuable comments which enhance the quality of my work out. In the revised version, I have addressed all the editor and reviewers’ concerns and comments clearly, where my revision is corrected. In this response report, I will present one-to-one responses to individual comments.

Reviewer 3

1. The key contribution of this review paper is not clear which needs to be highlighted further throughout the paper. More specially, the key contribution should be added at the last paragraph of the introduction section (I suggest to add the key contribution in bullet form for better understanding).

Author Response:

Thank you for pointing this out. I modified the last paragraph in the introduction by adding the key contribution, and I think it is clearer now.

2. The authors should add a paper organization paragraph at the end of the introduction section.

Author Response:

Thank you for pointing this out. I modified the introduction section by adding paper organization.

3. This review paper, possesses several deficiencies being a review paper. A review paper not just simply mean to summarize the existing literature but also must point out the current solutions, existing challenges, and then add some future perspectives and possible solutions to the existing challenges. But unfortunately, the current paper is missing the current challenges and their possible solutions. Moreover, the one should summarize the current work by clearly highlighting the current gap of his/her work with the already existing work.

Author Response:

Thank you for pointing this out. This review providing an in-depth analysis of an individual algorithm for a static environment, a dynamic environment in the presence of a moving obstacle and goal, simulation analysis, experimental analysis, multiple mobile robot navigation, hybridization with other intelligent techniques, and application to a three-dimensional (3D) environment. This review can facilitate further scientific investigation of the topic in the near future. The key contribution in this paper added in the last pargraph of section 1

4. There are several grammatical mistakes and typos that must be corrected with detailed proofreading.

Author Response:

I double-checked and followed the instructions. Thank you

5. For the mobile robot localization, the author’s can also refer to “A Localization based on Unscented Kalman Filter and Particle Filter Localization Algorithms,” IEEE ACCESS.”

Author Response:

Done. new reference to “A Localization based on Unscented Kalman Filter and Particle Filter Localization Algorithms,” is added to the research survey highlighted in red

6. There are so many wordy and lengthy paragraphs that makes the reader confusing and boring, I suggest to split all those lengthy paragraphs into 2-3 brief and concise paragraphs, such as in section 2.2, and so on.

Author response:

Corrected, and thanks for this notation.    

7. The authors have added a series of figures and tables (i.e., Figures 19-24 and tables also) without any proper explanation. The authors must explain every figure and table properly.

Author response:

Corrected, and thanks for this notation, these figures and tables very important in the discussion part.     

8. Moreover, the authors should avoid the unnecessary figures such as the authors have added a flow chart in every section in which most of them identical.

Author response:

Thank you for your suggestion.  I think its presence is necessary, and it explains how each algorithm works in a simple way.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed all my comments.

Minor editing of English language is required.

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks for the modification.

Thanks for the modification.

Reviewer 3 Report

No more comments from my side.

NA