Stability Analysis and Navigational Techniques of Wheeled Mobile Robot: A Review
, Saroj Kumar Pandey 3, Ankit Kumar 3,*, Mukesh Kumar Singh 1, Anurag Sinha 4, Kamred Udham Singh 5 and Vandana Sharma 6
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript presents the “Stability analysis and navigational techniques of wheeled mobile robot: A review” and this topic of the manuscript is interesting. Please check as following comments and hope helpful for improvement of the manuscript.
1.The research results can be detailed in the abstract with more sentences to help readers understanding main contributions quickly.
2.Please state how to eliminate modeling uncertainties and environmental disturbances for more detail in your research.
3.Please well define B(ξI) τ + J T (ξI) in equation (10).
4. The τ_1 and τ_2 don’t include into equation (11).
5.Please add the control method of H2 and H infinity in comparative analysis of method.
6.The a,b,c don’t include in figure 5.
7.Equation (11)-(19) should align right.
8.Equation in line 526 should assign an equation number.
9.Figure 1 is poor quality, please refine it.
10.Please delete first “=” in equation(2)
11.There are two equations (11) in this manuscript. Please modify this issue and reorder equation number.
12. Please indicate the computation time of each method. Is each method realistic?
13.Please consider the factor of modeling uncertainties and environmental disturbances in table 1.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing of English language required
Author Response
REVIEW 1:
QN: The research results can be detailed in the abstract with more sentences to help readers understand the main contributions quickly.
Response: The abstract has been revised to provide more comprehensive coverage of the research findings, offering readers a clearer understanding of the main contributions.
QN: Please state how to eliminate modeling uncertainties and environmental disturbances for more detail in your research.
Response: The methods to eliminate modeling uncertainties and address environmental disturbances have been elaborated on in more detail in the research, enhancing the clarity of the approach.
QN: Please well define B(ξI) τ + J T (ξI) in equation (10).
Response: A more precise definition of the term B(ξI) τ + J T (ξI) in equation (10) has been provided for improved clarity.
QN: The τ_1 and τ_2 don’t include into equation (11).
Response: Equation (11) has been updated to include the missing terms τ_1 and τ_2 for accuracy and completeness.
QN: Please add the control method of H2 and H infinity in the comparative analysis of methods.
RESPONSE: The comparative analysis of methods now includes the control methods H2 and H infinity, providing a more comprehensive assessment of different approaches.
QN: The a, b, c don’t include in figure 5.
Response: Figure 5 has been revised to include the missing elements a, b, and c, improving the visual representation of the content.
QN: Equations (11)-(19) should align right.
RESPONSE: Equations (11)-(19) have been adjusted to align to the right, enhancing the readability of the manuscript.
QN: The equation in line 526 should assign an equation number.
Response: An equation number has been assigned to the equation in line 526, facilitating reference and clarity.
QN: Figure 1 is of poor quality, please refine it.
Response: Figure 1 has been improved in terms of quality to ensure better visual clarity.
QN: Please delete the first “=” in equation (2).
Response: The first "=" in equation (2) has been removed for accuracy.
QN: There are two equations (11) in this manuscript. Please modify this issue and reorder equation numbers.
RESPONSE: The issue of duplicated equation numbers has been resolved, and equation numbers have been reordered for clarity.
QN: Please indicate the computation time of each method. Is each method realistic?
Response: The computation time for each method has been indicated, and a discussion of the realism of each method has been included for a more comprehensive assessment.
QN: Please consider the factors of modeling uncertainties and environmental disturbances in Table 1.
Response: The factor of modeling uncertainties and environmental disturbances has been considered and incorporated into Table 1 to provide a more complete analysis of the methods.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper is a presentation of research related to wheeled mobile robots (WMRs) in the context of navigation strategies in static and dynamic environments.It provides a complete overview of research related to wheeled mobile robots over several decades. It emphasizes the importance of precise navigation and efficient control for the effective performance of these robots.There is a focus on the stability and intelligent capabilities of WMR controllers, which have garnered the attention of the academic community.The text explains the basic principles of WMR dynamics and kinematics, including the types of wheels and their associated constraints.The navigation techniques such as path planning and obstacle avoidance, localization and mapping, and trajectory tracking are carefully examined in both indoor and outdoor environments.
Overall, this paper is a comprehensive and informative presentation of research related to wheeled mobile robots and the challenges and future directions in this field.
Author Response
REVIEW 2
This paper is a presentation of research related to wheeled mobile robots (WMRs) in the context of navigation strategies in static and dynamic environments. It provides a complete overview of research related to wheeled mobile robots over several decades. It emphasizes the importance of precise navigation and efficient control for the effective performance of these robots. There is a focus on the stability and intelligent capabilities of WMR controllers, which have garnered the attention of the academic community. The text explains the basic principles of WMR dynamics and kinematics, including the types of wheels and their associated constraints. The navigation techniques such as path planning and obstacle avoidance, localization and mapping, and trajectory tracking are carefully examined in both indoor and outdoor environments. Overall, this paper is a comprehensive and informative presentation of research related to wheeled mobile robots and the challenges and future directions in this field.
Response: Thank you for providing an overview of the paper's content. It's clear that the paper offers a comprehensive exploration of wheeled mobile robots (WMRs) and their navigation strategies in various environments.
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1) The English Language should be edited to improve the readiability.
2) The environment of wheeled mobile robots can be represented using 2D grid of cells, and can also be modeled using 3D map. Please add the relevent research.
3) Please unify the format of the equations, and the symbols should be Times New Roman.
4) The symbols in the figures should also be Times New Roman.
5) When running in outdoor unstructured environments, wheeled mobile robots should consider the interaction mechanics between wheel and terrain. Wheeled planetary rover is an typical application, please add the relavant research.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English Language should be edited to improve the readiability.
Author Response
Review 3
QN: The English language should be edited to improve readability.
RESPONSE: The paper's language has been thoroughly edited to enhance readability and clarity, ensuring that the content is more accessible to readers.
QN: The environment of wheeled mobile robots can be represented using a 2D grid of cells, and it can also be modeled using a 3D map. Please add the relevant research.
RESPONSE: The paper now incorporates relevant research on the representation of wheeled mobile robot environments using both 2D grids and 3D maps, enhancing the comprehensiveness of the content.
QN: Please unify the format of the equations, and the symbols should be Times New Roman.
RESPONSE: The format of equations has been standardized, and all symbols have been changed to Times New Roman font for consistency and visual clarity.
QN: The symbols in the figures should also be Times New Roman.
RESPONSE: The symbols in the figures have been updated to use the Times New Roman font, ensuring consistency with the rest of the content.
QN: When running in outdoor unstructured environments, wheeled mobile robots should consider the interaction mechanics between wheel and terrain. Wheeled planetary rover is a typical application; please add the relevant research.
RESPONSE: The paper now includes relevant research on the interaction mechanics between wheeled mobile robots and rough terrains, with a specific focus on wheeled planetary rovers as a typical application. This addition enriches the content and highlights the importance of considering terrain interactions in outdoor environments.
Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis review article carefully examines the extensive academic efforts spanning several decades addressing navigational complexities in the context of WMR route analysis. However, the innovation points of the article are not obvious enough, and there are also many grammar errors. Please carefully review and explain the innovative points.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThis review article carefully examines the extensive academic efforts spanning several decades addressing navigational complexities in the context of WMR route analysis. However, the innovation points of the article are not obvious enough, and there are also many grammar errors. Please carefully review and explain the innovative points.
Author Response
Review 4
This review article carefully examines the extensive academic efforts spanning several decades addressing navigational complexities in the context of WMR route analysis. However, the innovation points of the article are not obvious enough, and there are also many grammar errors. Please carefully review and explain the innovative points.
Response: Thank you for your feedback. We have carefully reviewed the paper to identify and explain its innovative points while addressing grammar errors.
Reviewer 5 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript is quite interesting and relevant. To improve the level and quality of the manuscript, we can advise the following:
1. Once again check the correctness of the references in the manuscript.
2. In the review of methods, improve the analysis of the studies conducted, indicating the disadvantages and advantages of the methods used. The positioning accuracy should be noted separately. Pay attention in the analysis of modern safety methods when moving wheeled platforms. I advise you to structure the classification in the manuscript more clearly.
3. Expand the conclusions.Highlight the most promising methods and effective methods of navigation and mark the most outdated and inefficient methods. Note which methods of navigation when moving wheeled robots are used to a greater extent, especially in the last 2-3 years.
Author Response
Review 5
QN: Once again, check the correctness of the references in the manuscript.
Response: The references have been rechecked for correctness to ensure their accuracy and consistency.
QN: In the review of methods, improve the analysis of the studies conducted, indicating the disadvantages and advantages of the methods used. The positioning accuracy should be noted separately. Pay attention to the analysis of modern safety methods when moving wheeled platforms. I advise you to structure the classification in the manuscript more clearly.
RESPONSE: The manuscript's review of methods has been improved to provide a more detailed analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the methods used, with a separate focus on positioning accuracy. Additionally, the analysis of modern safety methods for wheeled platforms has been enhanced, and the manuscript's classification structure has been made clearer.
QN: Expand the conclusions. Highlight the most promising methods and effective methods of navigation and mark the most outdated and inefficient methods. Note which methods of navigation when moving wheeled robots are used to a greater extent, especially in the last 2-3 years.
RESPONSE: The conclusions have been expanded to highlight the most promising and effective navigation methods, while also identifying the less efficient approaches. Additionally, the prevalence of navigation methods in the last 2-3 years has been noted to provide insights into recent trends.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThanks for your reply.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing of English language required
Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have no comment.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageI have no comment.
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
Comments and Suggestions for Authors* This paper was resubmitted to review the stability and navigation technology of wheeled mobile robots.
1) Reviewer is still unable to find what this paper is intended to contribute to. The quality of the reviews is so low, it's easy to find if you search on the internet. Authors should review the latest research in each method, not an overview of well-known method.
2) The quality of each figure, table and formula is too low. The description of each figure should be more fully explained in the text. Also, it is questionable whether there should be an overview figure of each well-known method. For example:
a. what is Figure 6 for?
b. It is difficult to understand what Figure 8 represents. The figure needs improvement.
3) The paper's conclusion is too weak. Also, Reviewer disagree only a few authors considered kinetic analysis. Further explanation is needed as to why the authors say so.
There are many other things to say, but Reviewer would like the authors to appeal more for their academic contributions.
Author Response
Reviewer 1#
QA1: Reviewer is still unable to find what this paper is intended to contribute to. The quality of the reviews is so low, it's easy to find if you search on the internet. Authors should review the latest research in each method, not an overview of well-known method.
Response: Thank you for your feedback on our paper. We sincerely appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our work. Your insights are valuable to us as we strive to enhance the academic quality of our contribution. We appreciate the reviewer's feedback and their time spent evaluating our paper. We understand the concerns raised regarding the clarity of our paper's intended contribution and the depth of the literature review. We apologize for any confusion or shortcomings in addressing these aspects. Our primary goal in this paper is to provide a comprehensive overview and analysis of existing methods in the field. While we recognize the importance of incorporating the latest research in each method, our intention was to create a holistic resource that not only covers well-known methods but also presents them in a structured manner, allowing readers to gain insights into the broader context of these techniques.
We have enhanced the content of our paper. Specifically, we have work on highlighting the novel aspects and unique contributions of work, ensuring that readers can clearly understand what sets our study apart in the current research landscape. Additionally, we have refined the literature review to better incorporate recent advancements in the methods discussed.
QA2: The quality of each figure, table and formula is too low. The description of each figure should be more fully explained in the text. Also, it is questionable whether there should be an overview figure of each well-known method. For example:
- what is Figure 6 for?
- It is difficult to understand what Figure 8 represents. The figure needs improvement.
Response: Thanks for the valuable time and efforts. As per your suggestion w have improve the figure and table. we have removed the fig 6 and updated it in the paper. We have provided the detail deceptions of fig 8.
Q3: The paper's conclusion is too weak. Also, Reviewer disagree only a few authors considered kinetic analysis. Further explanation is needed as to why the authors say so. There are many other things to say, but Reviewer would like the authors to appeal more for their academic contributions.
Response: thanks for your valuable review comment. we have rewritten the conclusion section and improve the paper fluency and flow of paper. we have included new reference in the literature review section
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors present a review on the stability analysis and navigational techniques of wheeled mobile robot.
The article is extensive and, in my opinion, confusing. It is very disorganized, and it seems to me that they have taken a series of texts already written and put them together in an article.
They use too many references to defend an idea, which seems to me to be more of a "filler".
The equations don't present the explanation of the variables. Also from equations 6 to 9, everything is a mess of space ... It needs to be organized.
Some equations are not even numbered, nor legible (lines 483 and 484). Also in line 1014, 1235, 1236.
In Figure 2, what is the operation done in the circles without any symbol inside?
Figure 3, 5, 6, 7, ... seems off. Graphics in Fig.8 doesn't have axis captions.
The language is inadequate for a scientific article, being too relaxed/colloquial. It requires an extensive review on this matter.
Examples:
- line 243: "According to several writers"
- line 243: " illustrates the relationship between "
- line 300: "By Chen and colleagues";
A lot of typos, verify everything:
- line 200: "MPCIn"
- line 309: "Several study [39–43]"
- line 462: "Methodology-"
- line 776: "5. Artificial intelligenceinthe design of intelligent controller"
The language is inadequate for a scientific article, being too relaxed/colloquial. It requires an extensive review on this matter.
Examples:
- line 243: "According to several writers"
- line 243: " illustrates the relationship between "
- line 300: "By Chen and colleagues";
A lot of typos, verify everything:
- line 200: "MPCIn"
- line 309: "Several study [39–43]"
- line 462: "Methodology-"
- line 776: "5. Artificial intelligenceinthe design of intelligent controller"
Author Response
Author response to Reviewers comments
Reviewer 2#
The authors present a review on the stability analysis and navigational techniques of wheeled mobile robot.
QA1: The article is extensive and, in my opinion, confusing. It is very disorganized, and it seems to me that they have taken a series of texts already written and put them together in an article.
Response: Thank you for providing us with your detailed feedback on our paper. We truly appreciated your effort in assessing our work and offering constructive suggestions for improvement. Your insights were incredibly valuable to us as we strived to enhance the quality and coherence of our article. we have done the refinement in terms of organization and flow. We have enhanced the clarity and cohesiveness of the article. We have carefully reassessed the structure, ensuring that the content is presented logically and sequentially, to facilitate a better understanding for our readers. Furthermore, we have improved the thorough review of the transitions between sections and paragraphs to ensure that the article reads as a cohesive and unified piece rather than a collection of disjointed texts.
QA2: They use too many references to defend an idea, which seems to me to be more of a "filler".
Response: We appreciate the reviewer's input on the reference usage in our manuscript. We acknowledge your concern that an excessive number of references may contribute to a perception of unnecessary content. We value your feedback and understand the importance of maintaining a balanced and concise presentation of ideas. Our intention in referencing extensively was to provide a comprehensive foundation for the ideas presented in the article, ensuring that readers have access to a broad range of relevant literature and perspectives. However, we understand that an overabundance of references can potentially distract from the core content and lead to an impression of "filler" text. In response to your feedback, we have carefully reviewed the references in our manuscript and ensure that they are directly pertinent to the key points being discussed. We have prioritized references that substantiate crucial concepts and support our arguments effectively, while also striving to maintain a more concise and focused approach.
QA3: The equations don't present the explanation of the variables. Also from equations 6 to 9, everything is a mess of space ... It needs to be organized.
Response: Your feedback on the excessive use of references and equations was duly noted. We carefully reviewed the references to ensure that they provided meaningful support to our ideas without overwhelming the text. Furthermore, we addressed the issues related to equation explanations and formatting, especially for equations 6 to 9 and those unnumbered or unclearly presented in lines 483, 484, 1014, 1235, and 1236. Our aim was to present our mathematical content in a comprehensible and well-structured manner.
QA4: Some equations are not even numbered, nor legible (lines 483 and 484). Also, in line 1014, 1235, 1236.
Response: We appreciated your scrutiny of the figures and their captions. We worked on improving the clarity of our figures, and we ensured that each figure was appropriately labeled and accompanied by relevant captions, including axis captions for Figure 8.
QA5: In Figure 2, what is the operation done in the circles without any symbol inside?
Response: We also acknowledged the typos and errors you pointed out. We conducted a thorough proofreading of the entire paper to rectify these mistakes and ensure the accuracy of the content.
QA5: Figure 3, 5, 6, 7, ... seems off. Graphics in Fig.8 doesn't have axis captions.
Response: 8. Figures are cited, tables are circled, contributions are added, and figures are revised. conclusion rewritten in a paper's stanza with compliance to comments. In figure 8 the x and y axis labels are added
The language is inadequate for a scientific article, being too relaxed/colloquial. It requires an extensive review on this matter.
Examples:
- line 243: "According to several writers"
- line 243: " illustrates the relationship between "
- line 300: "By Chen and colleagues";
A lot of typos, verify everything:
- line 200: "MPCIn"
- line 309: "Several study [39–43]"
- line 462: "Methodology-"
- line 776: "5. Artificial intelligenceinthe design of intelligent controller"
Response: we have carefully reviewed the paper and remove the typos and grammatical mistake.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The language is inadequate for a scientific article, being too relaxed/colloquial. It requires an extensive review on this matter.
Examples:
- line 243: "According to several writers"
- line 243: " illustrates the relationship between "
- line 300: "By Chen and colleagues";
A lot of typos, verify everything:
- line 200: "MPCIn"
- line 309: "Several study [39–43]"
- line 462: "Methodology-"
- line 776: "5. Artificial intelligenceinthe design of intelligent controller"
Response: we have carefully reviewed the paper and remove the typos and grammatical mistake.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. The paper suddenly presents Table 1 and Figure 7, and the research comparison is good, but the basis for each value is lacking. It is necessary to present the environment in more detail on what basis. In particular, the reviewer do not understand what Figure 7 represents and is intended for. The y-axis unit in (b) is missing, what is the accuracy of (c)?
2. And as the reviewer said 'suddenly' above, the contents of the text should have a more organic structure in accordance with the research basis.
3. Overall, the quality is too poor for figures or equations. The paper need to improve. There are also many other form errors and typos.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAlthough I appreciate the authors' effort to improve the article, the changes are simply not enough.
The article lacks an objective, direct to the point, analysis of the matter, as well as the changes do not completely address the issues that I referred.
Thus, I have no choice than to reject the article and ask the authors to rewrite the same, make the improvements suggested by the reviewers, taking them seriously, and resubmit it.
The english language have not improved enough from the last version.
Author Response
Reviewer 2#
The article lacks an objective, direct to the point, analysis of the matter, as well as the changes do not completely address the issues that I referred.
Response: We have restructured the paper and add a separate subsection as “Major Objective” in which we have clearly mentioned the objective of the paper.
Review round 1
The authors present a review on the stability analysis and navigational techniques of wheeled mobile robot.
QA1: The article is extensive and, in my opinion, confusing. It is very disorganized, and it seems to me that they have taken a series of texts already written and put them together in an article.
Response: Thank you for providing us with your detailed feedback on our paper. We have enhanced the clarity and cohesiveness of the article. We have carefully reassessed the structure, ensuring that the content is presented logically and sequentially, to facilitate a better understanding for our readers. we have improved the thorough review of the transitions between sections and paragraphs to ensure that the article reads as a cohesive and unified piece rather than a collection of disjointed texts.
QA2: They use too many references to defend an idea, which seems to me to be more of a "filler".
Response: We appreciate the reviewer's input on the reference usage in our manuscript. We acknowledge your concern that an excessive number of references may contribute to a perception of unnecessary content. We value your feedback and understand the importance of maintaining a balanced and concise presentation of ideas. Our intention in referencing extensively was to provide a comprehensive foundation for the ideas presented in the article, ensuring that readers have access to a broad range of relevant literature and perspectives. However, we understand that an overabundance of references can potentially distract from the core content and lead to an impression of "filler" text. In response to your feedback, we have carefully reviewed the references in our manuscript and ensure that they are directly pertinent to the key points being discussed. We have prioritized references that substantiate crucial concepts and support our arguments effectively, while also striving to maintain a more concise and focused approach.
QA3: The equations don't present the explanation of the variables. Also from equations 6 to 9, everything is a mess of space ... It needs to be organized.
Response: Your feedback on the excessive use of references and equations was duly noted. We carefully reviewed the references to ensure that they provided meaningful support to our ideas without overwhelming the text. Furthermore, we addressed the issues related to equation explanations and formatting, especially for equations 6 to 9 and those unnumbered or unclearly presented in lines 483, 484, 1014, 1235, and 1236. Our aim was to present our mathematical content in a comprehensible and well-structured manner.
QA4: Some equations are not even numbered, nor legible (lines 483 and 484). Also, in line 1014, 1235, 1236.
Response: We appreciated your scrutiny of the figures and their captions. We worked on improving the clarity of our figures, and we ensured that each figure was appropriately labelled and accompanied by relevant captions, including axis captions for Figure 8.
QA5: In Figure 2, what is the operation done in the circles without any symbol inside?
Response: We also acknowledged the typos and errors you pointed out. We conducted a thorough proofreading of the entire paper to rectify these mistakes and ensure the accuracy of the content.
QA6: Figure 3, 5, 6, 7, ... seems off. Graphics in Fig.8 doesn't have axis captions.
Response: 8. Figures are cited, tables are circled, contributions are added, and figures are revised. conclusion rewritten in a paper's stanza with compliance to comments. In figure 8 the x and y axis labels are added
The language is inadequate for a scientific article, being too relaxed/colloquial. It requires an extensive review on this matter.
Examples:
- line 243: "According to several writers"
- line 243: " illustrates the relationship between "
- line 300: "By Chen and colleagues";
A lot of typos, verify everything:
- line 200: "MPCIn"
- line 309: "Several study [39–43]"
- line 462: "Methodology-"
- line 776: "5. Artificial intelligence in the design of intelligent controller"
Response: we have carefully reviewed the paper and remove the typos and grammatical mistake.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The language is inadequate for a scientific article, being too relaxed/colloquial. It requires an extensive review on this matter.
Examples:
- line 243: "According to several writers"
- line 243: " illustrates the relationship between "
- line 300: "By Chen and colleagues";
A lot of typos, verify everything:
- line 200: "MPCIn"
- line 309: "Several study [39–43]"
- line 462: "Methodology-"
- line 776: "5. Artificial intelligence in the design of intelligent controller"
Response: we have carefully reviewed the paper and remove the typos and grammatical mistake.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
