Autonomous Van and Robot Last-Mile Logistics Platform: A Reference Architecture and Proof of Concept Implementation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents a proposal for an Autonomous Van and Robot Last-Mile Logistics Platform. This proposal is based on an architecture introduced by Augusto et al. 2024. The proposed architecture is solidly supported in an adequate and deep way. The references presented are current and clearly support the conclusions obtained. In my opinion this work can be published without any modification.

Author Response

Reviewer comment:

The paper presents a proposal for an Autonomous Van and Robot Last-Mile Logistics Platform. This proposal is based on an architecture introduced by Augusto et al. 2024. The proposed architecture is solidly supported in an adequate and deep way. The references presented are current and clearly support the conclusions obtained. In my opinion this work can be published without any modification.

Response:

Dear Reviewer, We greatly appreciate the time and effort you took to review our work and for undertaking this review and providing such a positive response to our conducted research.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for this interesting paper on a timely topic. This paper tries to explore the development of an autonomous last-mile logistics platform integrating vans and robots, presenting both a conceptual reference architecture and a functional proof-of-concept implementation. The study addresses challenges in last-mile delivery, including operational efficiency, scalability, and technological integration. It provides valuable insights into autonomous logistics systems, which are increasingly relevant in the context of e-commerce growth and urban logistics.

The topic is highly pertinent to current technological advancements in autonomous systems and their application in logistics. The study aligns well with growing demand for efficient and sustainable last-mile delivery solutions.

In general it is well written. The last sentence of the manuscript is about research directions but there is already a section dedicated to this so why don't you move this sentence to the previous indicated section. 

The abstract uses a acronym called LSP and it is the first use of the acronym some readers may not be aware of this. Please spell out in full I understand it is about logistics service providers. 

Thanks for the effort. 

Author Response

Reviewer comment:

Thanks for this interesting paper on a timely topic. This paper tries to explore the development of an autonomous last-mile logistics platform integrating vans and robots, presenting both a conceptual reference architecture and a functional proof-of-concept implementation. The study addresses challenges in last-mile delivery, including operational efficiency, scalability, and technological integration. It provides valuable insights into autonomous logistics systems, which are increasingly relevant in the context of e-commerce growth and urban logistics.

The topic is highly pertinent to current technological advancements in autonomous systems and their application in logistics. The study aligns well with growing demand for efficient and sustainable last-mile delivery solutions.

In general it is well written. The last sentence of the manuscript is about research directions but there is already a section dedicated to this so why don't you move this sentence to the previous indicated section. 

The abstract uses a acronym called LSP and it is the first use of the acronym some readers may not be aware of this. Please spell out in full I understand it is about logistics service providers. 

Thanks for the effort. 

Response:

Dear Reviewer, Thank you very much for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our paper. We greatly appreciate the time and effort you took to review our work and provide us with these valuable insights.

Regarding your specific suggestions:

• Relocation of the last sentence: We appreciate your observation about the placement of the last sentence in the manuscript. We moved it to the designated section on research directions to ensure clarity and coherence in the overall structure. Also, we added a closing sentence to complete the conclusion.
• Clarification of the acronym LSP: Thank you for pointing out the need to spell out "Logistics Service Providers" in the abstract. We included the full term on its first use to avoid any potential confusion for readers unfamiliar with the acronym.

Once again, thank you for your thoughtful review.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper addresses a crucial issue in urban logistics, exploring innovative solutions like autonomous vans and robots. The topic is timely, given the growing e-commerce and urbanization challenges. To improve the quality of the manuscript, some improvments needs to be developped. starting with the abstract, which, effectively summarizes the research, is overly dense with technical jargon. Simplify to make it more accessible for the audiance. I suggest authors to expand the list of keywords to include terms like "autonomous logistics," "last-mile delivery," and "robotics in logistics." While the challenges of urban logistics are well-explained, the introduction could benefit from explicitly stating the research gap earlier. For example, the motivation or using autonomous vans and robots should connect more directly to the architecture proposed. Moreover, in the litterature review section, authors might consider discussing why certain approaches were excluded from your proposed solution to strengthen your argument.

Another comment could be addressed for the blueprint architecture. The technical depth is commendable but could overwhelm non-specialist readers. Use diagrams to simplify the relationships between components (e.g., data flow and actor roles). I invite the authors to clarify the novelty of their approach compared to existing architectures. The BeIntelli project is a strong proof of concept, unfortunately, the methodology lacks detail about how pilot data (e.g., routes, obstacles) was analyzed. I am asking the authors to provide quantitative metrics for evaluating the efficiency and reliability of the architecture. Some figures (e.g., Figures 2 and 5) are complex. Include captions that explain how they relate to the text. Suggestion is to add a table summarizing pilot test results, including challenges and solutions.

I invite authors to check for consistent formatting, especially in references and section headings.

in the end, I am raising two questions for authors to improve the academic quality of their manuscript:

• How does the proposed architecture scale with an increasing number of autonomous vehicles and stakeholders?
• What measures have been considered to enhance data security and system reliability in real-world applications?

 

Author Response

Reviewer comment:

The paper addresses a crucial issue in urban logistics, exploring innovative solutions like autonomous vans and robots. The topic is timely, given the growing e-commerce and urbanization challenges. To improve the quality of the manuscript, some improvments needs to be developped. starting with the abstract, which, effectively summarizes the research, is overly dense with technical jargon. Simplify to make it more accessible for the audiance. I suggest authors to expand the list of keywords to include terms like "autonomous logistics," "last-mile delivery," and "robotics in logistics." While the challenges of urban logistics are well-explained, the introduction could benefit from explicitly stating the research gap earlier. For example, the motivation or using autonomous vans and robots should connect more directly to the architecture proposed. Moreover, in the litterature review section, authors might consider discussing why certain approaches were excluded from your proposed solution to strengthen your argument.

Another comment could be addressed for the blueprint architecture. The technical depth is commendable but could overwhelm non-specialist readers. Use diagrams to simplify the relationships between components (e.g., data flow and actor roles). I invite the authors to clarify the novelty of their approach compared to existing architectures. The BeIntelli project is a strong proof of concept, unfortunately, the methodology lacks detail about how pilot data (e.g., routes, obstacles) was analyzed. I am asking the authors to provide quantitative metrics for evaluating the efficiency and reliability of the architecture. Some figures (e.g., Figures 2 and 5) are complex. Include captions that explain how they relate to the text. Suggestion is to add a table summarizing pilot test results, including challenges and solutions.

I invite authors to check for consistent formatting, especially in references and section headings.

in the end, I am raising two questions for authors to improve the academic quality of their manuscript:

How does the proposed architecture scale with an increasing number of autonomous vehicles and stakeholders?

What measures have been considered to enhance data security and system reliability in real-world applications?

Response:

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your detailed and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you took to review our work and provide these thoughtful suggestions.

We agree that urban logistics is a crucial area of research, and we are grateful for your recognition of the timeliness and relevance of our study. Your comments offer valuable guidance on how to further improve the quality and accessibility of our paper.

Regarding your specific points:

Abstract:

We acknowledge your suggestion to simplify the abstract and reduce the use of technical jargon. We carefully reviewed the abstract and made the following change to address your concern:

• Condensed "pre-processing and data exchange among stakeholders" into "data processing and stakeholder collaboration" for improved clarity and readability. Changes are marked blue.
• While considering your input, we aimed to maintain the technical depth and academic rigor essential for accurately conveying the scope and contribution of our study. We believe these adjustments strike a balance between accessibility and the need to succinctly reflect the research's focus and significance.

Keywords:

• We appreciate your recommendation to expand the list of keywords. We now included the suggested terms "autonomous logistics," "last-mile delivery," and "robotics in logistics".

Introduction:

• Your suggestion to explicitly state the research gap earlier in the introduction is well-taken. We revised this section to better connect the motivation for using autonomous vans and robots to the proposed architecture, ensuring a clear narrative. Changes are marked blue.

Literature Review:

Thank you for your valuable feedback and the suggestion to provide a clearer distinction regarding the selection of the approaches considered. We appreciate the opportunity to further clarify our rationale.

• In the revised version, we have elaborated on the specific advantages of the Van-and-Robot (VnR) concept, which played a key role in our decision to include it in our paper. The VnR approach was selected because it effectively combines the range and bundling advantages of delivery vans with the flexibility and low space requirements of sidewalk-autonomous delivery robots (SADRs). This unique synergy makes the concept particularly suitable for addressing urban logistics challenges. The changes in Section 3.1 are marked blue.
• Additionally, we highlighted the limitations of alternative approaches, such as drones, which are less feasible in urban areas due to regulatory hurdles. By emphasizing these distinctions, we aimed to provide a stronger justification for focusing on the VnR approach in our analysis. The changes in Section 3.1 are marked blue.

We hope these adjustments address your concerns and enhance the clarity of our literature review.

Blueprint architecture and enhanced figure captions:

• We revised the captions for complex figures to better explain their relevance to the text and improve their interpretability for readers. See Figure 2 and 5. The refined text is marked blue.

BeIntelli Project and Pilot Data:

To address this, we have included a reference in the manuscript to a detailed article where the tests, data collection processes, and pilot applications are comprehensively described. This referenced work provides in-depth insights into the methodologies, tools, and conditions under which the data was gathered, ensuring transparency and reproducibility. Changes are marked blue.

We believe this additional reference will clarify any uncertainties and provide the necessary context for understanding the data and its relevance to our study.

In response to your two questions:

We appreciate your valuable comment on scalability. To address this, we have clarified in the manuscript that the architecture's modular and layered design ensures scalability by enabling seamless integration of additional vehicles and stakeholders. Middleware and cloud components are built to handle increasing data loads, and this has been further detailed in the updated text. These refinements you can find in section 7.1 and 7.2. In regards to the second question we have noted that future research will focus on stress-testing these mechanisms under various conditions. Changes are marked blue.

 

Thank you again for your valuable feedback. It has provided us with clear directions for improvement, and we look forward to revising the manuscript accordingly.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Research on Autonomous V&R's platform is timely and anticipated for industrial applications.

However, the structure of the article is disorganized and the research content is lacking in detail.

Additionally, there is a lack of description of the components of the proposed architecture, and there is no description of the interface between each layer. There is a lack of consistency between the parts presented as examples and the architecture.

I think it would be helpful for understanding if the pictures were placed in the same position as the explanation in the text.

Please consider the structure of your article while referring to the following, but you can reorganize it from the researcher's perspective.

 

1. Introduction

 - Relevant parts: Ch 1, 2, 5

 - Necessity/purpose of the study, scope of the study, chapter-by-chapter organization (line 54: no full Chapter 3 content)

 

2. State-of-the-Art: Autonomous Logitics

 - Autonomous Vans: International standards and application examples of Architecture 

 - Autonomous Delivery Robots: International standards and application examples of Architecture

 - Autonomous V&R: International standards and application examples of Architecture

 - Relevant part: Fig 2 in Chapter 4 (existing research)

 

3. Research model (part related to proposed architecture)

 - Relevant part: Fig. 3, 4, 5, Ch 6.2 

 - Description of each layer

 - Description of the interface between layers

 

4. Application example 

 - Relevant part: Fig. 6, 7, 8, Ch 6.1, Ch 7 

 - Consistent case with Chapter 3

 

5. Conclusion

 - Discussion/Summary, Limitations, Further Research  

 - Related parts: Ch 8(no content worthy of a separate chapter), Ch 9

Author Response

Reviewer comment:

Research on Autonomous V&R's platform is timely and anticipated for industrial applications.

However, the structure of the article is disorganized and the research content is lacking in detail.

Additionally, there is a lack of description of the components of the proposed architecture, and there is no description of the interface between each layer. There is a lack of consistency between the parts presented as examples and the architecture.

I think it would be helpful for understanding if the pictures were placed in the same position as the explanation in the text.

Please consider the structure of your article while referring to the following, but you can reorganize it from the researcher's perspective.

 
1. Introduction

 - Relevant parts: Ch 1, 2, 5

 - Necessity/purpose of the study, scope of the study, chapter-by-chapter organization (line 54: no full Chapter 3 content)

 

2. State-of-the-Art: Autonomous Logitics

 - Autonomous Vans: International standards and application examples of Architecture 

 - Autonomous Delivery Robots: International standards and application examples of Architecture

 - Autonomous V&R: International standards and application examples of Architecture

 - Relevant part: Fig 2 in Chapter 4 (existing research)

 

3. Research model (part related to proposed architecture)

 - Relevant part: Fig. 3, 4, 5, Ch 6.2 

 - Description of each layer

 - Description of the interface between layers

 

4. Application example 

 - Relevant part: Fig. 6, 7, 8, Ch 6.1, Ch 7 

 - Consistent case with Chapter 3

 

5. Conclusion

 - Discussion/Summary, Limitations, Further Research  

 - Related parts: Ch 8(no content worthy of a separate chapter), Ch 9

 

Response:

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your thoughtful feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our work.

We understand your concern regarding the organization of the article and the level of detail in certain sections. While we acknowledge that improvements can always be made, we believe the current structure serves to logically present our research findings and aligns with the intended flow of our narrative. Nonetheless, we value your suggestions and carefully considered them to enhance clarity and consistency for the readers.

Our response to your specific points:

Introduction:

We acknowledge your suggestion to better integrate the study's necessity, purpose, and scope into the introduction. We emphasized on the research gap to help the reader get an overview about the problem early on. The updated text is marked blue.

State-of-the-Art: Autonomous Logistics:

We appreciate your recommendation to provide international standards and application examples for autonomous vans, delivery robots. In the revised version, we have elaborated on the specific advantages of the Van-and-Robot (VnR) concept, which played a key role in our decision to include it in our paper. The VnR approach was selected because it effectively combines the range and bundling advantages of delivery vans with the flexibility and low space requirements of sidewalk-autonomous delivery robots (SADRs). This unique synergy makes the concept particularly suitable for addressing urban logistics challenges. The changes in Section 3.1 are marked blue. Looking at international standards might be subject to further research.

Research Model:

The proposed architecture and its components, including the layers and interfaces, are indeed central to our research. While we believe these aspects are described in Chapter 6.2 and associated figures (Figs. 2, 5, and 8), we refined the captions to ensure they are comprehensive and clear.

Application Example:

We understand the importance of aligning the application example with the proposed architecture. The PoC is made with the introduced real-world van and robot presented in the paper. The proposed architecture is partially implemented in this real-world application as stated in the paper, which now further stressed in the paper to address your concern. The updated text is marked blue.
    
Conclusion:

We slightly enhanced the discussion and conclusion. This will ensure that Chapter 8 and Chapter 9 do not provide unnecessary redundancy. The changes are marked blue.

Regarding your suggested reorganization:

We appreciate your suggestion on the proposed structure. However, we believe that the current organisation facilitates a natural development of ideas tailored to the objectives of our research.

We hope these adjustments will address your concerns while preserving the coherence of our manuscript and its alignment with the expectations of the broader audience and other reviewers.

Thank you again for your valuable feedback, which has provided us with an opportunity to improve the quality and clarity of our work.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors' reply justified all the remarks assigned and the questions raised. Thank you !

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your time and effort in reviewing our work.

Best regards

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I hope that this study on Reference Architecture for Autonomous Van-and Robot Last-Mile Logistics will be of great help to industrial applications. The authors' intentions are well expressed in the paper. Thank you for your hard work. I think the following changes will help readers understand:

The position of the figures ars different from the descriptions in the text, making it difficult to read. 

[1] Please move Figure 1 in Chapter 2 to Chapter 1.

[2] Figure 2 is explained in Chapter 4. Please rearrange the figure on page 3 to page 4.

[3] Line 186: for LML ==> for LML(Figure 3) 

[4] Please move Figure 6 to Section 7.2. 

[5] Line 304: Figure 7 is not provided. If the figure is not important, please delete the description. 

[6] Line 306: Figure 8 ==> Figure 7

[7] Figure 8. Evolving BeIntelli LML Reference Architecture

    ==> Figure 7. Evolving BeIntelli LML Reference Architecture

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your constructive feedback on our paper. We carefully reviewed your further suggestions and have implemented the proposed changes to improve the clarity and readability of our paper. Below is a detailed response to your comments:

1. Figure 1: We have moved Figure 1 from Chapter 2 to Chapter 1, as suggested, to align with its first mention in the text.
2. Figure 2: The placement of Figure 2 has been adjusted, in accordance with its explanation in Chapter 4.
3. Line 186: We have updated the text to read "for LML (Figure 3)" for better clarity.
4. Figure 6: Figure 6 has been relocated to Section 7.2, as recommended.
5. Line 304: after reviewing this point, we found that Figure 7 is indeed present in the paper, located adjacent to Figure 6. It appears this was an oversight. We appreciate your attention to detail. The subsequent two comments are therefore resolved, too.

We are sincerely grateful for your review and valuable suggestions, which have enhanced the overall presentation of the paper.

Thank you once again for your time and effort.