Early Detection of Obstacle to Optimize the Robot Path Planning

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 In this paper, the authors have proposed the concept of early detecting the obstacle present in the workspace of the robots. To early detect the obstacle, the concept of snake algorithm along with the traditional path planning algorithms is also proposed.  Following are the major concerns:

  1) Proofreading is required. For e.g., in the abstract, line 4, "To early detect the obstacle, present this paper proposes...". The word "present" should be removed. 2) Literature survey is not enough, please cite and discuss recent relevant works. 3) Result discussion should be improved. Please add a few more relevant results and discuss them properly. 4) The authors stated that "This paper tries to bring the concept of knowing the presence of obstacles in the workspace like its location, shape and size by knowing its complete periphery". Such assumption i.e., knowing the obstacle location etc. is reducing the novelty of the manuscript. It is better to do the path planning for unknown objects as planning for known objects is already there in literature. Please justify the novelty of your work.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

Point 1: The format of the draft is not standardized, especially the figures and tables.

Response  1: Thank you for the kind suggestion, as per the given suggestion, the entire manuscript is revised to meet the standard and special attention has been given to the figures and tables used in the manuscript.

Point 2: The draft is not written in a standard way; the description of the algorithm should use the standard pseudo-code format.

Response 2: Thank you for the kind suggestion, the algorithm used in the manuscript is revised as per the suggestion, few changes has been done to increase the readability and acceptability of the proposed approach. We have also updated the description of the algorithm used in this paper.

Point 3: The experimental part is not sufficiently analyzed, and it can be seen from the experimental results that the performance of the algorithm proposed in this paper is not significantly superior compared to other algorithms, please further analyze the phenomenon from the principle.

Response 3: Thank you for the kind suggestion, we have updated the result section and updated the description of comparison parameters. The result is improved further to claim the improvement done in this regard, the result section is being revised and presented in the paper.

 

Point 4: Some table descriptions should be added to the experimental section.

Response 4: Thank you for the kind suggestion, the detailed description is added in the updated manuscript. The result section is revised and presented in the paper. We have updated the table 1 and table 2 as per your kind suggestion.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

(1)    The format of the draft is not standardized, especially the figures and tables.

(2)    The draft is not written in a standard way, the description of the algorithm should use the standard pseudo-code format.

(3)    The experimental part is not sufficiently analyzed, and it can be seen from the experimental results that the performance of the algorithm proposed in this paper is not significantly superior compared to other algorithms, please further analyze the phenomenon from the principle.

(4)    Some table descriptions should be added to the experimental section.

Author Response

In this paper, the authors have proposed the concept of early detecting the obstacle present in the workspace of the robots. To early detect the obstacle, the concept of snake algorithm along with the traditional path planning algorithms is also proposed.  Following are the major concerns:

Point 1: Proofreading is required. For e.g., in the abstract, line 4, "To early detect the obstacle, present this paper proposes...". The word "present" should be removed.

Response 1:  Thank you for the kind suggestion, The entire manuscript is thoroughly revised and a rigorous proof reading is done to avoid any grammatical or typo error. Few words has been also removed as per the suggestion.

Point 2: Literature survey is not enough, please cite and discuss recent relevant works.

Response 2:  Thank you for the kind suggestion, Few more papers has been discussed and the literature review section is being revised as per the suggestion received from the reviewer.

Point 3: Result discussion should be improved. Please add a few more relevant results and discuss them properly.

Response 3:  Thank you for the kind suggestion, The result section is revised to reflect the result obtained. Some more results has been added in to the respective section.

Point 4: The authors stated that "This paper tries to bring the concept of knowing the presence of obstacles in the workspace like its location, shape and size by knowing its complete periphery". Such assumption i.e., knowing the obstacle location etc. is reducing the novelty of the manuscript. It is better to do the path planning for unknown objects as planning for known objects is already there in literature. Please justify the novelty of your work.

Response 4: Thank you for the kind suggestion, This paper actually focuses on reducing the effort being applied by the algorithm to derive the optimized path for the robots. To do so, a hybrid mechanism is presented so that by knowing the entire boundary of the obstacle some traversing time can be reduced, this phenomenon actually splits the entire workspace in to two parts, free space & complex space, and by knowing and skipping the complex space it helps in reducing the traverse time required by any algorithm. Thus it improves the overall performance. This improvement is the actual contribution and novelty of our work.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the response. I don't have any further comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors had revised the paper as suggested. I have no further comments and agree to accept it.