Next Article in Journal
IRSDD-YOLOv5: Focusing on the Infrared Detection of Small Drones
Next Article in Special Issue
Diffusion Nonlinear Estimation and Distributed UAV Path Optimization for Target Tracking with Intermittent Measurements and Unknown Cross-Correlations
Previous Article in Journal
Decentralized Learning and Model Averaging Based Automatic Modulation Classification in Drone Communication Systems
Previous Article in Special Issue
Research on Environment Perception System of Quadruped Robots Based on LiDAR and Vision
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Hysteresis Modeling and Compensation for a Fast Piezo-Driven Scanner in the UAV Image Stabilization System

by Jinlei Lu, Jun Wang *, Yuming Bo and Xianchun Zhang
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Submission received: 23 May 2023 / Revised: 8 June 2023 / Accepted: 10 June 2023 / Published: 12 June 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advanced Unmanned System Control and Data Processing)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is well written. Conclusions, descriptions, analyses and results are sound. I have a few suggestions:

1) In the abstract: "As the proposed model follows the Hammerstein structure, the pseudorandom binary sequence (PRBS) input is employed to decouple..." -> it is not obvious that the PRBS should be used due to the usage of a Hammerstein structure. In the abstract, there is no space for such an explanation. I suggest to eliminate the mention to the Hammerstein structure.

2) p. 2, line 74: the first time that "algebraic-loop problem" is cited, the problem should be clearly stated. This explanations is made only in a later section

3) p. 13, line 309: why these values of m and n? Please justify the choice.

 

4) p. 19, line 403: "zeta = 1 and wn = 100\pi" -> Again: why these values? Please justify the choice.

 

 

Author Response

We sincerely thank you for the invaluable feedback and comments that helped to improve the quality of our submission. Following your comments, we have conducted a comprehensive revision of our manuscript. More details can be found in point-to-point responses. We hope that with the changes made in the revised version, it can now be acceptable in the journal.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

The manuscript should be revised before it is published. My comments are in the attachment.

Kind Regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Quality of the language is fine. 

Author Response

We sincerely thank you for the invaluable feedback and comments that helped to improve the quality of our submission. Following your comments, we have conducted a comprehensive revision of our manuscript. More details can be found in point-to-point responses. We hope that with the changes made in the revised version, it can now be acceptable in the journal.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

I have no further question related to the revised version of the paper. It can be published after minor revision (minor methodological errors and text editing).

Kind Regards

Minor editing of english is required. 

Back to TopTop