A Performance Assessment on Rotor Noise-Informed Active Multidrone Sound Source Tracking Methods

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper focuses on the multi-drone sound source tracking algorithms.This manuscript evaluates the performance of PAFIM combining optimal microphone array placement and rotor noise reduction technology through comparative simulation experiments.In the simulation experiment, single and multi-source scenarios were established, and the impact of adjacent drone noise on multi drone SST was evaluated, which is more realistic for the working environment. The study is an interesting work with practical applications, and is highly relevant to this field. This manuscript could be considered for publication in Drones, however, there are still some issues that need to be addressed.

 

1.In the second section,the problem assumes that in the overdetermined case, each i drone/microphone array M ≥ U + K + N-1. Please explain these relationships more fully, including the arrangement of the microphone array on each drone.

2.In section 5.1 (line 427), this paragraph should describe the Table 4 and should be changed from Table 3 to Table 4. There is another descriptive error later in the text like this.

3.The display of the drone's trajectory in Figure 10 is too complex, please find a more concise and clear way.

4.The paper lacks a corresponding description of how to control the UAV to track the sound signal. When the microphone array gets the position information of the sound source, how it passes the information to the UAV. What kind of connection is maintained in the UAV formation in the optimization of the UAV layout. It is suggested to add a figure to illustrate it.

5.There appears to be a descriptive error in these two sentences in lines 523 through 527. The sentence describes that the PAFIM algorithm will run into problems even without array placement planning, but how does this reflect the critical importance of ensuring that array layout planning works as intended?

 

Author Response

The authors would like to extend their thanks for the reviewer's time and effort to review this paper. The following reply to the comments summarises the authors’ revisions to the manuscript in light of these. Please note that the revised manuscript also contains revisions based on comments and suggestions from other reviewers.

Please also note that any references to the manuscript (e.g. equation, figure, section, paragraph) are based on the revised version unless otherwise specified.

 

Reviewer Comments:

1. In the second section,the problem assumes that in the overdetermined case, each i drone/microphone array M ≥ U + K + N-1. Please explain these relationships more fully, including the arrangement of the microphone array on each drone.

Thank you for the comment. The problem setting in Section 2 has been revised to clarify the description of each sound source. Specifically, we rearranged the sentences in the first paragraph to ensure that all sound sources are described prior to further discussion. We also revised Figure 1 to describe the problem setting, which should explain the relationship of the various sound sources more fully. The revised Figure 1 should also provide some additional information for comment 4. A figure of the microphone array arrangement has also been included in Section 4 (as Figure 4) for additional detail.

 

2. In section 5.1 (line 427), this paragraph should describe the Table 4 and should be changed from Table 3 to Table 4. There is another descriptive error later in the text like this.

Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised errors in the Table and figure numbers throughout the paper. We have also revised the opening of Section 5.1 to inform that cases with and without drone noise will be evaluated, for additional clarity.

 

3. The display of the drone's trajectory in Figure 10 is too complex, please find a more concise and clear way.

We have revised Figure 12 for simplification and clarity. In addition, we have also simplified Figure 14 for clarity.

 

4. The paper lacks a corresponding description of how to control the UAV to track the sound signal. When the microphone array gets the position information of the sound source, how it passes the information to the UAV. What kind of connection is maintained in the UAV formation in the optimization of the UAV layout. It is suggested to add a figure to illustrate it.

Thank you for pointing this out. We acknowledge that there is a lack of a general description of how sound source tracking and drone placement planning operate at a high level. We have revised Section 3 and Section 4 to include a description regarding this information. We also revised Figure 1 and Figure 2 to add visual information regarding how audio information is relayed for processing, leading to the calculation of the optimal drone placement coordinates and how it is passed towards the drones.

 

5. There appears to be a descriptive error in these two sentences in lines 523 through 527. The sentence describes that the PAFIM algorithm will run into problems even without array placement planning, but how does this reflect the critical importance of ensuring that array layout planning works as intended?

Thank you for pointing this out. There was a descriptive mistake made in these sentences. This has now been revised completely.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a comprehensive study on sound source localization including a method for the reduction of rotor noise and a tool for the array placement planning. The results are very interesting and the algorithm, even if it must be improved, gives good-quality results. Numerous results are presented in support of the thesis, aiming to establish a robust framework for comprehensively understanding the addressed issue and developing models pertinent to design. The work may be accepted in its current form, as it serves as an excellent springboard for future studies in this domain.

Author Response

The authors would like to extend their thanks for the reviewer's time and effort to review this paper. The authors would also like to thank the reviewer for the positive comments. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, the work is intriguing and holds significant interest ; however, there are areas where further clarification and improvement would significantly enhance the quality and impact of the paper.

1.       The abstract and conclusion sections could be improved to ensure they effectively communicate the core and significance of your research to the readers.

2.       In the introduction part, it would be beneficial to incorporate references to recent literature to provide context and relevance to your work.

3.       Could you provide insights into how your findings align, diverge, or contribute to the existing literature?

4.       I want to inquire whether you have thoroughly compared your results with previously published works .

 

5.       The clarity of English language representation, particularly in the abstract, introduction, and conclusion sections, requires improvement. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The clarity of English language representation, particularly in the abstract, introduction, and conclusion sections, requires improvement. 

Author Response

The authors would like to extend their thanks for the reviewer's time and effort to review this paper. The following reply to the comments summarises the authors’ revisions to the manuscript in light of these. Please note that the revised manuscript also contains revisions based on comments and suggestions from other reviewers.

Please also note that any references to the manuscript (e.g. equation, figure, section, paragraph) are based on the revised version unless otherwise specified.

 

Reviewer Comments:

1. The abstract and conclusion sections could be improved to ensure they effectively communicate the core and significance of your research to the readers.

Thank you for the comment. We have revised the abstract and Section 5 to improve the core significance of this study.

2. In the introduction part, it would be beneficial to incorporate references to recent literature to provide context and relevance to your work.

We have revised Section 1 to provide the context in terms of multi-robot audition prior to introducing multi-drone audition, including additional references.

3. Could you provide insights into how your findings align, diverge, or contribute to the existing literature?

We have revised Section 4 (Results and Discussion) section to include how the findings in this study correlate to findings from past studies where appropriate.

4. I want to inquire whether you have thoroughly compared your results with previously published works.

Thank you for your comment regarding this. While we have not included all methods that were developed in previous works, we have utilised the most recent study related to this topic, which according to [31], is a method that overall outperforms past studies. Given that multi-drone sound source tracking is a topic that has only been recently explored, it is to our knowledge that no other notable studies on this topic have been proposed. However, we like to note that in our previous work [27,28], the proposed methods have been compared to past studies that also utilise multiple microphone arrays, but not on drones, and the methods have demonstrated improved performance over existing studies. This is the main reason behind this study focusing on the PAFIM method, as the inclusion of other methods will likely make the study too lengthy.

5. The clarity of English language representation, particularly in the abstract, introduction, and conclusion sections, requires improvement.

We have revised Section 1, Section 5, and the abstract for further clarity in the English language.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper could be accepted after proper English polishing.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper could be accepted after proper English polishing.

Author Response

The authors would like to extend their thanks for your time and effort to review this paper. The authors would also like to thank the reviewer for the positive comment. We have revised the manuscript to include polishing of the English language.

Please note that the revised manuscript also contains revisions based on comments and suggestions from other reviewers.