Validation of Automated Driving Function Based on the Apollo Platform: A Milestone for Simulation with Vehicle-in-the-Loop Testbed
, Vamsi Prakash Makkapati 2, Li Wan 3, Ernst Tomasch 4, Heinz Hoschopf 4 and Arno Eichberger 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This article showcases the effectiveness of the Vehicle-in-the-Loop (ViL) testbed in replicating critical driving scenarios for vehicles equipped with highly automated driving functions. It demonstrates the successful development of an Apollo-based automated driving function that perceives and generates trajectories in a virtual environment, with acceptable deviation between simulated and real measurements, marking a significant milestone for the Apollo platform.
But it needs many explanations to make it understandable for readers.
The following comments are for the authors to improve the paper and to clarify some concepts.
1. 1. There are many abbreviations, some of which are not defined such as EUC, and others which are defined later in the text. It is better for the authors to make a table that includes all appreciations.
22. It is not enough to say “ … as shown in Figure x”, some explanations should be given for each figure.
3. Is Figure 3 a photo for the experimental work of the authors, or just a photo from a reference? If it is taken from a reference, it should be mentioned at the end of the title of the figure.
4. The results reported in Table 1, are not explained how they are obtained. What equations are used to calculate them? It should be explained.
5. It is better for the authors to provide an overview of systematic architecture to make the work useful for the readers.
6. It is not clear how the Apollo platform utilizes the multibody simulation platform to develop an automated driving function that perceives surrounding traffic and generates feasible trajectories.
7. Explain the process of transmitting control commands from the simulated driving function to the real vehicle?
8. State clearly the limitations of the proposed method.
9. The authors can add the steps of implementing the algorithms. The theoretical part can be better detailed. The steps will be in the benefit of the readers, maybe they’ll help the readers to implement the proposed algorithm.
10. Is there a comparison with existing results to be provided?
11. Throughout the paper, there are many grammar errors and typos, which should be removed.
12. The word “chapter” appeared in the text. Authors should be careful when writing an article from technical report or others.
Minor editing and corrections according to the comments given by the reviewer.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank you for your careful and thorough reading of this manuscript and for the thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions, which have greatly contributed to the quality of this manuscript.
In addition to changes and edits made directly in the manuscript, we address each of the questions raised by the reviewers in the text following this letter. Meanwhile, to better track my changes, I have highlighted my changes in red in the submission.
After careful consideration, we have decided to include one section Discussion to emphasize our experimental findings and to discuss dis/advantage of our proposed methodology. We believe that this will enhance the overall quality of the manuscript and provide readers with a more detailed and comprehensive understanding of our research. Specifically, we have corrected the typos and grammatical errors you have highlighted. Once again, we would like to express our sincere appreciation for your valuable feedback. We hope that the revised manuscript now meets the expectations of the reviewers and we look forward to hearing back from you soon.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1) Each abbreviation introduced in the work requires its explanation before the first use. Examples: "ECU" from rows 20-22. "ADAS" (row 30).
2) Expressions in the first person singular or plural must be replaced with those in the third person singular (possibly plural). Example: "We propose" (row 40).
3) The statement "One such limitation is the need for a substantial investment in a large open area. Additionally, high dynamic testing can still pose hazards, and the Vehicle Under Test (VUT) trajectory remains uncontrollable. (rows 57-59)" requires citation.
4) There are many grammatical problems that must be solved within the entire text. Examples: "For example, a series of groundbreaking works are presented in the work of [ 2, 11 ]. (rows 63-64)"; "Although this type of bench is (was) initially designed to achieve emission tests, owing to its cost-effectiveness, it has been extended to the validation of ADAS and can facilitate the stimulation of sensors. (rows 68-70)"
5) The same expression is repeated twice in lines 68-72.
6) Figure 2 requires more extensive explanations, even a substantial discussion.
7) Describe in more detail the way of implementation, work, and characteristics of the PID controller introduced in Figure 4 and in the previous (brief) text.
8) Table 1 requires a broader discussion.
9) Insert more explanations and discussion in Figures 7 and 9.
10) An additional section "Discussion" should be introduced before "Conclusion", in which all the major contributions of the authors, the new methodology introduced, advantages, disadvantages, limitations, but also possible future developments should be highlighted.
The work required an extensive revision of English grammar.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We would like to express our gratitude for taking the time to review our manuscript titled "Validation of Automated Driving Function Based on the Apollo Platform: A Milestone for Simulation With Vehicle-in-the-Loop Testbed". We appreciate your constructive feedback and suggestions to improve the quality of our work. We have carefully considered all of your comments, and in response, we have revised the manuscript accordingly.
Importantly, we have added a new section—Discussion of the paper to discuss our major contribution, and the dis/advantage about this ViL setup. We are grateful for your comments, which have helped us to improve the paper's quality and clarity. We believe that the revisions we have made will strengthen the manuscript and make it more valuable for readers. Thank you once again for your time and effort in reviewing our paper and most looking forward to your feedback. We will answer your questions one-on-one afterwards. The necessary changes in the paper are highlighted in red.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Accept in present form
Moderate editing of English language required
