Manipulation Planning for Cable Shape Control

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper proposes a new method to solve the cable shape control using dual robotic arms. A discrete point model is employed to deal with the cable and desired shape. A path generation algorithm is proposed to generate the intermediate cable shapes between the initial shape and the desired profile. The mass-spring model is used to assess the manipulation approach and simulation results demonstrate the feasibility and accuracy of the proposed method. Some major issues are listed below.

1) A section of Discussion should be added to discuss the disadvantages and advantages of this work. 

2) The authors should further emphasize the novelty of this study, such as comparing the proposed method with other works. At present, it is not easy to show the superiority of this study.

3) As for the mass-spring model, any new improvement is proposed, or do the authors only use this model directly?

4) The results should be presented clearly. It is difficult to read Figure 4 and Figure 12. Please improve the quality of figures carefully. 

5) The formation and language should also be improved significantly for better readability, such as the position of figures, the text in line 227 to line 229…

Please improve the presentation.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This work contributes to the development of robotic cable handling techniques, which enables precise control of these deformable objects in various applications. The novelty of the approach is the generation of intermediate profiles that act as orientation points for the transformation of the cable.    

The article is well-structured, well-written, and has a clearly defined contribution to the scientific community. I agree with the methods used and confirm their validity. It is also well-presented graphically, with clear images and graphs. I found no errors in the text. The literature is adequate and I found no discrepancies. I recommend that the manuscript be published.

Author Response

Please see attachment 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The proposed manuscript focuses on the control of the shape of cables or similar deformable objects. While the manuscript is well written and the problem is well formulated, there are a couple of minor issues that should be solved.

-Figure 1 is presented before being referenced in the text;

-More information regarding the simulation of the cable in CoppeliaSim would be useful to observe if the cable model adopted in the simulator is the same as the defined one (in which case considering a simulator is less impactful)

-The modeling of cables by adding marker or by generating the points is introduced, but is not explained which of the two approaches are adopted.

Some typos (e.g. "the main contributions of THESE paper", line 86 at page 3)

Author Response

Please see attachment 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

As part of the peer-review process, I appreciate the opportunity to review your recent paper. Your research is insightful, and the methodology is well-articulated. However, the following points should be addressed, it would contribute significantly to the overall depth of the paper.

1.    Algorithm 1 has irregularities in its formulation，such as references to "end".

2.    The author introduces the user-defined scalar λ in the Cable Path Generation Algorithm, defined as 0.5ls. Is this determined based on any specific criterion, or is it merely chosen to optimize the spatiotemporal complexity during the runtime of the algorithm?

3.The physical modeling approach for deformable objects based on the mass-spring model, as stated by the author in this study, primarily considers computational and resource costs. Here, it is suggested that the author could mention other models, such as Finite Element Analysis, to provide readers with a broader perspective and encourage further in-depth exploration of the issues discussed.

4.The green cable in Figure 4 represents which behavior or mode. The author should add relevant labels for clarification.

5.It is recommended to conduct a thorough analysis and discussion of the conclusions drawn from Figure 6 and other diagrams.

6.Please provide a more detailed discussion on any constraints of your findings in the concluding section. Are there particular scenarios or conditions where the proposed methodology might face challenges or exhibit variations in results?

7.Is there any reproducibility issue with the intermediate states between the Cable's initial and final shapes described in Figure 9?

8. In the introduction, it mentions recent significant advancements in the field of shape control, primarily focusing on model-based approaches. However, to the best of the reviewer's knowledge, there have been noteworthy strides in shape perception research, especially concerning objects with infinite degrees of freedom, such as wires and flexible robots. Currently, sensor-based shape perception studies offer a promising direction for addressing challenges in this domain and present practical applications. It is recommended that the authors consider incorporating relevant content in this regard to enhance readers' understanding of the issues within this field. This addition would also serve as a valuable reference for readers. Some relevant literature includes:

[1] Adv Funct Materials 2023, 33, 2306249.DOI: 10.1002/adfm.202306249

[2] Nano Energy 2023, 111, 108387.DOI: 10.1016/j.nanoen.2023.108387

Could be improved after minor refinement of language.

Author Response

Please see attachment 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed most of the reviewer comments to a good standard and the paper can now be accepted after minor editing of English language.

None

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments well addressed, can be published.