Next Article in Journal
Complex-Time Framework for Authenticity and Identity in Personalized AI
Previous Article in Journal
Argumentation-Based Equation-Solver Selector for Energy-Efficient WSNs
Previous Article in Special Issue
Solving a Multi-Period Dynamic Pricing Problem Using Learning-Augmented Exact Methods and Learnheuristics
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Hybrid Development of a Multimodal Mobile Robot via Vibe Coding Approach

Algorithms 2026, 19(6), 459; https://doi.org/10.3390/a19060459
by Erick-David Díaz-Brito 1, Juana-Mariel Dávila-Vilchis 1,2,*, Luis-Adrián Zúñiga-Avilés 1,3, Giorgio Mackenzie Cruz-Martínez 1, Joel Zagoya López 1,2, Hugo Mendieta Zerón 4 and Rosa María Valdovinos 1
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Algorithms 2026, 19(6), 459; https://doi.org/10.3390/a19060459
Submission received: 9 April 2026 / Revised: 28 May 2026 / Accepted: 3 June 2026 / Published: 5 June 2026
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Hybrid Intelligent Algorithms (2nd Edition))

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

This paper (algorithms-4278241) proposes a symmetry-oriented perspective, suggesting that the robotic system can be interpreted as a multi-level symmetry–asymmetry co-design problem, where structural, functional, and algorithmic symmetries are intentionally introduced and selectively broken to enable adaptive behavior. The following main comments and suggestions need to be addressed.

  1. It is suggested that the authors further clarify the innovation and contribution of this paper in the Abstract and Introduction.
  2. In the Introduction, the discussion of the current research status is insufficient. It is suggested that the authors supplement the review with relevant studies from the past five years, incorporating recent works on robotic systems analysis and design. such as “DOIs: 10.1115/1.4071599, 10.1016/j.ress.2025.110894 and 10.1016/j.jmapro.2026.01.001”.
  3. It is suggested that the authors justify the “multi-level symmetry–asymmetry co-design” claim, as the current contribution appears mainly to be a conventional AI-assisted educational robot.
  4. The literature review is mainly descriptive and lacks systematic comparison. It is suggested that the authors reorganize the literature review to better identify the limitations of previous studies and clearly explain how the present work addresses these limitations.
  5. The mathematical rigor of the manuscript is insufficient, and the paper contains almost no formal mathematical modeling. It is suggested that the authors incorporate explicit equations for sensor states, PWM control, velocity, and battery endurance to enhance theoretical depth.
  6. The experiments lack quantitative data. It is suggested that the authors incorporate tables or charts to detail specific obstacle avoidance success rates and distance errors.
  7. It is suggested that the authors provide comparative experiments to support the claim that the three-sensor array outperforms two-sensor educational kits.
  8. The Conclusion section appears somewhat verbose, with excessive reiteration of the methodology. It is suggested that the authors condense the procedural summary, highlight specific quantitative findings and the practical engineering value.
  9. A thorough review of the manuscript is suggested to address minor inconsistencies, particularly in reference style alignment.
  10. It is suggested that the authors correct the section numbering error, changing “4.3 Instrumentation” to “2.3 Instrumentation”, and standardize the inconsistent capitalization in the manuscript’s title.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments that helped us improve the manuscript's content. We have carefully analyzed the comments and incorporated the corrections and recommendations in color blue on the revised manuscript. In what follows, we describe in detail how the comments/suggestions on the attached pdf file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents the hybrid development of a multimodal mobile robot via a Vibe Coding approach, covering design, manufacturing, instrumentation, programming, and testing. The manuscript is generally well organized, and the topic is relevant to educational robotics and rapid prototyping. In particular, the integration of a modular hardware architecture with AI-Assisted Software Development is interesting, and the three implemented operating modes, namely Line-Follower, Obstacle-Avoidance, and Bluetooth control, demonstrate certain practical value for university teaching and competitions. Overall, the work is technically sound and the manuscript has application potential. However, the manuscript requires further revisions before publication.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments that helped us improve the manuscript's content. We have carefully analyzed the comments and incorporated the corrections and recommendations in color blue on the revised manuscript. In what follows, we describe in detail how the comments/suggestions on the attached pdf file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is recommended that the authors reflect more clearly the essence of the novelty of your research.
What contribution did the authors make to the development of existing achievements.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable observation that helped us improve the manuscript's content. The contribution of our work has been perfectly defined and highlighted in the abstract and at the end of the introduction. All changes are marked in blue on the revised manuscript. 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although some concerns have been addressed, several minor issues remain in the manuscript (algorithms-4278241-v2). The following points require attention:

  1. It is suggested that the authors use different colors to distinguish their responses to different reviewers, which will facilitate the review process.
  2. It is suggested that the authors further refine the Abstract, with an emphasis on highlighting the innovations and contributions of this study.
  3. It is suggested that the authors provide a brief overview of the subsequent sections at the end of the Introduction.
  4. It is suggested that the authors provide a discussion on the limitations of existing research and future perspectives.
  5. The resolution of all figures needs improvement. It is suggested that the authors use vector graphics to ensure high clarity.

Author Response

We thank your observations that help us to improve our research article entitled “Hybrid Development of a multimodal mobile robot via Vibe Coding Approach” for consideration by Algorithms Journal. Thus, a refined, improving the writing and clarity throughout the article. All changes are marked in purple. The resolution of Figures 6 and 7 has also been improved, and the patent number for our multifunctional robot has been included.

Back to TopTop