Research on Path Planning and Tracking Control of Automatic Parking System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review the grammar of the text, especially in the abstract and in the conclusions.

It is necessary to extend the bibliographic review, that is, the state of the art.

Figure 8 is very fuzzy; it needs to be improved.

Although the improvement with the proposed algorithm is clear, which is reflected in Figure 7, possibly an error analysis, for example ISE, could help to better visualize the improvement.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper presents a research on automatic parking of vehicles, in the case of parallel parking, from the point of planification and control of parking path / trajectory.

A new path controller and a novel algorithm for it was proposed and validated by both simulation with CarSIM / Simulink software and a demonstration experimental ROS vehicle.

The paper is strong from both theoretical and mathematical points of view. Also, the algorithm looks well  thought, the results validated by simulation and demonstrator laboratory car points out the better path controlling ability of the solution presented.

The paper is publishable as it is, very small english language corrections might be necessary and double checking if the formatting respects the requirements of journal, in terms of layout and image quality.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

In general, it's a qualified paper with fine structures, methodologies, analyses and detailed comparisons on the proposed methodology. The authors propose a parallel parking path scheme and tracking control mechanism, also construct a vehicle kinematics model via the quintic polynomial. Meanwhile, this study gives detailed experimental results on the proposed scheme. Eventually, this study indeed enhances the parking system and provides a more efficient model. I therefore suggest this paper can be accepted.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper tries to formulate a path for parallel parking and then use an MPC to control the vehicle. The paper is full of grammatical mistakes and typos. A lot of sentences does not make any sense. The results are minor and poorly presented. The introduction is very short with very few references and I could not find any novelty throughout the paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The new version of the manuscript has considered all the comments of the reviewers. Therefore, it is now ready to be published.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors have addressed a lot of the grammatical errors and typos. However, as I said before I don't see any novelty throughout the paper.

In my opinion, the paper can be summarized as follows:

fitting a quintic polynomial for parallel parking and an MPC controller for tracking control!

The result section is the tracking performance comparison between a preview controller and an MPC which is obviously better.

As I see it, the paper is more like a report. fitting a polynomial or implementing an MPC on a prototype is not novelty and not enough to be published in a journal.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx