State Estimation of Distributed Drive Electric Vehicle Based on Adaptive Kalman Filter
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article should be restructured to focus on its main contribution which is not yet clear. Authors should clearly state the problem to be solved at the beginning and then develop their solutions throughout the article.
As it is, the document is too long with respect to its contribution.
The numerical examples are chosen without any explanation for the speed and for the weighting matrices.
Authors should clarify the operational space of the vehicle and the authorized speed (urban, highway...) and select examples covering the authorized limits with a variable speed and not just a fixed value.
Regarding state estimation, authors should consider different initial state values for the estimator and the real system. The robustness of the estimate to model uncertainties should also be discussed.
Other details to consider:
- why the Dugoff tire model is so relevant
- put the legend on the colored curves of figure 2
- avoid equation repetition where only indices change
- explain the bending point at line 382
- 138-139 are repeated in 140-141.
The English should be improved
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Suggestion is to use a well known benchmark or road/track that has been used by other researchers in the field and compare the estimated errors from your method to thiers.
Also, there is no clear justification why the authors decided to use fuzzy logic insted of more determenistic methods. (more explanation is needed in this part).
Many grammatical and spelling errors are there inthe manuscript. Please revise your manuscript throughly.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The required corrections:
1. Extend the literature review with 30-40 references for the application paper.
2. What is the research gap and the paper contribution, add two subsections at the end of the introduction section.
2. Assessment of your proposed models compared with the algorithms presented in the literature is needed.
3. Deep discussion with numerical assessment is needed for different simulations, add some indices such as maximum overshot, steady state error, rise time... etc.
4. Add the overall numerical assessment to the conclusion section and the future extension.
Good
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
- The article has not been shortened to focus on its main contribution and retain only the real added value without overloading too many simulations and plots.
- There are many equations that differ just by changing an index (eg 'r' and 'f'). It could be written compactly.
- Figure 3 (Vehicle simulation model) is unclear and can be deleted without any loss.
- As stated in my previous comments, authors should consider different initial states for the "actual" and estimated states in all their simulations for observers.
- The choice of matrices P and Q is not explained and seems arbitrary and critical.
- The noise characteristics seem very sensitive as the authors themselves state. A specific paragraph should be added to discuss this issue while remaining realistic.
- The conclusion should be rewritten in a more realistic way and not claim “fault tolerance” or “less than 1% estimation error”. The authors must conclude by highlighting the limits of the proposed technique and the possible perspectives.
The English should be improved
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The revised version needs more attention. Please, revise correctly your submission according to the previous two notes. Point 2: What is the research gap and the paper contribution, add two subsections at the end of the introduction section. Point 4: Deep discussion with numerical assessment is needed for different simulations, add some indices such as maximum overshot, steady state error, rise time... etc.
moderate
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Some text formatting to be checked.
Reviewer 3 Report
No other comments
Moderate
