HDM-RRT: A Fast HD-Map-Guided Motion Planning Algorithm for Autonomous Driving in the Campus Environment
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This study is very interesting as a scientific research paper, since it proposed a fast HD-Map-guided sampling-based motion planning algorithm for autonomous vehicles on campus.
There are some suggestion to improve the clarity of this manuscript.
1. It is better to give some explanation for why we should use autonomous vehicles on campus as an alternative for transportation. Is it crucial for this mode in a real world as a research project not only as a scientific research project?
2 It is better to illustrate the meaning of sampling-based in the title of this manuscript. What is the meaning of sample?
3 The application of this proposed method might be necessary for readers. Please give some discussions on this point.
Author Response
Thanks for your comments. Please see the attachment for our response and revisions.
Thank you and kind regards.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
See the attachment.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thanks for your comments. Please see the attachment for our response and revisions.
Thank you and kind regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
1. The paper presents a novel and timely work on autonomous driving where HD map sampling technique is introduced.
However, from the title, or the abstract, it is not evident to the reader if the problem under consideration is one of computer vision, image processing, geospatial navigation, geographical information systems, trajectory planning and mapping or what is the actual problem domain ?
2. In the abstract, ". The proposed 24 algorithm effectively improves the computational efficiency and stability by accelerating the con- 25 vergence rate and reducing the number of iterations.".. The authors may back this claim by some numerical results based on performance metrics.
3. In the abstract, HDM-RRT is mentioned but full form is not given. For some abbreviations, full form is given. Why this inconsistency ?
4. Section I is well written.
5. In section 2, first 2 paragraphs contain no citations. Does it indicate that it is a novel contribution made by the authors ? If yes, then is it appropriate in related work section ?
Similar checks to be run throughout section 2.
6. In section 2, a table summarizing main contributions of existing papers and how the authors improve on them will improve the readability of the paper.
7. In section 3, a table describing all the symbols used in the manuscript will improve the readability of the paper.
8. There is no table listing all the abbreviations used in the manuscript.
9. Section 4 and 5 are well written. However, one piece of information seems to be missing: Which software/tool was used for simulations ?
10. The conclusion is generic and does not summarize the main contributions of the work. Can be re-written.
11. The references do not follow a uniform referencing pattern.
Author Response
Thanks for your comments. Please see the attachment for our response and revisions.
Thank you and kind regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The author has addressed all my comments and there's no further concerns.
Author Response
Thank you and kind regards.
Reviewer 3 Report
1. We pioneeringly propose:-> can be written as We propose
2. Table 1 consists of single word limitations such as 'suboptimal', 'low efficiency' etc. The context in which the existing work is 'suboptimal', 'low efficiency' etc is not evident from the table.
3. The response format is not standard where each comment provided by reviewers is addressed.
4. Algorithms are not readable, quality needs to be improved.
5. Algorithms are generally not presented as tables.
6. There is a table of abbreviations in the appendix. This cab ne moved to section 2. Also, are the authors sure all abbreviations have been listed in the table ?
7. There is a table that lists all the symbols use din the manuscript in the appendix. This may be moved to section 3. Also, are the authors sure all symbols have been listed in the table ?
8. There is some discussion provided on Table 10. But there is no insight on How is it compared to existing work ? Are the results an improvement over existing work ?
9. There is no discussion on Table 11. Just 1 sentence saying "Table 11 shows the statistical 833 data of each planning after each algorithm completed the experiment". What do the numerical values indicate ? How is it compared to existing work ? Are the results an improvement over existing work ?
10. Figure 19 quality needs improvement. Also, in the discussion of figure 19, there are many small paragrpahs.
11. Throughout the manuscript, there a lot of small paragraphs. The authors need to ensure all paragraphs are of uniform / consistent length.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
