Review Reports
- Shouyi Wang1,
- Qinghua Zeng1,2,* and
- Jianye Liu1,2
- et al.
Reviewer 1: Ke Shang Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: Anonymous Reviewer 4: Anonymous
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPoint 1:
It would be interesting to include a comparative table of related studies with the one carried out by the authors. So, it is possible to emphasize the common characteristics and different ones between the related studies and the one that performed by authors.
Point 2:
It seems that in the this version, Table 1 was split into two parts due to improper page layout adjustment. It would be interesting to fix it.
Point 3:
It would be better if more informations of experiment were given. For example, why was the study area chosen? And the typical scene of section 1-3 should be posted to demonstrate that this choice is in line with the research scope. The characteristics corresponding with the research problems are expected to be presented to prove that the results are credible.
Point 4:
How is it possible to replicate the experiments for auditing and reproducibility of results and procedures, specially, in other contexts? So, it is partially difficult to understand how the experiments were carried out. In addition, it would be important to express/clarify the experimental process of experiments performed. The section related to the experiments could be improved through Wohlin's experimental guidelines, focusing on experiments:
Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M., Ohlsson, M. C., Regnell, B., & Wesslén, A. (2012). Experimentation in software engineering. Springer Science & Business Media.
Point 5:
The visibility can be enhanced by appropriately adding a reference line in figures. For example, in Figure 8, the error could be positive and negative values, and we expect the error to be closer to 0. This comparison would be easier if a horizontal line representing the value of 0 was added to provide reference.
Point 6:
The length of the manuscript is too long, so it is recommended to shorten it. If Sections 2 and 3 contain much content or formulas that have been published in previous works, consider hiding them and keeping only the citation information on the condition that it will not break logical coherence and readability. Or put it in the appendix.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsREVISION MANUSCRIPT Remote Sensing- 2919941: “Fault Detection and Interactive Multiple Models Optimization Algorithm Based on Factor Graph Navigation System.”
General comments:
In their study, the authors proposed an adaptive loosely coupled IMU/GNSS/LiDAR integrated navigation system based on factor graph optimization with the ability of sensors’ weight optimization and fault detection. In order to accomplish that, the authors considered using (1) factor nodes and system framework; (2) interactive multiple models algorithm based on factor graph optimization; (3) a multi-stage fault detection, isolation, and recovery (MSFDIR) strategy. Therefore, I found the research very interesting, and I believe the manuscript might be accepted in the present form.
Specific comments:
It is a very clear, well-written and interesting manuscript. have no comments on it.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this paper, a fault detection and interactive multiple models optimization algorithm based on factor graph navigation system is proposed. This paepr is well orginized with highlight innovations. There are some suggestions:
(1) As an improved algorithm, it is important to analyze if it can be used in real application, which means that it is better to add the algorithm complexity analysis part especially the time consuming;
(2) The improvement percentage of the proposed method should be added in the Table2 to show the superiority;
(3) Some novel related information fusion algorithms are suggested to be reviewed in the introduction part, such as "A Novel SINS/DVL Tightly Integrated Navigation Method for Complex Environment" and "Dual-optimization for a MEMS-INS/GPS system during GPS outages based on cubature Kalman filter and neural networks".
(4) It is suggested to give the classic improvement percentage in the abstract part.
(5) The introduction part is a little redundant, the SLAM part is suggested to be simplified.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
Appreciate your efforts in preparing this manuscript. Though manuscript discusses very important issues related to vehicle localization. But there few areas of improvement that could benefit the manuscript in terms of quality and clarity.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Some phrases are very confusing, it would be better to rewrite those lines.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have made a significant improvement in their resubmitted manuscript and have adequately addressed the concerns and suggestions. I have no further comments, hence recommend the manuscript for publication.