Practical Approach for Developing Lateral Motion Control of Autonomous Lane Change System
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Your paper entitled “Practical Approach for Developing Lateral Motion Control of Autonomous Lane Change System,” is very interesting. The automotive industry can benefit from a lateral motion controller design algorithm for use in autonomous vehicles, which avoids state jump during lane changes. Your novel approach of employing a linear parameter varying (LPV) lateral motion controller in the cylinder domain to overcome the state jump problem associated with vehicle lane changes on highways can be useful in the advancement of autonomous vehicles.
My comments/recommendations are provided below.
- Recommend that ECU (electronic control unit) be defined (Lines 8, 69, and 258).
- Line 66 says, “The proposed method does not need to consider the lane crossing time and state jump in lateral offset.” However, Lines 99-100 say, “We derive the new vehicle motion model for lateral control systems by considering the jumped state of the lateral offset in a lane-change situation.” Recommend that the alleged discrepancy be explained.
- Recommend that Mz (moment at the center of gravity of the vehicle) be included in the Nomenclature.
I made a few suggestions to improve sentence structure (See the attached PDF document). Click on Yellow Sticky Notes to see recommendations.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
An interesting approach to the problem of car control when changing lanes. The approach adopted by the authors, however, is not very clear and has some limitations: e.g. the main assumption that only two lanes are used, and it is not known where the location of the car is obtained.
Moreover, the equations appearing in the text, with symbols explained only at the beginning of the article, knock the reader out of fluent reading. It is strange (in the adopted assumptions) to simplify the car model to the form of a bicycle. There is no explanation as to why the MATLAB package was used, and not specialized software for simulating autonomous vehicles (such as CARLA). Nothing is mentioned about the basic decision problem, which is the moment of changing lane. The article would definitely gain value if you add / change scenarios and assume the possibility of changing the speed (as is the case with the natural overtaking maneuver). The article also lacks a typical presentation of state of the art and a broader reference to existing literature (including magazines such as Cognitive Computation 2015-2018; IFAC-PapersOnLine 2017-2019; EAAI ..., etc.).
You also need to improve punctuation and correct the style of the English presentation.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
In this second round of reviews: Although the paper still contains minor language errors and typos and it could still be slightly corrected in terms of the introduction and review of the literature, I think that the work is interesting and can be currently accepted for publication in the journal.
