Multi-UAV Cooperative Path Planning with Monitoring Privacy Preservation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper entitled "Multi-UAV Cooperative Path Planning with Monitoring Privacy-Preserving" is good and addresses path planning with monitoring privacy. However, following comments may improve the manuscript clear to the audience / readers.
(1) It may be better to show a few images and compare them as Path planning aspects.
(2) Also, highlight the specific high aspects of how it will change based on the altitude vs path planning
Otherwise, paper is very good and useful for planners in UAV
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: The paper entitled "Multi-UAV Cooperative Path Planning with Monitoring Privacy-Preserving" is good and addresses path planning with monitoring privacy. However, following comments may improve the manuscript clear to the audience / readers.
(1) It may be better to show a few images and compare them as Path planning aspects.
Response 1: The paper has provide nine figures to compare and analyze the two algorithms in the section of simulation experiment. For example, Figure 4 and Figure 6 show the paths obtained by OMACO and ACO algorithms, respectively. Figures 5 and Figure 7 show the persistent period obtained by the two algorithms, respectively. Figure 8 compares the convergence characteristics of the algorithms. Figures 9, Figure 10 and Figure 11 verify the scalability of the proposed algorithm. Considering that these images have been show a complete performance map of the proposed method, no more images are added in the revised version. However, in order to facilitate understanding, the language has been polished with the help of a native speaker.
Point 2: (2) Also, highlight the specific high aspects of how it will change based on the altitude vs path planning.
Otherwise, paper is very good and useful for planners in UAV.
Response 2: The persistent monitoring problem studied in this paper has many rigid constraints. It is difficult to obtain a solution that fully satisfies the constraints when using traditional ACO algorithms. However, the solution obtained by OMACO algorithm, which is proposed in this paper, can fully satisfy the constraints. Moreover, compared with the traditional ACO algorithm, the proposed algorithm has faster convergence speed and lower cost (Figure 8). Therefore, the algorithm proposed in this paper has obvious advantages. In order to facilitate understanding, we have modified some words and marked them in red.
Reviewer 2 Report
Interesting work, good to read and comprehend. The work explores multi-UAV monitoring path optimisation, OMACO algorithm has been proposed and by simulation proved that OMACO is better performing (faster) in compare to traditional ACO (Fig. 5 &7).
Introduction is good. Literature Review section (within Intro) very segregated due to grasping a huge amount of works and presenting a sentence on each work, very segregated and not united - it did not build up a knowledge box for readers. As well, the main point of lit rev which is critical analysis is completely missing. First person active voice (ex. lines 126, 129) have been used in some sentences that undermines the research article writing ethics. Sentences in Lines 162, 477,... starts with "This paper ......" possibly more accurate to say " this research....". This been repeated in other places too.
In Conclusion, visible that the work is concentrated on comaprison of two algorithms OMACO and ACO, but the title of paper does not reflect that. Title could be re-narrated. Other value is development of OMACO.
Author Response
Point 1: Interesting work, good to read and comprehend. The work explores multi-UAV monitoring path optimisation, OMACO algorithm has been proposed and by simulation proved that OMACO is better performing (faster) in compare to traditional ACO (Fig. 5 &7).
Introduction is good. Literature Review section (within Intro) very segregated due to grasping a huge amount of works and presenting a sentence on each work, very segregated and not united - it did not build up a knowledge box for readers. As well, the main point of lit rev which is critical analysis is completely missing.
Response 1: Thank the reviewers for their comments! We have comprehensively updated the literature review by classifying the similar literature and adding some objective comments. Pease see the red text in the introduction section of the paper.
Point 2: First person active voice (ex. lines 126, 129) have been used in some sentences that undermines the research article writing ethics. Sentences in Lines 162, 477,... starts with "This paper ......" possibly more accurate to say " this research....". This been repeated in other places too.
Response 2: We checked the text completely and revised all the first person active voice. All "This paper" expressions have also been examined and modified. Please see the red text in the manuscript.
Point 3: In Conclusion, visible that the work is concentrated on comaprison of two algorithms OMACO and ACO, but the title of paper does not reflect that. Title could be re-narrated. Other value is development of OMACO.
Response 3: The contribution of this study is not only the proposed OMACO algorithm, but also how to model the persistent monitoring path planning problem of multi UAV. The latter contributes much more to the study than the former. In order to help readers understanding clearly, the authors revised the last three paragraphs in the introduction section, by explaining the contribution of the study in detail. On the view of the authors, the current title of the paper is clear and accurate to cover the main work of the full text, so it does not revised.
