Maximum Versoria Criterion Algorithm with Adaptive Radius in Active Impulse Noise Control

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper presents maximum versoria criterion (FXRMVC) algorithm with adaptive radius in active impulse noise control. The improved points are stability of damage by impulse noise. This paper includes ANC algorithm review and proposed modified one. Papers are well written and interested and I cannot find critical error and So I recommend publication.

In introduction, the motivation of this research can be reinforced

In Figure 7, upper value of radius was limited

Overall, font size can be large in Figure.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Based on the Versoria function, a new FxRMVC algorithm is proposed and applied to impulse active noise control. Furthermore, the new method is complemented with an online adaptive radius strategy. Algorithms perform independently and self-motivated without selecting a prior radius. The proposed algorithms exhibit improved resistance to impulse noise in spite of involved computational complications.

Below are specific comments to the authors:

1. The authors should polish the paper suitably. The whole paper should be reviewed carefully, in order to correct all the typing, spelling, and grammatical errors.

2. In the introduction to this article, I would like the scientific novelty to be more emphasized and more obvious.

3. In both the conclusions and perhaps the abstract, I am missing some quantitative assessment of the extent to which these proposed algorithms have improved the basic parameters, compared to the work of other researchers.

4. Why are the authors limited to simulation results? In my opinion, these studies could be supplemented by real measurements, real experiments, and confirmation or refutation of the simulation results. The authors should indicate what difficulties prevented the conduct of experimental studies.

5. There could be better formatting of the Figures because Figures 6-10 at the very end of the article look weird. If there is extraordinarily little text describing these Figures, it may be worth thinking about and including these Figures in the appendix to this article.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors:

The research results presented in the article are interesting and valuable. Article needs to be improved.  

Comment 1: The whole paper needs English corrections.

Comment 2: Some terms used in the article need corrections.

Comment 3: The reviewer proposes to move the text (lines 63 to 69)  above Figure. 1

Comment 4:  The reviewer suggests inserting Figures 6 to 10 above References and Conclusions.

Comment 5:  Line 66, the citation is not given in square brackets. Line 74 – Only the name of one author of the cited article is given.

 

Comment 6:  There is no explanation of the symbols used in the equations.

 

The authors should provide more detailed discussion about proposed algorithms and conclusion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have included important discussions in the revised manuscript, it will be helpful for other authors or researchers to understand the concept of this paper.

The revised paper can be accepted in my view.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.