LiLo: ADL Localization with Conventional Luminaries and Ambient Light Sensor
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1- Comments for the introduction: Authors should develop literature review and benchmarking. Please highlight the contribution of the proposed system and its advantages over rf/rssi/csi. The difference needs to be emphasized by using the following recent articles of the journal.
- Seçkin, A.C.; Coşkun, A. Hierarchical Fusion of Machine Learning Algorithms in Indoor Positioning and Localization. Appl. sci. 2019, 9, 3665. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9183665
- Lopez-Rodriguez, F.M.; Cuesta, F. An Android and Arduino Based Low-Cost Educational Robot with Applied Intelligent Control and Machine Learning. Applied Sciences 2020, 11, 48.
- Wang, T.; Zhao, H.; Shen, Y. An Efficient Single-Anchor Localization Method Using Ultra-Wide Bandwidth Systems. Applied Sciences 2019, 10, 57.
If smart phone-based work is to be done, visual positioning systems are not mentioned at all. Especially topological localization is a very important alternative.
- Blochliger, F., Fehr, M., Dymczyk, M., Schneider, T., & Siegwart, R. (2018, May). Topomap: Topological mapping and navigation based on visual slam maps. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) (pp. 3818-3825). IEEE.
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UokjxSLTcd0
In addition, the issue of positioning with lidar systems operating using a different source should also be mentioned.
2- Comments for the Method Part: The figure-4 presented for the operation of the system is presented unnecessarily complex. It would be nice to simplify and present it in a flow. The sensor used as a receiver and the data collection method are not presented clearly enough. Which sensor(s) are used in this part? Is the IMU involved in the positioning process? The measurement process and its variation over time should be illustrated with an example. How are daily, seasonal or event-based changes compensated?
3- Experiments and Discussion group should be created. In this section, a benchmarking table of similar and competing studies should be added. It would be good to make this comparison according to parameters such as error amount, correlation during roaming, sensitivity, response time, required hardware cost, computational cost etc.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
It is a very interesting work, but, there is not information related to the way that light changes are captured using the smartphone. Does it is captured using the ambient sensor only? The ambient sensor of the mobile is quite poor. What is the sensibility of this sensor?
Did you try to verify the results obtained without using the VLC channel?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
* The authors have addressed a crucial problem of ADL localization. The proposed method of fusing light-based information, orientation, and time for solving this type of problem is novel.
* The system architecture diagram needs to be improved and made more intuitive. The descriptions should also change accordingly.
* There is no comparison with other existing systems in the evaluation section, which weakens the article.
* The related works section can be improved with more references addressing the current works in the field.
* There is no detailed description of the algorithms mentioned. The authors just presented the two algorithms, but there should be an explanation corresponding to the line numbers of the algorithms.
* The flow of the paper overall can be improved with an appropriate change in the descriptions and explanations.
* Furthermore, there are some typos and formatting issues in the article.
* Finally, the paper needs to be edited by a native English speaker if possible.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
It would be easier to read if the changes were also highlighted in the final text. But the current changes and answers that I see are adequate. It is acceptable in its current form.
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.
