Preliminary Design of a Receding Horizon Controller Supported by Adaptive Feedback
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I have the following observations:
- In this paper it is presented a suggested solution for a dynamic model; so this it is directly used without any gradient reduction by using a transition between the Gradient Descent and the Newton-Raphson methods to achieve possibly fast operation.
- I suggest to review the Figures axes (must be write the measurement unity and the exanimated quantity)
- Please insert a Paragraph, where to present more clearly for the readers, (preferably in Introduction) yours contributions in this paper
- Please insert in References a more papers from last 5 years.
- Usually in Introduction are referred almost all References (at list for first time)
- Usually at finish of the Introduction are presented the structure of the next Sections
- Please summarize the superiority yours algorithms in comparison with others, through imposing a few comparative quantities.
Author Response
Please, find the answers in the uploaded document.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper discusses the design of a receding horizon controller supported by adaptive feedback.
The article begins with Chapter 1, which presents an Introduction. Chapter 2 presents the formulation of the optimization problem. Constraint Terms are not used. Chapter 3 discusses solution for the minimization. Contributions are nicely put in this one. Chapter 4 includes utilization of the result of cost minimization. Chapter 5 presents results for two scenarios: with and without force limitations. The paper concludes with the Discussion chapter.
The paper is well written and organized. The flow of information is nicely done, so it's a smooth read. The solution presented in the paper is discussed in depth. The proposed model is discussed step by step. The literature review is very detailed. The methodology is carried out correctly. The format of the article is also correct.
General comments:
1) There are no references from recent years. Please update the reference list so you have a better proportion of recent studies on the subject (2020 and 2021) and to show that the topic is of interest to the other researchers.
Author Response
Please, find the answers in the attached document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
- Results: Recommend to be Rejected
This paper conducts the operation of the method by simulations made for new cost functions and the dynamic control of a 4 degree of freedom SCARA robot using simple sequential Julia language code realizing Euler integration. As Receding Horizon Controllers are special approximations of Optimal Controllers in which the continuous time variable is discretized over a horizon of optimization. The cost function is defined as the sum of contributions calculated in the grid points and it is minimized under the constraint that expresses the dynamic model of the controlled system. The control force calculated only for one step of the horizon is exerted, and the next horizon is redesigned from the measured initial state to avoid the accumulation of the effects of modeling errors. In the suggested solution the dynamic model is directly used without any gradient reduction by using a transition between the Gradient Descent and the Newton-Raphson methods to achieve possibly fast operation. The optimization is carried out for an “overestimated” dynamic model, and instead using the optimized force components the so optimized trajectory is adaptively tracked by an available approximate dynamic model of the controlled system.
This paper is with none merits for Electronics, i.e., poor writing skills and lacking of insight analysis, it could only be rejected without any further revisions.
Firstly, for Section 1, authors should provide the comments of the cited papers after introducing each relevant work. What readers require is, by convinced literature review, to understand the clear thinking/consideration why the proposed approach can reach more convinced results. This is the very contribution from authors. In addition, authors also should provide more sufficient critical literature review to indicate the drawbacks of existed approaches, then, well define the main stream of research direction, how did those previous studies perform? Employ which methodologies? Which problem still requires to be solved? Why is the proposed approach suitable to be used to solve the critical problem? We need more convinced literature reviews to indicate clearly the state-of-the-art development. And very importantly, authors always have to write a paragraph saying: “The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 contains the literature review. Section 3 contains the methodology (method). Section 4 contains the results. Section 5 contains the conclusions and policy implications”. So, the reader knows what’s coming next.
For Sections 3 to 5, authors should introduce their proposed research framework more effective, i.e., some essential brief explanation vis-à-vis the text with a total research flowchart or framework diagram for each proposed algorithm to indicate how these employed models are working to receive the experimental results. It is difficult to understand how the proposed approaches are working.
For Section 6, authors should use more alternative models as the benchmarking models, authors should also conduct some statistical test to ensure the superiority of the proposed approach, i.e., how could authors ensure that their results are superior to others? Meanwhile, authors also have to provide some insight discussion of the results.
Author Response
Please, find the answers in the attached document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Authors have completely addressed all my concerns.
