DVL Model Prediction Based on Fuzzy Multi-Output Least Squares Support Vector Machine in SINS/DVL
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please can authors specify if conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented?
If authors could give me more detailed explanation.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The author proposed a Fuzzy Multi-output Least Squares Support Vector Machine (FMLS-SVM) algorithm to predict invalid DVL measurements when DVL malfunctions occur. The author made an adequate background study and introduction. The results supports the conclusion that the proposed method improves the navigation performance of SINS/DVL integrated system. However, the author only compare their proposed model to MLS-SVM model, even though they mentioned a lots of other methods for DVL velocity prediction. So it would be better to have a thorough comparison table with other methods/algorithm.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In this manuscript, the authors design a velocity predictor based on fuzzy multi-output least squares support vector machine to predict DVL measurements when DVL malfunctions occur. The novelty is original and the paper is well organized. The work in this manuscript is very important to the colleagues working in the field of underwater navigation. So, I recommend this manuscript to be published after following comments are addressed:
1. All vectors presented in this paper need to be unified in bold form, especially for Section II.
2. Both support vector regression (SVR) and support vector machine (SVM) are mentioned in this manuscript, what is the difference between them?
3. The position errors is not involved in the error state vector of Kalman filter shown in Equation (1). Therefore, it is recommended to delete position errors.
4. The English spelling in the article needs to be carefully checked.
5. In order to describe the model more clearly, it is recommended to adjust the order of the Equation (22) and Equation (23).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
I did not understand if the UUV Underwater Platform is also equipped with a sonar system
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Authors should add the basic of fuzzy which has been used in the paper so that it becomes self contained material for the reader and add the reference L. A. Zadeh, Fuzzy sets, Inf. Control 8 (1965) 338-353.
line 52: "Tal A et al." should be "Tal et al."
line 131: Is there any difference between constant and random constant?
Enlarge the conclusion by writing the scope of future work.
Add the following recent paper on fuzzy graph cut: P. Karthick, S.A. Mohiuddine, K. Tamilvanan, S. Narayanamoorthy, S. Maheswari, Investigations of color image segmentation based on connectivity measure, shape priority and normalized fuzzy graph cut, Applied Soft Computing 139 (2023) 110239.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 6 Report
Comments and Suggestions for improvement:
1. The original contributions need to be much better presented in the last paragraph of section \INTRODUCTION". All improvements, if they are, and new results must be described in this paragraph. The advantages of the work are not discussed in the text. Indeed, introduction needs to enrich the readers with state-of-the-art works, which gives the reader a clear vision of the gap that those studies have not addressed and covered in this study.
2. A brief description of the structure (layout) of the paper may be added to the end of the Introduction. What makes the proposed method suitable for this unique task? What new development to the proposed method have the authors added (compared to the existing approaches)? These points should be clarified.
3. The Abstract should modified by adding advantages of the proposed method.
4. Check the manuscript carefully for typos and grammatical errors.
5. What is the novelty of the work and where does it go beyond previous efforts in the literature?
6. The references list is not at all updated with latest developments and publications. I suggest the authors to keep up to date with the relevant literature such as
https://doi.org/10.3390/fractalfract7020140; https://doi.org/10.3390/sym14050986 doi: 10.3934/math.2023264; https://doi.org/10.3390/sym14040739
7. In general, the typeset equations should be regarded as parts of a sentence and treated accordingly with the appropriate grammatical convention and punctuation. More editing for writing is needed. At the end of all equations must be put \COMMA" or \POINT" according to the typing rules.
8. All acronyms should be defined before.
9. Please rewrite the paper in the Template of the Journal . The references of this paper should be rewritten accordingly to style of the journal.
10. Section Conclusion should be elaborated more in detail.
11. In section \Numerical Results ", please interpret the obtained results in detail. It is important what you conclude to them.
12. At the beginning of the numerical results section, authors should present the configuration of the personal computer used to perform the simulation results.
13. Be sure that all the parameters descriptions are mentioned in section \Numerical results ".
14. Please report the CPU running times.
15. Please check the relations 31 and 37 as new one.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 5 Report
Accept in this form.
Author Response
We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our paper.
Reviewer 6 Report
Accept
