Numerical Robustness Evaluation of Floating-Point Closed-Loop Control Based on Interval Analysis
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Notes in the attachment.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
Overall, it is good contribution and good paper but the paper quality can be increased by incorporating the following comments.
1. Put keywords in proper order.
2. Include the full name in first instance for all abbreviated words and also include the list of abbreviation at the end of the paper.
3. Only one paragraph in introduction, it does not sound good. Please include the clear motivation and problem statements before the outline of the paper. Make at least two to three paragraphs to enhance the readability.
4. Introduce all definitions and mathematical formulas either in introduction or section 2.
5. In Section 2, it is very monotonous and hard to follow the paper. Please breakdown the chapter in to sub-chapters to enhance the readability.
6. In Figure 2, there is setup phase and analysis phase but there is evaluation phase in the text and therefore, it is confusing. Evaluation phase does not have proper details. Include more detailed explanation.
7. There is a lack of details of case study- include more introduction. Flow diagrams (Figure 2 and Figure 5) need to align more. How this case study is a special case for the general case presented in Section 3. It need to clear, otherwise it is hard to consider as a case study.
8. Line number 193, either present in tabular form or bullet point form.
9. Define sensitivity analysis and statistical analysis before using in case study.
10.Results need more discussion, specially Figure 6 and Table 2.
11. There is a claim in the conclusion section but how this study rank with other previous studies? What are the clear advantages and benefits?
Good luck.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf