Next Article in Journal
An Iterative Filtering Based ECG Denoising Using Lifting Wavelet Transform Technique
Next Article in Special Issue
Quo Vadis Machine Learning-Based Systems Condition Prognosis?—A Perspective
Previous Article in Journal
Real-Time Center of Gravity Estimation for Intelligent Connected Vehicle Based on HEKF-EKF
Previous Article in Special Issue
Robust Control of SEDCM by Fuzzy-PSO
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Numerical Robustness Evaluation of Floating-Point Closed-Loop Control Based on Interval Analysis

Electronics 2023, 12(2), 390; https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics12020390
by Filippo Savi 1,*, Amin Farjudian 2,*, Giampaolo Buticchi 2, Davide Barater 1 and Giovanni Franceschini 1
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Electronics 2023, 12(2), 390; https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics12020390
Submission received: 8 December 2022 / Revised: 3 January 2023 / Accepted: 5 January 2023 / Published: 12 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Feature Papers in Industrial Electronics)

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

Back to TopTop