Computational Intelligence Supporting the Safe Control of Autonomous Multi-Objects

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents a comparative analysis of computational intelligence algorithms for the safe control of autonomous objects within groups. However, the following concerns need to be addressed before it can be considered for publication.

The innovative aspects of the article are not articulated clearly; the comparative simulations of traditional methods cannot be considered as the main innovative contributions of the paper.

In each specific method mentioned, there is no reference to relevant representative articles; instead, it focuses on very basic algorithms. Each method requires a detailed system diagram for presentation.

In the comparison of computational intelligence approaches, how thoroughly are the pros and cons of each method discussed? Could the paper benefit from a deeper analysis of the trade-offs involved?

 

The study primarily relies on MATLAB simulations, which might not fully capture the complexities of real-world environments.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is now in the final stages of peer review, and while it may be worthwhile to publish, substantial revisions are still required. Please respond fully to the following comments and explain how you responded in a cover letter. I look forward to receiving your revised version. Here are some constructive comments:

Comment 1. The abstract effectively communicates the aim of the study: a comparative analysis of computational intelligence algorithms for the safe control of autonomous objects in a group. However, it would be beneficial to explicitly state the specific objectives addressed by the comparison to ensure clarity for readers.

Comment 2. The author mentions the use of various computational methods, such as linear programming, dynamic programming, and game theory, but lacks a detailed explanation of how these methods are integrated to achieve the comparative analysis. Providing a concise overview of the methodology would enhance the reader's understanding of the computational algorithms used.

Comment 3. Consider incorporating references such as [Multi-objects tracking based on 3D lidar and bi-directional recurrent neural networks under autonomous driving (Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University-School of Graduate Studies), https://doi.org/doi:10.7282/t3-dgnr-4x58 ], [Non-linear finite-time tracking control of uncertain robotic manipulators using time-varying disturbance observer-based sliding mode method. Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems. 2022 Feb;104(2):36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10846-022-01571-x ], and [Derivative-free failure avoidance control for manipulation using learned support constraints. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.10321. 2018:1-4.] to enhance and diversify the literature review, providing a more comprehensive background for other autonomous applications.

Comment 4. The conclusions highlight the computer simulation of computational intelligence algorithms, but there is a need for more details on the empirical validation process. Including information on the datasets used, simulation parameters, and the realism of the scenarios would strengthen the credibility of the study's findings. Moreover, specifying the metrics used for comparison and statistical significance would add depth to the discussion, allowing readers to better evaluate the effectiveness of each algorithm.

Comment 5. The outlined future research directions are commendable. However, there is a concern about their source. Are your suggestions real or just imaginary? Have you ever focused on your provided recommendations? If not, why not, and if yes, what challenges have you faced? To enhance the clarity of these directions, it would be beneficial to provide brief justifications for each proposed research avenue and discuss potential challenges that may arise in pursuing them.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The author should pay more attention to grammar.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has addressed my concerns with the original manuscript. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Your revisions have significantly strengthened the manuscript and it is acceptable to be published.