Cognitive Enhancement of Robot Path Planning and Environmental Perception Based on Gmapping Algorithm Optimization

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is about the optimization of the Gmapping algorithm for robot path planning and environmental perception. While the title suggests a cognitive aspect, the term "cognitive" is mentioned only once in the entire paper, leaving a gap between expectation and content.

One major challenge lies in the paper's organization, making it difficult to follow. The abundance of technical and methodological details obscures the distinction between utilized methods and original contributions. The lack of clarity regarding what is adopted and what is developed independently hinders understanding.

Figure 4 doesn't tell anything, I would like to suggest to delete it.

While the study demonstrates substantial effort, the integration of various elements in the formulae is not well articulated. The connections between different components need to be explicitly highlighted, forming a cohesive narrative for readers to grasp the entirety of the work.

The introduction of additional equations in the application section disrupts the flow. Such elements should be incorporated into the methods section, which itself requires improvement in terms of clarity and detailing.

Table 3 references an "improved algorithm," but the specifics of this improvement are unclear.

Figures 14 and 15, which seem related, should be presented next to each other as subfigures for better comparison and comprehension. Additionally, Figure 16 should be deleted.

The referencing format may not adhere to the standard convention; it is recommended to check and ensure compliance with the correct citation style, possibly using the [1] format.

Finally, the conclusion appears weak and lacks the necessary depth. It is recommended to revisit and strengthen the conclusion by summarizing key findings and addressing the broader implications of the study.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

  Thank you for your review of our paper. We have answered each of your points below.

1.Thank you for your meticulous review of our paper and the valuable suggestions provided. We especially appreciate your observation regarding the discrepancy between the title and content, and we sincerely apologize for any confusion caused. We have carefully considered your advice and made corresponding adjustments to the paper title to ensure it accurately reflects the core content of our research. We believe this change will enhance the overall quality and readability of the paper.

2.Regarding the organizational challenge you mentioned, we have thoroughly considered your suggestions. We will add a clear summary of the overall structure of the paper at the end of the introduction to assist readers in better understanding our research framework and main contributions.

3.Concerning Figure 4, we have decided to follow your advice and remove it to ensure the quality and effectiveness of information conveyed by the figures and charts.

4.Addressing the issue of unclear integration of elements in formulas, we have further modified the paper in the introduction section, emphasizing the connections between different components to create a more coherent narrative. This ensures that readers can easily understand the logical flow of the entire work.

5.Regarding the arrangement of citations and additional equations, we would like to provide further clarification on our design intent. Citations mainly involve simple calculations of metrics, so we have placed them in the application section for easier understanding of the measurement methods used in our experiments. The introduction of additional equations aims to briefly introduce the definition of obstacle detection rate in the experiment, rather than presenting new methods. This organizational structure is intended to help readers gain a clearer understanding of our paper in terms of application and experimental design. We have already improved and will further review and optimize the methods section to eliminate any potential ambiguities and ensure a precise understanding of our research approach.

6.Regarding the issue with "Improved Algorithm" in Table 3, we will make a more specific statement about the improvements at the end of the introduction to eliminate potential confusion.

7.For Figures 14 and 15, we agree on their correlation and plan to present them as sub-figures together to facilitate better comparison and understanding. This will enhance readers' grasp of the relationship between these two figures. Regarding Figure 16, we have removed it as per your suggestion to further simplify the charts, focusing more on the main content.

8.We have re-evaluated the citation format and adjusted it to standard citation styles to ensure compliance with academic publishing norms.

9.We have revisited the conclusion section, acknowledging the concern about its perceived weakness and lack of depth. In the revision process, we have strengthened the conclusion, summarizing key findings and providing a more detailed discussion of the broader impacts of the research. This improvement aims to enhance the completeness and depth of the paper, making the conclusion more substantive.

  Thank you once again for your patient review and valuable suggestions. We look forward to submitting the revised paper to better meet your expectations.

  Best regards,

  Xintong Liu

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

Check the reference citation format, should be in Arabic [#] format.

In the final section of the introduction, it should be added how this work is organized as a description.

Metrics on how existing ones and the Gmapping algorithm are validated are not described.

Figure 1.- Schematic diagram of the mapping algorithm and the flow chart in Figure 3 describe the stages of the proposed algorithm; additional detail of the stages containing the proposed algorithm is required.

A comparative table is required and, above all, enrich this work with numerical performance metrics of existing works and mention the contribution of the proposed algorithm in numerical metrics.

Please see below for more comments,

1. What is the main question addressed by the research?

The contribution of the Gmapping algorithm is not adequately described, the performance must be indicated numerically related to the precision in the modeling and analysis of warehouse environments.

2. What parts do you consider original or relevant for the field? What
specific gap in the field does the paper address?
Justify under which scenarios the proposed algorithm works properly, color conditions, stability, adaptability.

3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published
material?

Add comparative table of the advantages of the proposed algorithm with those of the state of the art.

4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the
methodology? What further controls should be considered?
Adequately describe the stages of the Gmapping algorithm schematic diagram. Some steps described in Figure 1 are omitted from the description.

5. Please describe how the conclusions are or are not consistent with the
evidence and arguments presented. Please also indicate if all main questions
posed were addressed and by which specific experiments.

I consider the work adequate, only mentioning the performance metrics, precision of the modeling that was obtained during the mapping.

6. Are the references appropriate?
There are several important uncited SLAM works in the state of the art. Works with many citations that are not included, especially in the periods 2016-2023.

7. Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures and
quality of the data.

I consider the figures and tables shown in the document to be adequate.

Best Regards

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

  Thank you for your review of our paper. We have answered each of your points below.

1. We have acknowledged the issue you pointed out regarding the citation format, and appropriate modifications have been made throughout the manuscript to ensure compliance. We apologize for this oversight.
2. In response to your feedback on the organization of the last section of the introduction, we have made corresponding adjustments. A detailed description of the overall organization of the paper has been added at the end of the introduction. This modification aims to enhance readers' understanding of the research structure and contributions, ensuring logical coherence throughout the paper.
3. Concerning your comment about the lack of description of existing work and verification metrics for the Gmapping algorithm, substantial modifications have been implemented in the beginning and conclusion of the experimental section. These changes provide a clearer presentation of our experimental design and verification methods. We value your input and consider it crucial for further refining the paper.
4. We have taken note of your suggestions regarding Figures 1 and 3. Additional detailed explanations of each stage of the proposed algorithm have been incorporated into the paper, offering a clearer representation of the entire process.
5. In the latest version of the experimental section, we have included a comparative table showcasing different algorithms' performance in numerical metrics. We specifically emphasize the contributions of the proposed algorithm in these metrics, highlighting its significance in the experiments.

  We appreciate your thorough review and constructive feedback. If there are any further aspects that require attention or refinement, we will handle them with care to ensure the final quality of the paper.Thank you once again for your patience and valuable insights. We look forward to submitting the revised version to better meet your expectations.

  Best regards,

  Xintong Liu

Reviewer 3 Report

Cognitive Enhancement of Robot Path Planning and EnvironmentalCognitive Enhancement of Robot Path Planning and Environmental Perception Based on Gmapping Algorithm Optimization

1)      The abstract does not reflect the efficiency of the optimized algorithm and appreciates adding it. The same applies to the conclusion as well.

2)      In line 143: (3) is missing it seems.

3)      In line 244: SIFT or ORB should be expanded and explained in a line or two to understand the feature matching.

4)      Dual referencing may lead to confusion, therefore, use the numbers in square brackets.

5)      The result comparison of Gmappping and Optimized Algorithm should be exhibited in graphical form.

6)      The paper is written well with minor language corrections.

The paper is written well with minor language corrections.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

  Thank you for your review of our paper. We have answered each of your points below.

1)Thank you for your meticulous review of our paper and the valuable feedback provided. We have addressed your concern about the efficiency of the optimization algorithm not being adequately reflected in the abstract and conclusion sections. In the abstract, we have explicitly emphasized the overall efficiency improvement brought by the optimization algorithm and highlighted the significant advantages of the improved algorithm in enhancing obstacle detection rates, reducing map size, and angle errors. These revisions aim to ensure that the abstract more comprehensively reflects the key outcomes of our study. Similarly, in the conclusion section, we have made corresponding adjustments, detailing the practical enhancements of the optimization algorithm on robot path planning and environmental perception efficiency. These modifications aim to emphasize the practical value of our research and the crucial role of the improved algorithm in boosting the overall system efficiency.

2) Thank you for your review and corrections on line 143 of our paper. Regarding the potential omission of (3) that you mentioned, we have carefully examined the relevant sections and identified this oversight. The necessary improvements have been made to ensure proper numbering and content alignment.

3) At line 244, we have provided a more detailed expansion of SIFT or ORB, enabling readers to understand the feature matching process in one or two lines. We have made corresponding modifications to enhance the readability and comprehensibility of the paper.

4)Addressing the issue of potential confusion due to dual citations, we have made improvements by using numbers in square brackets to explicitly indicate citations, ensuring that readers can easily understand the citation relationships.

5) We acknowledge your point that the comparison of Gmapping and the optimization algorithm's results is best presented in graphical form. We have included relevant comparison graphs at the end of the experimental section to visually illustrate the performance contrast between the two.

  Thank you once again for your patient review and valuable suggestions. We look forward to submitting the revised paper to better meet your expectations.

  Best regards,

  Xintong Liu

Reviewer 4 Report

Referee's Report

Title: Cognitive Enhancement of Robot Path Planning and Environmental Perception Based on Gmapping Algorithm Optimization

Authors: Xin-tong Liu, Gu Gong, Xiao-ting Hu, Gong-yu Shang, Hua Zhu

MS. Ref. No. electronics-2836571

    Dear Authors

    In this paper, the authors purpose, a scheme based on an improved Gmapping algorithm that has high-precision map inside the warehouse through efficient scanning and processing of environmental data by robots to deal with the complex obstacles and cargo layout in the warehouse. This study focuses on improving the robot perception and navigation system to achieve efficient path planning and safe motion control.

    I have few comments/suggestions.

1.The abstract should be re-written with proper and good sentences.

2.The citation of the references should be like "...prominent^{[1]}." etc. The citation of the references should be corrected throughout the manuscript.

3.The font size of the equations must be similar to as that of the font size of the text.

4.All the references must be re-typed for example the first reference should be "1. Xu Xing,Xue Zhenpeng,and Zhao Yun."Research on an Algorithm of Express Parcel Sorting Based on Deeper Learning and Multi-Information Recognition".Sensors 22.17(2022):6705-6705.". Moreover the reference style should be according to the instructions of the journal.

    I cannot recommend the manuscript for possible publication in its present form in "Electronics".

    sincerely yours,

    Reviewer

I have mentioned them in my report.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

  Thank you for your review of our paper. We have answered each of your points below.

1.Thank you for your reminder. We have revised the abstract to make it more appropriate and coherent. Your suggestions have provided valuable guidance for our writing, and we greatly appreciate it.

2.We have taken note of the issue you pointed out regarding the citation format, and have made the necessary modifications throughout the manuscript to ensure compliance with the requirements. We apologize for this oversight.

3.Regarding the font size issue with equations, we have diligently addressed it by ensuring that the font size of equations is consistent with the main text, enhancing overall formatting consistency.

  We appreciate your thorough review and constructive feedback. If there are any further aspects that require attention or refinement, we will handle them with care to ensure the final quality of the paper.Thank you once again for your patience and valuable insights. We look forward to submitting the revised version to better meet your expectations.

  Best regards,

  Xintong Liu

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors addressed my concerns in just  two paragraphs at the end of the introduction. This text clearly explains the aim and presents the new results.

I am not convinced by the results and the representation, but it could be sufficient. I am not opposed to accepting it as it is.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

  Thank you for your review and valuable feedback on our manuscript. We are pleased to hear that you feel we have addressed your concerns in the two paragraphs at the end of the introduction, providing a clear explanation of our research aims and presenting the new results.

  We will continue to strive for improvement and refinement in our research, and we value your feedback as valuable guidance. Please feel free to reach out if you have any further suggestions or comments on our manuscript.

  Once again, thank you for your review and support.

Best regards,
Xintong Liu

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Editor

The authors have improved their revised manuscript, and I am satisfied with the revised manuscript. I can recommend the manuscript for possible publication in the "Electronics".

sincerely,

Reviewer

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

  Thank you for your feedback and recommendation regarding the revised manuscript. We appreciate your thorough review and are glad to hear that you are satisfied with the improvements made by the authors. 

Kind regards,
Xintong Liu.