Parameter-Adaptive Event-Triggered Sliding Mode Control for a Mobile Robot

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please see attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Contribution and Motivation

To be honest, it is very difficult to understand the contribution and motivation of this work.

Technical

Please replace \alpha with another letter because it looks very like the letter "a" you use.

Literature Review

Very few papers published within the last five years have been cited. The authors are highly suggested to do a thorough literature survey to present state of the art.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper presents the use of parametric adaptive event-triggered sliding mode control for a

 mobile robot.

The presentation of the article with active the change tracking mode makes it difficult to read and evaluate the work reliably - the layout is very unclear

Most relevant from a content point of view is the information contained in sections 2, 3 and 4 of the paper, which respectively present the mathematical apparatus used, the results of simulation studies and the results of experimental studies. The results of the simulation studies were carried out for two scenarios: sine and ellipse trajectories, while the experimental studies were carried out for circular and ellipse trajectories.

Why the trajectories used in simulation are different of trajectories used in experimental research.

One of the aims was to prove that A novel event-triggered sliding mode controller for the kinematic model of a mobile robot reduce the computational work of the microcontroller - in my opinion, this aim was either not achieved or was not truthfully described in the paper. To prove this, in my opinion, it would have been necessary to compare it with other mode controllers and the paper only compares simulation and experimental results for different scenarios but for the same mode controller.

A mobile robot was used in the experiments and I think that the article should include more details about its construction, in particular the control system. The control system should be described in more detail (e.g. with a block diagram).  

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Attached

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The contribution and motivation of this work are still not very clear to me.

The paper itself is still not well organized. Figures still look confusing as the descriptions and discussions are very limited and concentrated at the end of the paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors have improved the manuscript according to the reviewers’ suggestions.

English style is still improvable. Regarding references, the reviewer would change [30] and [32] by the next ones, since they are more updated and appear in indexed journal papers:

https://doi.org/10.1002/rnc.5674

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2021.07.016

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I still do not feel the paper is publishable.

The revised version is very hard to follow because the authors submitted a pdf file with all the changes they made under "review mode" in MS Word. Many figures got deleted while some of them re-appear somewhere else - extremely difficult for reviewers to track what has been going on.

A formal way to do the revision is to have your new version with all the changes highlighted, and your original version attached in the same pdf. A better way to work on your manuscript is using LaTeX as the manuscript is somewhat math-heavy.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf