Next Article in Journal
The Use of Gas Dynamics to Estimate the Influence of Flanges on Gear Windage Power Loss
Previous Article in Journal
Breather and Rogue Wave Solutions of a New Three-Component System of Exactly Solvable NLEEs
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Interaction Between Two Independent Chaotic Neural Networks Installed in the Motion Control Systems of Two Roving Robots

by Shigetoshi Nara 1,*, Naoya Miyahara 2,†, Yutaka Yamaguti 3 and Ichiro Tsuda 4
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Submission received: 13 May 2025 / Revised: 25 July 2025 / Accepted: 29 July 2025 / Published: 14 August 2025

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear editor and authors 

This work considers the use of chaotic NNs in robots traversing a maze. It is overall interesting and very experimental.

But for me it has several issues, regarding the explanation of the details. From my reading, i found .ost information about thr implementation,the analysis of the circuits and the algorithms for guidance missing. The works requires heavily the introduction of details about ALL aspects of the chaotic NN analysis and behaviour, and the design of the algorithms the integration of chaos, and the implementation.

Olease include information about all of the above aspects, and then resubmit the work. It must be reproducible.

 

The results section is ok.

 

Also include future studies.

 

 

Author Response

See the attached pdf file for the reviewer 1 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses an interesting application of chaotic neural networks for controlling robotic behaviors in maze navigation scenarios. Several experiments were implemented, and the authors provided supplementary materials, mainly videos, to illustrate their experiments. However, this reviewer thinks that the paper, in its current form, is not suitable for publication since the submission does not provide sufficient experimental details, such as the neural network architecture, parameter values, experimental setup, hardware configurations, and step-by-step procedures, thereby limiting the reproducibility and scientific validation of the reported results. Given that a key objective of this journal is the publication of fully reproducible experimental findings, it seems that the current manuscript does not fulfill this essential requirement and, therefore, cannot be recommended for publication in its present form.

Author Response

See the attached pdf file for the reviewer 2

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear editor and authors

The authors have added some additional information in the appendix with respect to my comment.s the work can be accepted now.

Although I still have my doubts that the work is fully reproducible by a reader, at least some more information are now included.

Author Response

See the attached PDF file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All requested revisions have been satisfactorily completed.

There are still some typographical errors that should be corrected. For example, line 225 begins with a period, and line 178 is missing a semicolon. It is recommended that the authors carefully proofread the entire manuscript to eliminate such issues.

Author Response

See the attached PDF file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop