Improved Artificial Potential Field and Dynamic Window Method for Amphibious Robot Fish Path Planning

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

An amphibious fish-robot path planning method consists of improved artificial potential field algorithm is presented in this study. By introducing virtual targets and evaluation function, the improved artificial potential field algorithm seems theoretically capable to overcome some “local minimum” and other singularity problems in a basic artificial potential field algorithm. However, I think the methods and results are not adequately described, and this research is not really solving an amphibious robot’s problem as described in the title.

My major criticisms are listed below:

1. The analysis has nothing related to a so-called “amphibious” robot. One would expect an amphibious robot to perform amphibious locomotion from water to land, or the other way round. While in this paper, such amphibious locomotion is absent—the robot performs spatial motion in the simulation domain, considering neither fluid nor land-surface constrains. To this point, I believe “amphibious robot ” is an overstatement.
2. The robot dynamics in Chapter 2 seem unnecessary, since they seem not applied in the simulations. The robot in this research is a virtual mass point. Forces received by the virtual robot seem fully governed by the potential field, rather than the real robot dynamics.
3. The simulation designs and results in Section 5.2 is poorly described. What are these ellipsoids? Are they obstacles? But no artificial potential field equations are given for an 3D ellipsoid obstacle. Also, what are those curves number from 1 to 10?
4. Some simulation results seem underrating the performance of the traditional artificial potential field method. For example, in Figure 8(a), when the virtual robot arrives at approximately (X=5.5, Y=7), the robot should receive the potential field force form the goal point and approach it. Unless the parameters are set unproperly, it is very strange that the robot is driven away from the goal point when the goal is just in front and no obstacles are nearby, isn’t it?

Author Response

Thank you for your time and effort in this article. Adjustments have been made according to your requirements, including  English sentences, the description of results of the method, etc.Responses to specific questions are uploaded in the documentation below. Best wishes for you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a well-written, timely and interesting article. I recommend making the following adjustments to the article:

I recommend listing the parts of the article that contain numbered points or divisions on separate lines. Specifically, these are the following parts of the text: 

1.Introduction - lines number 57-60

4.1. Improved attraction field - lines number 170-173

4.2. Combing with dynamic window method - lines number 217-221

I recommend using separate numbering for the formulas on page 3. The same goes for the formulas on page 4.

The symbols in Figure 2 are difficult to read.

Figure 8 and its designation need to be on the common side.

In the Conclusion, I recommend describing the achieved results in more detail. If possible, also add what are the possibilities of further work.

 

 

Author Response

Thank you for your time and effort in this article. Adjustments have been made according to your requirements, including  English sentences, the description of results of the method,and Picture formatting, etc.Responses to specific questions are uploaded in the documentation below. Best wishes for you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I have no further concerns.