Research on Data Fusion of Positioning System with a Fault Detection Mechanism for Autonomous Vehicles

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

 

thank you for your paper, which I found clear and concise. In order to improve it you should put in evidence in a better way the difference between position evaluated with the proposed correction methods and with rference method. You should avoid to use similar colors for different data (e.g. RTK and fusion with diagnostics in figures  9 to 12. A plot of the error in the areas where error is higher, or of distance from a reference value, could help the reader appreciate your work.

Author Response

Thanks for your advice. And we modified the graphic so that the result could be present. Please reference the document. In this article, we have also made moderate corrections in other chapters based on the opinions of other reviewers. With these suggestions, our articles can be presented better. After all the content is confirmed, we will use the proofreading service provided by MDPI to make our article perfect.

Thank you very much.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic of the work is extremely important and interesting, but the article has a number of elements that should be improved:

- a large number of typos,

- the introduction should be extended, it is definitely too short (more literature),

- the description of the Windus project should also be further described for the sake of clarity,

- subsection 2 should be completely redrafted, descriptions are too general, each sensor should have its own paragraph

- the mathematical model (section 3) is extremely simple, I do not see anything innovative here.

- figures 9-12: no units, horizontal axis to be improved

- no error charts, figures 9-12 show values and you can see differences, but no summary of these errors

- too general conclusions

Author Response

- a large number of typos

Thanks for your suggestion. We modified most typos. After all the content is confirmed, we will use the proofreading service provided by MDPI to make our article perfect.

- the introduction should be extended, it is definitely too short (more literature)

We have revised the introduction part. Please reference the part marked on the document.

- the description of the Winbus project should also be further described for the sake of clarity,

We have revised the second chapter and strengthened the description of Winbus. Please reference the word document.

- subsection 2 should be completely redrafted, descriptions are too general, each sensor should have its own paragraph

In the subsection 2, we made most of the modifications and explained the sensors used. 

- the mathematical model (section 3) is extremely simple, I do not see anything innovative here.

Thanks for the suggestion, we will rewrite the simplified part of the article in the mathematical model part.

- figures 9-12: no units, horizontal axis to be improved

The horizontal and vertical axes of the graph have been relabeled in the article. Please reference the word document.

- no error charts, figures 9-12 show values and you can see differences, but no summary of these errors

We did the wrong analysis and comparison on page 12 and add the corrected value and error value comparison.

- too general conclusions

We rewrite the conclusions and summary the result that we find. Please reference the document.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript has been explored the effect of a mechanism with error detection on coordinate information fusion. However, some following concerns needed to address carefully.

 (1)In the introduction section, authors are recommended to list the main contribution of this paper.

(2)In the introduction section, authors are recommended to outline sections in end.

 

(3)Where is literature review section?. There are many relevant vehicles research and authors are recommended to review them. Some of important research are as follows.

(1) Survey of Authentication and Privacy Schemes in Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks; (2) Provably Secure with Efficient Data Sharing Scheme for Fifth-Generation (5G)-Enabled Vehicular Networks without Road-Side Unit (RSU)

 (4) consistency is very significant in research. This paper is missing to consistency concept. Upperletter or small letters to all definitions of abbreviation should be same used.

 (5)Where is the proposed solution? Suggested idea?

(6)How this work outperforms others?

 (7) Add improvement percentage in abstract

(8) Results should be compared with some of most existing works.

Author Response

Thanks for your suggestion. We modified most typos. After all the content is confirmed, we will use the proofreading service provided by MDPI to make our article perfect.

(1) In the introduction section, authors are recommended to list the main contribution of this paper.

We list the contributions of this paper separately in the Introduction section and marked in the attachment.

(2)In the introduction section, authors are recommended to outline sections in end.

Thanks for your suggestion. We write outline sections in end. Please reference the document.

(3)Where is literature review section?. There are many relevant vehicles research and authors are recommended to review them. Some of important research are as follows.

(1) Survey of Authentication and Privacy Schemes in Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks;(2) Provably Secure with Efficient Data Sharing Scheme for Fifth-Generation (5G)-Enabled Vehicular Networks without Road-Side Unit (RSU)

Regarding the application of the Internet of Vehicles, we will describe the relevant parts of this paper according to some studies. However, due to the limitations of the experimental field, this experiment cannot do a more in-depth study on the positioning of the Internet of Vehicles. This is the unfortunate part. 

(4) consistency is very significant in research. This paper is missing to consistency concept. Upperletter or small letters to all definitions of abbreviation should be same used. But we have planned to do as much experimentation as possible with limited resources.

Thanks for your suggestion. We modified most typos.  We have reviewed all the chapters and made some changes, please refer to the parts marked in the appendix.

(5)Where is the proposed solution? Suggested idea?

We have made modifications and explanations in the introduction, please refer to the attachment.

(6)How this work outperforms others?

We did a comparison of on-board positioning methods on page 12 and made some corrections to the text, please refer to the attachment.

 (7) Add improvement percentage in abstract

We have modified the discussion in the abstract and page 12, please refer to the attachment.

(8) Results should be compared with some of most existing works.

Thanks for the suggestion, we have made relevant statements in the conclusion, please refer to the attachment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Some of the comments were included in the revised version of the article, the most important, unfortunately, did not:

- there are still no error charts, short information about percentage errors is definitely not enough,

- the error chart is very easy to obtain, assuming that the authors know how to determine the errors in the metric coordinate system, which raises the question: how can the error values expressed in meters be determined from the obtained results (latitude, longitude)?

- the above problem also raises another doubt: the sensors used to operate on the basis of various technologies, so they return different types of data: point clouds, geographic coordinates, linear accelerations, etc. How (mathematical dependencies) the above data from mentioned sensors were processed into its final form (latitude, longitude)?

Author Response

Some of the comments were included in the revised version of the article, the most important, unfortunately, did not:

- there are still no error charts, short information about percentage errors is definitely not enough,

Thanks for your corrections and suggestions. We modified several sections of the revisions. Error comparison charts are added to Section 5(page 14). The content discusses the comparison of errors in the graphs. The reference benchmark is based on RTK coordinates to compare with other methods.

- the error chart is very easy to obtain, assuming that the authors know how to determine the errors in the metric coordinate system, which raises the question: how can the error values expressed in meters be determined from the obtained results (latitude, longitude)?

We used Equation 4 to calculate the error distance. Calculate the distance between two different coordinates at the same time point.  Due to the unified coordinate system, data obtained from different positioning systems can be estimated. We describe that latitude and longitude are a unified three-dimensional coordinate (section 1 and 3.1.3).

- the above problem also raises another doubt: the sensors used to operate on the basis of various technologies, so they return different types of data: point clouds, geographic coordinates, linear accelerations, etc. How (mathematical dependencies) the above data from mentioned sensors were processed into its final form (latitude, longitude)?

Thanks for the corrections and suggestions. In the third section (1 and 3.1.3), we describe that latitude and longitude are a unified three-dimensional coordinate system. Because the coordinate system is unified, there is a way to do subsequent numerical comparisons. SLAM uses Mapping and matching these two methods. Finally, the coordinate value will be provided to the application system. And use equation (2) to calculate the possible position based on the current speed and heading for the error detection mechanism to compare. In this way, it is possible to know which system has a relatively large error.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The reviewer never accept the paper without including a literature review section that showed the most relevant studies in terms of straights and limitations.

 

 

Author Response

The reviewer never accept the paper without including a literature review section that showed the most relevant studies in terms of straights and limitations.

Thanks for the suggestions and corrections. We have adjusted some sections. The literature review section is described in the second section.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx