Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I recommend to add related work section.

The authors must add the comparison of the offered method with the related ones according all the indicators mentioned "Table 1. Test result statistics."

Please describe the limitations of the offered system in detail.

 

 

Author Response

1. According to your proposal, the structure of the article was adjusted, the related work section was added, and the contents of three parts, such as geometric model, which are closely related to the study of this paper were described.

2. Table 1 shows the maximum and average values of lateral deviation and yaw deviation of the method proposed in this paper and the comparison method. Figure 9-11 shows the comparison test under the speed limit of 10km /h, 15km/h and 20km/h, and the fourth and fifth rows in the figures show the yaw deviation and lateral deviation respectively. Description of Figures 9-11 are added.

3. In the summary part of this paper, a description of the applicability and limitations of the proposed method is added.

Reviewer 2 Report

While i found great value in your paper, i feel that it will take a bit more time and effort to make it suitable for publication.

Overall, the research process and the results could be explained more thoroughly to make the study more transparent and informative. Furthermore, the research would acquire more relevance and impact if the proposed initiative were considered in light of the relevant emerging trends. The discussion of the outcomes needs to interpret the findings and provide an argument that supports the significance of the research in comparison to what is already known about this research problem. Also important is to elaborate on how the results of the research can be used for future research and practice. See below a more detailed analysis and some suggestions for further development.

Introduction and background

The introduction needs to be developed further to clearly establish the justification/ importance of the new initiative and articulate the research problem and objective; these need to be specifically linked to the associated issues and problems. The introduction would benefit from a succinct description of what the paper is about and a stronger emphasis on the problem addressed by the research. The literature review section should also present the theoretical framework underpinning the study.

The literature review needs to improve its scope by including recent studies and identifying and drawing upon the critical body of knowledge relevant to the research, including learning theories. Overall, the literature review needs to be strengthened in order to emphasise the real-world significance of the issues addressed and this inform the research design; the theoretical framework emerging from the literature review should relate to the research questions and points of emphasis

Consider also the following suggestions:

· Present past work and identify the gaps in the previous work that the findings from the proposed study may shed some light on.

· Focus more on the empirical studies' backgrounds.

Research approach, methods and results

The paper needs to explain more clearly and in enough depth the research approach of the study. The methods should be adequately described to show how the research was conducted in order to improve the transparency of the research and add its trustworthiness. It is suggested also to discuss the reliability and the validity of the study outcomes. It is also important to address the limitations of the study, and to provide a comprehensive discussion of the expected benefits of the proposed new teaching practice.

 

 

Discussion and conclusion

The conclusion needs succinctly to state the intended contribution of this research, given its theoretical background, and to provide enough information to the reader about its significance. What was found needs to be related back to the to the research questions as the conclusions should indicate whether or not the research objectives were met and how the answers to the research questions could be interpreted. Furthermore, the outcomes should be discussed in relation to the existing research as to highlight the new knowledge is created, based on the findings and the contribution It would be also useful to provide a summary of the findings.

Plagiarism check results:

/* Similarity check with iThenticate revealed a similarity index of 17%, which is considered appropriate.

 

With best regards,

Author Response

1. The introduction is revised to further clarify the problems to be solved in this study, and the methods proposed in this paper are briefly described.
2. The research methods proposed in this paper have been reorganized, the overall system flow chart has been added, the test results in Figures 9-11 have been explained and analyzed in detail, and the discussion on the practicability of the methods proposed in this paper has been added in the part of analysis of the test results.
3. The modification of the conclusion highlights the improvement of the method proposed in this paper on the trajectory tracking performance of the widely used pure pursuit tracking method, add the explanation of the practicability and limitations of the method proposed in this paper.

Reviewer 3 Report

- The paper is well-written and well-structured.

  - The considered topic is interesting, and the obtained results are satisfactory.
  - Is it possible to insert some numerical experimental results in the abstract?   - Please add a short paragraph at the end of the introduction which describes the structure of the paper.   - The authors may also add a new figure between sections 1 and 2 which describes the proposed approach graphically.   - The title of Section 2 should be changed to "Preliminaries."   - A new section about related works needs to be added.   - This section may be summarized in tabular form.   - The authors are invited to add a short paragraph in the introduction or the related work section about the use of formal methods and model-based testing for checking the correctness of the proposed approach.   - For this purpose they may consider the following interesting references (and others): 1. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11036-019-01369-6 2. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9269420   - More details about the proposed formulas and equations are needed.   - Please avoid the use of short paragraphs (e.g., Lines 190-191)   - Please provide an estimation of the complexity of the proposed algorithms and the cost of their implementation in real time.   - Figure 8 is not enough clear. Please improve it.   - Please provide more explanation about Figures 9, 10, and 11.   - What are the main challenges for generalizing the proposed approach?   - The authors need to identify the main limitations of their approach and propose more possible future work directions.    

Author Response

1. According to your suggestion, the abstraction has been modified to add the specific effect of the method proposed in this paper on the performance improvement of the current popular method.
2. According to your suggestion, a short paragraph at the end of the introduction which describes the structure of the paper is added.
3. An overall process flowchart of the algorithm is added as you suggested.
4. We adjust the structure of the paper and add the related work section.
5. The test and comparison indicators are described in section 4.2.
6. The characters in the formula are annotated in detail.
7. An explanation of the calculation efficiency and practicability of the method proposed in this paper is added in the experiment part of this paper.
8. Figure 8 is replaced.
9. Explanation about Figures 9-11 are added.
10. In the part of test analysis, the work that needs to be done when the method proposed in this paper is transplanted and used is added.
11. In the conclusion part, the applicability and limitations of the proposed method are added, and the feasible direction of future work is also defined.

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper presents a clothoid curve based trajectory tracking control method for autonomous vehicle. The problem is interesting but is a classical one (with many results available in the literature on curve-based tracking tracking). The current paper seems to overlook many such existing papers. I'd like to recommend the authors to conduct a more extensive review and detailed comparison study against literature. 

 

On Section 2 (related work), it is too long but the content is not about review of related work. The introduction on Kinematic Model of Vehicle Lateral Control and Curve properties can be shortened or made more brief. 

The experiment result looks convincing. I'd like to recommend some comparison study (e.g., with other curves for tracking). 

The English writing of the paper should be further improved. There are many typos and incorrect English in many places of the paper. 

Author Response

1. Trajectory tracking of autonomous driving indeed a classic research problem, a lot of research on this have been conducted in literature, many resolutions based on classical control theory, modern control theory and intelligent theory have been proposed and verified. However, in the industrial sector, the most widely used method is still pure pursuit method which is based on geometric vehicle model. The purpose of this study is to provide a method that is easy to deploy and transplant among platforms without a lot of parameter identification and has high computational efficiency to meet the real-time requirements. Most importantly, compared with pure pursuit method, it can improve the performance of trajectory tracking. Therefore, this paper does not describe other achievements in this field too much.
2. The design of the test route includes scenes such as straight roads, right and left corner turns, small curvature S-shaped curves and lane changing, and basically covers the road scenes of the park's low-speed automatic driving operation.
3. The spelling and grammar of the full text were checked, and several errors were corrected. It should be noted that "clothoid" is a professional word, not a spelling error.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors did not consider all the comments I proposed in my previous review.

 

Please provide a precise answer to each point.

 

(You should remind the reviewer comment/suggestion then write the corresponding answer you provide.)

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

        Thank you for the comments about our manuscript 2188822 titled “Trajectory Tracking of Autonomous Vehicle Using Clothoid Curve”. These comments help a lot to revise our manuscript and guide our future research. We have made corrections very carefully according to these comments, and we hope it could meet with your approval. Please see the attachment for detailed response. 

        Best regards,

        Jianshi Li

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper seems improved. I do not have other comments, and I will leave it to other reviewers to make a decision. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer，

        Thank you for the comments about our manuscript 2188822 titled “Trajectory Tracking of Autonomous Vehicle Using Clothoid Curve”. These comments help a lot to revise our manuscript and guide our future research.  The response to your comments is as follows:

Comment 1:

The paper seems improved. I do not have other comments, and I will leave it to other reviewers to make a decision.

Response 1:

Thank you very much for the comments.

 

        Best regards,

        Jianshi Li

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

No more comments. Good luck.