Path Planning of Mobile Robots Based on an Improved Particle Swarm Optimization Algorithm
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. The abstract describes a number of disadvantages of existing methods for trajectory planning of mobile robots. The authors define these disadvantages as a criterion for comparing with the suggested methodology, however, in the conclusion there are no quantitative or even qualitative results of comparison according to these criteria.
2. It seems in the code presented in Table 1, it is necessary to add comments to each line for easier reading it by readers who are not immersed in the topic.
3. When describing the algorithms in section 3 and in other sections, it seems it is necessary to cite the literature according to which the statements from these sections are made.
4. It seems it is necessary to describe how the trigonometric component in the formula on line 174 affects the speed control accuracy.
5. It is not clear how the adaptive parameter β affects the acceleration of the convergence rate of the algorithm.
6. It is quite difficult to comprehend lines 204–218. It is recommended to provide the text with a code picture with comments for each line of the code.
7. The results presented in Table 4 for the suggested method raise some questions: one of them, why does the function test give no results, while the comparable methods give some values?
8. As the study deals with mobile robots, the authors are invited to add graphical representation of this problem.
9. In our opinion the paper seems complicated for general audience.
Author Response
Please see the attachment!
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This is a well written paper but I have some recommendations;
- Dont you use and mobile robots dynamic model?
- I would like to see a control block diagram including mobile robot model if used..
- No need section "4.3.2. Experimental verification of IPSO-IDE model". This paper is not representing a novel algorithm, Using some algorithms in Path Planning. So no need to add test function results in this paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment!
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript has been revised.
1. We still would like to recommend correction of some issues and polishing the manuscript (for example, title of Table 1 is absent; punctuation marks are missed in some places).
2. Probably some parts of the text could be moved to the supplementary section (for example codes in Tables 1 and 2).
3. Based on our previous comment #1 – there is no any marked changes in the updated manuscript version.
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers,
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Path Planning of Mobile Robots Based on An Improved Particle Swarm Optimization Algorithm” (ID: processes-2064675). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewers’ comments are as follow.
Reviewer #1:
Thank you for the comment No. 1: We still would like to recommend correction of some issues and polishing the manuscript (for example, title of Table 1 is absent; punctuation marks are missed in some places).
Response:
We are very sorry for our negligence of the question. We have carefully read the full text again and made corrections to the missing title and missing or repeated punctuation marks in Table 1.For example, the title of Table 1, the lack of punctuation in Table 1 and the icon part.
Thank you for the comment No. 2: Probably some parts of the text could be moved to the supplementary section (for example codes in Tables 1 and 2).
Response:
We are very sorry for our negligence of the question. We have moved the code in Tables 1 and 2 to the supplement section.
Thank you for the comment No. 3: Based on our previous comment #1 – there is no any marked changes in the updated manuscript version.
Response:
We are very sorry for our negligence of the question. We have added detailed result analysis to the experimental analysis part of Experiment 1, Experiment 2 and Experiment 3 of path planning, and made a brief explanation in the conclusion part of this paper.
Yours sincerely,
Qingni Yuan
