Experimental Validation of a Guaranteed Nonlinear Model Predictive Control
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper proposes an experimental validation of a guaranteed nonlinear model predictive controller.
The paper is interesting and we understand that in the context of nonlinear control, it is important to guarantee some properties.
The paper proposes some algorithms but I did not understand which properties of the controlled systems are guaranteed.
Moreover, the method proposes to use an interval integrator for an ODE whereas differential inclusions should be considered instead.
I have inserted some comments on the pdf file that should be taken into account in the new version of the paper.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewers,
We are very grateful to you and the reviewers for the valuable suggestions. We highly appreciate the reviewers’ insightful and helpful comments on our manuscript. We revised our paper and added all the proposed issues and missed points to the new version of our manuscript (written in blue).
Kind regards.
Mohamed and Julien
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The proposed paper deals with the problem of combining the interval analysis tools with the nonlinear model predictive control.
The paper is well organized and the authors present interesting results that confirm the good performance of the proposed control approach.
Meanwhile, I have some comments to contribute to improve the paper:
1) Section 1 - Introduction: The authors mention the robotics domain to introduce the problem, but I think the MPC strategy has larger applications, not only in robotics this control approach presents challenges.
2) The bibliographic review does not include enough recent articles. It could be more comprehensive and up-to-date.
3) Section 3 should present in more details the mathematical development, as it is the heart of the article.
4) The title of subsection 3.2 is identical to the title of the section 3. They could be different to better describe the contents.
5) The author could present comparative performance of their proposed approach and precedent solutions for the same experimental platform, given by precedent studies in the research group. This improvement would greatly enrich the article and allow for a deeper insight into the advantages of the proposed solution.
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewers,
We are very grateful to you and the reviewers for the valuable suggestions. We highly appreciate the reviewers’ insightful and helpful comments on our manuscript. We revised our paper and added all the proposed issues and missed points to the new version of our manuscript (written in blue).
Kind regards.
Mohamed and Julien
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for the clarifications.
The paper can now be accepted.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors improved the text following my comments abour the previous version.
In my opinion, the paper can be accepted in the present version.
