Research on the Optimal Deployment of Expressway Roadside Units under the Fusion Perception of Intelligent Connected Vehicles

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please find atteched my cpmments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer:
Thank you for your correction of this article. According to your suggestions, the article has been revised as follows:
1.Added traffic flow scene description and modified some wrong symbols.
2.Added some simulation parameters.
3.The results are refined, and the defects and future research of this paper are discussed.
4.Pictures of higher quality have been submitted to the editorial department along with the article. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Very interesting topic, but need some explanations.

1. Table 2. How the traffic density calculated? Was the value in veh/km in both or one direction?

2. Please explain what if some of vehicles lose communication with base, can it lead to traffic accident?

English is hard to read, problem with using some words and sentences which are not common for traffic engineering. My suggestion is to consult a traffic engineer for terms related to this field.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:
I have made the following modifications according to your requirements:
1. The description of traffic density is added at the top of Table 2.
2. In the limitation section at the end, the safety problems caused by the loss of contact are explained, and the future research is prospected.
In addition, the following modifications were made according to the suggestions of other reviewers:
1. Six references have been replaced and added.
2. Added some simulation parameters.
3. Check and correct the format and logic of the formula.
4. The conclusion is refined.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

“This manuscript studies roadside deployment in expressways. It considers two types of vehicle communications; vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure. In my opinion, the manuscript misses the major elements to make it acceptable for publishing in such a reputable journal. First, it is not structured well, with many typos. Second no clear motivation or contribution. Third, there is no even contribution in the methodological part. Fourth, the experimental part results do not support any innovative conclusions. The authors need to restructure their manuscript deriving an apparent motivation supported by the literature reviewed in the article. I recommend three recent articles to include a location problem to your stated problem and to the background section.”

 

1.      An Object Classification Approach for Autonomous Vehicles Using Machine Learning Techniques

2.      Exact and Heuristics Algorithms for Screen Line Problem in Large Size Networks: Shortest Path-Based Column Generation Approach.

 

3.      Traffic sensor location problem: Three decades of research.

Extensive editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear reviewer:
Thank you for your valuable comments on this paper. The innovation of this paper mainly focuses on model construction, introducing the permeability reconstruction coupling theory of traffic flow and information flow, and providing highway builders with the most beneficial roadside RSU construction layout through the two parts of positive and negative returns. According to your correction, the article has been modified as follows:
1. According to the references you provided, 6 references in related fields have been replaced and added.
2. Some simulation parameters are added.
3. Check and correct the format and logic of the formula, add the description of the traffic flow scene, and modify some wrong symbols.
4. The research results are refined, the shortcomings of this paper and the future research direction are discussed, and the safety problems caused by the loss of contact are explained.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

This research paper proposes an income-based model for optimizing roadside RSU deployment on expressways, considering V2V and V2I communication, and validating the model's reliability through mathematical algorithms and MATLAB analysis.

 

This well-written research paper offers valuable insights into the optimal deployment of roadside RSU in the context of V2V and V2I communication. It provides a comprehensive analysis of income models considering factors such as permeability and traffic density, and effectively validates the reliability of the proposed model using mathematical algorithms, enhancing our understanding of intelligent expressway sensor network deployment.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer:
Thank you very much for your affirmation of this article. In order to make the article more perfect, we have made the following modifications
1. The description of traffic density is added at the top of Table 2.
2. Six references have been replaced and added.
3. Added some simulation parameters.
4. Check and correct the format and logic of the formula.
5. The conclusion is refined.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

The paper proposes a roadside RSU deployment income model in consideration of the influence of V2V and V2I communication. This kind of research is useful to road decision makers. However, the authors should address the following to make it robust:

1. Discuss the novelty of the article.

2. Introduce roughly 5 more references in 2023.

3. Elaborate more on the future research

Author Response

Dear reviewer:
Thank you for your recognition of this article. According to your suggestions, the article has been revised as follows:
1. Six references have been replaced and added.
2. The results are refined, and the defects and future research of this paper are discussed.
In addition, in order to make the article more perfect, the following modifications have been made:
1. Added some simulation parameters.
2. Check and correct the format and logic of the formula.
3. The description of traffic density is added at the top of Table 2.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 6 Report

First of all, I would like to congratulate the authors on the manuscript as they present a novel approach to this type of model. Thus, I believe that the article can be improved in the following aspects:
1. Write abstract in a more claiming manner by highlighting your contribution. No preliminary section is there. Authors must give a preliminary section where interested readers can find the linkage of the relevant work. This is very necessary.
2. Please recheck all your derivations meticulously.
3. Have you used any software for evaluation of the derived or proposed equations?
4. No comparative study is shown. It is mandatory to show some comparative graphs and tables to claim about the improvement of your method.
5. Figures etc. should be made more clear and visible.
6. Please check the reference list and delete the less relevant ones and add few more relevant ones.
7. Rewrite conclusion in a precise way. Also add separate subheading for limitations and future studies.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:
Thank you for your correction of this article. According to your suggestions, the article has been revised as follows:
1.Check and correct the format and logic of the formula.
2.The output results of the model were verified by Matlab. In order to make the model more convincing, Matlab was also used for simulation to verify the reliability of the model.
3.No similar research has been done on the constructed model in this field, so it cannot be compared. In order to enhance the reliability of the model, this paper adopts simulation to verify the reliability of the model and make up for the lack of comparative research.
4.Pictures of higher quality have been submitted to the editorial department along with the article.
5.Six references have been replaced and added.
6.The results are refined, and the defects and future research of this paper are discussed.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 7 Report

The whole article deals with a very important and interesting topic and therefore it is worth considering its publication.

However, before that, some changes are necessary.

First of all, the article very briefly indicates the research gap, the main goal of the study and the hypothesis. The authors describe what the article contains but do not emphasize innovations, novelties - especially in relation to other studies. The literature review should be extended, also to include newer items. This should be improved. It should be clear from the introduction what research problem the authors intended to solve, what was the scientific goal, what effect.

The experimental study itself is well described and contains all the necessary elements. Practical research is preceded by a well- and understandably described methodology. I like this part the most.

In addition to the above, I noticed a few shortcomings that need to be corrected

·         Remove the number zero in the title Introduction

·         References to literature should not be in superscript

·         All variables in the text should be italicized or in the equation editor

·         The variables are in my opinion inserted as images - they are disproportionately large and not in line with the text, the same applies to some mathematical formulas

·         Remove unnecessary dots from formula 1

·         I suggest removing the asterisks as a multiplication symbol (e.g. formula 10, 13)

·         The quality of some drawings needs improvement (subtitles are blurry)

·         Table captions are below the table and above - please correct - they should be above

·         The bibliography is not prepared in accordance with the requirements of the journal

·         In conclusion, it is worth adding directions for further research

·         Authorship contribution statement - not prepared in accordance with the requirements

·         The entire article should be reviewed and corrected according to the requirements of the journal

Author Response

Dear reviewer:
Thank you for your correction of this article. According to your suggestions, the article has been revised as follows:
1.The number 0 in the introduction to the title was dropped.
2.Modified the sequence number position in the reference.
3.All formula symbols in this article are written in MathType, no images are used as formula inserts, and points and multiplicators in formulas are removed.
4.Pictures of higher quality have been submitted to the editorial department along with the article. 
5.Change the table title to the top of the table.
6.When submitting the article, you can choose not to use the journal template, so the article is not modified according to the template. If the editor requires modification during the later finalization, it will be modified according to the journal template.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

It can be accepted from my side.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:
Thank you for affirming this article.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have not addressed my first report adequately. I wait for second round of review to enhance the manuscript considerably and to follow my comments exactly.

Moderate editing are required.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:
Thank you for your careful guidance on this article. I feel very sorry for the brief revision last time. According to your guidance, this article has been revised as follows:
1. Checked and corrected the typos in the article, and checked inappropriate language expressions.
2. The revision of the motivation and contribution mainly focuses on the introduction, which has been greatly revised. The second paragraph of the introduction has modified and replaced some references, pointed out the shortcomings in the layout research under optimal density and income, and explained how the paper makes up for such shortcomings. The third paragraph of the introduction revises and replaces some references, compares the existing studies horizontally, and points out that V2V and V2X should also be included in the layout reference. The fourth paragraph of the introduction points out that the scenario of penetration between 0 and 100 should be considered, and also clarifies the core innovation points of the paper. In the last paragraph of the introduction, it summarizes the innovation of the paper, explains the problem to be solved, what scientific objectives to achieve, and how the effect is. It is hoped that the above modification can clarify the motivation and contribution of the article.
3. The contribution of this paper is reflected in the inclusion of permeability into the deployment study of roadside RSU, and the use of vehicle clusters as research units, which is creative in previous studies. In addition, the layout model constructed can provide deployment basis for intelligent high-speed sensor network builders, and achieve reasonable deployment spacing under the optimal income, which has certain economic benefits.
4. As the revenue model is a comprehensive model generated by combining the three parts of revenue, there is no simulation method or scheme that can fully cover the existing research, so this paper divides the revenue model into three parts, and conducts corresponding simulation verification for each part. The specific verification ideas have been explained in the paper. The feasibility of the model can be proved.
5. Thank you for your supplement to the location problem. According to your suggestions, the paper introduces the high-quality paper you recommended in 1.2, and explains the treatment of the location problem in this paper, which is easy for readers to understand.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 6 Report

It can be accepted now.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:
Thank you for affirming this article.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 7 Report

The authors did not respond to all my comments, they only corrected minor errors that I pointed out.

So I reiterate my previous comment:

First of all, the article very briefly indicates the research gap, the main goal of the study and the hypothesis. The authors describe what the article contains but do not emphasize innovations, novelties - especially in relation to other studies. The literature review should be extended, also to include newer items. This should be improved. It should be clear from the introduction what research problem the authors intended to solve, what was the scientific goal, what effect.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Thank you again for your careful guidance on this article. I feel very sorry for ignoring the revision of the introduction last time. According to your guidance, the article has been revised as follows:

1.A lot of amendments have been made in the introduction: the second paragraph of the introduction has modified and replaced some references, pointing out the shortcomings in the layout research under optimal density and yield, and explaining how the paper makes up for such shortcomings. The third paragraph of the introduction revises and replaces some references, compares the existing studies horizontally, and points out that V2V and V2X should also be included in the layout reference. The fourth paragraph of the introduction points out that the scenario of penetration between 0 and 100 should be considered, and also clarifies the core innovation points of the paper. In the last paragraph of the introduction, it summarizes the innovation of the paper, explains the problem to be solved, what scientific objectives to achieve, and how the effect is.

2.In section 1.2, the paper explains the location problem, and based on the introduction of recent references, explains the treatment of the location problem in this paper, which is easy for readers to understand.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx