kumoh national institute of technology
Networked Systems Lab.

P. T. Daely, J. M. Lee, D.-S. Kim, "On the Effect of Carrier Robots' Capacity and Speed Towards Task Execution in Smart Factory", IEEE ETFA 2020 (Rejected)
By : Philip TD
Date : 2020-07-08
Views : 175

Manuscript

Title: On the Effect of Carrier Robots' Capacity and Speed Towards Task Execution in Smart Factory
Authors: Philip Tobianto Daely, Jae Min Lee, Dong-Seong Kim
Technical Track: WIP WIP05 Industrial Control
Main Keywords: CC-A2. Distributed control II-20. Factory and process automation II-82. Industrial applications of internet technologies

Feedback from the Reviewers
======================================== REVIEWER 1 ========================================
C. Clarity of presentation:
English grammar and spelling are proper ------------------------- [4 - I strongly agree]
Mathematical symbols and equations are easy to understand ------- [3 - I agree]
Figures and tables are well constructed and informative --------- [2 - I am neutral]
The paper is well organized ------------------------------------- [4 - I strongly agree]
Considering the issues above, the paper is readable ------------- [3 - I agree]

T. Technical innovation and relevance
The authors cite other relevant publications -------------------- [2 - I am neutral]
Authors describe relevance of work to the research field -------- [2 - I am neutral]
The authors apply sound technical approaches -------------------- [3 - I agree]
New ideas are convincingly and logically described -------------- [1 - I disagree]
Results are convincing ------------------------------------------ [1 - I disagree]
Considering the issues above, this work should be presented ---- [1 - I disagree]

Comments:
The submitted paper deals with the problem of task allocation between carrier robots in a context of tasks distribution between several control servers.Even though the paper is nice to read due to good English and a clear style, when looking more closely, many aspects appear vague or imprecise. Thus, the content (or the form) of a task request passed to the main server is not defined or formalised; we can suppose that it is a working station and an order of pickup or of delivery for required load quantity, but this is not clearly expressed. The formulation of the problem (equation 1) integrates temporal aspects, but nothing is said about the way to evaluate these quantities. Moreover, the constraint that prohibits passing more than once to a station, does not seem compatible with the possibility of altering the route if a new task appears during the mission. The interest of the set maximum detour ratio is unexplained and questionable. Im not sure that the formulation of the problem (equation 1) integrates an order constraint such as before delivering a load to a working station, the load has to be recovered from another station before that. In the same way, the modification of load carried by a robot with pickup and delivery does not seem to be taken into account. Concerning the simulation, except proving that load indicators can be evaluated, the interest of the results is questionable. As can be expected, the more robots are available, the more tasks can be performed... More globally, the formulation of the problem lacks rigour and the presented solution to the problem or the associated simulations seems difficult to reproduce by someone else. So, that is not really scientific. Despite these criticisms, considering that it is a work in progress, I suggest to accept the submission, mainly because the theme is interesting and the paper is nice to read. edge computing could be removed form Index Terms since the task allocation between edge servers is not really treated.

======================================== REVIEWER 2 ========================================

C. Clarity of presentation:
English grammar and spelling are proper --------------------------- [2 - I am neutral]
Mathematical symbols and equations are easy to understand --------- [3 - I agree]
Figures and tables are well constructed and informative ----------- [3 - I agree]
The paper is well organized --------------------------------------- [2 - I am neutral]
Considering the issues above, the paper is readable --------------- [3 - I agree]

T. Technical innovation and relevance
The authors cite other relevant publications ---------------------- [1 - I disagree]
Authors describe relevance of work to the research field ---------- [1 - I disagree]
The authors apply sound technical approaches ---------------------- [3 - I agree]
New ideas are convincingly and logically described ---------------- [1 - I disagree]
Results are convincing -------------------------------------------- [2 - I am neutral]
Considering the issues above, this work should be presented ------ [2 - I am neutral]

Comments:
It is a bit provocative to discover exactly the purpose and contributions of the paper, as they are not clearly stated. Despite the fact that in introduction it is said that the problem will be elaborated in second section, it is not.

From what I have inferred, authors have already an algorithm that selects the "best" solution from a pool of pick and carrier robots.

This paper intends to extrapolate this result for a distributed control hierarchy of edge servers (as a middle layer), supervised by a main server; all included in a smart factory environment.

It is not clear what the smart factory environment requires from this hierarchy (what means "smart" vs "flexible", for instance). And here may be cited some references dealing with the smart factory concept (which has a relatively precise meaning).

It was not very clear from the beginning what means supervision from the main server; finally, I have concluded, that this supervision means a choice between what edge server will receive the task.

It is to be discussed how efficient is to let all edge servers work for a solution, if, as I have understood, the main server will choose mainly between feasible solutions, based on the actual load of the edge server. So, it is not the best solution, globally. (or not ? not clear)

Simulation results are rather previsible, for the configuration of carrier robots, this kind of case study is rather a proof of concept. It would have been more relevant if the presented solution would have been compared with some other already existent approach.

Actually, the paper may benefit from an analysis of existent approaches for the same problem, clearly underlining the contributions of the paper.

======================================== REVIEWER 3 ========================================

C. Clarity of presentation:
English grammar and spelling are proper --------------------------- [1 - I disagree]
Mathematical symbols and equations are easy to understand --------- [1 - I disagree]
Figures and tables are well constructed and informative ----------- [3 - I agree]
The paper is well organized --------------------------------------- [1 - I disagree]
Considering the issues above, the paper is readable --------------- [1 - I disagree]

T. Technical innovation and relevance
The authors cite other relevant publications ---------------------- [2 - I am neutral]
Authors describe relevance of work to the research field ---------- [2 - I am neutral]
The authors apply sound technical approaches ---------------------- [1 - I disagree]
New ideas are convincingly and logically described ---------------- [3 - I agree]
Results are convincing -------------------------------------------- [1 - I disagree]
Considering the issues above, this work should be presented ------ [1 - I disagree]

Comments:
A pickup and delivery task allocation system integrated with edge computing is proposed. Future works are: (a) inclusion of a model for determining operational cost and (b) exploration of other metaheuristic algorithms.

The following points should be taken into account:

1) According to (1), all carrier robots have the same capacity! This is an unnecessary restriction in the formulation of the problem.

2) The variables and parameters in the 3rd , 4th and 5th constraint have to be formally defined.

3) Also, in the constraints in (1), symbols depending upon the type of the carrier robot should be used.

4) The maximum speed of the various types of carrier robots should be used in the formulation of the problem.

5) The expressions carrier robot type A (or B) and carrier robot type I (or II) are used alternatively for the same type of robots. It should be corrected.

6) The contribution is poor. In particular, the definition of the problem introduced is not clear. The approach for the solution of the problem is already been published.

7) The future work for the problem at hand is obscure. The use of other metaheuristic algorithms is not a clear direction. Furthermore, the inclusion a model for determining operational cost will be considered is not also a clear direction.

8)The use of metaheuristic algorithm instead of an extensive search algorithm is not justified. Is the computational time, required for an extensive solution, inhibitive?

9) The presentation of the paper should be improved. English should also be improved.

======================================== REVIEWER 4 ========================================

C. Clarity of presentation:
English grammar and spelling are proper --------------------------- [3 - I agree]
Mathematical symbols and equations are easy to understand --------- [3 - I agree]
Figures and tables are well constructed and informative ----------- [3 - I agree]
The paper is well organized --------------------------------------- [3 - I agree]
Considering the issues above, the paper is readable --------------- [3 - I agree]

T. Technical innovation and relevance
The authors cite other relevant publications ---------------------- [0 - I strongly disagree]
Authors describe relevance of work to the research field ---------- [1 - I disagree]
The authors apply sound technical approaches ---------------------- [3 - I agree]
New ideas are convincingly and logically described ---------------- [2 - I am neutral]
Results are convincing -------------------------------------------- [3 - I agree]
Considering the issues above, this work should be presented ------ [3 - I agree]

Comments:
The paper approaches an interesting problem. Generally, as a WiP, the paper has a good technical level and is well written. The authors must improve the state of the art and include relevant papers from the field.

=DECISION=
Accepted or Rejected?
The manuscript is marked as REJECTED.
The manuscript is not on the list of registered manuscripts.