All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
The reviewer is satisfied with the recent changes and therefore I can recommend this article for acceptance.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Sedat Akleylek, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The article is written in a clear manner, and I have no more questions.
Simulation results seem correct. No further comments
The results in the article are novel.
The comments are addressed. Thank you!
-
-
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
**Language Note:** The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
-
-
-
1. The manuscript is written in professional English. However, grammatical errors exist (e.g., “any arbitrarily accuracy” should be “any arbitrary accuracy”.
2. The figures are relevant and high-quality, though some axis labels and legends (especially in Figures 3–8) should be slightly improved for clarity.
3. Incomplete section references in several places (e.g., "Section," instead of a numbered section), which should be corrected.
4. Assumptions 1 and 2 are reasonable, but further justification or practical examples would help support their general applicability.
5. Simulation on a near-space vehicle is useful but could be enhanced with a comparison against a baseline method.
o How sensitive is the system recovery performance to the choice of time-delay parameter TT? Is there a practical lower bound?
o Can this approach handle time-varying or stochastic attack signals?
o How would the system handle partial observability or sensor noise in the high-gain observer?
o What real-world systems could practically benefit from this scheme (e.g., aerospace, smart grid)? Has the author attempted to implement this in any hardware-in-the-loop setup?
o Could this method be extended to actuator faults or other types of non-malicious disturbances?
6. In addition, some related works are missing. For example, the following related works fail to discuss in your manuscript: Event-Triggered Consensus Control with Dynamic Agents and Communication Delays in Heterogeneous Multi-Agent Systems; Robust Neural Network-Driven Control for Multi-Agent Formation in the Presence of Byzantine Attacks and Time Delays; Impulsive fault-tolerant control for multi-agent systems with stochastic disturbances; Robust Resilient Base Containment Control of Fractional Order Multi-Agent Systems with Disturbance and Time Delays; Stability Analysis and Resilient Communication in Connected Vehicle Platooning: Addressing Input Communication Delays and Disruptions through Lyapunov Analysis and Event-Triggered Control
This paper deals with the control-theoretic cyber-attacks in the form of false data injection (FDI) in the MIMO system. The authors introduced FDI in the control input (actuator) channel. An observer-based attack compensation strategy is proposed. The stability analysis is conducted. The numerical studies have been conducted on a space vehicle. My concerns for this work are as follows:
1. There exist different FDI attack compensation. How is the proposed method different? A tabular form of the literature survey may enhance the interest of the readers.
2. The contribution should be specifically discussed in the introduction section.
3. What is the criterion for selecting the term u_a between 0 and 2 in the numerical studies?
4. How is the gain K obtained?
5. A comparative study with other recently developed FDI attack compensation methods should performed.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.