Dear Dr. chen,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 28 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Zhengzheng Cao

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

3. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement:

 [The project is supported by National Key Research and Development Program of China - Intelligent impact support technology and equipment foiimpact hazardous tunnels and engineering demonstration(2022YFC3004605)].

Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now.  Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement.

Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. In the online submission form, you indicated that [The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author, upon reasonable request.].

All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval.

Additional Editor Comments:

Comments from PLOS Editorial Office : We note that one or more reviewers has recommended that you cite specific previously published works. As always, we recommend that you evaluate the requested works to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. It is not a requirement to cite these works and you may remove any added citations before the manuscript proceeds to publication. We appreciate your attention to this request.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: This paper focuses on the problems such as the high risk of underground tests for boom roadheaders and the high cost of ground tests. It innovatively proposes a virtual-real fusion test system for the cutting part of the roadheader, constructs a digital mapping of the cutting part of the roadheader, and realizes the organic integration of the physical equipment test and the virtual test. It has certain innovation and high engineering application value. However, there are still the following issues in the paper that need to be revised and improved.

1�In the process of constructing the rectangular coal-rock unit in Section 2.1 of the paper to form the input matrix of the digital mapping of the pick load, the author considered parameters such as the depth, angle, and speed of the pick cutting into the coal-rock, as well as the damage degree of the cut coal-rock unit. However, the author did not elaborate in detail on the reasons for selecting these parameters. It is recommended that the author supplement relevant content and explain in detail the necessity and rationality of selecting these parameters.

2�In Fig.2 of Section 2.1 of the paper, the coordinate colors are dim, which may affect the readers' understanding of the chart content. It is recommended that the author adjust the coordinate colors to make them more eye-catching and clearly mark the main parameters to enhance the readability of the chart.

3�In Section 3.2 of the paper, the Denavit-Hartenberg notation (DH method) is used for the motion equations, but the DH parameters are not clearly given, and there is a lack of a detailed description of the specific way the pose matrix is used in the test system. It is recommended to add relevant explanations so that readers can better understand the relevant content.

4�For the acquisition of the pose information and mechanical information of the virtual-real fusion test system, it is necessary to clearly state what types of sensors are used, the specific measurement methods, and the arrangement of the sensors. At the same time, it is also necessary to explain how to use the local and limited sensor data to reflect the mechanical characteristics of the whole machine in different poses.

5�Section 5.3 of the paper describes the sources of the environmental state and reward information during the virtual training process and the virtual-real fusion training process. During the virtual training, both the environmental state and reward information come from the calculation data of the virtual test system. In the virtual-real fusion training process, the environmental state information comes from the sensor data, and the reward information comes from the calculation data of the virtual test system. In order to display these data information more clearly, it is recommended that the author present them intuitively in the form of a chart for easy comparative analysis.

6�The number of references cited is relatively small. It is recommended that the author appropriately increase the number of references cited, widely draw on the research achievements in related fields, and further enrich the content of the article.

Reviewer #2: (1)In the introduction section of the article, only some shortcomings of traditional research methods are listed, with limited comparative analysis of recent achievements by other scholars in the improvement of tunnel boring machine experimental systems or similar applications of virtual-real fusion technology. It is recommended to supplement relevant content to more clearly highlight the unique innovations of this study.

(2)The stress values in the text use incorrect units, such as 100mpa.

(3)After optimization, the stress overrun ratio decreases by approximately 10%. To demonstrate the superiority of DDPG, comparisons with other algorithms can be conducted.

(4)Some latest research work related with this TOPIC can be referred. Study on the degradation mechanism of mechanical properties of red sandstone under static and dynamic loading after different high temperatures. 

(5)The entire text contains numerous language errors, such as "100sm" and "DDGP". Please carefully check the entire text and make necessary revisions.

(6)In the conclusion, avoid restating methodological details and instead focus on highlighting innovative aspects and future research directions.

Reviewer #3: 1. This paper proposes a virtual-reality fusion experimental system for the cutting part of a cantilevered roadheader, which has important innovations in reducing the difficulty of the experiment and improving the adaptability of the cutting. However, it is recommended to further clarify the actual application scenarios and potential socio-economic value of the system to highlight the innovation and practical contribution of its research.

2. This paper introduces the construction process of the system in detail, including key technologies such as coal-rock discretization, digital mapping body construction, and virtual-reality system fusion. However, it is recommended to add more technical implementation details, such as the implementation steps, parameter settings, and code implementation of specific algorithms, so that readers can better understand and reproduce the research content.

3. This paper verifies the accuracy of the virtual-reality fusion experimental system through experiments and demonstrates its effectiveness in reducing the stress of the cutting part. However, it is recommended to further analyze the stability and reliability of the experimental data, such as conducting multiple repeated experiments and using different coal-rock samples for experiments, so as to enhance the persuasiveness of the experimental conclusions.

4. The virtual-reality fusion experimental system performs well in real-time and synchronization, but it is recommended to further explore the scalability and maintainability of the system. For example, how to quickly adapt to different types of tunnel boring machines, how to conveniently upgrade and maintain the system, etc. In addition, it is possible to consider introducing more optimization algorithms to improve the overall performance of the system.

5. The abstract of the article needs to be revised, and the importance of the article should be highlighted. There are insufficient references, so more references need to be supplemented. There are too few references, which need to be supplemented to 30. The background and mechanism are not introduced clearly.

Mechanical behavior and fracture mechanism of high-temperature granite cooled with liquid nitrogen for geothermal reservoir applications. Physics of Fluids 2025; 37 (2): 026616. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0253668

6. The virtual-real fusion experimental system proposed in the article has broad application prospects, especially in the fields of coal mining and machinery manufacturing. It is recommended that the author further explore the application potential and promotion strategy of the system, and clarify the future research direction. For example, we can study how to apply the system to other types of tunnel boring machines or mining equipment, or explore how to combine advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence and big data to further improve the intelligence level of the system.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Dear Dr. chen,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

The authors must outline the novelty points of this paper with proposed model. Additionally, the discussion should be enlarged to analyze and compare with previous research results. 

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 30 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Tien Anh Tran

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

Reviewer #2: it can be accepted.

Aiming at the problems of high safety risks, economic costs, and inefficiency in experimental research on boom-type roadheaders, this study proposes a virtual-real fusion system for the cutting module. This system incorporates functions including digital modeling of coal-rock, simulation of echanical properties of the cutting unit, and integration of virtual and physical experiments.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: This study presents an innovative virtual-real fusion system for roadheader cutting experiments, integrating digital twins, DDPG optimization, and coal-rock discretization. While the concept is promising and initial validation shows moderate accuracy, critical methodological gaps persist in coal-rock damage modeling, system generalizability, and cost-benefit justification. Addressing these would strengthen industrial applicability and scientific rigor.

1. The introduction focuses primarily on coal mine applications. To strengthen the rationale, explicitly reference non-coal applications of boom-type roadheaders (e.g., civil tunnel construction, hydropower caverns, or urban underground infrastructure (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.104369; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2023.105382)) and cite recent studies demonstrating their use in diverse geotechnical settings (e.g., hard rock tunneling in metro projects). This would better justify the system’s universal value beyond coal-centric scenarios.

2. Expand testing beyond hard coal-rock at fixed RPM (90 rpm). Include diverse coal-rock strengths (soft/heterogeneous strata) and dynamic operational scenarios (variable cutting speeds, intermittent loads) to demonstrate system robustness. Quantify the impact of 100ms latency on real-time control stability.

3. Clarify the deep learning architecture (e.g., layer types, node counts, optimization algorithms) and validation metrics (e.g., RMSE, R²) used to derive the damage coefficient (Eq. 4). Justify why a 3×3×3 boundary matrix (Eq. 5) suffices for spatial heterogeneity modeling.

4. Explicitly compare resource requirements (time, materials, labor) between traditional physical experiments and the proposed virtual-dominant approach (e.g., 300 virtual + 10 physical DDPG runs). Estimate savings in coal-rock fabrication, sensor deployment, and downtime to highlight scalability.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Research on a virtual-real fusion experimental system for the cutting part of a boom-type roadheader

PONE-D-25-15395R2

Dear Dr. chen,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Tien Anh Tran

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

Reviewer #2: Aiming at the problems of high safety risks, economic costs, and inefficiency in experimental research on boom-type roadheaders, this study proposes a virtual-real fusion experimental system for the cutting module. This system incorporates functions including digital modeling of coal-rock, simulation of mechanical properties of the cutting unit, and integration of virtual and physical experiments.

ACCEPT

Reviewer #3: accept the paper Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) (Limit 100 to 20000 Characters)

Reviewer #4: The authors have thoroughly addressed reviewer feedback (e.g., clarifying deep learning architectures, quantifying resource savings vs. physical tests, and broadening non-coal applications). Revisions demonstrate robustness, with latency analysis (<100 ms) confirming real-time stability. The work significantly advances intelligent excavation research by enabling virtual-dominant, cost-effective experimentation. All critical revisions are complete, and the manuscript now meets publication standards. Recommend acceptance.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********