Adaptive Compressive Sensing: An Optimization Method for Pipeline Magnetic Flux Leakage Detection
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors, your work is innovative and practical. However, there are still some problems with your manuscript. Specific comments are as follows:
1. The abstract section should highlight the contribution of the article. The contributions of each section of the essay should be described briefly.
2. The introduction should include more articles from the last 2-3 years. Reduce the amount of research done long ago.
3. Please check the manuscript carefully for formatting and English errors. For example, the "2.2 "in line 116 should be "2."
4. The introduction of the principle of IOU loss and attention mechanism should be appropriately reduced. Add connecting sentences to strengthen the relationship between the topic "adaptive compressed sensing" and the minor parts of the article.
5. The topic of the journal is sustainability. The abstract and conclusion should indicate how the work of the article relates to the topic of the journal.
There are some expression and grammar problems, simple corrections are recommended.
Author Response
Thank you for your comment. Please check the attachment for specific reply and modification.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
One the positive side the metrics are well-chosen and well-explained. However, there are some points:
1. I couldn't find a well-explained justification for the amount of data used. Specifically, the applied structure might be overfitting for about 500 images.
2. The tensor layers in the dataset are not completely clear to me. It seems to be 3 layers, but I couldn't find one specifically mentioned. Is it x, y, z (radial, circumferential, etc.) gathered from MFL PIG in pipes? Also, is the setup here different from an MFL PIG, as you call it magnetic leakage not magnetic flux leakage as widely used?
3. Compressive sensing has been previously applied to magnetic flux leakage detectors, but you didn't review that literature path.
The paper definitely needs careful proofreading. There are instances of poor English grammar usage. Also, I see some misplacement in the formula.
It is not completely clear why you sometimes used bold notation for formulas. It seems that part of it is implemented in MathType and part in the word equation! try to unify your notation regarding your formulas.
Author Response
Thank you for your comment. Please check the attachment for specific reply and modification.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript has strong innovation and practical significance. But some simple modifications are necessary. The comments are as follows:
1. The main contributions in the article should be highlighted, and the introduction of theorems should be appropriately reduced.
2. The writing of specific nouns should be consistent. For example, the “Yolov5” mentioned in line 14 is written as “YOLOv5” in lines 120 and 123.
3. Some of the words in the image are blurred, such as Fig 6 and Fig 7. Please make appropriate adjustments.
4. Please check the language and typos carefully. For example, "c" in line 159 should be modified to "(c)".
5. The link between the content of the article and the topic of the journal "sustainability" should be strengthened, and some sentences can be added in the abstract, introduction, and conclusion.
The quality of English language should be minorly improved.
Author Response
Thank you for your comment. Please check the attachment for specific reply and modification.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I couldn't see that any of my concerns were addressed! No proofreading is done. Formulas and grammar can still be improved, relative references still missing, and three layers of MFL are not described in detail yet.
I expected to see a rebuttal letter that addressed my points one by one. Because of these shortcomings, I can not recommend it for publication.
I couldn't see that any of my concerns were addressed! No proofreading is done. Formulas and grammar can still be improved, relative references still missing, and three layers of MFL are not described in detail yet.
I expected to see a rebuttal letter that addressed my points one by one. Because of these shortcomings, I can not recommend it for publication.
Author Response
Dear reviewer 2:
Thank you for your comments on our manuscript. However, your response confused us a lot. We are confident that we have revised and responded to your comments in the last round of revisions one by one.
In accordance with your suggestion, we have revised our manuscript again. You can try to click the attachment in the lower left corner to see our specific reply and modification content of our manuscript. If you are unable to open the attachment we uploaded, you can also try to communicate with the editor, we believe that you will get the appropriate help.
You can try to click the attachment in the lower left corner to see our specific reply and modification content.
Best regard
All the authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
I recommend it for publication as authors address all my concerns
