An Improved Backward Smoothing Method Based on Label Iterative Processing

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper studies the improved backward smoothing method based on label iterative processing which can improve the track estimation performance. Except for the weak readability of English, there are still some questions as follows:

1、 the authors performed the experiment without the successive missed targets, for example figure 2, the points 7-10 are missed, and if the missed points are discontinuous, how is the performance of the proposed method?

2、 In page 6 line 185~187, In order to solve the above problems, this paper proposes an improved backward smoothing processing method, and this method integrates the track initiation judgment function, which can effectively eliminate abnormal points and invalid short-lived target. If during the track initiation, the target is missed detection, will the track effect deteriorate?  

3、 In page 233, State transfer equation: This paper considers the discrete acceleration model as the state transfer equation. In the analyses, all experiments are rectilinear motion. Is the method only applicable to linear motion?  

4、 The authors study the backward smoothing, and is the tracking effect better than other types of methods ?  

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

First of all, thank you very much for your valuable work on my paper. In response to your questions, I spent nearly 10 days significantly revising my paper and made revisions to the outcomes, tables, and figures ，etc， you mentioned one by one. In addition to this reply text, there are also two documents included in the reply materials for you, one is a docx without modification annotations《3Manuscript Without Revision Note》, and the other is a docx with modification annotations《2Manuscript With Revision Note》. In《2Manuscript With Revision Note》, we distinguished different issues using different colors. Among them, blue represents grammar modifications, red represents abbreviation supplements, and yellow represents article content supplements and modifications.

Thank you very much for your valuable work on my paper again.

Kind regards，

Mr. JiuChao.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

• The presented paper proposes an improved back-smooth processing method based on label iterative processing for deal with the problem of outlier removal and track initiation determination and processing in the process of multi-target tracking. In general Abstract is missing for offering the outcome of the study. The tables and figures are not reader friendly. Additionally, including tables using repetitive words lowering the readability of the paper. In short there are issues that must be resolved before the publication of the manuscript. Details follow:

• The abstract and introduction are missing the research outcome. Please address the outcomes using mathematical values to refer to improvements.

• Please extend the related work section, while including more state-of-the-art studies

• The introduction is not offering a clear perspective about the study and the state of the art studies. Please include, define and compare the recent studies with the pretend study.

• The novelty of the study should be more specifically expressed at the end of the introduction.

• Please check and define all abbreviations at the first use in the text.

• Please consider reorganizing the Figures, it is possible to give some additional information using supplemental data.

• Please check and resize Figure legends, font size, etc…

• Please add recently published studies and compare the state-of-the-art studies in this field with this study in the result section. Please include a comparison of your results with the recent studies in this field. It is important to expand comparison by including state-of-the-art studies.

• The outcomes indicated in tables and figures are not comparable. Tables are including raw data. Please use processed outputs and normalized data.

• References are limited and missing the recent studies. 

• Please reconsider the Section titles.

• Please include a comparison of your results with the recent studies in the Result field. Please include a short outcome of the arguments presented and future goals of the presented study for the conclusions.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

First of all, thank you very much for your valuable work on my paper. In response to your questions, I spent nearly 10 days significantly revising my paper and made revisions to the outcomes, tables, and figures ，etc， you mentioned one by one. In addition to this reply text, there are also two documents included in the reply materials for you, one is a docx without modification annotations《3Manuscript Without Revision Note》, and the other is a docx with modification annotations《2Manuscript With Revision Note》. In《2Manuscript With Revision Note》, we distinguished different issues using different colors. Among them, blue represents grammar modifications, red represents abbreviation supplements, and yellow represents article content supplements and modifications.

Thank you very much for your valuable work on my paper again.

Kind regards，

Mr. JiuChao.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper has been revised, and there are other questions.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have clearly improved the manuscript and made it really clearer. There is no further question on my side.