A Lightweight Machine-Learning Method for Cloud Removal in Remote Sensing Images Constrained by Conditional Information

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research paper has certain theoretical significance. But significant improvements are needed before publication.

 

1) What is the motivation behind the research on "Cloud Restoration" in the title? The paper does not provide a clear definition, does it belong to cloud detection, exclusion, or other purposes?

 

2) The general structural diagram in Figure 1 is meaningless and it is recommended to delete it.

 

3) The main conditional information in the paper includes Spectral and Temporal Information, Spatial Information, Pixel Similarity, etc., but no specific model is provided, especially for the first two pieces of information. It is recommended to have a clearer definition.

 

4) The experimental verification part is relatively rough, especially some data tables, which have unclear physical meanings and some lack dimensional markings.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments and professional advice. These opinions help to improve the academic rigor of our article. Based on your suggestion and request, we have made corrected modifications to the revised manuscript. The revised details are highlighted in red in the revised paper. We hope that our work can be improved again. Furthermore, we would like to show the details in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The present work introduces a method for reconstructing satellite images that contain cloud-type noise. The task of cloud detection and removal is very important in the field of remote sensing. The article is straightforward and employs a neural network application. The results demonstrate that the technique outperforms other state-of-the-art competitors. I do not have many comments to make, except to suggest placing greater emphasis on the new methodology. Additionally, it would be beneficial to provide more detailed explanations of the advantages and potential limitations of the proposed approach, as well as to include a more comprehensive comparison with existing methods.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I believe the English is fine; I suggest a rereading and correction of the punctuation.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments and professional advice. These opinions help to improve the academic rigor of our article. Based on your suggestion and request, we have made corrected modifications to the revised manuscript. The revised details are highlighted in red in the revised paper. We hope that our work can be improved again. Furthermore, we would like to show the details in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments and professional advice. These opinions help to improve the academic rigor of our article. Based on your suggestion and request, we have made corrected modifications to the revised manuscript. The revised details are highlighted in red in the revised paper. We hope that our work can be improved again. Furthermore, we would like to show the details in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed all my comments. One suggestion is that what are the reasons for the presence of question marks in multiple statements in the main text? It is recommended that the author carefully check them.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

     We sincerely apologize for the presence of question marks. Our manuscript is based on LaTex, which makes the manuscript more structured. Question marks may be caused by the difference between our LaTeX version and the system's version, so we have updated the LaTeX version and checked the original statements. In addition, we have provided the PDF version of the manuscript.

    We would like to appreciate you again for taking the time to review our manuscript. We hope the modification will enhance the quality of the paper. Look forward to hearing from you.

Best wishes,

Lejun Zou

17 Aug. 2024

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the effort made by the authors to improve the manuscript which I can say is ready for publication

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My concerns have been modified. The article can be published in my opinion.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

      We sincerely appreciate your recognition of our work and previous crucial suggestions.

 

Best wishes,

Lejun Zou

17 Aug. 2024