Louvain-Based Traffic Object Detection for Roadside 4D Millimeter-Wave Radar
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper presents a dynamic object detection method for roadside 4D millimeter wave radar. The authors use a Louvain-based approach combined with the proposed enhancement method to solve the over-clustering and under-clustering problems. However, as far as I am concerned, in terms of the innovative and experimental workload of the paper as well as the quality of the graphs and figures, I think it does not meet the high standards of the journal, and I suggest the authors to revise their manuscript and resubmit it.
1. The manuscript needs to be polished, and it is advisable to find a native English person to do it, many expressions are too spoken.
2. The second part, titled Materials and Methods, suggests that it should be changed to related work, in addition, the methods in related work are too outdated, Camera-based object detection, LiDAR-based object detection, MMW radar-based object detection, etc. are methods from many years ago. In addition, the latest related literature on 4D millimeter wave radar is missing in the introduction and related work, especially based on 4D millimeter wave radar detection and tracking, such as LXL,SMURF,RCFusion and other methods, and it is hoped that the authors can do a comprehensive research and additions.
3. I think it makes very poor sense for the 4D MMW radar sensor and its data to be a separate section, shouldn't it be in the experimental section? Moreover, figure 1 is not clear enough to recognize it better. And the other figures are also very unclear.
4. In the methods section, it's not clear to me where the specific innovations are, and many of the parameters and thresholds are not clearly explained.
5. In the experimental part, the authors generated Bboxes to be used for evaluation, but this is only clustering generation and is not always accurate, especially the dimensions of the target's contours. In addition, the authors experimental section has only one table, the experimental section is too little and the only method for comparison is DBSCAN. it is recommended that the authors try some DL methods for comparison.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe manuscript needs to be polished, and it is advisable to find a native English person to do it, many expressions are too spoken.
Author Response
Dear Reviewers:
Manuscript ID: remotesensing-2749235
Title: "Louvain-based Traffic Object Detection for Roadside 4D Millimeter-Wave Radar"
We wish to express our deep appreciation and appreciation for all of us, for your great efforts and suggestions for our manuscript. They are valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper and the important guidance to our research.
In the attachment, we include a point-to-point response to your comments and the responses are in red. The modification is marked in red in the revised version.
We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes did not affect the framework of the paper and enriched the content of the paper based on Reviewers' comments. We appreciate your warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Thank you for your time and patience. I am looking forward to receiving your letter.
Yours sincerely,
Ciyun Lin
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors proposed "Louvain-based Traffic Object Detection for Roadside 4D Millimeter-Wave Radar"
However the article cannot be accepted its present form due to the following:
1. Additional experiment is important based on the method used and also new result should be added based on graph.
2. The literature can be seperate from the method section .
3. The problem the research solves in the introduction should be clearly stated
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The paper can improved based on the comment giving above, more especially additional experiment should be added for the paper to be reviewed .
Author Response
Dear Reviewers:
Manuscript ID: remotesensing-2749235
Title: "Louvain-based Traffic Object Detection for Roadside 4D Millimeter-Wave Radar"
We wish to express our deep appreciation and appreciation for all of us, for your great efforts and suggestions for our manuscript. They are valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper and the important guidance to our research.
In the attachment, we include a point-to-point response to your comments and the responses are in red. The modification is marked in red in the revised version.
We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes did not affect the framework of the paper and enriched the content of the paper based on Reviewers' comments. We appreciate your warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Thank you for your time and patience. I am looking forward to receiving your letter.
Yours sincerely,
Ciyun Lin
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper proposed an object detection method using Louvain algorithm for 4D MMW radar point cloud data. The idea is novel and the experimental results are promising. The following parts can be improved:
1. Section 3, Line 181 - 183: This paragraph looks unnecessary and could be removed.
2. Figure 1: The quality of this figure must be improved. Please use either high-resolution images or vector graphics. More importantly, the texts in the figure should be clear to read for better understanding. This suggestion also applies to Figure 2.
3. It would be beneficial to add one short paragraph and a flowchart of the whole process to describe the whole method at a high level at the beginning of Section 4.
4. Line 249,250: The author should explain a little bit to demonstrate the origin of XY plane and Z-coordinate when presented for the first time. It isn't easy to guess how the radar was installed for the data collection and why to choose this data dimension. If possible, an illustration figure showing which direction the radar is looking at and how the coordinates are defined would help a lot. This coordinate information is also vital for the understanding of equation 5 where x-coordinate is mentioned. For now, I can only guess that the XY plane of radar data is similar to the ground plane of the real world (I could be wrong about this).
5. Table 3: Please consider adding lines to separate the results of different sites.
6. Please explain the definitions of Error 1 and Error 2. I can only guess that they are some useful criteria related to the clustering errors designed by the author. It is necessary to give a mathematical definition of them. For the good of the community, please discuss the importance/impact of these new criteria used in the experiments.
Author Response
Dear Reviewers:
Manuscript ID: remotesensing-2749235
Title: "Louvain-based Traffic Object Detection for Roadside 4D Millimeter-Wave Radar"
We wish to express our deep appreciation and appreciation for all of us, for your great efforts and suggestions for our manuscript. They are valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper and the important guidance to our research.
In the attachment, we include a point-to-point response to your comments and the responses are in red. The modification is marked in red in the revised version.
We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes did not affect the framework of the paper and enriched the content of the paper based on Reviewers' comments. We appreciate your warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Thank you for your time and patience. I am looking forward to receiving your letter.
Yours sincerely,
Ciyun Lin
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have revised the manuscript titled: "Louvain-based Traffic Object Detection for Roadside 4D Millimeter-Wave Radar".The revised paper has addressed the concerns that reviewer raised and the manuscript is in its present condition is okay. After minor English edit paper can be accepted .
Comments on the Quality of English Languageminor English edit needed
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript can be accepted in its current form.
