Using an Artificial Physarum polycephalum Colony for Threshold Image Segmentation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. What is the main question addressed by the research?
The main issue addressed in this paper is to improve the quality of the solution of the threshold image segmentation problem. For this purpose, one of the variants of bioinspired computing, namely, Physarum polycephalum-based optimal solution search algorithm, is used. The main attention is paid to the problem of preventing the solution search process from getting stuck in local optima, which is inherent to Physarum polycephalum algorithms.
2. Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field?
The class of bioinspired computations in its various variants has been developing since the early 1960s (evolutionary modeling, neural networks, etc.). There are also a considerable number of variants of these computations aimed at finding an optimal solution in certain conditions. The Physarum polycephalum algorithm used in the paper is one such variant. That is, the authors do not propose any completely new algorithm of this class, their efforts are aimed at eliminating the shortcomings of already existing algorithms. Along the way, the authors obtained results that are useful and of interest to those who are involved in solving problems of a similar kind.
3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?
As noted in the answer to the previous question, the authors have improved existing algorithms of the Physarum polycephalum class in terms of preventing them from getting stuck in local optima. This result seems well deserving of attention of the relevant professional community.
4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered?
The number of possible ways to develop the methods under consideration is very large, the authors mention some of them. I do not consider myself entitled to impose on the authors my point of view on the prospects of improving the approach considered in the article.
5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed?
The conclusions of the article are quite adequate to its content and the main question around which the article is organized (see the answer to question 1). The authors are honest about the shortcomings of their approach and try to point out possible ways of overcoming them, as well as ways of expanding the capabilities of this approach.
6. Are the references appropriate?
In my opinion, the references are quite adequate to the content of the article.
7. Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures.
The tables in the article correspond to its content and their form does not cause any criticism; similarly, the algorithms are designed in the form of tabular kind structures containing lines of pseudocode. However, as I have already mentioned in my review, there are some remarks on the graphical material of the article. In particular, Figures 6 and 8, demonstrating the comparison of experimental results, have a very unsuccessful, in my opinion, color solution (a combination of brown and dark green), which makes it difficult for the reader to perceive these results. It would be very good, if there is such a technical possibility, to replace this pair of colors with a more contrasting one.
Summary: The article is of interest to a wide enough range of researchers and can be recommended for publication in the Applied Sciences.Author Response
The manuscript has been carefully revised. Please refer to the attachment for details of the revision.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI commend the authors for addressing an image segmentation issue through Physarum Polycephalum Colony threshold method on their manuscript. The manuscript presents an interesting approach, but a few points require further clarification and elaboration to ensure the robustness and reproducibility of the proposed method.
Points:
1. My first Question for authors is why choosing the classic technique for image segmentation instead of using latest deep learning techniques?
2. I would like to recommend shortening and be strait to the pointwise summarization of the main contributions at the beginning of the manuscript which is lengthy and hard to comprehend in current form.
3. The experimental setup is good, employing datasets and evaluation metrics. Yet, a related work section is lengthy and hard to comprehend, please revise carefully and make it precise and short.
4. It would be beneficial to include a more in-depth discussion of the observed performance improvements, especially in comparison to the latest research in the field.
5. It would be beneficial if the authors could provide more information on the implementation details and environment, for example is this an in-house software?
6. Although authors present the short application of proposed method but please provide a description on potential real-world application of the proposed method with example, it would enhance the quality of manuscripts.
7. An exploration of potential limitations, such as the sensitivity of the approach to variations in input data quality or the impact of diverse dataset, would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the method's applicability.
8. Are there any additional modifications or extensions to the Physarum-inspired algorithm that could be explored? Addressing this would provide guidance for researchers interested in continuing this work.
9. Certain sentences are difficult to comprehend; therefore, a comprehensive review of the manuscript is requested.
Comments on the Quality of English Language.
Author Response
The manuscript has been carefully revised. Please refer to the attachment for details of the revision.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe reviewers' comments have been taken into account and the appropriate corrections have been made. The article can be accepted for publication as is.
Author Response
The manuscript has been carefully revised. Please refer to the attachment for details of the revision.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPaper is acceptable. Thank you, authors, for addressing all the concern.
My minor suggestion is as follow:
Please revise the manuscript carefully, there are still repeated terms like "APPCA" repeated in their full forms.
Author Response
The manuscript has been carefully revised. Please refer to the attachment for details of the revision.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
