Panoramic UAV Image Mosaic Method and Its Application in Pavement Paving Temperature Monitoring
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper needs major revisions:
1- literature review should be expanded in terms of monitoring of pavement paving temperature from 2010-2023.
2-Motivation and innovation of the proposed method should be expanded.
3- the results of the proposed method can be compared with literature in terms of accuracy.
4-In the results of example application, authors should quantify results in terms of statistical measures.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article is written in a good scientific manner and has its novelty side. From a scientific point of view I can notice the clarity of the expression and the rigor of the application that precedes the experimental part. The authors are invited to highlight the novelty from the literature field. I recommend also the authors to check the bibliography because few citations in the text do not coincide with those at the end of the article. Not all figures can be understood because they are too small in size. Please change the appearance of these figures so that you can distinguish the values ​​on the coordinate axes. For example, the images from Fig. 6, 7, 8 I cannot be analyzed due to their low resolution. Also fig 1 must be more clearly.
Hope my suggestions are helpful.
Best regards
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Recommendations to authors
The idea of the proposed UAV image mosaic method is interesting but needs to be carefully implemented and its effectiveness must be assessed and compared with results from previous methods used.
More detailed comments:
- The implementation of the proposed UAV image mosaic method is poorly presented. More images need to be examined to show the effectiveness of the UAV mosaic method. The theoretical background is sufficient but how the effectiveness of the proposed method is assessed based on the results needs further clarification and support.
- Results must be compared with results from previous methods used.
- The proposed method implies the existence of a UAV and therefore an additional cost. Is the UAV method less expensive than other methods or can it be implemented more easily?
- Discussion is missing (a text part at the end of results can be used in discussion). How the temperature segregation is being monitored in the paving stage so far? Which methods the proposed methodology aims to replace?
- Conclusions must also be re-written.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Authors presented the idea via "Panoramic Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Image Mosaic Method and Its Application in Pavement Paving Temperature Monitoring" whereas the title should be "Panoramic UAV Image Mosaic Method and Its 2 Application in Pavement Paving Temperature Monitoring" as because the title seems complex with this length.
The language and use of grammar seems OK, can be enhanced
Repetition of lines/theme is there in the paper at many places. The contributions are not understandable to me, mention clearly the novelty instead of working here.
Manuscript lacks to have latest work like a) A deep learning-based intelligent garbage detection system using an unmanned aerial vehicle b) Compressive Sensing Node Localization Method Using Autonomous Underwater Vehicle Network
How the threshold is calculated here? The quality of figures is not good and needs to enhance.
A comparative study of results with latest schemes/techniques is highly desirable here.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Accept as is
Author Response
Thank you very much for your approval of our manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
Recommendations to authors
- Line 9: Replace "has become an essential means to monitor" with "is used to effectively monitor".
- Line 11: Improve English and meaning. Image mosaic is not for slicing images but to join images together to form a panoramic image. Maybe you mean something else.
- Line 13-14: Improve English. Maybe add "as binary greyscale image" at the end of the sentence.
- Line 18-19: Improve English.
- Line 61: Replace "shall" with "must".
- Line 75: Replace "image to greyscale" with "greyscale image".
- Line 80: Delete space after "ORB".
- Line 277-289: Which part of the images refers to the "reference plate". Maybe you should mark the reference plate on the images in Figure 4. How is the width of the reference plate selected?
- Line 280: I think the example used is not good.
- Line 291-293: Improve English.
- Line 315: "to be sliced" or "to be joined"?
- Line 317: How this point matching is done? It is not clear.
- Line 320: You mention that with the proposed method "The overlap area required for image mosaic using the reference plate is calculated to be 5%, which is 79% lower than the original SIFT method in section 3.3". However, in section 3.3 (line 257) you mention that "the overlapping area of two images needs to reach more than 84% before stitching". So, if i am not mistaken, using SIFT the overlap area needs to be at least 16%, while with the proposed method only 5%. Is this 79% lower? Certainly not. Unless you mean something else.
- Line 323-324: You must provide some evidence to support the less "splicing calculations".
- Line 346 You must explain what "existing technology" is.
- Line 348: I know it is difficult to present and explain the method, but this makes no sense. Please improve English.
- Line 350-364. No meaning. Please re-write the whole paragraph. I suggest you to first refer to the advantage you want to present and then move on to discussion.
- Line 359: "overlapping area of the adjacent two images is small". Why the overlapping area is not the same always?
- Line 378-379: "The efficiency of the method proposed in this paper is 5.9 times that of the existing methods." One more conclusion that it is not based on results. How is this number come about?
- Line 387-380: Improve English.
- Line 380: Please be cautious when you use the statistical term "significance". It is better to use other words instead (importance).
- Line 395: In conclusions you mention that it is "70% lower than that of the original SIFT algorithm". how does this come about? In line 321 you mention that it is "79% lower than the original SIFT method". Which is the correct one?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
