Enhanced Infrared Detection Algorithm for Weak Targets in Complex Backgrounds

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have read the manuscript in details. The present paper is focused an interesting topic. The authors have designed an infrared weak target acquisition optical system to solve the problem of miniaturization and lightweighting of the detection equipment and realize unmanned airborne. The authors state that "the proposed algorithm is validated by several experiments, among which the sequential and comparative experiments perform well, and the ablation experiment also proves that the process of this algorithm is very correct." Furthermore, the authors declare that a "comparative experimental data analysis verifies that the algorithm can reach 0.988, which is significantly better than other advanced algorithms".

I think that following suggestions and comments are necessary in order to benefit more readers:
1.  'Abstract' should be improved. One should clearly point out the motivation, objective, adopted/developed methods, and finally the main achieved results.

2.  The 'Introduction' section can also be better described, expanded and more detail should provided about the gap in the literature, i.e., the literature review should be expanded. In other words, the main goal and the motivation of this paper can be better justified.

3. I think that in general, the adopted approach is correct. Nonetheless, the authors should clearly mention the advantages or why is the adopted method "effective" (as stated) and why is it better than others similar/published methods ? Some answers touching these questions are implied in the paper, but an overall revision should make it clearer and more straightforward to the reader.

4.  "Results" section shows the main findings. Nevertheless, discussion should be improved. I suggest that more details regarding the limitation related to the developed approach should be provided. Please clarify to the reader about that.

5. English proofreading is important to mitigate grammatical errors.

In my view, this paper under review is interesting and can contribute to the literature after a minor revision taking into account the aforementioned comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Moderate changes are required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

First of all, I should admit that this paper is not in my main scope. I read through the paper and feels it sounds reasonable and interesting.

This paper designs a lightweight airborne infrared optical detection system and proposes an infrared enhancement algorithm for weak and small targets in complex backgrounds. However, I feel the authors missed the discussion and highlight of the unique advantage compared with the other proposed approaches.

I suggest you add a subsection (maybe put it at the end of the Introduction section and before talking about the organization of the paper), with a very concise summary of the existing works, and use a few sentences to highlight your own contributions compared with those approaches. For the other parts, I am okay with that.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

In the manuscript “Enhanced Infrared Detection Algorithm for Weak Targets in 2 Complex Backgrounds” is presented an optical system design and an infrared small target image enhancement processing algorithm, for the detection of weak targets in complex backgrounds.

This manuscript addresses an interesting topic. However, there are several points where the paper should be improved, clarified, and expanded.

Line 13 - Consider writing "paper" or "manuscript", instead of "thesis".

Line 22 - Please substitute "Fa" and "Pd" by respective full descriptions.

Keywords - Keywords must be standardized (all in uppercase or all in lowercase).

In the Introduction section, some related works are discussed, but most of them are old works. Authors should consider discussing more recent work. Additionally, a "Related work" section should be considered, where the advantages and disadvantages of approaches already proposed in this area are presented. In this way, it will be easier for the reader to perceive the advantages of the work proposed in this manuscript.

Still in this section, the authors state that the proposed method has a fast processing. However, throughout the manuscript there is no reference to processing time. What is the computational complexity of the proposed system.

Line 51 - What are "domestic and foreign scholars"?

Line 79 - Consider writing "... for weak targets detection...", instead of "... for weak targets..."

Figure 1 is not a standard block diagram. I think that the use of a standard scheme will facilitate the interpretation of the blocks that make up the system and the flow of information between them.

Line 93 - The sentence "According..." must be revised.

In Equation 1, what is the value of d?

Figure 5 is not a standard flowchart. It should be used a common flowchart to facilitate the interpretation.

Lines 130 to 132 - The sentence "The open operation filters the bright..." needs revision.

Line 147 - Please, revise the formatting of the mathematical expressions.

Lines 167 to 169 - Please, revise the formatting of the mathematical expressions.

Lines 176 to 179 - Please, revise the formatting of the mathematical expressions.

Lines 188 - Please, revise the formatting of the mathematical expressions.

The definition of the Gaussian curvature projection operator is set out in an incomprehensible way. For example, what is 2.d1? The same goes for the new curvature model.

Lines 267 to 268 - The sentence "At the same time, the haze background also has high brightness; the target is easily interfered with by high-intensity..." needs revision.

Figure 7 needs to be explained in detail.

To assess the accuracy of the proposed method, the authors should consider using the metrics Precision = (True Positive)/(True Positive + False Positive), Recall = (True Positive)/(True Positive + False Negative) and F1 score = ( Precision × Recall)/[(Precision + Recall)/2].

Figures 7 and 8 - It is very difficult to locate the targets in the original images, therefore evaluating the detection results.

Figure 9 - What do the authors mean by "pepper noise"? Is it the well-known "salt and pepper noise"? Furthermore, the addition of noise in the images is not noticeable.

Sentence construction should be reviewed carefully. There are confusing sentences and some typos throughout the document.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

line 91: When->when

line 101: define standard point train

In general, Figures are low-quality, captions are uninformative, and legends are illegible.

line 114: Define close-computed

line 124: image->Image

line 126: Use either "corrosion" or "erosion" as the term, don't used both.

Consider putting equations that are replicated in other papers in supplemental materials. Also, variables in sentences are improperly formatted.

Eq. 14: The implementation of energy terms is not described.

line 219: "A" does not appear in any equation.

line 229: improved->Improved

Figure 6: Unclear. Uninformative caption. Consider removing.

line 244: two->Two

Results - you have not described how, when, and where images were acquired.

line 274: FIG->Figure

Overall, good paper, interesting technique, but needs editing for length, grammar, and clarity.

See other notes

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,
Thank you for carefully reviewing your manuscript, taking into account my comments and suggestions.