Optimal Coherent Point Selection for 3D Quality Inspection from Silhouette-Based Reconstructions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper proposes an optimal coherent point selection method for 3D quality inspection from

silhouette-based reconstructions. Some comments are listed below.

(1) The abstract does not specify what beneficial effects and performance metrics the proposed method can bring.

(2) How to slove the model (1) effectively? 

(3) The proposed methods should be compared with some state-of-the-art methods.

(4) Moreover, it is necessary to provide a table that lists the performance metrics of the method proposed in this paper and the comparison methods in different experimental scenarios.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for his critical assessment of our work.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 

1-      Clearly articulate the distinct contributions and innovations stemming from your research. Highlight the novel insights, methodologies, or findings you have introduced, setting them apart from previous studies.

2-      In the introduction section, offer a concise and lucid explanation of the existing gap or problem in the literature that your research aims to tackle. This will enable readers to swiftly grasp the significance and necessity of your study.

3-      The abstract is inadequate and fails to convey the significance of the research. The beginning sentences are poor and do not accurately describe the objective of this investigation. Furthermore, it features long, dull sentences. I propose scientifically rewriting the abstract, with the following elements included. The overarching goal of the article and the research issues you looked at should be brief. The study's fundamental layout. Significant discoveries or trends made as a result of the research. finally, a succinct breakdown of your analyses and findings.

4-      "The introduction lacks clarity and cohesiveness, making it challenging for readers to engage with the content. To improve the introduction, consider the following questions:

·         Evaluating Presented Results: It's crucial to establish how the presented results compare to existing studies. Demonstrate that the literature review is up-to-date by referencing more recent studies that may have addressed similar topics.

·         Importance of the Paper: Clearly articulate the significance of your research in the introduction. Explain why the topic is relevant and what potential impact it may have.

·         Main Challenges and Issues: Identify and outline the primary challenges and issues that your study addresses. This will provide readers with a clear understanding of the problem your research seeks to solve.

·         Critique and Gap Analysis: Conduct a thorough critique of the existing academic literature related to your topic. Highlight the gaps in the literature that your study aims to fill. Discuss how your research builds upon or differs from previous work.

·         Recommended Solutions: Provide an overview of the solutions or approaches you propose for addressing the identified challenges and issues. This will give readers a preview of the contributions your study makes to the field.

·         Implications, Contributions, and Novelty: Summarize the implications of your research, emphasizing its contributions and novelty. What new insights or perspectives does your study bring to the table? How does it advance the current state of knowledge in the field?

 

5-      incorporate a 'Related Work' section to your document and engage in a discussion about similar research in the field

 

6-      "The proposed methodology lacks clarity, coherence, and structure, making it difficult for readers to follow the sequence of events. To enhance this section, consider the following steps, numbered for clarity, and use graphical representations as needed:

 

·         Step-by-Step Approach: Begin by outlining the proposed approach in a clear, step-by-step manner. Ensure that the sequence of actions is presented logically.

·         Visual Aids: Incorporate graphical representations, such as flowcharts or diagrams, to visually illustrate the methodology. Visual aids can significantly enhance understanding.

·         Chronological Sequence: Organize the steps in chronological order, highlighting dependencies and relationships between them.

·         Clarity and Readability: Use concise and straightforward language to explain each step. Avoid jargon or overly technical terms that may confuse readers.

·         Graphical Presentation: If applicable, create a graphical representation of the methodology, with each step labeled and connected to the next. This can serve as a visual roadmap for readers.

·         By following these recommendations, you can make the methodology section more accessible and reader-friendly, ensuring that your proposed approach is presented clearly and logically."

 

7-      Any comparative analysis to testify that this study is more advanced than others? Discuss similar paper

8-      Rewrite the conclusion and consider the following comments:

-   Highlight your analysis and reflect only the important points for the whole paper.

-   Mention the benefits.

-   Mention the implication at the last of this section.

 

This paper is interesting and valuable, but major revisions may be necessary. Please carefully revise my comments.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for his critical assessment of our work.  

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Summary:

In this work, an approach for selecting comparison points from a silhouette-based reconstruction is presented. The presented algorithm enhances the silhouette-based reconstruction, and it is able to identify optimal points observed in the imagery.

 

The manuscript is interesting; however, the following comments need to be addressed carefully:

1 – In the abstract, elaboration is required for the presented algorithm .

2 – Results in terms of improvement ratio need to be included in the abstract.

3 – Contribution list need to be included at the end of the introduction section.

4 – After the contribution list, the organization of the manuscript need to be included .

5 – In the Introduction, there are some related works need to be cited. For example: a) doi: 10.3390/s22239209 , and b) doi: 10.15579/gcsr.vol7.ch3 .

6 – In the State of the art section, Include works from 2022 and 2023 .

7 – In the Materials and methods Section, Include pseudo code for the presented algorithm .

8 – In the Results and discussion Section, the Figure 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, … 17 need to be replotted such that, the values at the x and y axes are clearly visible .

9 – Future work need to be included in the conclusion section .

 

 

There are some typos and minor errors need to be checked and corrected.

 

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for his critical assessment of our work.  

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper proposes an algorithm aiming at optimal point selection from silhouette-based reconstruction. The algorithm can choose a subset of silhouette-coherent points from the reconstruction based on an optimality criterion for 3D quality inspection by utilizing expected shape information. Then the paper utilizes several scenarios to evaluate the algorithm and demonstrates that the algorithm works well. 

 

Ovearll, the paper is interesting, and the proposed algorithm works. Also, the prior works are well summarized, and the evaluations are comprehensive. However, there are some comments below and it is advised to address them. 

First, it is advised to briefly discuss the organization in the introduction.

Second, it is advised to add an algorithm overview figure in the design. 

Third, it is advised to name the algorithm, which will benefit the readers.

Forth, it is advised to adult the figures font and color code, as the figures look blurred. 

As commented above

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for his critical assessment of our work.  

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I have no more comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

Summary:

In this work, an approach for selecting comparison points from a silhouette-based reconstruction is presented. The presented algorithm enhances the silhouette-based reconstruction, and it is able to identify optimal points observed in the imagery.

 

In the revised manuscript, the authors have addressed the raised comments.