Multi-Target Association for UAVs Based on Triangular Topological Sequence

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper entitled 'Multi-target Association for UAVs Based on Triangular Topological Sequence' is an interesting manuscript that proposes a globally consistent multi-target two-step association algorithm, which aims to solve the multi-sensor targets association problem only by the relative position features between multiple targets. I think that it is well-written, the literature review is adequate and the research section is convincing. In general, the differences between the results of the algorithms are significant, so the conclusions are correct, but it may be worth performing statistical tests to further emphasize the reliability of the results obtained. However, I have some doubts about the linguistic part - in my opinion, the article should be subject to linguistic proofreading, e.g.:

- The abstract introduces the abbreviation TTS, which is not used in it. It should be introduced in section 2 with its full name and then only the abbreviation should be used in the text.
- We should not use abbreviations in the names of subsections, so in subsection 3.1 I propose to expand the abbreviation.
- A dot is missing at the end of line 54.
- There are no spaces before the references and parentheses.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your comments on my paper, the questions pointed out are very detailed and practical. I have revised the paper in light of all your comments, and the attachment is some detailed description of the revisions.

Thanks again for your comments on my paper!

Kind regards,

Mr. Li

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to read “Multi-target Association for UAVs Based on Triangular

Topological Sequence”. I have the following comments:

• Please provide the exact numbers for accuracy in the abstract.
• Please add the implications of the study in a line in the abstract.
• Please support the problem with relevant references in the first paragraph of the introduction. In my humble opinion, the authors have adopted a very direct approach and have not established the basis for introducing the problem. Please revise
• Please rename section 1 as “introduction and background” or separate it into introduction and literature sections. Regardless the paper needs more support from relevant literature.
• The novelty of the work is not evident from the introduction section; please add a detailed paragraph clearly discussing the innovations of this study over existing methods.
• Figure 2 needs to be explained in detail. For example, what are the association results (R’ and R1) referring to? Similarly, other symbols and expressions in the figure are not properly discussed in the paper, which confuses the readers.
• In Section 2.1, the authors claim that YOLOv5 is a widely used algorithm that has reached a relatively high level of speed and accuracy; however, the authors didn’t provide any references to support this claim, and also there is no comparison of this algorithm with other competitors to show that it really is the best one to be adopted in the current study. The authors must compare the speed and accuracy of this algorithm with others and clearly discuss how it is superior to others.
• The formulas in equation eight should be moved to the method section. The results should focus on the real results of the study.
• Towards the end of the results section, the results must be compared to similar published studies and discussed at length how this study outperforms these studies. A table should be added, and the results compared with similar studies. The innovations of the study must also be discussed.
• Please clearly add the limitations of the study to the conclusion section.
• Also, in 3-4 lines, discuss the practical implications of the study and explain how it can help the practitioners.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your comments on my paper, which pointed out very detailed and practical issues. Your comments have not only been of great help to me in this paper, but will also be a reference for me to consider in my future work. I really appreciate the advice you gave, it will help me grow. I have revised the paper based on all your comments, and attachment are some details of the revisions. If I have misunderstood your comments and made inappropriate changes, please criticize them.

Thanks again for your comments on my paper!

Kind regards,

Mr. Li

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for addressing my comments.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

I have read your comments carefully and revised the manuscript, and the attachment is a more detailed explanation of my revisions.

If there are any changes that are incorrect due to my inappropriate understanding of your comments, I would appreciate your criticism.

Thank you again for your comments on this manuscript.

Kind Regards,

Mr. Li

Author Response File: Author Response.docx