A Robust Real-Time Ellipse Detection Method for Robot Applications

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I consider the proposal is important, but the style must be improved to enhance the contribution of this work. These are my comments:

Define the acronym RROIs in the abstract.

In algorithm 1, I think the input and output should be written as follows:

Input: RGB image Ik=(I1,I2,I3)

Output: Binary image I1B

 

Rewrite the equations (1)-(3), they are not clear. 

Rewrite the equations (16)-(19), follow the usual notation.

It is not clear to me why the RGB colors are mapped to the HSV space. I supose the authors employ the HSV space so as to reduce the undesired effects of the non-uniform illumination, but I do not find in the paper how the H channel is processed.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript entitled “A Robust Real-Time Ellipse Detection Method for Robot Applications” has been investigated in detail. The topic addressed in the manuscript is potentially interesting and the manuscript contains some practical meanings, however, there are some issues which should be addressed by the authors:

1)      In the first place, I would encourage the authors to extend the abstract more with the key results. As it is, the abstract is a little thin and does not quite convey the interesting results that follow in the main paper. The "Abstract" section can be made much more impressive by highlighting your contributions. The contribution of the study should be explained simply and clearly.

2)      The readability and presentation of the study should be further improved. The paper suffers from language problems.

3)      The “Introduction” section needs a major revision in terms of providing more accurate and informative literature review and the pros and cons of the available approaches and how the proposed method is different comparatively. Also, the motivation and contribution should be stated more clearly.

4)      The importance of the design carried out in this manuscript can be explained better than other important studies published in this field. I recommend the authors to review other recently developed works.

5)      “Experimental analysis and discussion” section should be edited in a more highlighting, argumentative way. The author should analysis the reason why the tested results is achieved.

6)      The authors should clearly emphasize the contribution of the study. Please note that the up-to-date of references will contribute to the up-to-date of your manuscript. The studies named "Model predictive control of three-axis gimbal system mounted on UAV for real-time target tracking under external disturbances; Metaheuristic optimization-based path planning and tracking of quadcopter for payload hold-release mission; Real-time control based on NARX neural network of hexarotor UAV with load transporting system for path tracking"- can be used to explain the method in the study or to indicate the contribution in the “Introduction” section.

7)      How to set the parameters of proposed method for better performance?

8)      It will be helpful to the readers if some discussions about insight of the main results are added as Remarks.

This study may be proposed for publication if it is addressed in the specified problems.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article proposes a method for detecting ellipses in real time for robot applications. The article is interesting, has scientific novelty and practical significance. To improve the quality of the article, the following changes should be made:

1) In the section "4.5. Real-world testing", numerical values of illumination should be added to assess the effect of illumination on the proposed developed method.

2) A section describing the prospects for further research should be added.

3) Section 5 should describe the scientific novelty of the results obtained and describe the advantages of the proposed method over the existing ones that were described in the review.

4.) In the section "4.7. Discussion" it is necessary to describe ways of solving the identified shortcomings.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

All my comments have been thoroughly addressed. It is acceptable in the present form.

Author Response

Dear editors:

Thank you very much for your careful review and constructive suggestions with regard to our manuscript entitled “A Robust Real-Time Ellipse Detection Method for Robot Applications” (Manuscript ID: drones-2237409).

Thank you for your consideration again.

Yours sincerely,

 

Corresponding author 1: GongPing Wu

Email: [email protected]

School of Power and Mechanism Engineering, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China

 

Corresponding author 2: Fei Fan

Email: [email protected]

School of Mechanical Engineering and Automation, Wuhan Textile University, Wuhan, China.