Skip to content
Snippets Groups Projects
Commit 3614b9a6 authored by ngo's avatar ngo
Browse files

Proposition for reviewers' responses

parent 95684898
No related branches found
No related tags found
No related merge requests found
\documentclass{article}
\usepackage[latin1]{inputenc}
\usepackage{a4wide}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{url}
\usepackage{psfrag}
\usepackage{pst-all}
\usepackage{framed}
\definecolor{dblue}{rgb}{0.2,0.2,0.6}
\title{Answer to the reviews of the paper: \\
Thick Line Segment Detection with Fast Directional Tracking}
\author{P. Even*, P. Ngo, and B. Kerautret}
\newcommand{\ok}{\newline {\color{blue} \underline{Corrected.}}}
\newenvironment{answer}
{ \begin{framed}
\begingroup\color{blue}%
\textbf{Answer:} }
{\endgroup\end{framed}}
%\newenvironment{answer}{\\ \color{blue}\noindent\it {\underline{Answer:}}}%
\newenvironment{todo}{\\ \color{red} \noindent\it {\underline{\textbf{TODO:} }}}%
\begin{document}
\maketitle
We would like to thank the editors and reviewers for their work and
for their constructive comments, questions and suggestions.
Because the paper already reaches the 10 pages limit, and in order to
avoid removal of possibly valuable contents for paper understanding,
additional data are put on the github, that is referenced in the paper.
A detailed list of the changes is given below with also some specific
answers to raised questions.
{\color{blue} \bf Our paper is attached to our answer and the proposed
modified text is highlighted in blue color}.
\section{Reviewer \#4}
\begin{itemize}
\item {\bf 1. Summary. In 3-5 sentences,
describe the key ideas and experiments and their significance.}
\begin{itemize}
\item A straight line detector in gray-scale images is proposed in this paper.
Proposed method is an extension of a previous work of the same author.
Novelties brang in this version are 1) adaptive directional scan which
provides extending the segment through apropriate direction, and 2)
control of assigned thickness used in blurred segment recognition,
where an initially assigned large thickness value is tuned regarding
to the amount of augmentation at blurred thickness observed in subsequent
iterations.
\end{itemize}
\item {\bf 2. Strengths. Consider the significance of key ideas,
experimental validation, writing quality. Explain clearly why these aspects
of the paper are valuable.}
\begin{itemize}
\item Experimenting on the synthesized images, it is shown that the proposed
method brings performance improvement compared to the older version of the
method.
\item At the experiment done on the York Urban database, three literature
works are outperformed in terms of two evalutation metrics, i.e. C and L/N.
\item It is appreciated that the code of the work is published which
encourages reproducibility.
\item Writing quality of the paper is good.
\end{itemize}
\item {\bf 3. Weaknesses. Consider significance of key ideas, experiments,
writing quality. Clearly explain why these are weak aspects of the paper,
e.g. why a specific prior work has already demonstrated the key contributions,
or why the experiments are insufficient to validate the claims.}
\begin{itemize}
\item Although performance improvement is achived comparejd to the previous
version of the method, it is not compared with the latest state-of-the-art
methods (e.g. [Almazan, E.J., Tal, R., Qian, Y. and Elder, J.H., 2017.
Mcmlsd: A dynamic programming approach to line segment detection.
In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern
Recognition (pp. 2031-2039).]), but mainly with three literature works,
latest of which was published in 2015. \\
\begin{answer}
Thanks for pointing this out. We have added this reference to the paper. However, we did not consider it in the experiments.
Because, contrarily to the other methods in which no parameter has to be set for comparisons, this method
has several ranking level parameters which could largely
influence achieved results.
Moreover, the code is written in Matlab. To ensure a fair comparison of time performance, it would require a complete re-programming in C-like language, and could have possible rewritting bias.
%Therefore we add this reference in the state-of-the-art, but we can not take it into account in the experiments.
\begin{todo}
Ajouter la publi dans l'etat de l'art et un laius dans la partie expe
pour dire qu'il n'est pas immediat de se comparer avec, et qu'on ne retient
que les m\'ethodes les plus proches en terme d'architecture.
DETAIL : voir si le protocole de comparaison propos\'e peut \^etre pris
en compte dans la r\'eponse.
\end{todo}
\end{answer}
Some notes are as belows:
\begin{itemize}
\item What is the reason to sum the blurred segment thickness by 1/2 in Eq. 5?
\begin{answer}
The value comes from a discrete geometry consideration linked to the space of all
discrete lines, that could provide the observed digitization (called the
pre-image). For instance, if we observe points on the same line, the
measured width is 1 pixel. If we set the assigned thickness to this value,
then we exclude possible one-line steps (well-known aliasing effect) for
nearly horizontal lines.
This value of 1/2 is assumed to bound all the possible expansions of the
observed line. \\
The text was changed to precise the role of this half pixel margin.
But of course, we have no space left to discuss all these discrete geometry
considerations in the paper.
\begin{todo}
A pr\'eciser dans le texte : ... set to the observed thickness augmented by a
tolerance factor of a half pixel able to take into account all the possible
discrete lines which digitization fit to the selected points.
\end{todo}
\end{answer}
\item Could the authors present a couple of example for sythesized images
that were used in the experiments and the performance of both versions of
the method obtained on them ?
\begin{answer}
Due to page limitations, we could not add figure nor the respective performance result. However, an example of synthesized image is already available in the mentioned github, and we have completed it with detailed views and the performance.
\begin{todo}
Github \`a compl\'eter.
\end{todo}
\end{answer}
\item What is understood from the paper is the performance results presented
in Table 1 and 2 are obtained using unsupervised mode. Is it correct?
Then, why the performance obtained by supervised mode was not also presented,
despite Section 3.5 is allocated for explanation of it?
\begin{answer}
We confirm that the performance results are obtained using the unsupervised mode.
However, the unsupervised algorithm is relied on the multiple supervised algorithm, therefore the results are also valid for the supervised detection.
Furthermore, the supervised mode concerns mainly in an interactive aspect, which were largely discussed in the former paper.
In this context, there is a lack of available ground truth directly
related to supervised line extraction.
We guess that such ground truth would closely depend on application
requirements.
Thus, we rather concentrate here on the automatic detection novelties, assuming that achieved performance on all segments are also valid for one or several manually extracted segments.
\begin{todo}
V\'eriier que dans la partie supervis\'ee, on ne pr\'esente rien de
sp\'ecifique, sinon, peut-\^etre qq chose \`enlever pour gagner de la place.
\end{todo}
\end{answer}
\item It is not clearly mentioned and justified why the initial thickness
values of 7 and 3 are used at the experiments of Table 1 and 2, respectively.
Since one of the main motivation of superity of this work compared to the
previous version is claimed as not using a fixed thickness input value,
the justification of selection of these initial parameter values should be
presented and performance related to selection of this parameter value
should also be presented and discussed.
\begin{answer}
Experiments on synthetic images aim at assessing the improved performance
between formal and actual versions of the detector, including the thickness
value estimation. The synthesized images are generated with a thickness varying from 2 up to 5 pixels.
Therefore, the initial assigned thickness is set to a greater value: 7. \\
For the comparisons with other detectors, we restricted this thickness to a smaller value in order not to scatter the lines. The value 3 seems appropriate.
\begin{todo}
Pour la partie tests sur images de synth\`ese, ajouter
... to detect all the lines in the defined thickness range in unsupervised
mode. \\
Dans la partie comparaison avec les autres, ajouter :
... is set to 3 pixels, as the other detectors are designed to find thin lines.
\end{todo}
\end{answer}
\item I would like to see the performance of the previous version of the
method [11] at the York Urban dataset, in Table 2 and Fig. 5.
\begin{answer}
Due to page limitations, we could not extend Fig. 5.
%Results of both versions are not easy to visually detect.
However, we have added all these information in the github, with the completed table.
\begin{todo}
De m\'emoire, il me semble qu'on obtient rien de significatif, voir pire,
des valeurs meilleures que la nouvelle version car les segments sont du coup
moins fractionn\'es. Je v\'erifie...
\end{todo}
\end{answer}
\item I would suggest to the authors to give the reference numbers for the
methods ijn Table 2. If these numbers are obtained by the authors
but not got from the papers of LSD, ED-Lines and CannyLines, then it may be
better to refer to the methods with citing those papers at the caption of
Table 2.
\begin{answer}
Thanks for this relevant suggestion. The caption is now completed.
\begin{todo}
\end{todo}
\end{answer}
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}
\item {\bf 4. Paper rating}
\begin{itemize}
\item Borderline
\end{itemize}
\item {\bf 5. Justification of rating.
What are the most important factors in your rating? }
\begin{itemize}
\item A contribution of this work is it brings perfokkrmance improvement
compared to the previous published version of the method.
However, it is still not clear how the proposed method close to the state
of the art performaonces reported by recent papers.
\begin{answer}
We would like to re-mention that our method additionally
provides a measure of the line thickness without degrading the performance with respect to some other recent detectors.
\end{answer}
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}
\section{Reviewer \#5}
\begin{itemize}
\item {\bf 1. Summary. In 3-5 sentences,
describe the key ideas and experiments and their significance.}
\begin{itemize}
\item This paper considers the problem of detecting straight lines
in grey-scale images, that is an essential task in several Computer Vision
applications. The proposed approach is based on adaptive directional scans
and control of assigned thickness, and it is evaluated on both synthetic and
real scenarios.
\end{itemize}
\item {\bf 2. Strengths. Consider the significance of key ideas,
experimental validation, writing quality. Explain clearly why these aspects
of the paper are valuable.}
\begin{itemize}
\item Experimental results report good performances.
The authors provide both the code and an online demo.
\end{itemize}
\item {\bf 3. Weaknesses. Consider significance of key ideas, experiments,
writing quality. Clearly explain why these are weak aspects of the paper,
e.g. why a specific prior work has already demonstrated the key contributions,
or why the experiments are insufficient to validate the claims.}
\begin{itemize}
\item As acknowledge by the authors, the method is sensitive to the initial
conditions.
\end{itemize}
\item {\bf 4. Paper rating}
\begin{itemize}
\item Accept
\end{itemize}
\item {\bf 5. Justification of rating.
What are the most important factors in your rating? }
\begin{itemize}
\item Experiments clearly demonstrate that this paper is a valid contribution.
\end{itemize}
\begin{answer}
Thank you for your cautious reviewing of our paper. We understand the weekness of the proposed method related to the initial conditions, we try to overcome these limitations in future works.
\end{answer}
\end{itemize}
\end{document}
0% Loading or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment