A Road Behavior Pattern-Detection Model in Querétaro City Streets by the Use of Shape Descriptors
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. The paper is challenging to read, and it is not clear what the authors are trying to do. The introduction contains this sentence: "Therefore, a model is proposed 9 where moving objects are analyzed and characterized by the shape and observable attributes in the displacement, introducing a set of shape descriptors that help quantify the moving objects over time and form a homogeneous database, each moving object is represented by a set of measurements of the geometry of the detected object shape.", it is too long and does not give any indication of the work being done here.
2. The introduction does not give an overview of the work being done and reads more like the related work section. The introduction section is generally reserved for an overview of the novel method, with some references to bring context to the novel methods presented in the paper.
3. The titles of most of the tables and graphs are on the last line of the page, with their contents on the next page. This needs to be changed, and all of the tables should be presented on one page.
4. The algorithm does not look like a proper algorithm. The authors should read other papers to get an idea about writing them.
5. A quarter of page 6 is empty! It should be filled up.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The overall idea of using cameras to monitor and explain traffic is good, but the presentation, writing, and takeaways are not. The authors should spend time fixing these issues and resubmit.
Author Response
Reviewer 1
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Submission Date: 25 February 2024
Date of this review: 15 Mar 2024 17:43:31
The overall idea of using cameras to monitor and explain traffic is good, but the presentation, writing, and takeaways are not. The authors should spend time fixing these issues and resubmit.
- Thanks, some sections of the document become rewritten to gain clarity.
- The paper is challenging to read, and it is not clear what the authors are trying to do. The introduction contains this sentence: "Therefore, a model is proposed 9 where moving objects are analyzed and characterized by the shape and observable attributes in the displacement, introducing a set of shape descriptors that help quantify the moving objects over time and form a homogeneous database, each moving object is represented by a set of measurements of the geometry of the detected object shape.", it is too long and does not give any indication of the work being done here.
- Thanks, some sections of the document become rewritten to gain clarity.
- The introduction does not give an overview of the work being done and reads more like the related work section. The introduction section is generally reserved for an overview of the novel method, with some references to bring context to the novel methods presented in the paper.
- The introduction was rewritten, including a work overview of the topic, making it easier to read and better structured.
- The titles of most of the tables and graphs are on the last line of the page, with their contents on the next page. This needs to be changed, and all of the tables should be presented on one page.
- Thanks, the comment becomes accepted and updated commentary. (Table 1. Description of materials used.)
- The algorithm does not look like a proper algorithm. The authors should read other papers to get an idea about writing them.
- Thanks for the comment. The algorithm is rewritten and encoded as pseudocode to gain clarity, and it is also better commented.
- A quarter of page 6 is empty! It should be filled up.
- It is true; the suggestion is taken, thanks.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this paper, the authors proposed a model for road behavior pattern detection and performed experiments in two scenarios. However, there are still some critical issues to be revised.
Comment 1: The authors proposed a road behavior pattern detection model. Please compare its performance with other contemporary models.
Comment 2: Some descriptions lack clarity. For example: In line 81-86, the workflow of proposed model is not logically declared; In line 103-106, description of cameras utilized in the experiment is confusing. Please refine the written expressions of the article.
Comment 3: Typesetting issues still exist. Paragraphs such as “6.Patents”, “Appendix A” and “Appendix B” are just unchanged as the given template, which are supposed to be deleted; Figure.4 is supposed to be a table, not just a screenshot.
Comment 4: The superiority and innovation of proposed method are not soundly stated.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Submission Date: 25 February 2024
Date of this review: 04 Apr 2024 17:06:51
In this paper, the authors proposed a model for road behavior pattern detection and performed experiments in two scenarios. However, there are still some critical issues to be revised.
Comment 1: The authors proposed a road behavior pattern detection model. Please compare its performance with other contemporary models.
- Thanks for the comments. The proposal certainly finds temporal patterns; however, related works do not specifically focus on the same phenomenon (the affectation of traffic densities in a segmented area). We put the references to external works, but explicitly, a match with others is dismissed. If you consider, we were working on this comparison.
Comment 2: Some descriptions lack clarity. For example: In line 81-86, the workflow of proposed model is not logically declared; In line 103-106, description of cameras utilized in the experiment is confusing. Please refine the written expressions of the article.
- It is right, the description was improved and rewritten to gain clarity.
Comment 3: Typesetting issues still exist. Paragraphs such as “6. Patents”, “Appendix A” and “Appendix B” are just unchanged as the given template, which are supposed to be deleted; Figure.4 is supposed to be a table, not just a screenshot.
- Thanks, certainly there are some syntax mistakes. The document becomes rewritten to gain clarity.
Comment 4: The superiority and innovation of the proposed method are not soundly stated.
- The sections, such as the introduction and conclusion, have been revised to improve clarity and emphasize the contributions. We have argued that the primary contribution is the identification of temporal patterns in traffic flow, which can aid in the discovery of dependencies.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper is very interesting and provides a great amount of discussion/results, but in my opinion the material requires a more extensive explanation and details.
Comments:
1) Section 2, it is not clear how the system works and how it could be useful. The Figure 1 and text explains the system functionality, but it requires a more detailed explanation. For instance, applying a video to the system from the same or a different road, how useful could be the output/classification?
2) It is not clear how the datasets TACC, CDnet and study scenery were used.
3) Geometric measurements T were not defined.
4) Figures 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11 are excessively small.
5) Line 170 => ... Figure 3). Where ... => ... Figure 3), where ...
6) Caption Figure 3 => ... sequence{ ... => ... sequence { ...
7) Table 2. missing ending point in the lines.
8) Figure 4 is not a figure, it is a table.
9) k-NN in line 207 and K-NN in caption of Figure 6. It is necessary to adopt a single representation.
10) Caption of Figure 6 and line 217 => wrong symbol of quotation mark.
11) Caption Figure 8, 9 and 11, Table 3 => ... c2 y c3. => ... c2 and c3.
12) In Figure 6, how the regions were defined and why they appear in different sequence depending on the camera.
13) It is not clear why is the dendrogram is useful. You already have the correlation matrix.
14) Figure 10 (a) there are 10 metrics but in (b) appears only 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9. How about the remaining metrics?
15) The text mentions Fig. 14 and 15, but they do not exist.
16) The final mean accuracy was provided but no detail was provided. Intermediate accuracies could exemplified to reach the mean accuracy.
17) Nowadays it is important for the authors to provide a link with the code and datasets for the interested reader be able to replicate the work. It is paramount the code and dataset availability .
18) I really liked the extensive discussion and figures presented in the paper, but it seemed to be a kind of manual procedure based on the output of the system. It is difficult to observe how the system could perform automatically.
19) The paper did not compare the result with any other state of art technique. It is important to compare the proposed technique with state of the art algorithms.
20) In my opinion, a better explanation of sections 2, 3 and 4 focusing on the practical usage and applicability of the system would improve the paper quality.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe english usage seems to be quite appropriated.
Author Response
Reviewer 3
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Submission Date: 25 February 2024
Date of this review: 19 Apr 2024 22:51:08
The paper is very interesting and provides a great amount of discussion/results, but in my opinion the material requires a more extensive explanation and details.
Comments:
1) Section 2, it is not clear how the system works and how it could be useful. The Figure 1 and text explains the system functionality, but it requires a more detailed explanation. For instance, applying a video to the system from the same or a different road, how useful could be the output/classification?
R.The introduction and conclusion sections have been revised for clarity and to highlight contributions. Section 2 has been improved and the methodology is now clearer.
2) It is not clear how the datasets TACC, CDnet and study scenery were used.
- The TACC and CDnet datasets, as public material, were used to validate the proposal. Own videos were used to clarify the contextual scenario.
3) Geometric measurements T were not defined.
- The comment is accepted and it becomes updated in the paper.
4) Figures 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11 are excessively small.
- The images was rendered again with highest resolution, reaching 300 dpi of quality.
5) Line 170 => ... Figure 3). Where ... => ... Figure 3), where ...
- Accepted and updated commentary.
6) Caption Figure 3 => ... sequence{ ... => ... sequence { ...
- Accepted and updated commentary.
7) Table 2. missing ending point in the lines.
- Accepted and updated commentary.
8) Figure 4 is not a figure; it is a table.
- Accepted and updated commentary
9) k-NN in line 207 and K-NN in the caption of Figure 6. It is necessary to adopt a single representation.
- Accepted and updated the suggestion.
10) Caption of Figure 6 and line 217 => wrong symbol of quotation mark.
- Accepted and it becomes fixed in the paper.
11) Caption Figure 8, 9 and 11, Table 3 => ... c2 y c3. => ... c2 and c3.
- Accepted and updated commentary.
12) In Figure 6, how the regions were defined and why they appear in different sequence depending on the camera.
- Both regions are in the same place. It appears different when they are zoomed in. To clarify, you can appreciate in other figures that this refers to the place used.
13) It is not clear why is the dendrogram is useful. You already have the correlation matrix.
- A dendrogram was included to illustrate the distance attributes and the correlation matrix/graph.
14) Figure 10 (a) there are 10 metrics but in (b) appears only 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9. How about the remaining metrics?
- The parameters used for the graph were p-values greater than 0.75. Figures 5, 6, 10, and 11 are insignificant to the graph's construction.
15) The text mentions Fig. 14 and 15, but they do not exist.
- Accepted and updated commentary in figures.
16) The final mean accuracy was provided but no detail was provided. Intermediate accuracies could exemplified to reach the mean accuracy.
- This is an interesting question; in terms of efficiency, the proposal does not have a metric like efficiency. The proposal's nature provides confidence graphs associated with the probability of the relation becoming observable.
17) Nowadays it is important for the authors to provide a link with the code and datasets for the interested reader be able to replicate the work. It is paramount the code and dataset availability.
- Thanks for the comment. Currently, we are preparing a public code version. The reason we did not mention it is that we are working on author property documents.
18) I really liked the extensive discussion and figures presented in the paper, but it seemed to be a kind of manual procedure based on the output of the system. It is difficult to observe how the system could perform automatically.
- Thank you for your comment. We are currently preparing a public version of the code. We did not mention it earlier because we are still working on the author property documents.
19) The paper did not compare the result with any other state of art technique. It is important to compare the proposed technique with state-of-the-art algorithms.
- Thanks for the comments. The proposal certainly finds temporal patterns; however, related works do not specifically focus on the same phenomenon (the affectation of traffic densities in a segmented area). We put the references to external works, but explicitly, a match with others is dismissed. If you consider, we were working on this comparison.
20) In my opinion, a better explanation of sections 2, 3 and 4 focusing on the practical usage and applicability of the system would improve the paper quality.
- You are right, the document becomes rewritten to gain clarity.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Author Response
Road behavior pattern detection model in Querétaro city streets by the use of shape descriptors
Journal: Applied System Innovation (ISSN 2571-5577)
Review report (round 2)
Response to Reviewer
Sun 19 May, 2024
Editor: Ms. Violet Yang and Ms. Jenell Tao
Special Issue: New Challenges of Innovation, Sustainability, Resilience in X.0 Era
We have received your letter dated May 15, 2024, giving us your and reviewers′ comments for the revisions of our manuscript (asi-2910913). The authors much appreciate the respectful editor and reviewers for their careful review of our manuscript. The scientific quality of the manuscript has been enhanced in light of the valuable comments. The authors have taken full consideration of all these comments and made clarifications and corrections as advised by the reviewers. A detailed list of changes mentioned point by point with respect to the reviewers’ comments is included in this reply letter, and it is clearly indicated in what part of the revised manuscript these comments are implemented. In this context, the black texts are those given by the respectful reviewers. The blue texts are our response in this file, which might be more than those included in the revised manuscript. The green texts are the main content included in the revised manuscript. Thanks again to the hard work of the editor and reviewers!
Reply to reviewer: 2
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Submission Date: 25 February 2024
Date of this review: 11 May 2024 17:57:24
We are grateful to reviewer#2 for his/her effort in reviewing our manuscript and his/her positive feedback. This reviewer appreciates the efforts of the authors. However, there are still some issues that can be addressed, before the accepted recommendation is given.
Comment 1: the author solved most of my concerns in the revised manuscript except what I mentioned in Comment 2. There are still some minor typos, e.g, in line 34 the full stop should be a colon. By the way, please check the grammar carefully.
Response: Thanks for your careful reminder and valuable advice. We have revised the introduction section to be more concise and accurate, as per your suggestion.
We thank you and reviewers again for your patience, help and constant attention to our manuscript.
Sincerely yours,
Antonio Trejo-Morales and Hugo Jiménez Hernández
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI believe that the authors addressed all the reviewers comments adequately.
My concern persists in the code and datasets availability. According to the answer provided by the authors, I understand that they could provide a link, for instance, to a GitHub, which is still under construction.
Author Response
Road behavior pattern detection model in Querétaro city streets by the use of shape descriptors
Journal: Applied System Innovation (ISSN 2571-5577)
Review report (round 2)
Response to Reviewer
Sun 19 May, 2024
Editor: Ms. Violet Yang and Ms. Jenell Tao
Special Issue: New Challenges of Innovation, Sustainability, Resilience in X.0 Era
We have received your letter dated May 15, 2024, giving us your and reviewers′ comments for the revisions of our manuscript (asi-2910913). The authors much appreciate the respectful editor and reviewers for their careful review of our manuscript. The scientific quality of the manuscript has been enhanced in light of the valuable comments. The authors have taken full consideration of all these comments and made clarifications and corrections as advised by the reviewers. A detailed list of changes mentioned point by point with respect to the reviewers’ comments is included in this reply letter, and it is clearly indicated in what part of the revised manuscript these comments are implemented. In this context, the black texts are those given by the respectful reviewers. The blue texts are our response in this file, which might be more than those included in the revised manuscript. The green texts are the main content included in the revised manuscript. Thanks again to the hard work of the editor and reviewers!
Reply to reviewer: 3
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Submission Date: 25 February 2024
Date of this review: 08 May 2024 20:58:01
We are grateful to reviewer#3 for his/her effort in reviewing our manuscript and his/her positive feedback. This reviewer appreciates the efforts of the authors. However, there are still some issues that can be addressed, before the accepted recommendation is given.
Comment 1: I believe that the authors addressed all the reviewers comments adequately. My concern persists in the code and datasets availability. According to the answer provided by the authors, I understand that they could provide a link, for instance, to a GitHub, which is still under construction.
Response: Thank you very much for your careful reminder and valuable advice. According to your suggestion, we have provided a link to the GitHub repository with code and datasets available.
Sourcecode (notebook) into GitHub
- Link: https://github.com/trejoan1/patterndetectionmodel
- Description: The source code was typed in Python 3 using Jupyter Notebook.
Once again, we extend our heartfelt gratitude to you and the reviewers for your patience, assistance, and unwavering attention to our manuscript. Your support has been invaluable.
Sincerely yours,
Antonio Trejo-Morales and Hugo Jimenez Hernandez
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
