Algorithm for Enhancing Event Reconstruction Efficiency by Addressing False Track Filtering Issues in the SPD NICA Experiment
, Madina Mansurova 1,2, Gennadii Ososkov 1,3, Nasurlla Burtebayev 1,2, Adai Shomanov 2,4 and Murat Kunelbayev 2,5
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I am afraid that I consider this a very poor submission to Algorithms. Firstly, the substance of the contribution is rather trivial, lacking in *algorithmic* novelty or any other interesting algorithmic aspect which the journal focuses on. Secondly, the experiments are rather limited in size and scope, and furthermore are insufficient in analysis or added insight. Lastly, the quality of presentation is very poor in every respect: style, language, clarity, organization.
Here are some (a very small list compared to what could be listed here) issues to do with presentation:
- "of paralleling the algorithm" : The authors presumably mean "parallelizing".
- "the SPD NICA experiment" : Most, pretty much all, readers of the journal will have no idea what this means at this point. Abbreviations should be introduced properly at the time of first use.
"false tracks" : What tracks? What of? Most, pretty much all, readers of the journal will have no idea what this means at this point.
- "the helical line" : Most, pretty much all, readers of the journal will have no idea what this means at this point.
- "more optimal" : The authors keep writing this and words to this effect. The phrase makes no sense. The notion of optimal does not admit degrees. Something either is or is not optimal. What the authors mean is "closer to optimal". Also, what does optimal mean in this context? Do you merely mean "more efficient"?
- "As indicated in [1] and..." : References are not part of text. This fragment is the same as "As indicated in and...". A proper way of writing this would be "As indicated by Smith et al. [1] and..."
- There are many extremely short paragraphs, some only one sentence long, which makes reading difficult.
Author Response
answers to your comments in the attached file
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
What are "SPD NICA", and "JINR NICA"
Please include more details on the ANN structure, topology, activation functions, learning algorithm etc.
I have checked the luminosity units, it came with W / (cm2 . Hz), or W cm-2 Hz-1. The units on line 20 do not make sense.
Section 4.1 False track rejection in case of contaminated data. This should read "False track rejection with contaminated data".
line 42, KF is define and used once, the purpose of making abbreviation is to use them in multiple places to save space, not only once! Likewise, line 54, the term DMPN and FCN no line 69.
Equation 9, please check, there is something wrong, there is a missing bracket. Is the term under the summation is defined in equation 2, which is simply F.
Line 164, this should read "The tracks in the events are shown in Figures 2–4".
line 237, "The algorithm 1 performance...", Algorithm 1 is already defined, you cannot use The algorithm 1, it is defining something already known. Use "Algorithm 1"
Equation before line 250, do not use asterisk, use proper multiplication sign.
p12, "0.5*10−3 seconds.", simply it is 0.5 mSec. Do not use asterisk (*) for multiplication sign, use a proper sign.
Some equation are numbered, while other are not, for example on pp 10-11. When referring to an equation in the text, do not write the following equation, use the equation number to refer to it. Otherwise, there is no point of numbering the equations.
line 225, "The table of all tracks ..." rephrase "All tracks' table ..."
line 145, "As it is shown in [7], ", we cannot see [7], so it is not shown. Rephrase to "As indicate in [7], ".
Line 111, you cannot start a new paragraph with "Thus", this is not good English.
When using fractions, do not use comma, use dot (0,005) should be (0.005), check tables 1, 3.
Figures 2-6, the convention for the figure orientation is the z-axis is vertical, while x and y axes are the plain field.
Some figures are tiny, please enlarge, there is space to stretch the figures. Figure 7 is particular is microscopic.
Author Response
answers to your comments in the attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper proposes an algorithm to screen the error trajectories generated by neural network tracking. The algorithm can process data recorded by detectors in the magnetic field of the SPD experimental device planned in the JINRNICA collider complex. This work seems to have been carefully completed and gave some detailed results. However, the manuscript still contains many points that need to be revised.
1. At the end of the Introduction, please add a paragraph to clarify the structure of this paper.
2. The English of the manuscript must be improved before resubmission. It is strongly suggested that the authors obtain assistance from a colleague who is well-versed in English or whose native language is English. Please have someone competent in the English language and the subject matter of your paper go over the form and correct it.
3. The manuscript's structure needs to be organized, according to the part of data, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion.
4. There is no experimental comparison of the algorithm with previously known work, so it is impossible to judge whether the algorithm is an improvement on previous work.
5. The part of the Discussion needs to be added, clarifying the main academic contributions of the manuscript and comparing the differences with existing research results, without shying away from the shortcomings of the manuscript's methodology and possible paths for improvement.
6. More references are recommended, up to 20-30.
Author Response
answers to your comments in the attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
In order to increase the effectiveness of event recovery in the SPD NICA experiment, this paper explores strategies for parallelizing the algorithm.
According to the primary indicators of performance, a more optimal paralleling algorithm is presented, and it is built on top of Python's multiprocessor library.
Additional citations in the introduction would be helpful.
At last, referencing the results of other research in the conclusion sections is important.
Author Response
answers to your comments in the attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
This paper discusses about the algorithm used to improve the efficiency of event recovery in SPD NICA experiments. The method seems helpful for eliminating the false report from raw data. Below are some comments for the improvement of the manuscript.
1. Abbreviations need to be clarified when introduced for the first time in the manuscript. For example, the terms “SPD NICA” and “JINR NICA” need to be explained in the manuscript. This also applies to all the abbreviations in the Figure 1.
2. The article needs extensive language editing, and many sentences are confusing to the readers. For example, line 61, the authors write, “The next article written by Vlimant et al [3] provides an overview of HTrkX”. It is unclear what does it mean by referring to “next article”.
Author Response
answers to your comments in the attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 6 Report
The paper under review provides an algorithm for filtering out spurious tracks caused by neural network tracking suggested to handle data captured by detectors placed in the magnetic field of the SPD experimental setup planned for the JINR NICA collider complex. In accordance with the primary performance criteria, a parallelizing approach that is more effective is also described. It is based on the Python multiprocessor module. The execution of the algorithm is used to divide the array of events into threads. It was possible to speed up by six times the average execution time of the subroutine for calculating the best helix parameters for one track from the whole set. Overall the paper is well written and contributes considerably to the field. The following are my suggestion for improving it.
1. I suggest using the complete forms of SPD, NICA, and JINR, in the abstract.
2. In Figure 2, the font of the text written in blue color on the right bottom is better to be increased.
3. Line 209, in the last equation remove extra ")".
3. from Equation (10), remove extra "(".
4. Throughout the paper, replace "Cluster id" with "Cluster ID".
5. In Table 1, add detailed comments on the second entry of the last column.
6. In Figure 9, check the text written under "number of threads".
7. In Figure 11, in two places, replace "chi^2" with its mathematical symbol. Same comment for Figures 12 and 13.
Author Response
- I suggest using the complete forms of SPD, NICA, and JINR, in the abstract.
Author's response: The issue has been addressed. Full abbreviations are given in the abstract.
- In Figure 2, the font of the text written in blue color on the right bottom is better to be increased.
Author's response: The issue has been addressed.
- Line 209, in the last equation remove extra ")".
Author's response: The issue has been addressed.
- from Equation (10), remove extra "(".
Author's response: The issue has been addressed.
- Throughout the paper, replace "Cluster id" with "Cluster ID".
Author's response: The issue has been addressed.
- In Table 1, add detailed comments on the second entry of the last column.
Author's response: The issue has been addressed.
- In Figure 9, check the text written under "number of threads".
Author's response: The issue has been addressed.
- In Figure 11, in two places, replace "chi^2" with its mathematical symbol. Same comment for Figures 12 and 13.
Author's response: The issue has been addressed.
Reviewer 7 Report
I think it could be accepted as it is.
Author Response
Thank you for your opinion and time
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I am afraid that there is nothing in this revision that helped change my mind as regards this submission; quite the opposite.
The authors did not take criticism constructively at all. Instead of attempting to improve their manuscript, they went on to explain the reasons behind the poor quality of its many aspects. Why a particular thing is poor is inconsequential in this context; the submission is judged on its merits.
Thus, the authors went on to say that obtaining data for these experiments is difficult. I do not doubt that. The problem is that a lack of sufficient data, whatever the reason may be, does not provide sufficient evidence. That is all there is to it. If you cannot provide satisfactory experiments, the reasons that make this be so do not matter. The result has no value to the scientific community and is unpublishable.
Equally, the authors went on to explain the poor quality of their writing (which, I note, includes more than merely language). The reason? Their being non-native speakers. I understand this. I sympathise. I am not a native speaker myself. However, all of this is, again, inconsequential. The question is whether the quality of presentation is sufficient for a journal of this standard. That is all there is to it.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript has been improved a lot according to the reviewers' comments. The authors carefully checked the whole manuscript and addressed all the comments seriously. It is suggested that the manuscript can be accepted after a minor revision.
1. The abstract should generally include the research background and purpose, research methods, research results, research importance, and potential impact. It should be modified to show the academic contributions and achievement of the manuscript clearer.
2. It seems that the format of the reference is not uniform, please check.
Author Response
- The abstract should generally include the research background and purpose, research methods, research results, research importance, and potential impact. It should be modified to show the academic contributions and achievement of the manuscript clearer.
Author response:
The abstract has been thoroughly revised to address the issues and comments thoughtfully highlighted by the reviewer.
- It seems that the format of the reference is not uniform, please check.
Author response:
The citations have been consistently formatted in response to the reviewer's valuable feedback.
