Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

-The paper should be interesting ;;;

-please add a block diagram of the proposed research;;;;

-it is a good idea to add more photos of measurements, sensors + arrows/labels what is what  (if any);;;

labels of figures should be bigger;;;;

-the quality of images is low, please add better quality figures;;

-what will society have from the paper?;;

-formulas should be formatted;;;

-labels of figures should be bigger;;;

-Fig. 7 please add labels;;;; Quality of fig 7 should be better;;;

-please add photos of the application of the proposed research, 2-3 photos ;;;

-please compare the advantages/disadvantages of other approaches etc.;;;

-references should be from the web of science 2020-2022 (50% of all references, 30 references at least);;;

-Conclusion: point out what have you done;

-please add some sentences about future work;;;

Author Response

Dear reviewer

According to your criticisms, the article has been revised one by one, as follows:
-The paper should be interesting ;;;
The conclusion and comparison with other methods are added according to the comments of reviewers.
-please add a block diagram of the proposed research;;;;
The block diagram and related description are added in Chapter 4.
-it is a good idea to add more photos of measurements, sensors + arrows/labels what is what  (if any);;;
Added pictures with clearer labels.
-the quality of images is low, please add better quality figures;;
Added pictures with better definition.
-what will society have from the paper?;;
The description of social benefits is added to the conclusion.
-formulas should be formatted;;;
The formula format has been adjusted.
-labels of figures should be bigger;;;
Added pictures with clearer labels.
-Fig. 7 please add labels;;;; Quality of fig 7 should be better;;;
Added pictures with clearer labels.
-please add photos of the application of the proposed research, 2-3 photos ;;;
The original Figure 8 is the actual application picture of this research.
-please compare the advantages/disadvantages of other approaches etc.;;;
Some indexes comparison with Faster R-CNN method are added in Section 5.2.
-references should be from the web of science 2020-2022 (50% of all references, 30 references at least);;;
Refer to web of science to sort out all references.
-Conclusion: point out what have you done;
The content completed in this study is added to the conclusion.
-please add some sentences about future work;;;
The future work of this study is added to the conclusion.

Yours Sincerely,
Jiang YAO

Reviewer 2 Report

Minor revision.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer

According to your criticisms, the article has been revised one by one, as follows:
1. In the introduction, many related researches are discussed. However, what are the characteristics of the methods used in this paper in this field? What are the shortcomings of the existing methods to solve problem “crushing mouth loose material jam” ? This is important and should be supplemented, which is one of the motivations of this article.
----It supplements the description of the existing "material blockage" solutions, summarizes the shortcomings of these methods, and puts forward the advantages of this method. The characteristics of this method have been described in the introduction chapter of the original text.
2. Summarize 3-4 contributions, put them behind the introduction, and arrange subsequent chapters,
----Three references and related contents are supplemented.
3. Why use the SSD method, not the Faster R-CNN or other method, such as transformer? Please supplement.
----Some indexes comparison with Faster R-CNN method are added in Section 5.2.
4. Check formula of 139 lines: x_ij^p=1 and x_ij^p=0.
----Modified 139 lines.
5. As for the performance of the model, comparative experiments with other detection methods should be supplemented.
----Some indexes comparison with Faster R-CNN method are added in Section 5.2.
6. Figure 7 is not clear enough, draw a new one.
----Redrawing a clearer picture.

Yours Sincerely,
Jiang YAO

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

-figures should have better quality for example 8

-labels of figures should have bigger 6, 9

Author Response

Dear reviewer

According to your criticisms, the article has been revised one by one, as follows:

-figures should have better quality for example 8
Replaced higher quality pictures.
-labels of figures should have bigger 6, 9
Modified the label size in Figure 6 and Figure 9 to be larger.

Yours Sincerely,
Jiang YAO