A Computer Vision-Based Algorithm for Detecting Vehicle Yielding to Pedestrians

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Limitations of the related word should be highlighted at the end of the Related Work section.

Table 1 and Table 2 are not clear that how proposed algorithm is superior in comparison to the previously published articls.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have added the limitations of other methods in the last part of the related work section. Furthermore, we recognize that the comparison table needs to further clearly elucidate how our proposed algorithm is superior to previously published articles, and we have emphasized the advantages of our algorithm in the table. Your insights are invaluable in enhancing the quality of our paper. Thank you again for your feedback.

Reviewer 2 Report

1. The author applies the target tracking algorithm to whether motor vehicles yield to pedestrians, which is a relatively novel idea, and obtains the best values of each parameter in the experiment, and  achieves good test results. It is suggested to add specific result data in the abstract and conclusion, so as to show the effect of the algorithm in this paper more directly.

2 .   In section 3.2, the description of the solution to disappearance of subsequent frames of a track is not easy to be understood, it is suggested that the author add a diagram to explain it to facilitate readers' understanding.

3. At the end of the chapter 4, the author gives the conclusion that the proposed method performed significantly better in detecting violations by vehicles that do not yield to pedestrians on straight roads compared to those while turning. Could the author add a table above to support this conclusion?

4. It is suggested that Figure 2 and Figure 3 be placed near the corresponding description. Many labels of image  and formula are missing in the paper, so please check carefully by the author. In addition, III-B and III-C mentioned in section 3.1 of this paper, it is suggested to replace it with a figure corresponding to the following text.

Some expressions can be improved in English language.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable feedback. We appreciate your suggestions and have addressed them in our revised manuscript.

1. We appreciate your suggestion to add specific result data in the abstract and conclusion to more directly demonstrate the effectiveness of our algorithm in terms of motor vehicles yielding to pedestrians. In our revised manuscript, we have included quantitative results to highlight the performance of our algorithm, making it more explicit.

2. We understand that the description of the solution to the disappearance of subsequent frames of a track in section 3.2 may not be clear. To facilitate readers' understanding, we have added a diagram or visual aid to illustrate this concept, making it more comprehensible.

3. Adding a table to support the conclusion about the performance of the proposed method for detecting violations on straight roads compared to turning is a valid suggestion. We have provided Figures 20 and 21 in the manuscript to offer more comprehensive support for this conclusion.

4. We appreciate your suggestion regarding the placement of figures and the need to cross-check for missing labels in the paper. In our revised manuscript, we will ensure that figures are appropriately placed near their corresponding descriptions, and we will carefully review the entire paper to address any missing labels or inconsistencies. Additionally, we will consider adding a figure corresponding to the text in section 3.1 to enhance clarity.

Your feedback is essential in improving the quality and clarity of our work, and we will make the necessary revisions to address these points.

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is well written, and it can be further improved by addressing the following points in the revision:

1. The abstract does not have adequate length and structure
2. Comparison with SOTA techniques and brief salient results should be mentioned in the abstract.
3. Please thoroughly check your article for typos and grammatical mistakes, like Line 35, etc.
4. The main innovation and contribution of this research should be clarified in the introduction.
5. Add details related to the organization of the article at the end of the introduction section.
6. The literature needs to be thoroughly surveyed using peer-reviewed journal articles. It is recommended to add more references to the “Related works” like: Kalman filtering and bipartite matching based super-chained tracker model for online multi-object tracking in video sequences; etc.
7. The order of reference numbers in the article is incorrect. Please make the necessary amendments.
8. I could not find “Sections III-B and III-C.” as mentioned on Line 126.
9. Figure numbers should be mentioned before the figure in the article, for example, Lines 130, 163, 165, and 205.
10. Many abbreviations are used without explanation. Please add a table of nomenclature before references.
11. In line 134, please delete the words “input into”.
12. In lines 148, 184, etc. please use the word equation instead of formula.
13. In line 212, the details of variables and parameters are missing.
14. Lin 278 and 280; please add descriptions to equations 6 and 7.
15. Please explain the parameters in equation 7.
16. Make corrections to the lines 359, 360, 362, 364, 370, and 374
17. Remove errors from 377-379.
18.  Please write in the text related to the significance of the arrow from lines 391-401.
19. Justify your compromised results in Tables 1 & 2.
20. Figure numbers and Tables must be checked again to remove any errors.
21. Figures on page no. 16 need to be corrected by rephrasing the captions and labeling the axis with appropriate text.
22. Line 508 should be rephrased in proper order.
23. Add a sub-section, such as Limitations and Future Recommendations, before conclusions, and move text from lines 524 to 528. Add more text to this subsection from previous pages as well.

Moderate-level editing is required.

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback. I have already made the requested revisions to the paper. Here are the specific responses to your comments:

1. We have expanded the abstract to provide more details about the comparison with state-of-the-art techniques and the significant results achieved in the study.

2. We have conducted a thorough proofreading to correct typos and grammatical errors, including the one in Line 35.

3. The main innovation and contribution of this research have been clarified in the introduction. Additionally, I've added a section at the end of the introduction that outlines the organization of the article.

4. We have improved the literature review by including references to peer-reviewed journal articles, such as "Kalman filtering and bipartite matching based super-chained tracker model for online multi-object tracking in video sequences." This strengthens the paper's theoretical foundation.

5. We've reviewed and corrected the order of reference numbers in the article to ensure they follow the correct sequence.

6. We have cross-checked the manuscript and confirmed that "Sections III-B and III-C" are accurately referenced in Line 126.

7. Figure numbers have been placed before the figures throughout the paper, as requested.

8. We have included a table of nomenclature before the references to explain the abbreviations used in the paper.

9. Line 134: The phrase "input into" has been deleted as suggested.

10. Usage of "Equation": We've replaced instances of "formula" with "equation" in lines 148, 184, and other relevant sections.

11. Details of Variables: Details of variables and parameters have been added in Line 212 and Lines 278 and 280 for equations 6 and 7.

12. Explanation of Parameters: We've provided explanations for the parameters in equation 7.

13. Text Corrections: The lines 359, 360, 362, 364, 370, and 374 have been reviewed and corrected.

14. Removal of Errors: Errors from 377-379 have been removed.

15. Significance of the Arrow: We've added text related to the significance of the arrow from lines 391-401 to improve clarity.

16. Justification for Tables 1 & 2: We've included a justification for the results presented in Tables 1 & 2.

17. Figure and Table Review: Figure numbers and tables have been carefully reviewed to ensure accuracy.

18. Figure Rephrasing: We've rephrased the captions and labeled the axes of figures on page 16 to improve clarity.

19. Line 508: Line 508 has been rephrased for proper order.

20. New Sub-section: We've added a sub-section titled "Limitations and Future Recommendations" before the conclusions. Additional text from previous pages has been included in this subsection to provide a more comprehensive overview of the paper.

We hope these revisions address your concerns, and We appreciate your valuable feedback.

Reviewer 4 Report

The article is devoted to the actual problem of assessing the danger to pedestrians in the conditions of traffic flow, tracking the fact of violation of traffic rules using computer vision. After analyzing the article, the following points were identified that require elimination:

1. The article requires edits in terms of the design of the list of references, technical verification of the English language, for example, some sentences begin with a small letter, "Sections III-B and III-C" are designated as 3.2 and 3.3 (the link should have a similar format).

2. Sources 42-49 are copied from templates and should be deleted.

3. Figure 3, on the right side includes a heat map, but it is not very clear what it has to do with the study because of the labels used.

4. Figure 5, not all variables are indicated in the text  

5. I ask you to draw the authors' attention to section 3.3. and give explanations to all the variables that they use for a better understanding of the formulas.

6. In lines 318, 345 and others there are links with the sign [?], this needs to be adjusted. Also 359 et seq. – "Figure ??";

As a result, the article leaves a positive impression in its scientific essence, content, but requires a significant revision in terms of design and presentation.

Author Response

We appreciate the thorough review and constructive feedback from the reviewer. We have made the necessary revisions to address the points raised:

1. Errors in Citations and Figures: We will ensure that all citations and figure references are correctly formatted in the revised manuscript.
2. Nonexistent References: Thank you for pointing out the nonexistent references 42-49. We will remove these references from the list.
3. Clarification of Figure 3: We have clarified the purpose of the heat map in Figure 3 by providing additional labels and explanations to make its relevance to the study more apparent.
4. Variables in Figure 5: We will ensure that all variables in Figure 5 are correctly referenced and explained in the text for better clarity.

5. Explanations for Variables: In Section 3.3, we have provided comprehensive explanations for all variables used in the formulas to enhance the reader's understanding.

6. Correction of Links: We have corrected the issues with the missing or incorrect links and citations, ensuring all references are properly formatted.

Thank you again for your feedbacks, your feedback is invaluable, and we are committed to making the necessary revisions to enhance the quality of the article.

Reviewer 5 Report

Major:

- The topic of the paper is in scope of my expertise. I currently have a PhD student using YOLO. However, this is not the topic for Sustainability. It is for Electronics, Journal of Imaging, or Remote Sensing or Sensors. Why did you choose exactly this journal? I'm also reviewer in these journals and you would have only minor revisions there. 

- Relevance for Sustainability is not addressed properly if there is any.

- You should try to improve references by mentioning some from last two years. Your reference list is too old in general.

- References 42-49 don't exist. It should be deleted from reference list. 

- Lines 439-446 are interesting for conclusions.

Minor:

Check and correct errors like e.g.:

- Line 318: "in Equation[? ]."

- Line 345 "BDD100K data set[? ]"

- Lines 359, 360, 362, 364, 370, 375: "the Figure ??"

Check capital letters over the manuscript. At first glance, I saw some errors e.g. "Figure 7. test data" or in the first sentence of the Introduction "recent study reported". That errors can generate in reader a wrong impression that the entire work is superficial. 

- 377-380 rephrase sentence. The meaning is not clear, like you had a draft with a note. 

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable feedback. We appreciate your suggestions and will address them in our revised manuscript.

Major:

1. Choice of Journal: We selected this journal based on its interdisciplinary focus and potential relevance to the applications of the proposed algorithm in sustainability-related tasks. However, we understand your point regarding the potentially more suitable journals such as Electronics, Journal of Imaging, Remote Sensing, or Sensors. We will consider your recommendation for future submissions. Additionally, we acknowledge that the relevance to sustainability is not addressed properly in the paper. In our revised manuscript, we have already emphasized the sustainability implications and applications of the proposed algorithm.

2. Recent References: We appreciate your suggestion to include more recent references. In the revised manuscript, we will strive to include references from the last two years to ensure that the paper remains up to date.
3. Nonexistent References: Thank you for pointing out the nonexistent references 42-49. We will remove these references from the list.

4. Capitalization and Language Quality: We apologize for any capitalization and language quality issues. In our revision, we will carefully review and correct these errors to ensure the manuscript's overall quality.

5. Rephrasing Sentence (Lines 377-380): We will rephrase the mentioned sentence to enhance its clarity and meaning.

Your feedback is highly valuable, and we will make the necessary revisions to address the points you raised. We appreciate your thorough review and recommendations.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The following points need to be addressed in the minor revision:

1. At the end of the introduction, the article organization is represented by Roman characters like II, III, IV, etc. In the rest of the article, numbers like 2, 3, 4, etc. have been used to label the section headings. Please correct this minor typo.
2. Line 369: replace “equation” with “Equation”. Similarly, in Line 341: replace “x, y, z” with “and x, y, z “.
3. The table of nomenclature before the references is not visible. Maybe it has been shifted to the appendix. Please check it.

It is fine.

Author Response

Thank you for your helpful feedbacks.

1. To ensure consistency in section labeling. We have used numbers (2, 3, 4, etc.) to represent this article's organization in the introduction.

2. We have addressed your suggestion by correcting Line 369, replacing "equation" with "Equation." Additionally, we have rectified the issue in Line 341 by adding "and" before "x, y, z" to ensure appropriate grammar.

3. We have added the table of nomenclature, which is in the appendix.

Thank you for your time and thoughtful review.

Reviewer 5 Report

- It is not usual that title consists of 2 sentences. You should rephrase it.

- Section 3 should have several introductory sentences, such as that this is actual proposal of the this paper.

- Figure 5: "Relationship of Coordinate System. In the camera, there are four coordinate systems: the world coordinate... " - it is too long. That should be integral part of the manuscript's text, not figure's title.

- Did the vehicle yield to the pedestrian? Please explain how does it fit to https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/about??

Author Response

Thank you for your helpful feedbacks. We have revised the presentation carefully, with revised or added content marked in red in the new manuscript. We hope the following responses can address your concerns effectively.

1, We recognize the importance of a concise and clear title. We have revised the title to 'A Computer Vision-Based Algorithm for Detecting Vehicle Yielding to Pedestrians'.

2, Accounting to your helpful comments, we have introduced introductory sentences at the beginning of Section 3. These sentences explicitly convey that this section presents the proposed method of the paper, which comprises a three-step detection method.

3, Thank you for pointing out the lengthiness of the title for Figure 5. We agree that the detailed description belongs in the manuscript's main text. We have shortened the title for Figure 5 to 'Relationship of Coordinate System.' and integrated the detailed explanation into the main body of the manuscript.

4, Regarding your query on how the vehicle yielding to pedestrians fits into the MDPI Sustainability Journal, the behavior of vehicles around pedestrians is a crucial aspect of urban sustainability. Ensuring that vehicles yield to pedestrians contributes to safer urban environments, promoting pedestrian-friendly cities and supporting the broader goals of urban sustainability. Our paper aims to provide a technological solution to monitor and encourage this behavior, aligning with the journal's focus on innovative approaches to sustainability challenges.

Once again, thank you for your time and thoughtful review.

Round 3

Reviewer 5 Report

Figure 4: you should use figure legend text as normal manuscript text, and only a few words in this place. This is too long.

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback. We have revised the figure legend to make it more concise and in line with the standard manuscript text. Attached is the revised version of our PDF. We hope that you are satisfied with our changes.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf