Brain-Inspired Synergistic Adversarial Framework for Style Transfer-Guided Semantic Segmentation in Cross-Domain Remote Sensing Imagery

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper proposes a brain-inspired Synergistic Adversarial Framework (SAF) to address domain shift issues in cross-domain semantic segmentation of high-resolution remote sensing images. The main contributions include the proposed SATM, SMM, and DSCS modules. However, the following issues need to be addressed:

1. Severe Formula Formatting Issues: There are noticeable inconsistencies in fonts, font sizes, line spacing, and subscripts between inline and displayed equations (e.g., in the Methodology section, Figure 2 captions, and SATM module equations), which significantly hinder readability.
2. Improper Indentation: Explanatory notes following equations (e.g., "where") are not left-aligned as required by standard formatting guidelines.
3. Inconsistent Terminology: Figure 2 uses "Relu," Equation 4 switches to "ReLu," and Equation 7 changes to "ReLU." Additionally, normalization functions alternate between "Norm" and "BN" without standardization.
4. Text-Figure Symbol Mismatch: The term "LDstyle" in Figure 2 conflicts with "Dstyle" in Equation 4 and should be unified for consistency.
5. Disordered Heading Hierarchy: Duplicate numbering (e.g., Sections 3.5 and 4.2, Experimental Settings) should be replaced with unordered symbols or parenthetical numbering (e.g., (1), (2), (3)).
6. Structural Issues: There are two "Conclusions" sections, and the ablation studies are incorrectly placed within the conclusion section.
7. Nonstandard Evaluation Metrics: Metrics such as IoU, mIoU, and Avg lack formal mathematical definitions and full-name explanations, which need to be addressed for clarity.
8. Table Formatting Defects:
• Table 1: The mF1 includes "%" units, while mIoU/IoU omit them, leading to inconsistency.
• Table 3: The mIoU column width needs adjustment.
• Table 4: The "↓" symbol for FID reductions is unexplained, while corresponding "↑" indicators for mIoU/mF1 improvements are missing. Additionally, inconsistent bolding is used, and there are page-breaking issues that need to be corrected.
9. Figure Quality Issues:
• Inconsistent font sizes and misaligned text in some figures.
• Figure 4 lacks subfigure (a) but includes (b).
• Three unexplained circles in the lower-left corner of Figure 4 serve no clear purpose and need clarification.
10. Insufficient Motivation: While the paper emphasizes the lack of semantic constraints in existing methods, Figure 1 fails to clearly demonstrate cross-domain differences, which weakens the argument for the necessity of semantic constraints.
11. Incomplete Method Description: The SMM module claims to support multimodal learning but does not introduce non-image modalities, which requires further explanation.
12. Inadequate Literature Review: The paper lacks a systematic review of cross-domain semantic segmentation literature, which should be incorporated to provide a broader context.
13. Inappropriate Comparative Experiments: The selected comparison methods seem to be generic remote sensing segmentation models, rather than specialized cross-domain segmentation approaches. A more targeted comparison is needed.
14. Unclear Baseline: The baseline method is not explicitly specified, and its details should be clarified to provide a clearer comparison point.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English must be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate your insightful comments, which have greatly contributed to the refinement of our manuscript. A detailed response to each comment has been provided in the attached file for your kind review.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The introduction part is too scattered, so it is suggested to introduce the problems existing in the current research and the solutions proposed by the manuscript to these problems.
2. The contribution section of the manuscript suggests the author to simplify and refine.
3. The font size and format of the figure should be consistent. The captions in Figure 2 suggest refinement.
4. What are the benefits of the SATM? What are some of the costs associated with this?
5. How are the values of different λ in formula 15 determined? Has a robustness analysis been performed?

6. Experiment validations are not convincing. Some additional experiments need to be conducted to make its conclusion stronger. You need to add some contrast to the state-of-the-art methods.

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate your insightful comments, which have greatly contributed to the refinement of our manuscript. A detailed response to each comment has been provided in the attached file for your kind review.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors !

Appreciate your efforts in introducing this study, although manuscript written with good editing standards and clear content organization, there are some lack of clarity on actual objective and contributions of the study. Please refer attached file for the detailed comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate your insightful comments, which have greatly contributed to the refinement of our manuscript. A detailed response to each comment has been provided in the attached file for your kind review.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author dealt with the reviewers' comments. I have no further comment.