Classification of Hydraulic Jump in Rough Beds
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors present a novel approach for the classification of hydraulic jumps using decision tree algorithm and Neural network. Having gone through the manuscript, I have the following observations/comments:
- The practical relevance of this study is not clear. This needs to be discussed in the introduction to make this paper more relevant.
- More details on the neural network must be provided:
- was it a pre-trained model (ResNet50 etc.), if so what model? - how was model trained etc.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The work performed by the authors is interesting, unfortunately it is not well presented.
English should be revised thoroughly.
The "materials and methods" section should especially be improved. Was the whole data set used as training data? How does the training process work? What are the input and output data? These informations should be provided in a clear and concise manner by the authors to improve readability of the manuscript.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors described the formation of a hydraulic jump on the rough beds. The work uses a large range of data (581 data) - this is a big advantage. The methodology has been chosen and used correctly. The authors used a lot of tools and techniques in their work. The results were compared by two methods: a decision tree classifier (J48), a multi-layer neural network (NN). The conclusions are correct and result from accepted research.
I have one question for the Authors: Can the test results (algorithms used in the tests) be applied in practice on hydrotechnical constructions to estimate the type of hydraulic jump? - or for the design of energy dissipation basins for hydrotechnical structures? That would be very interesting.
The work is quite interesting and I propose its publication.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
English should be revised thoroughly. There are places where the manuscript is hardly comprehensible. (please replace the expression "in the other word" with "in other words")
Author Response
Point 1: English should be revised thoroughly. There are places where the manuscript is hardly comprehensible. (please replace the expression "in the other word" with "in other words")
Response 1: English is revised thoroughly. The modifications were presented with Track changes in the text (replaced the expression "in the other word" with "in other words".
