Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper developed an adaptive threshold value based differential evolution algorithm to sovle the problems of large calculation, time-consuming, and low segmentation accuracy of multi-threshold image segmentation. I think that it can be considered for publication

Author Response

In response to the valuable suggestions put forward by the reviewers, we have made certain revisions one by one, and the revised parts have been marked in latex.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper proposes an adaptive threshold value based differential evolution algorithm. Some comments are as follows:
1. More images should be tested, and the more value D should be used.
2. The data in Tables 1-3 and Figs. 2-6 are duplicate, which is meaningless.
3. Please check Eq. (6), a symbol 'w' is missing.
4. Line 123-124， an equation is missing？
5. Line 140-141 and Line 199-200， the number of the equation is missing.
6. The symbols should be standard and consistent, and all of them should be explained.

Author Response

In response to the valuable suggestions put forward by the reviewers, we have made certain revisions one by one, and the revised parts have been marked in latex.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Please respond or correct the following aspects:

1) On line 37 the number of the reference for Bandar et al. is missing. This citation is  also missing in the References section.

2) On line 39 an explanation  as to what do BCV and IE stand for, would make the text  more clear.

3) The line numbering from 80 to 81 ? A lot of lines are not numbered.

4) In the paragraph between equations (2) and (3) please explain the notation [T+1, L?1] (the sign marked with ? is not clear to me).

5) On page 4, line 100, please correct the superscript corresponding to the upper bound.

6) On page 4, line 115, something is missing (cross operation between what ?).

7) Line 119 the test individual is (probably) u_i, not v_i.

8) Line 123 : a formula is missing (for f(x)).

9) Page 5 lines 171-174 : the specification for the mutation strategies used in the two cases is in contradiction to what is stated in the flowchart in Fig.1. Please correct.

10) The same correction must be made in lines 215-216 (or in the flowchart).

11) Minor spelling correction : line 259 "our proposed method presents"

12) The importance of segmentation should be better explained in the paper. For example why are the segmented images in Fig.7 more suitable for further processing than the original images ?

Author Response

In response to the valuable suggestions put forward by the reviewers, we have made certain revisions one by one, and the revised parts have been marked in latex.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper can be accepted for publication.