Simplified High-Performance Cost Aggregation for Stereo Matching
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
[General comments]
This manuscript presents an aggregation algorithm for stereo matching, with simplified computation (Table 4), while the matching performance is not sacrificed (Table 5).
[Specific comments]
1. Please briefly explain the reason for choosing TGD and Census as the initial matching cost in Equations (1) and (2).
2. Also, please briefly explain the influence of parameters K and γ in Equation (21) on the calculation of matching cost.
3. Please expand the Discussion section. Please discuss your method compared to state-of-the-art methods. Please discuss the limitations of this study and future work.
[Minor concerns]
1. Line 90. “without scarifying matching performance”: Do you mean “without sacrificing matching performance”?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1. Good and interesting work was carried out in the manuscript.
2. The authors are insisted to refer some more recent time references.
3. The authors are advised to refer to these references and include them accordingly in the revised manuscript.
a. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00371-020-01811-x
b. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11554-021-01180-1
c. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12145-022-00772-0
d. 10.1109/TCSVT.2021.3061704
4. In the manuscript, the comparison of results is shown in the Tables. Better authors can go with some graphical representation. It will be more effective.
5. There are symbols used in the manuscript. It is suggested to include a separate section as “List of Symbols and Abbreviations”
6. There are some typos present in the manuscript. Please carefully proofread the entire manuscript and clear all the issues.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Good work. Please proofread the entire manuscript once again for English usage corrections.
