Underwater Degraded Image Restoration by Joint Evaluation and Polarization Partition Fusion

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper describes an underwater image restoration method using joint evaluation and polarization partition fusion.
1. The proposed method is described in Figure 3 in detail. However, it is not clear what the contribution of this approach is.
2. Experimental results are very insufficient. Only four test images are used. The proposed method is only compared with two other methods, including one published in 2005 and one without a reference source. There is no discussion of the hyperparameters used in the proposed approach or the scenarios in which the method could fail.
3. There are some typos in the paper, such as "Where:" -> "where" in Line 148.

NA

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The author proposes a Joint Evaluation and Polarization Partition Fusion method, which can be applied under feature-degraded underwater scenes. The topic is very interesting and valuable, and the paper is organized and presented, but there some major points that need to be enhanced:

1. The language of the abstract can be improved, also, there are some misspellings in the main text, the author needs to check the whole paper.

2. The comparison between existing algorithm and your algorithm needs to be enhanced in Introduction Part. The author needs to add the advantages and disadvantages of your approach.

3. There is a missing paragraph about the organization of paper arrangements at the end of Introduction part.

4. So what are the improvements between your algorithm and existing approaches, the author should highlight the parts which you improved in the method part.

5. The Experimental part is too simple, the author did not provide a detailed analytics about the experimental results containing all the figures and Table, and compare it with other algorithms.

6. What are the disadvantages of this work? Which need to be provided and discussed in the conclusion part.

n/a

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is interesting, and the content is relatively complete. I think some structural changes could be considered to improve the flow of this paper. For example, the aim is not explicitly stated, and parts of the method appear in the results. Some minor grammar changes could also be corrected. I have listed these comments in more detail below, which I hope the authors find useful when revising parts of their work.

1. Line 33: “created a boom” -> “rise in use.”

2. Line 35: I do not think water is absorbed, rather it is light that is absorbed by the water. This probably should be written as “reduced transmission through water due to absorption.”

3. The second paragraph is too long; from lines 45 to 87. Please consider including paragraph breaks. Also, line 58 “light is uniform, has some limitations” -> “light is uniform, but has some limitations.”

4. Line 85: Should it be the “target and the surrounding background.” Context to me sounded too general, and I found this difficult to grasp.

5. Line 88: “For this reason.” Because this starts with a new paragraph, it is unclear which reason the authors are referring to. Also, please explain what “literature 16” means. I think this might be a reference. This could be briefly explained as it appears to be important information that the authors would like to convey to the reader.

6. The final paragraph of Section 1 was interesting, but not very useful when trying to understand the aim and objectives of this research. It currently reads more as an overview of the method. I would strongly recommend reframing this paragraph into the research aim, which can later be linked to the conclusion section.

7. Please make Section 2 bold.

8. Line 102: “In this paper consists” -> “In this paper, this consists.”

9. Although I can generally understand the relevance of Figure 1, it is not clear what the schematic was used for in this research. The figure is not explained in the main text. Was this the experimental setup, or only a conceptual diagram to represent what is happening in Figure 2? It might be useful to merge parts of Figure 2 to allow readers to understand this part of the method earlier in the method section.

10. Figure 2. The authors may want to consider increasing the lightness of the image. I understand what the image is trying to illustrate, but this is difficult to visualize.

11. S2.2 should be relabeled as visual or luminance contrast. Please also refer to equation 16 as Michelson contrast and define “I” as luminance (brightness) of the image. Also, please include a reference for this contrast (e.g., Kent et al. Experimental evaluation of visual flicker caused by ceiling fans.)

12. What is being measured in the false-color image in Figure 4(b) (polarization value?) The legend appears unitless, making it difficult to understand what the gradient is measuring.

13. Please move Section 3.1 into the method. This describes the experimental setting very well, but this information does not belong in the results and discussion section.

14. Figure 10 is well prepared. Some suggestions to improve certain parts. Please label the y-axis. Also, maximum and minimum values could be included across their bars, which may help give readers some idea of scale.

15. Line 431: Does the method increase the image contrast? Or is it able to identify the image contrast better? My understanding is that it was the same image. Therefore, its contrast should be the same.

Some errors appear in the paper, which can easily be included. I have highlighted some in the review to the authors. A more thorough proofread of the paper would be helpful.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript submitted for review concerns the issue of underwater degraded image restoration by joint evaluation and polarization partition fusion. The manuscript is written in accordance with the art and requirements set for scientific manuscripts. It also meets the requirements set by the journal. The manuscript is well organized. It is evident that the authors have thoroughly considered the scope and method of conducting the research. The research is well thought out, performed and interpreted. The authors also draw valid conclusions. The entire text is well organized and written. The photos well reflect the authors' intention.

Author Response

Thank you for your comment!

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The revision is fine.

NA

Author Response

Thank you for your comments !Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches.

Reviewer 2 Report

n/a

Author Response

Thank you for your comments !Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches.

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for revising your work. This was much appreciated. I have a few minor comments below for further consideration. I hope that the authors find these helpful.

1. The authors did not address comment 11. On line 215, please change this to: "Equation 16. This is also known as the Michelson contrast, which uses the maximum and minimum luminances (I)." Please also include a reference for this formula and how it is applied in practice. I gave an example in my previous comment.

2. Response to comment 15. I still do not believe that this inference is correct. The method does not physically increase the contrast of the image; instead, it is an image-processing method that enhances the visual quality of the image by using its contrast. Unless I have misunderstood something here, please consider revising this statement in the paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf