An Improved Lightweight Model for Defect Detection on Paths in Images

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, I read carefully and revised the presented manuscript and have several remarks:

Line 28 please replace [1] before indicate;

The intervals must be between the cited numbers and the words in the sentence;

Line 120 - Figure is repeated two times;

Line 142 - Figure is double again

Lone 157 - Figure is repeated two times;

Line 192 - "exract features"- the point is before the brackets. 

Line 247 - cite the number of the table

256 -I can not understand what does it mean.

256 - Cite the number of the table.

Line 374 cannot begin the sentence with "Please see the Figure"

Figure is again doubled.

Line 397 - Figure is repeated.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Road defect detection is an important part of road infrastructure management, especially in terms of minimizing the risk of collisions and accidents. Surface damage, such as cracks, potholes, and ruts, can significantly affect the safety of road users. Therefore, early detection of such defects and their rapid repair is crucial. Modern technologies, including image analysis, 3D scanners, and artificial intelligence, enable automatic fault detection with high accuracy. An approach based on continuous monitoring and predictive maintenance allows for cost reduction and prevention of more serious failures. Integrating these solutions with traffic management systems supports safety-oriented decision-making. In their research, the authors addressed an important topic in our everyday lives, namely communication, because who among us today does not travel, use roads, cycle, or walk? ?Any approach that reduces the risk of collisions or accidents should be approved by society. Here are a few comments and questions for the authors.
1. When writing the manuscript, there are many instances of missing spaces after punctuation marks. I do not want to play the role of an editor here, but at this level, the authors can correct this themselves.
2. I wonder why the authors write ‘Figure’ twice when referring to a figure.
3. In the introduction, the authors refer to various modules used by previous researchers, such as PSA, SPPCSPC_G, and others. I would like to see a comparison with the ADown module proposed by the authors. A few sentences or a table could be devoted to this.
4. Figure 1 presented by the authors is not very clear to me from a technical point of view, including the description. This would help to understand the difference between Figure 5 and Figure 1 when reading the article.
5. I do not really understand the authors' use of the term "Table Error!"
6. In Figure 2, can the layers P1-P5 be described in some way?
7. The authors' conclusions are very poor, as if to suggest that their research effort is insignificant. Although I consider it very important, as I wrote earlier.
Thank you to the authors.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf