Next Article in Journal
Laboratory Quantification of the Relative Contribution of Staghorn Coral Skeletons to the Total Wave-Energy Dissipation Provided by an Artificial Coral Reef
Previous Article in Journal
De Novo Accumulation of Tetrodotoxin and Its Analogs in Pufferfish and Newt and Dosage-Driven Accumulation of Toxins in Newt: Tissue Distribution and Anatomical Localization
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Auxiliary Equipment Detection in Marine Engine Rooms Based on Deep Learning Model

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9(9), 1006; https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse9091006
by Jiahao Qi, Jundong Zhang * and Qingyan Meng
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9(9), 1006; https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse9091006
Submission received: 15 August 2021 / Revised: 6 September 2021 / Accepted: 12 September 2021 / Published: 14 September 2021

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper proposes a deep learning method for detection and classification of equipment (valves, engines, reservoirs, coolers, etc... ) in a ship's engine room. The paper proposes a series of modifications to a standard RetinaNet neural network that cope well with real time applications (by employing a RepVGG feature extraction network), variable image scales (by employing a Neighbour Erasing and Transferring Mechanism), and a cluttered environment (by an appropriate choice of the loss function). The network was trained with a sufficiently large data set and exhibits promising results. The paper is well written and the results are interesting. There are only two points that were less clear that I would like the authors to clarify before an eventual publication:

What was the data augmentation process used?

Why are the reservoirs and meters more difficult to classify than the other elements?

There is something wrong with equation (1).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The work presented a solid idea on the subject and a concise overview of the efforts towards this direction. The paper is in very good shape. Abstract and conclusions are descriptive and information provision is easy to be followed.

Some suggestions for further improvement would be:

  1. Figures 5, 6, and 7 are difficult to be read. Authors could improve the equality of the pictures.
  2. Figure 8 could be replaced by a similar table.
  3. Authors could consider refining Figure 9 using homocentric circles. Different processes with the same color could be inside the same circle.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop