Activity-Based Block Partitioning Decision Method for Versatile Video Coding

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The abstract section need to complete with more information. The abstract should be improved. Results and Discussion section was not written clearly. So, it should be improved. The literature review is too general and thus can't indicate any novelty of the current study. It is better that explain more about the novelty of manuscript in introduction section. The manuscript has not quite innovative. Please explain about its novelty. The novelty of the paper should be highlighted. Objective of the research is not clearly written from the gap of research. Gap of research is not clearly developed from the previous works. Gap should be determined from the current issue on why aeolian sand by microbial induced carbonate precipitation was used. Most of the cited references are old. References should be updated. This article lacking in terms of critical discussion based on the findings obtained. Conclusion should be made from the objectives.Conclusions should be deeply modified and improved. In the present version they are just a summary of the main points of the text. Possible aspects to consider: 1) the original contribution of this work with respect to the existing knowledge; 2) the possibility to extend the reported results to other cases; 3) how can the presented laboratory results be used to model an in-situ engineering application? Will the time scale be different from laboratory to in-situ problems?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

To reduce the encoding time, authors designed an activity-based block partitioning decision method for versatile video coding. My comments are listed as follows.

(1) The quality of the abstract can be improved. The purpose part is very long, which is account for 50% of the abstract. Meanwhile, the method part is a little short.

(2) For the academic paper, the background is usually stated in Section 1 Introduction. The title of Section 2 should be changed.

(3) The purpose of this paper is reducing the encoding time. For Section 4, authors should analyze the encoding time and encoding complexity in detail.

(4) The logic of Section 3 can be improved. Authors should describe their proposed method in detail, not only offering the flowchart of the proposed method. What is the relationship about the Subsections 3.1-3.3. Authors are suggested to move the analyses and experiments of Subsections 3.1 and 3.2 to Section 4. They should describe the Subsection 3.3 in detail. The method can be described step by step.

(5) The method analysis is weak and confused. Authors are suggested to clear analyze their method evaluating indicator by evaluating indicator. Analyzing more evaluating indicators are expected.

(6) Table 5 is missing.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

the article is very interesting. The authors presented the material well. The analysis was carried out correctly. Practical examples are interesting. The indicators and algorithms are known and therefore do not cause errors. The conclusion is good. The bibliography is correct.

Author Response

First of all, we appreciate your valuable comments on the manuscript.

We improved the manuscript based on comments from other reviewers. We have improved the overall, such as abstract and analysis of experimental results, so if you are interested, please refer to it.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors have carefully revised their manuscript according my suggestions. I am satisfied with authors’ revision. However, the following issue should pay attention before the formal publication.

There are lots of abbreviations in this manuscript. Authors are suggested to remove some abbreviations which are not used in the following content. In other words, please remove the abbreviations which are appeared just once.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. Following your advice, we removed some abbreviations which are not used again in content. Please refer to the revised manuscript.