Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This research addresses the issue of UAV power inspection by creating a novel detection data set, refined an enhanced MobileVit network model, and conducting experimental validation. Although the paper contains some good originality and practical value, there are still a few little issues, thus the authors should make some modest changes. It is advised that the authors thoroughly revise the abstract and add to the quantitative explanation of the information, procedures, and outcomes of the experiment.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Stower-13 dataset is introduced and used, but there is no experimental data to prove the advantages of this dataset over other datasets.

In this paper, the accuracy is only used as the experimental result, and the number of parameters and the running time of the improved algorithm are not considered, so the experimental results are relatively simple.

The training process of the experiment is not clear enough, and there is no overall structure diagram of the model.

The number of training rounds in Table 5 is only 20 rounds, but the number of training rounds in the other parts is 100 rounds, and the reason for this is not explained,and the number of rounds can be increased in this section to make the results more convincing.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

please see the pdf file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In Figure 3, the line has been added. However, I recommend also adding the name of the y-axis. Which parameter is depicted in the y-axis? 

 

Some points are addressed only in the file "Response to Reviewer 3 Comments", but these comments have not been added to the paper. The authors should add all of their comments also to the paper. 

 

If these two points are solved by the authors, the paper can be accepted.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf