Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please find my comments in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Section 4.1. Why was SGD used and how were parameters selected? needs more description.
2. Lines 290-296. More discussion is needed. Go into details of the limitations of the proposed method.
What are potential improvements. Proper discussion required.
3. More Results and Analysis needed. What is the breaking point of the approach, i.e., where does the algorithm fail. Need to show sensitivity of detections with respect to various parameters at varying levels, i.e., scale change, rotation change, illumination change, etc. Show plots/visualizations with accuracies attained to aid the reader for such experiments.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Unfortunately, I cannot recommend publication. The revised manuscript shows very little effort to address my comments appropriately. The newly added 'Section 4.3'  is very poorly written in addition to many other parts of the manuscript. Plots are difficult to interpret, no axes labels etc.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf