投稿到一个低因子计算机方面的SCI期刊，投稿类型为letter，历时一年审稿结果为minor revision。审稿意见如下，一个审稿人，整体评价说如果加入最新论文比较可能更好。但是在修改意见并未提到。请教下：这种情况是否要加入比较实验？谢谢啦！
Reviewer #1: The paper brings a 3D pose tracking solution based on estimation of the 3D appearance models eliminating the need for hand-estimated models.
The manuscript is well organized and presents good English quality. Also, the overall presentation is good (formatting, pictures, pseudo-algorithms).
Authors present a strong motivation and state-of-the-art revision. In the following, a technical description of the solution is presented. It sounds clear and adequate for replication.
The paper is dense and longer discussion - specially Section 2 - would be desirable. However, this is understandable in the case of a letter paper.
Qualitative and quantitative results are presented and compared against related works. The results are promising and, for most scenarios, outperform the related works. Comparing against more recent solutions (2012 or later) would increase the paper impact.
Summarizing, the paper is well presented and brings strong content. In my opinion, it is worth for publication as a letter paper.

Minor:
Avoid imprecise statements such as: "Pick a modest value for λ, say λ= 0:001;"
What "statistical results" mean in: "Statistical results show that our proposed..."? Is it an average over all experiments? 返回小木虫查看更多