| 查看: 2157 | 回复: 4 | ||
| 当前只显示满足指定条件的回帖，点击这里查看本话题的所有回帖 | ||
smallbug2000木虫 (著名写手)
|
[求助]
论文大修，但是改不动，郁闷呀
|
|
|
投了一篇论文到某期刊，最近返回结果，三个审稿人，其中两个审稿人意见较少。另一个觉得算法的创新性不够，给了大修，悲剧的是这篇论文之前投到CVPR去，也是这个审稿人审的（CVPR据了我），因为审稿意见基本一样，故可以断定是同一审稿人。最终编辑给了大修，但是我很绝望，因为给大修的审稿人从一开始就不认可我的算法，我想既然我认真修改了，可能还是会被他据。将编辑及大修审稿人意见附后，在此向各位大牛咨询两件事：1）该论文是否值得大修，修后被据的概率多大？2）如果大修，如果对付审稿人这么尖锐的问题。在些感谢，对于好的建议发放金币。 Dear Dr. XXX, Reviewers have now commented on your paper. You will see that they are advising that you revise your manuscript. If you are prepared to undertake the work required, I would be pleased to reconsider my decision. The reviewers' comments can be found at the end of this email or can be accessed by following the provided link. When revising your work, please submit a list of changes or a rebuttal against each point which is being raised when you submit the revised manuscript. Yours sincerely XXX, Ph.D. Associate Editor XXXXX Reviewers' comments: The paper was reviewed by three experts on the topic. The reviewers agree that the paper discusses an important problem worth pursuing. They, however, also unanimously point out short comings of the paper, most important of which is the lack of thorough theoretical and experimental validation of the claims as well as references to prior work. The paper needs major revision to be considered for publication. If the authors decide to submit a major revision, please make sure to address the points raised by the reviewers. Reviewer #2: : This paper deals with the problem of visual tracking with irregular object motion. The particle set shift approach based on analytic optimization is proposed to deal with the incorrect state dynamic model. Particles are first sampled by the state dynamic model and they are moved to higher likelihood regions by newton optimization by maximizing likelihoods. The efficacy of the proposed approach is demonstrated via experiments with real sequences. - Positive points: Practically effective approach - Negative points: Not novel approach, rather heuristic, not convincing experimental results : The main problem of this paper is the proposed approach is not novel. The proposed approach is quite similar to [18] except the fact that the proposed approach used newton optimization instead of mean shift. : The proposed approach is rather heuristic. In the algorithm, particle weights are only proportional to likelihood, and this holds true for SIR particle filter where particles are sampled from state dynamic model. However, since particles are moved to higher likelihoods artificially, the weights determined from likelihoods will no longer correctly represent the true posterior. The proposed approach is rather similar to the particle swarm optimization-based tracking, e.g., "Sequential particle swarm optimization for visual tracking" by xxxx. Another problem of the proposed approach is that it might result in worse tracking results when there are appearance changes caused by various issues such as pose and lighting changes. : Since the proposed work is based on particle filter, the optimal importance functions used for visual tracking are also relevant. If we can use the optimal importance function, the irregular motion can be handled at least partially. Thus the following papers should be cited and commented as related work: - ref1xxxx - ref2xxxx : The supplementary video result is too limited. Only a result for a single short sequence is not sufficient to support the validity of the proposed approach. Why is there no rotational motion in the results? The paper says that the state is translation, scale, and rotation, but there is no rotational motion in the results in the paper and video. : There must be cases that all particles are outside the basin of convergence. Since the particle are shifted by local optimization, particles will diverge from the optimal positions and tracking will fail. In the proposed approach, there is no consideration of this possibility. : The optimization will increase the computational complexity considerably. It is necessary to compare the other algorithms under the same computational time, e.g., proposed framework with 100 particles and standard particle filter with 1000 particles. My current recommendation is major revision. If the authors want to make the paper accepted in spite of the limited novelty and contribution, I think the followings should be addressed in the revision: - Additional experiments with object appearance changes like illumination - Addition of a mechanism to deal with the local optima problems with additional experiments with related videos - Comparison under the same computational complexity for different tracking algorithms [ Last edited by cxksama on 2012-9-6 at 10:48 ] |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
287求调剂
已经有5人回复
-
22408 344分 求调剂 一志愿 华电计算机技术
已经有3人回复
-
289求调剂
已经有3人回复
-
317求调剂
已经有10人回复
-
广西大学家禽遗传育种课题组2026年硕士招生（接收计算机专业调剂）
已经有3人回复
-
学校已经提交到NSFC，还能修改吗？
已经有8人回复
-
08工学调剂
已经有5人回复
-
281求调剂（0805）
已经有25人回复
-
085600材料与化工
已经有6人回复
-
265求调剂
已经有8人回复
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
- 文章要大修，改成short communication形式，如何改啊？
已经有7人回复
- 文章大修，我如果3天就提交修改稿，编辑会不会认为我不认真？
已经有27人回复
- 论文大修 郁闷
已经有19人回复
- 什么叫大修？文章大修是不是非得对原论文作大的改动？
已经有25人回复
- 论文大修，修改意见回复
已经有14人回复
- 文章大修，可以改小部分数据吗？
已经有13人回复
- 大修时能否更改第一作者？
已经有15人回复
- 文章大修，修改列表需要重复point-to-point 的修改细节吗？
已经有8人回复
- 论文大修，问题一大堆，修改意见四页多，修后录用可能性大不？
已经有30人回复
- 一篇论文大修后小修 让改英语。导师要求和我边讨论边修改 结果改完后居然出现中文了
已经有40人回复
- 郁闷，两篇文章都是大修后被拒！
已经有32人回复
- 论文要大修，很郁闷
已经有36人回复
- 郁闷呀 导师改论文就是拖时间 怎么办
已经有49人回复
smallbug2000
木虫 (著名写手)
- 应助: 13 (小学生)
- 金币: 2299.8
- 散金: 1794
- 红花: 17
- 帖子: 1239
- 在线: 782小时
- 虫号: 434011
- 注册: 2007-08-18
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 计算机应用技术
3楼2012-09-06 09:35:48
yangsh_nj
木虫 (著名写手)
- 应助: 97 (初中生)
- 金币: 4396.9
- 散金: 9795
- 红花: 23
- 帖子: 1763
- 在线: 1493小时
- 虫号: 1373354
- 注册: 2011-08-19
- 专业: 运动生理学
2楼2012-09-06 09:32:14
rockinuk
铁杆木虫 (职业作家)
- SEPI: 10
- 应助: 1512 (讲师)
- 金币: 7810.9
- 散金: 189
- 红花: 106
- 帖子: 3982
- 在线: 570.6小时
- 虫号: 1945379
- 注册: 2012-08-19
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 数论
【答案】应助回帖
★ ★ ★
cxksama: 金币+3, 鼓励交流，有道理。 2012-09-06 09:57:22
cxksama: 金币+3, 鼓励交流，有道理。 2012-09-06 09:57:22
|
1) 若没办法根据 reviewer 的意见大修的话~就改投吧~ 或是 建议 editor 改更换新的 rviewer. 2) 2F 的意见及立场固然是没错，但我个人觉得没有什么不妥。 Why? 楼主并没有把 reviewer 的姓名公开。这是一个 "盲审"；editor 也没有对楼主公开谁是 reviewer，所以楼主并没有道德上的问题。 至于楼主把 editor 的姓名及单位公开，这也没什么不妥的。 Editor 本身就是一个公开的信息，不论在投稿系统，在官网的Editorial board 上，都是公开的。 身为一名 editor 是可接受 "公议"，也让投稿作者(楼主)知道责任编辑是谁。 基于此，我个人并不觉得楼主有什么错，或道德上的瑕疵。 |
4楼2012-09-06 09:51:23
rockinuk
铁杆木虫 (职业作家)
- SEPI: 10
- 应助: 1512 (讲师)
- 金币: 7810.9
- 散金: 189
- 红花: 106
- 帖子: 3982
- 在线: 570.6小时
- 虫号: 1945379
- 注册: 2012-08-19
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 数论
5楼2012-09-06 10:00:30
