All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
The authors have addressed all the comments and suggestions provided by the reviewers. The manuscript may be accepted for publication in the present form.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Xiangjie Kong, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The paper can be accepted in the present form.
Authors have addressed all comments
It is well-addressed now by the authors
Accepted
The reviewers found merit in the manuscript and recommended revision. I would also recommend a revision to address all the comments and suggestions. The revised manuscript will be subjected to re-review. Also, address the following minor comments
1. Numbering of the section heading is not continuous. Start numbering from Introduction itself.
2. Proofread the entire manuscript to remove typos and English language improvement.
3. Make your source code available online on GitHub or other suggested platform, and put its link in the manuscript.
Good luck
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
**Language Note:** The Academic Editor has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
This manuscript proposes a Hierarchical Tolerance Mask Correspondence (HTMC) method to
achieve better alignment by tolerating obfuscation.
This manuscript is well-written and easy to follow.
Literature is covered as partial overlapping and Correspondence-based registration. It needs more coverage and related literatures.
- Define RMSE and MAE.
- Include F-score in table - 1 to 5.
- Compared methods like ICPBesl and McKay (1992) should cover in Related work section.
- Authors must provide the code repository link (Like, GitHub).
- Conclusion needs more detail.
- Authors mentioned that they produce a human body dataset for training a human body registration network in sub-section 3.2. Authors must provide details/steps for producing human body dataset.
Minor revision
Authors main contribution in this paper is to design a hierarchical tolerance correspondence approach tailored to point clouds featuring numerous similar local regions. And to differentiable mask for use in correspondence-based registration methods, which intelligently adjusts correspondence relations based on feedback from the results. Moreover, they produce a human body point cloud dataset specifically designed for training a model for human body point cloud registration. Over all clear professional English is used throughout the paper, however, for a layman the topic should be understandable enough. Therefore, i suggest to add background section that clearly explain all technical terms and scenario why HTMC is necessary and a background related to Partial overlapping registration and Correspondence-based registration.
A more technical detail is required of why use Euclidean distance whereas other statistical analysis are there. Add a table that clearly illustrate previous studies experimental design flaws, results analysis and compared the results
ok
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.