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 of the reviewers' comments. The manuscript is now ready for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jyotismita Chaki, a 'PeerJ Computer Science' Section Editor covering this Section #]
The paper has been improved. I have no additional comments to provide regarding this area.
More details about both Experiment A and B have been provided. I have no additional comments.
No comment.
The authors have addressed all of my comments and improved the paper. In my opinion, this version is ready for publication.
The revised version is well-organized and clearly written. I don't have any other comments.
I have no further comments.
I have no further comments.
No further comments.
Please address the comments from the two reviewers and revise the manuscript accordingly. Consider computing the SSIM metric and adding more plots to support the results.
+ The writing is clear and technical, and the paper is well-written. Although the study's background and introduction provide a good basis, they might profit from adding more relevant research. The figures are of good quality. They are well-defined and support the content well.
+ The code is shared, which is beneficial and could potentially lend support to other researchers conducting research in a similar direction.
+ Nevertheless, some parts in the main content are missing some information. More details are as below.
+ The methods are described with sufficient detail and information to allow replication, as the code is provided. The discussion on data preprocessing is adequate. The evaluation methods, assessment metrics, and model selection techniques are also well-detailed.
+ For Experiment A, while the authors presented information about the variation in total time across different bandwidths, this would be clearer if a plot similar to Figure 3 were provided and accompanied by a more detailed discussion.
+ Similarly, additional plots and a more detailed discussion could be included when presenting the results of Experiment B.
+ The results are sound, and the conclusions are well stated. However, as mentioned above, they could be further enhanced with additional plots and more in-depth discussions.
+ What are the next steps after the learning step as in Equation 8?
+ Please double-check the capitalization of some items in the reference list. For example, "3d", "gaussian", etc.
The manuscript is well-structured and written in clear, formal English. The literature review is quite comprehensive and provides a sufficient overview of the topic. The tables and figures are well-designed and effectively present the research findings. However, some parts of the main text would benefit from additional details, as indicated below.
- Please clarify if N in Equation 8 is a Gaussian distribution.
- The operation of the CVAE block in Figure 2 is unclear. Additional details, including any relevant formulas, should be provided.
- How was the discriminator in the GAN module depicted in Figure 2 trained?
- Algorithm 1 focuses on the reconstruction component of the framework. Besides using text as in the paper, there should be another algorithm to describe the encoding component.
- While the experiments and evaluations were performed satisfactorily, the results of Experiment B were not described in as much detail as those of Experiment A. The authors should include additional plots to better present the results of Experiment B.
- In addition to Mean Square Error (MSE), the authors should include results calculated using the Structural Similarity Index (SSIM), a widely used metric for evaluating reconstruction quality.
- The authors should do more experiments to measure the effectiveness of their proposed method using SSIM.
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.