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 paper has been improved following the comments, therefore, the paper is ready to be accepted.
no comment
no comment
no comment
no comment
The recommendations from the reviewers are consistent. A revision is recommended.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a rebuttal letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the rebuttal letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the rebuttal letter. Directions on how to prepare a rebuttal letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
1. The literature review focused on three principal categories, but there were few related research papers from 2018-2020. I suggest that the manuscript include state-of-the-arts to help readers understand the latest developments in this field.
2. In line 83, “Region growing methods are robust to noisy point clouds” should be explained in detail. Generally speaking, region growing methods suffer from noise.
1. In table 2-3, with the increase of noise, MC-LSE gradually loses its advantage in Dist. Error Cluster Error, but which didn’t influence the algorithm accuracy in terms of angle error and model error. The author needs to explain it in the paper. In addition, the positions of Tables 2 and 3 may need to be switched. Because you mentioned Table 3 first in the article instead of Table 2.
2. In table4，“Table 4. Results (mean ± standard deviation) of the pre-clustering method considering different input data with respect to various levels of Gaussian noise (from 1.E-05 to 1.E-04) and viewpoints”, but there is no Gaussian noise information in the table.
Although the results showed that the proposed method was better, the methods for comparisons were old methods. Comparisons with state-of-the-art methods are necessary.
The manuscript presented a planar fitting model based on the least-squares estimation method (LEM). Different from the ordinary LEM, the model was robust to noises by involving the geometric constraints. The method is simple but interesting, and the article is well organized. In addition to a few comments, I encourage the authors to check the mistakes in their manuscript to enhance the levels of paper presentation. For example,
In line42, “Computer vision plays an important role (in) providing methods for…”
In line 135, “It allow (allows) us to provide a high accuracy…”
In line 136, “with respect (to) other iterative methods…”
In line 464, “edges that belongs (belong) to different faces.”
Some formatting problems will be improved such as formula annotation, table header.
no comment
no comment
This paper proposed an approach to simultaneously fit different planes in a point cloud using linear regression estimators and normal vectors to the planes with three steps: a clustering-based unsupervised step, regression-based supervised step and a reassignment step. Experimental results show the effectiveness of the proposed method. It is a nice job of providing good accuracy/speed trade-off in the presence of noise and outliers.
The English need some polishing in terms of sentence construction.
Literature references are appropriate.
Figures and tables of acceptable quality.
The manuscript is self-contained with relevant results to hypotheses.
The experimental design appears to be original.
The research question is well defined, relevant and meaningful.
A rigorous investigation has been carried out.
The methods have been described in sufficient details.
The method appears to be novel.
Data have been provided and appears to be statistically sound.
Conclusions are well stated.
The English should be checked and few bad sentences here and there should be corrected which will make the manuscript more attractive.
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.