Comments on abstract, title, references

Title: As per for my understanding, I feel like the article title is very technical. That means only mature or experienced person in Image segmentation can get the idea about it.. Overall the title is good and unique

Abstract: Abstract is precise and clear. First of all it tells the details about the semantic segmentation and basic concept. Gradually they have done the detailed overview of the work the have done

References: As per the guidelines given by IEEE Access, References are enough and well known algorithms that have implemented in the particular area of image segmentation have been addressed.

Point to Ponder are : • Is the aim clear? Yes • Is it clear what the study found and how they did it? Yes • Is the title informative and relevant? Yes • Are the references: • Relevant? Yes • Recent? Yes • Referenced correctly? Yes • Are appropriate key studies included? Yes

Comments on introduction/background

1) BackGround Research-Research Gape As far as background is concerned, following questions are point to ponder like • Is it clear what is already known about this topic? Yeah • Is the research question clearly outlined? Yeah it is clearly outlined • Is the research question justified given what is already known about the topic? It is fully justified, and it differentiate from the work i.e. the algorithm that have already developed in the field of Semantic Segmentation. 2) Importance - It structurally highlighted the important and need of their research work that was demanded.

3) Goals - Goals are clearly specified. They have explained step by step how they have derived their research.

Comments on methodology

1) Subject Selection: The subject is fully presented in proposed Methodology section. 2) Validity and Reliability: Yes it is valid 3) Demonstration of Research They have clearly mentioned how their algorithm is different and more advanced than already developed algorithms. I would also like to implement but the link they have given for algorithm is not that clear.

Point to Ponder are : • Is the process of subject selection clear? Yeah I have described earlier • Are the variables defined and measured appropriately? Yeah, It is clear and precise • Are the study methods valid and reliable? yeah you can say • Is there enough detail in order to replicate the study? I would say no, but they have given the resource of where the basic algorithm has been taken

Comments on data and results

This is demonstrated in the section named EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS I am aware of the work they have done in this field. It also go through statistical data. Dataset is also clear. Data is clear, Mathematical expression is also clearly mentioned

Point to ponders are : • Is the data presented in an appropriate way? Yeah I can say results section is detailed from training and testing the data ◦ Tables and figures relevant and clearly presented? Yeah it is clear , ◦ Titles, columns, and rows labelled correctly and clearly? Yeah it is clear, they have clearly mentioned how they have used neural network architecture more accurately. ◦ Categories grouped appropriately? Yeah it is grouped very honestly. Mathematical Models are also grouped accurately and clearly. • Does the text in the results add to the data or is it repetitive? It adds to the data • Are you clear about what is a statistically significant result? Yeah somehow I was cleared but I also wanted to implement but their code and algorithm demonstration was not openly specified. • Are you clear about what is a practically meaningful result? Yeah I am clear. The authors have done hard work

Comments on discussion and conclusions

They have clearly linked the discussion by the comparative analysis using tables, figures and discussing how it is different. It also supports the hypothesis they have proposed in their literature review. Point to Ponders are :

• Are the results discussed from multiple angles and placed into context without being overinterpreted? Yeah it is discussed based on global evidence.
• Do the conclusions answer the aims of the study? Yeah
• Are the conclusions supported by references or results? Yeah, it is supported
• Are the limitations of the study fatal or are they opportunities to inform future research? After my reading, I also want to do the things that they have done in their future work section after the discussion of everything they have done precisely.

Overall I love the way they have discussed everything in order.