Mapping Geothermal Indicator Minerals Using Fusion of Target Detection Algorithms

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Based on the fusion detection algorithm, this study uses remote sensing technology to evaluate the spatial distribution of Geothermal Indicator Minerals. It is concluded that the fusion algorithm is many times higher than the mineral evaluation results of the single algorithm. The whole research is clear and complete, and some small details need to be changed. I give suggestions for acceptance after minor revision.

1) References should be based on the latest literature in 2022 and 2023, and the latest references need to be added.

2) In Page 3 line 123, there is a link not shown, ' Error ! Reference source not found. ', please modify. In addition, there are many similar errors in the text, please check and modify the full text.

3) The text in Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 8, Figure 11-15 needs to be increased for readers to read.

4) Some data preprocessing is carried out using ENVI software. Has the right to use ENVI software been purchased ?

5) Whether to consider to explain again about 3M, 4M, 5M, 8M combination basis.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are some errors in the language and expression of the manuscript, which may be the embedding of the link. Please pay attention to the details and ask the professional institutions to polish the language.

Author Response

We thank the reviewers for their valuable comments on the manuscript, which will improve its quality. We addressed all the reviewers ‘comments and significantly improved the manuscript.  Our response to the specific comments and the revisions made according to them are given in attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript deals with mineral mapping using remote sensing images. The authors propose combining several algorithms to improve the performance. The topic is of great interest. However, this manuscript is presented like a report and the novelty is not well-detailed. 

The way fusing different algorithms is the key to the success of achieving higher performance. Few sentences can be found to describe the fusing method. Also, the reason for choosing this method and reasonable comparison between available methods are necessary. 

Another concern is that the methods are associated with Languages, e.g. R-Script designed to generate fusion mineral map, Python-based density algorithm. Methods are based on certain theories. Languages are used to implement a method. 

Last but important, please check ‘Error! Reference source not found..’ before submitting.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No problem.

Author Response

We thank the reviewers for their valuable comments on the manuscript, which will improve its quality. We addressed all the reviewers ‘comments and significantly improved the manuscript.  Our response to the specific comments and the revisions made according to them are given in attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The effectiveness of the proposed mapping technique in identifying the mineral is shown. Overall, this research topic is interesting, but the innovation is low. The key point of the manuscript needs to be summarized and refined. There are so many content the authors' want to describe, but the reviewer do not know which is exactly the most innovation point. The detail of the algorithms were described in this manuscript. It was noting that the 8 fundamental algorithms in the manuscript are very old. The authors’description in the experiment is not convincing. Although the fusion of different algorithms can improve the accuracy of mineral identification, it is an accomplished fact which is not meaningful. In the end, the references sources cannot be found in the manurscript in many places. The authors needs to check them. Because of the general comments above the reviewer suggests rejection.

 

Author Response

We thank the reviewers for their valuable comments on the manuscript, which will improve its quality. We addressed all the reviewers ‘comments and significantly improved the manuscript.  Our response to the specific comments and the revisions made according to them are given in attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I wanted to extend my congratulations on the quality of your paper. The topic you've chosen is both timely and relevant, and your thorough research reflects a commendable effort. However, as part of my role, I will be critically reviewing the paper to ensure its academic rigor and contribution to the field.

Review of the Abstract

• The abstract provides a clear overview of the research conducted on mineral mapping for geothermal exploration. However, to improve clarity, consider breaking down some complex sentences into smaller, more digestible ones.
• You may want to separate the abstract into shorter paragraphs for better readability. Each paragraph can focus on different aspects of the research, such as data collection, analysis methods, results, and conclusions.

•  
• Specify the wavelengths of the spectra collected using the ASD FieldSpec 4 Hi-RES NG portable spectrometer. This information can provide a clearer understanding of the data acquisition process.
• Define "USGS spectra" to ensure readers understand the reference.
• Clarify the acronym "CSIRO TSG" to provide readers with a better understanding of the analytical technique used for sample analysis.

• Consider using more precise language when describing the results. For example, instead of "highest accuracy," specify whether it refers to overall accuracy, producer's accuracy, or user's accuracy.
• Use active voice whenever possible to enhance readability and engagement.
• Check for consistency in terminology and spelling throughout the abstract.

Some sentences could be condensed to eliminate redundancy and improve conciseness. For instance, "We collected spectra using ASD FieldSpec 4 Hi-RES NG portable spectrometer to analyze ASTER images for the Coso Geothermal Field" could be simplified to "We used the ASD FieldSpec 4 Hi-RES NG portable spectrometer to collect spectra for analyzing ASTER images of the Coso Geothermal Field."

I would like to remark in the Introduction:

• Line 39: "Remote sensing technology and data are integral to geological studies, aiding in the exploration of mineral deposits, petroleum resources, and geothermal energy."
  Proposed Correction: "Remote sensing technology and data play integral roles in geological studies, facilitating the exploration of mineral deposits, petroleum resources, and geothermal energy."
  Explanation: Changed "are" to "play" to improve the fluency and clarity of the text.

Mineral Mapping from Satellite Images:

• Line 45: "Among the recent multispectral satellites, Landsat-8 and Sentinel-2 are widely adopted, along with older satellites like ASTER, which provide open-source data for various purposes, including mineral mapping."
  Proposed Correction: "Among the recent multispectral satellites, Landsat-8 and Sentinel-2 have been widely adopted, along with older satellites like ASTER, which provide open-source data for various purposes, including mineral mapping."
  Explanation: Changed "are" to "have been" to indicate that the adoption of these satellites has occurred in the past and continues into the present.

This message are several time in the paper "Error! Reference source not found" This must be corrected. 

•  

• Review of the Conclusions:

  1. Generalization without Specificity: While the study discusses the efficacy of different mapping algorithms, it lacks specificity in terms of the contextual factors that might influence algorithm performance. Factors such as the geological characteristics of the study area, the type of satellite imagery used, and the spectral resolution of the data could significantly impact algorithm performance. Without addressing these factors, the conclusions may not be applicable in diverse geothermal exploration contexts.

  2. Limited Evaluation Metrics: The study primarily relies on a few metrics, such as ROC and AUC values, to evaluate the performance of the mapping algorithms. While these metrics are important, they may not provide a comprehensive assessment of algorithm performance. Metrics such as overall accuracy, producer's accuracy, user's accuracy, and kappa statistics could offer additional insights into algorithm reliability and robustness.

  3. Absence of Comparative Analysis: The study claims that fusion combinations of mineral maps outperform individual methods, but it fails to provide a detailed comparative analysis of fusion results against individual algorithms. Without a thorough comparison, it's challenging to determine the extent to which fusion techniques improve mapping accuracy and reliability.

  4. Limited Scope of Validation: The study mentions the importance of ground truth information for evaluating mapping results but does not provide sufficient details on the validation process. It's essential to understand how ground truth data was collected, the representativeness of the validation samples, and the methodology used for accuracy assessment. Without a rigorous validation process, the reliability of the study's conclusions may be questionable.

  5. Overemphasis on Novelty: The study repeatedly highlights the novelty of its framework and approach without adequately demonstrating how it significantly advances the existing body of knowledge. While innovation is valuable, it's essential to balance novelty with practical significance and demonstrate how the proposed framework addresses existing limitations in geothermal exploration methodologies.

  In summary, while the conclusions offer insights into the potential benefits of fusion mapping algorithms for geothermal exploration, they lack specificity, comprehensive evaluation, and rigorous validation, which limits the robustness and applicability of the study's findings.

The abundance of international references with extensive coverage indicates that the authors have drawn from a variety of relevant sources to support their work. However, the self-citation up to 4 times by the authors raises the need to review the similarity between this article and the previous works where they self-cite. Given that the topics addressed and the articles used may be fundamental to the context of the study, the self-citations could be considered as necessary and pertinent.

Author Response

We thank the reviewers for their valuable comments on the manuscript, which will improve its quality. We addressed all the reviewers ‘comments and significantly improved the manuscript.  Our response to the specific comments and the revisions made according to them are given in the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All the concerns have been addressed.