--------------------------------------------------------------
--- For your convenience, this form can be processed by EasyChair
--- automatically. You can fill out this form offline and then
--- upload it to EasyChair. Several review forms can be uploaded
--- simultaneously. You can modify your reviews as many times as
--- you want.
--- When filling out the review form please mind
--- the following rules:
--- (1) Lines beginning with --- are comments. EasyChair will
---     ignore them. Do not start lines in your review with ---
---     as they will be ignored. You can add comments to the
---     review form or remove them
--- (2) Lines beginning with *** are used by EasyChair. Do not
---     remove or modify these lines or the review will become
---     unusable and will be rejected by EasyChair
--------------------------------------------------------------
*** REVIEW FORM ID: 364029::198847
*** SUBMISSION NUMBER: 20
*** TITLE: Automatic Identification of Images with Autocorrelation and Cross Correlation Processing of Neural Network
*** AUTHORS: (anonymous)
*** PC MEMBER: Daichi Sirano
--------------------------------------------------------------
*** REVIEW:
---  Please provide a detailed review, including justification for
---  your scores. This review will be sent to the authors unless
---  the PC chairs decide not to do so. This field is required.
Uncertainty of authors' English descriptions is ubiquitous. For example, what actually does it mean by "AUTOMATIC IDENTIFICATION OF IMAGES" in the title? Or, What is "The following opportunities of making the correct decision during processing of the neural network on the image according to two selected trajectories have been analyzed," which appears at the very beginning of the paper? The reviewers cannot understand many such descriptions in English.

Citation like [1] in the text is not allowed. what is [1] actually? Thus authors cite 9 papers in the text but in the list of Reference we see only 7 papers. So reviewer doubt this paper is a copy from a paper the author present in another conference.

Despite the author wrote "neural network" but the reviewer do not know even its structure.

The authors fail to show how this is unique. as well as how the results are important, which the reviewers cannot find in the paper.

It's a minor thing, but the titles of sections should be more simple ones. Also the reviewer think a blank line should be inserted between two paragraphs, in this style.
--------------------------------------------------------------
*** REMARKS FOR THE PROGRAMME COMMITTEE:
---  If you wish to add any remarks for PC members, please write
---  them below. These remarks will only be used during the PC
---  meeting. They will not be sent to the authors. This field is
---  optional.

--------------------------------------------------------------
--- If the review was written by (or with the help from) a
--- subreviewer different from the PC member in charge, add
--- information about the subreviewer in the form below. Do not
--- modify the lines beginning with ***
*** REVIEWER'S FIRST NAME: (write in the next line)

*** REVIEWER'S LAST NAME: (write in the next line)

*** REVIEWER'S EMAIL ADDRESS: (write in the next line)

--------------------------------------------------------------
--- In the evaluations below, uncomment the line with your
--- evaluation or confidence. You can also remove the
--- irrelevant lines
*** OVERALL EVALUATION:

---  3 (strong accept)
---  2 (accept)
---  1 (weak accept)
---  0 (borderline paper)
---  -1 (weak reject)
-2 (reject)
---  -3 (strong reject)

*** REVIEWER'S CONFIDENCE:

---  4 (expert)
---  3 (high)
2 (medium)
---  1 (low)
---  0 (null)

*** RELEVANCE TO THIS CONFERENCE: from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest)

---  5 (excellent)
---  4 (good)
---  3 (fair)
2 (poor)
---  1 (very poor)

*** ORIGINALITY/UNIQUENESS: from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest)

---  5 (excellent)
---  4 (good)
---  3 (fair)
---  2 (poor)
1 (very poor)

*** ENGLISH READABILITY: from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest)

---  5 (excellent)
---  4 (good)
---  3 (fair)
---  2 (poor)
1 (very poor)

*** PAPER ORGANIZATION/PRESENTATION: from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest)

---  5 (excellent)
---  4 (good)
---  3 (fair)
---  2 (poor)
1 (very poor)

*** HAS GOOD SURVEY BEEN DONE?: from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest)

---  5 (excellent)
---  4 (good)
---  3 (fair)
---  2 (poor)
1 (very poor)

*** END
--------------------------------------------------------------