- Reviewer 2
1. [x] **Not enough novelty:** From a scientific point of view, the work lacks novelty: The work has similarities with planar zoom typically used by humans to observe an event from closer proximity, hence sounds like an obvious solution.
2. [x] **Real demonstration of the system was expected**: A real demonstration of the said system is required in the video submission.

- Reviewer 5
1. [x] **Not enough information provided about dataset**: One of the main contributions is to evaluate the precision-recall curve for a given object using object detection. However, the "custom dataset" specified in the experimental section has not been described. How was the detector trained? How do environmental changes affect the precision-recall curve given a certain altitude?
2. [x] **Algorithm 1 has not been explained properly**: There are many mistakes in the algorithm. Variable h_s should be h_step.
3. [x] **Experiments lack data about field conditions**: What are the weather conditions and how was the data collected?
4. [x] **Co-ordination among multiple UAVs is not clear**: How are the UAVs co-ordinating with each other?
5. [x] **Video does not provide any additional material**: Video must demonstrate the system in action.

- Reviewer 8
1. [x] **Designed system not illustrated systematically**: The system has not been described clearly in the paper.
2. [x] **Robustness of the system**: Data has been collected in only one location, robustness of algorithm not fully proven.
3. [x] **Structure of article should be improved**: I don't know how to interpret this comment Sigh.
4. [x] **Figures do not have units**

- Reviewer 10
1. [x] **The definition of the term "event" is unclear**: First four lines of preliminaries need to be moved to the introduction to explain the context better.
2. [x] **Confusion between events and objects (typically used in object detection)**: A context about surveillance problem needs to be given in the introduction. Seems like the problem we are trying to solve is not well known in the industry.
3. [x] **Every event lasting for \Delta time is unclear**: In the context of object detection, every object is only visible instantaenously in an image. However, the relationship between an event that lasts for \Delta time and object detection is unclear.
4. [x] **Introduce variables tp,fp etc.**: Comprehensively introduce all variables being used in the system.
5. [x] **Preferrable to move related work before preliminaries**
6. [x] **Drone descent technique is not clear**: The reviewer is concerned about the actual motion of the drone. It seems like a confusion arises regarding whether the drone is just reducing its height or its even moving laterally.
7. [x] **The intuition behind drone descent is unclear**: Why is the drone descending exactly?
8. [] **Variable misuse**: Section 4 has X representing poisson interarrival time whereas in Section 5, it is being used to represent object detection random variable.
9. [x] **Brief description of algorithm 1 is missing, Algorithm returns ambiguous values**: A description would have helped the reviewer understand the algorithm better.
10. [x] **Reduce number of variables**: Too many variables to make sense out of.
11. [x] **Even if the detection rate has increased, is the paper useful because the recall is decreasing?**:
12. [] **Equivalent plot of 7c needed for precision**
13. [x] **Did authors propose the baseline or is it the actual baseline in other works?**