1. The proposed method lacks novelty, as it simply splits the image into background and foreground before processing them separately.
2. In Table 1, the best MAE for SD→SR is not achieved by the proposed method, yet it is marked in bold. This should be corrected.
3. In Table 1, the best performance for SN→FH is also incorrectly highlighted, and the proposed method performs worse than other methods by a large margin. The authors should explain this discrepancy.
4. The experimental results are unreliable, especially in Table 1, where the MSE is significantly smaller than the MAE, which raises concerns about their validity.
4. The experimental results are unreliable, especially in Table 1, where the MSE is significantly smaller than the MAE, which raises concerns about their validity.