Both reviewers commented that the method proposed is interesting/appealing. I would suggest the authors to revise the manuscript by addressing reviewers' concerns and present the CDFA method with more details. It would be important to clearly argue the novelty, effectiveness, and limitations of the CDFA method proposed.

The Reviewer #2 expressed her/his concern to the proposed approach, which requires clarification and is relatively straightforward to address. There were difficulties to find additional reviewers to evaluate the revised manuscript. I was able to discuss with the Reviewer #1 from last round of review via verbal communication however s/he was not available to conduct another round of review. Overall, I would suggest the authors to revise the manuscript by addressing the comments provided by Reviewer #2 and re-submit.

Given the history of the manuscript and on the basis of my own assessment, I do think the study can be accepted. I do recommend careful checking of the English usage, though, before final publication.