Fusion Method of RFI Detection, Localization, and Suppression by Combining One-Dimensional and Two-Dimensional Synthetic Aperture Radiometers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article proposes  a fusion method for RFI detection, localization, and mitigation by combining MICAP and LASMR. However, this paper does not introduce the research status and related literature of RFI, especially in recent years. Moreover, the theory of fusion method is not clear. How can data from two different instruments be fused effectively? What are the advantages and disadvantages of the fusion approach? 

1. Please add a detailed introduction to the current research status of RFI detection, localization, and mitigation with a single radiometer payload.

2.  What is the main question about RFI detection, localization, and mitigation addressed by the research?

3.   “The purpose of the fusion method in this article is to process the RFI located in the overlapping FOV.” If the RFI source is at the edge of the FOV, does this method work?

4.  “LASMR and MICAP both contain L-band radiometers. They have a common overlap-114 ping field of view (FOV), as shown in Figure 4.Therefore, this article chooses the L-band 115 for RFI detection, localization, and mitigation to fuse.” It is suggested to revise the first and third sentences.

5.  Please discuss and analyze the results of Figures 11-18.

6. MICAP and LASMR are instrument names. What is the specific RFI method with a single radiometer payload in the simulations?

7. Simulation is relatively simple. It is suggested to use measured data or more realistic simulation for verification.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English needs to be improved.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

We are thankful for your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. Your comments are valuable and helpful for improving the quality of our paper. We have carefully evaluated the weaknesses and thoughtful suggestions, responded to them point-by-point, and revised the manuscript accordingly.

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The following is the review for the manuscript:

Fusion Method of RFI Detection, Localization and Suppression 3

by combining One-dimensional and Two-dimensional Syn- 4

thetic Aperture Radiometers

 

 

The manuscript presents a new methodology for detecting and identifying Radio Frequency Interference (RFI) I L-band radiometry. This is especially important as it directly relates to the quality of satellite derived sea surface salinity, which is based on L-band radiometry.  The methodology is based on combining one-dimensiona and two-dimensional Synthetic Aperature Radiometers. The algorithm would allow for better indentification of both the spatial extent and intensity of the RFI.

 

 

My overall assessment of the manuscript is first there is certainly a need to improve the detection of RFI in L-band radiometry. Theh paper overall is well written and organized. The major question is whether it is suitable for publication of Remote Sensing. The manuscript is strictly based on the testing of the methodology in a laboratory. There are no implementations of remote sensing data. Thus there is really no “Materials” section in the manuscript.  My other concern is that the conclusions section really gives the impression that the methodology is not really useful.

 

 

Based on these two issues I would have to recommend rejection with resubmission. Can the authors compare the methodology to a real application with current remote sensing data. I understand this is in support of the future launch of the satellites, but could there be a direct link to current RFI detection methods and an example of improvement.  This would strengthen the case for publication in Remote Sensing.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

We are thankful for your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. Your comments are valuable and helpful for improving the quality of our paper. We have carefully evaluated the weaknesses and thoughtful suggestions, responded to them point-by-point, and revised the manuscript accordingly.

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General

This manuscript introduces a fusion method for Radio Frequency Interference (RFI) detection, localization, and suppression by combining two synthetic aperture interferometric radiometer, a 2-D L-band Aperture Synthesis Microwave Radiometer (LASMR) and a 1-D L-C-K band Microwave Imager Combined Active and Passive (MICAP). It is overall well organized, but there are some improvements before it can be further published.

 

Major comments:

1. In the introduction section, more background about the RFI detection, location, and mitigation method should be introduced, reviewing previous efforts and, if any, pointing out there problems especially by comparing with the method proposed by this manuscript.

 

2. For the fusion method, as also mentioned by the authors in the summary section, the least square criterion is not very powerful and convincing. If possible, I would like to see some comparison with other wide-used methods.

 

3. The results can be condensed. Currently, there are some figures providing similar information, for example, from figure 7 to figure 18. This can be optimized by only exhibiting the most important information the author would like to show.

 

4. English need to be improved. There are many logical and gramma flaws and mistakes. A professional editing is recommended. 

 

Minor comments:

1 The full name should be provided before using abbreviation, for example, in the abstract, RFI (Line 16).

 

2 Lines 32-33, the first sentence need to be rewritten. Salinity, temperature, and sea level are ocean parameters, while ocean wave and current are ocean phenomena; thus, it is not proper to mention them together as ocean dynamic elements.

 

3 Lines 80-81, “which is similar to the SMOS but with a different array orientation and a number of antenna elements.” Need to be rewritten.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

None

Author Response

Dear reviewer:
We are thankful for your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. Your comments are valuable and helpful for improving the quality of our paper. We have carefully evaluated the weaknesses and thoughtful suggestions, responded to them point-by-point, and revised the manuscript accordingly.

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The quality of the manuscript has improved a lot. The proposed method is validated through real experiments in the anechoic chamber. However, in Figure 5, there is only a two-dimensional LASMR system, and we do not see a one-dimensional MICAP system. It is better to provide an actual optical picture of the anechoic chamber experiment.

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing our manuscript again. We have revised the manuscript carefully according to your comments.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have responded to all my comments and suggestions properly and the quality of the manuscript has been significantly improved. I'm good with this version.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English is fine overall but still can be improved slightly, especially concerning the connecting between sentences. 

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing our manuscript again. We have revised the manuscript carefully according to your comments.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf