Dynamic Antenna Selection for Colocated MIMO Radar
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Overall, it is expected to go through the review process with no serious problems.
There are two points to be answered by the authors as follows.
1. Regarding equation (2) and equation (13), should the polarization of the transmitted and received signals be mentioned as co-pol.- and X-pol. factors?
2. As to Figure 5, there is the curve by the method of 'exhaustive search' for comparison. Aren't there methods better than that, since it is one of the most primitive methods?
Author Response
Point 1: Regarding equation (2) and equation (13), should the polarization of the transmitted and received signals be mentioned as co-pol.- and X-pol. factors?
Response 1: Thank you for your positive comment. Your ideas are very meaningful to our work. In this paper, we adopt a more conventional signal model for transmitted and received signals, and do not conduct too much research from the perspective of polarization. In response to your question, we think it is possible to mention the polarization of the transmitted and received signals as co-pol.- and X-pol. Factors. Finally, after reading your comments, we are deeply inspired that polarization may receive more attention in our future work.
Point 2: As to Figure 5, there is the curve by the method of 'exhaustive search' for comparison. Aren't there methods better than that, since it is one of the most primitive methods?
Response 2: Thank you for your positive comment.
In computational complexity, we compare the proposed algorithm with the exhaustive search algorithm, and conclude that the computational complexity of FDPSO is much lower than that of the exhaustive algorithm. This shows that FDPSO algorithm is superior to exhaustive algorithm in computational complexity. We compare the FDPSO algorithm with the exhaustive algorithm for three reasons:
- The exhaustive algorithm is a very classical search algorithm and is suitable for antenna selection scenarios, which has the same applicability as the proposed algorithm.
- The solution yielded by the optimization model (Eq. (30)) is presented for comparison (optimal), which is carried out by the exhaustive search method. We compare FDPSO with the exhaustive algorithm not only in Fig. 5, but also in Fig. 4, Fig. 6, Fig. 7 and Fig. 8.
- Optimization of computational complexity is not the research focus of the algorithm proposed in this paper. It is possible to compare the complexity of multiple optimization algorithms, but this is not necessary.
In conclusion, we choose the exhaustive algorithm as the comparison algorithm of FDPSO.
Finally, thank you again for your valuable comments on our paper. Many of them are worth our thinking, which will be of guiding significance for our future work.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper presents a method of dynamic antenna allocation for the case of colocated MIMO radar. It presents the relevant model, theory, and simulation results to show the improvement of the dynamic antenna selection over a fixed antenna array in the estimation of target parameters for a moving target in the form of posterior Cramer-Rao lower bounds. This is the positive part and is a welcome contribution.
The problem, however, is in the language. Even the title has a typo. It should be colocated not collocated. There are serious problems with the English in that it turns out to be technically incorrect in many places.
The most erroneous one is in denoting as m-th transmit array instead of saying m-th transmit antenna in the signal model section. Similarly for the n-th receive antenna. This totally confuses the reader.
Why are the lines 206-220 and 407-410 included as part of the paper?
The point is that the paper cannot be published as is unless it is edited heavily.
On the technical side, it is beneficial if some intermediate results of the simulation model are presented. For example, provide an example of received signal waveform r for a given antenna n and a given pulse l. Another one may be: received signal as a function of angle theta for a fixed target.
Author Response
Point: This paper presents a method of dynamic antenna allocation for the case of colocated MIMO radar. It presents the relevant model, theory, and simulation results to show the improvement of the dynamic antenna selection over a fixed antenna array in the estimation of target parameters for a moving target in the form of posterior Cramer-Rao lower bounds. This is the positive part and is a welcome contribution.
The problem, however, is in the language. Even the title has a typo. It should be colocated not collocated. There are serious problems with the English in that it turns out to be technically incorrect in many places.
The most erroneous one is in denoting as m-th transmit array instead of saying m-th transmit antenna in the signal model section. Similarly for the n-th receive antenna. This totally confuses the reader.
Why are the lines 206-220 and 407-410 included as part of the paper?
The point is that the paper cannot be published as is unless it is edited heavily.
On the technical side, it is beneficial if some intermediate results of the simulation model are presented. For example, provide an example of received signal waveform r for a given antenna n and a given pulse l. Another one may be: received signal as a function of angle theta for a fixed target.
Response: Thank you for your positive comment. Your comment is very helpful to us and we have modified the manuscript according to your opinions, as follows:
For the typo in the title, we follow your comment and replace “collocated” with “colocated”, and make corrections to same errors in the full text.
For the wrong representation of transmitting antenna and receiving antenna in the signal model section, we replace “transmit array” with “transmit antenna” and “receive array” with “receive antenna”. We also make corrections to same errors in the full text, so as to make the expression of the model more clear.
As for the problems in Lines 206-220 and 407-410, this is a mistake in typeset of the manuscript and we are sorry for this mistake. We have corrected the mistake in the revised draft.
For received signal waveform r, we do not pay much attention to the simulation results of received signal waveform, and we do not have in-depth research in this area. Moreover, we don't study the paper from the perspective of received signals. We study on the basis that the received signal has been well processed. Therefore, we do not pay too much attention to the simulation results of received signals. In future work, we may focus on the influence of receiving signals, which is very instructive for us.
We have revised the paper based on your questions. The revised paper has been uploaded.
Finally, your valuable comments are very helpful to our work. With your help, the expression of our paper becomes clearer. Thank you again for your support and help on our paper.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
