PolSAR Cell Information Representation by a Pair of Elementary Scatterers
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
All changes necessary have been made
Author Response
The text has been carefully read for syntactic errors.
In addition, the English was checked again.
To improve the understanding of the method, new elements have been added which are:
- Lines 347-351 refer to a new reference detailing the types of land cover types in the region of Vancouver.
The reference [25].
- A new figure, Figure 11, has been added to illustrate the advantages of the proposed method.
- Finally, comments have been added to the last paragraph of the conclusions (lines 564-568).
Reviewer 2 Report
Accepted
Author Response
The text has been carefully read for syntactic errors.
In addition, the English was checked again.
To improve the understanding of the method, new elements have been added which are:
- Lines 347-351 refer to a new reference detailing the types of land cover types in the region of Vancouver.
The reference [25].
2. A new figure, Figure 11, has been added to illustrate the advantages of the proposed method.
- Finally, comments have been added to the last paragraph of the conclusions (lines 564-568).
Reviewer 3 Report
The author has made some modifications according to the comments of the reviewers, but the paper still has the following problems.
- Too few selected statistical areas make it difficult to prove the universality of statistical results.
- Whether the scattering expression of the ground objects divided into the same category in the statistical ground objects is consistent, such as the expression of building areas, different kinds of forests and crops in different regions, and whether the differences in different regions can be ignored.
- The conclusion is vague, and the differences of statistical laws of various objects are not well displayed, so it is difficult to apply them to classification in the future.
Author Response
The text has been carefully read for syntactic errors.
In addition, the English was checked again.
To improve the understanding of the method, new elements have been added which are:
- Lines 347-351 refer to a new reference detailing the types of land cover types in the region of Vancouver.
The reference [25].
2. A new figure, Figure 11, has been added to illustrate the advantages of the proposed method.
- Finally, comments have been added to the last paragraph of the conclusions (lines 564-568).
Additional text with the answers to Reviewer's three comments is uploaded.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Accept in present form
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.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The main work of this paper relies on Cameron's coherent decomposition method to represent each SAR pixel with a pair of basic scattering mechanisms, which is somewhat similar to the combination of coherent decomposition and incoherent decomposition. The idea has some innovations. Some experiments are carried out with one scene of Radarsat-2 image, but the experiments are not sufficient. They only describe some phenomena and do not see the obvious advantages of this decomposition and other decomposition methods. The current results are more like some preliminary experimental results, and more detailed comparative analysis should be carried out.
Reviewer 2 Report
Paper is good and can be published
Reviewer 3 Report
Abstract: The problem is not clearly highlighted. The abstract should also be shortened. The results you get should be highlighted better.
The formulas all need to be rewritten better. You need to rewrite them using LaTeX. You need to introduce a section called Notation. You need to explain that constants you denote with a non-bold lower case letter, vectors with a bold lower case letter, while matrices with a bold upper case letter any tensors bold upper case letter marked.
Figure 1 appears to have no reference system. You need to better explain the physical parameter that builds the geometric system you propose.
Figure 2 I don't understand it, you need to explain it better.
The experimental results do not seem satisfactory, also include an example done with NASA-JpL UAVSAR data.
