Synthetic-Aperture Radar Radio-Frequency Interference Suppression Based on Regularized Optimization Feature Decomposition Network

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors present a novel deep learning approach for suppressing radio frequency interference (RFI) in synthetic aperture radar (SAR) images. They propose a feature decomposition network based on regularization optimization. The network employs a feature decomposition block to separate interference and clean signals, discarding interference components and utilizing the clean signal components as input to subsequent layers. They validate their method on Mini SAR and Sentinel-1A datasets and compare it with existing techniques. While the proposed approach is innovative and shows promise, several technical weaknesses need to be addressed to improve the clarity and robustness of the results.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Ensure all figures and tables are referenced in the text and improve their captions for clarity.

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestions. We have made modifications from the following three aspects: 1. We have added coordinate axes to the images. 2. We have supplemented two tables related to the radar parameters. 3. We have adjusted the format of all Tables.

Please refer to the attachment for specific modification.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of the paper and the proposal results interesting and provides an elegant solution to the problem.

However, you should improve the text and the analysis of the results:

* Introduction: the authors classify the interferences into broadband and narrowband depending on the bandwidth larger or shorter than 30 MHz. I feel that this classification is a bit simplistic: this conditions depends on the coherence bandwidth and, obviously, on the central frequency of the transmission.

* The use of the word "Reference [x]" sounds strange. I suggest to use "Previous work [x]", "In paper [x]", "Authors of [x]", or any other version instead of repeating "reference".

* All the analysis of data at different tables contains a conceptual error: an increase of X percentual points is not an increase in X%. An example: we moved from 73.2% to 93.5% in some parameter; X = 93.5% - 73.2% = 20.3 percentual points; but 93.5/73.2=1.28 => the increase is 28%. You can explain that in increasing percentual points or in % of increment, but the analysis of the data in all the tables along the paper is not right. This occurs in all the text analysing table contents.

* Line 83: In academic language, contractions should not be used!

*  Line 144 and others: I suggest to use the term "time delay" instead of "fast time".

* LInes 253-255 and 259 to 261 are almost the same... but they are in different subsections. Something is wrong here!

* Figure 5 is cited in page 9 and appears in page 11, too far away.

* There are many titles at the end of their pages, with no text below. This provides a bad impression of the paper, as it denotes not a lot of care in the composition.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No comment

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestions. Please refer to the attachment for specific modifications.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Generally, this manuscript is well-written. But there are some issues which must be addressed.

1. In this manuscript, the RFI signal is modeled as chirp signal. However, in practice the signal model of RF signal varies, like am fm qpsk, etc. Will the performance of proposed method be influenced by the signal model, or the proposed method is robust and insensitive to this issue? please clarify

2. In the section of experiments, regarding the miniSAR data, what is the system parameter settings? for example, the bandwitdh and carrier frequency. Besides, are the data used in this experiment real data? What are the sources of the RF signal? please clarify

3. some abbreviations are not explained when first used. for example, SSD in page 3.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The Quality of English Language is satisfying. 

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestions. Please refer to the attachment for specific modifications.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have sent this report below to Assistant Editor Monica Maria Timar on 2024-05-10 20:45:56

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestion. Please see the attachment for the modifications

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All my previous concerns have been addressed.

Author Response

Thank you again for the valuable suggestions from the reviewers

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed all the issues and the current version is satisfying. 

Author Response

Thank you again for the valuable suggestions from the reviewers

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

accept！