Spatial–Temporal Joint Design and Optimization of Phase-Coded Waveform for MIMO Radar
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors introduced a STJ optimization method for multi-phase coding sequence, which is suitable for both orthogonal and partial correlation MIMO waveform design and achieves better spatial-temporal characteristics performance.
The authors mainly compared their algorithm with CAN and SQP. More comparison with other algorithms might better support their conclusions.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThis paper need more simple and straightforward English.
line 98-99, 'Some high peak sidelobes appear due to the integral sidelobe criterion,....'
line 101, 'an orthogonal waveform is better...'
line 233, what does 'To preserve greater optimization space...' mean?
line 390-391, 'To evaluate the effectiveness of our method for designing a partial-related waveform, this experiment is conducted. ' This sentence is not necessary.
line 395-396, 'For simplicity and clarity, but without losing generality,...', please make things simple
line 404-405, '...and the matrix is symmetric about the diagonal as expected.', the following sentence is not necessary.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe present work is a presentation of a method for design an algorithm for transmitting waveform based on spatial-temporal optimization for MIMO radar applications. The manuscript is a very good join of mathematical and numerical skills to improves the processing signals for MIMO radars. Some comments about the paper as follow:
1- The lecture is quite complex due to the abundance in mathematical relations, page 8 is an example of the complexity to read. I suggest to removes the long demonstrations and consign few formulations and include a clear explanation about that we are achieved with these sentences.
2- There are, an intense use of acronyms, necessary for this science, but in some cases, they are so far from de initial explanation. I suggest in these cases put again the meaning of acronyms. Because the reader needs all the time retrieve many pages to clear the meaning and is lost.
3- In page 4 is no clear the construction of formulation 4, ( z), because the justification is “…..beam forming can be arbitrarily combines under the rule of associative law, then there are”….I suggest one more detailed explanation to include the z formulation.
4- In page 5 is necessary to explain what is, CVX toolbox (tool from MatLab…etc).
5- In the page 9 Armijo criterion is Armijo-Goldstein criterion?
6- In page 12 what is the criterion to adopt 100 iterations?
7- In page 13 in the figure 3 is not clear, almost for this review, what is the criterion to compare the beam in the 50° direction and others?. Needs an explanation like the importance of 50° beam or some like that.
8- In page 14, similar comments like in point 6 about the 100 iterations.
The general opinion is that the manuscript is accepted to publish with these suggestions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAuthors should measurement results to support their idea/algorithm.
How does the algorithm perform when there are more than one objects in the same range bin with different Doppler and resultant objects come to the same Doppler bin number in MIMO configuration?
What is the limitations of this proposed algorithm?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript proposes a waveform design method based on spatial-temporal joint optimization for MIMO radar, where waveforms are designed not only for beam-pattern matching but also for minimizing the auto-correlation sidelobes of the spatial synthesis signals in interested directions. In general, this study is interesting, the workload seems to be sufficient and technically reasonable. However, the work would be improved by revising some mistakes in writing.
1. On page 5 line 210, the ''M'' of formula (7) should be ''M_t''.
2. On page 6 line 248, the''w_ik'' of formula (9) is not defined, in page 6 line 236, the''c'' is not defined.
3. On page 10, the iteration exit judgment stage of Figure 1 lacks a label Y/N to indicate whether the condition is true or not.
4. You should consider auto-correlation and cross- correlation performance simultaneously.
5. How to ensure to obtain global optimum solution?
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThere are some grammar and spelling errors. The authors should check the manuscript carefully.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
