A Space Object Optical Scattering Characteristics Analysis Model Based on Augmented Implicit Neural Representation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have obtained interesting results about optical parameters of artificial satellites with the use of simulation. The dependencies displayed in Fig. 11 and Fig. 12c show possibilities of the proposed approach in reproducing changes in brightness.

The first version already contained valuable material, but it is necessary to denote the considerable work carried out by the authors to improve the manuscript (in particular, standardization of terminology and correction of typos). Now I have a series of remarks, but they are less significant than they were in the first version. I recommend minor revision (including some editing of the new text.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are rare typos and other minor errors. More attention should be paid to the numbering of figures and repetitions, some of which appeared after the modification of the first version.

Author Response

Reviewer #1:

[general] As requested by Reviewer #1, we have made significant improvements to the grammar, structure, and corrections of abbreviations within the article. We have also meticulously revised the captions of the figures to ensure they are consistent with the content. In addition, we have addressed issues such as unclear antecedents in sentences and redundancy in phrases. Finally, the reviewers' questions were answered individually, and all the revised parts were marked in red font.

Please refer to the attached document for detailed information on the amendments made to each comment. We hope that our modifications can answer your questions. Thank you again!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript is a revised resubmission. The author reelaborates the main work of the manuscript, which is to propose an optical representation model of spatial objects based on enhanced implicit neural representation (AINR). The model uses a neuroimplicit function to describe the relationship between the object observation model and the apparent magnitude generated by sunlight reflected from the object surface.

After re-reading the manuscript, I am pleased to see that the author has answered the question I first reviewed in the revised manuscript: that the manuscript is indeed based on a combination of theoretical simulation and experimental data comparison. At the same time, I also saw a large number of revisions made by the authors to this manuscript, which fully reflected the improvement of the quality of the manuscript.

I therefore consider the manuscript acceptable in its current form.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Changes to the language are needed.

Author Response

Reviewer #2:

[general] As requested by Reviewer #2, we focused on improving the method part of the work and have revised some inaccurate phrases and corresponding expressions. Some grammatical errors have been corrected, and the language of the whole article has been touched up. We have explained in detail the issues raised by the expert, and we hope that the expert can accept our reasoning. Finally, the reviewers' questions were answered individually, and all the revised parts were marked in red font.

 

Response to comment: Changes to the language are needed.

Response: In response to the reviewers’ comments, we have revised the manuscript's language once again and corrected some grammatical and structural errors. Please refer to the text highlighted in red for details on the modifications, which have been carefully proofread.

Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see review report attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer #3:

[general] As requested by Reviewer #3, we have carefully examined the issues raised by the reviewer and have meticulously revised the methods section of the paper. The logic was rearranged, some errors in mathematical formulas were corrected, and some technical terms and inappropriate expressions were carefully considered. At the same time, some grammatical errors have been corrected, and the language of the whole article has been touched up. We have explained in detail the issues raised by the expert, and we hope that the expert can accept our reasoning.  Finally, the reviewers' questions were answered individually, and all the revised parts were marked in red font.

Please refer to the attached document for detailed information on the amendments made to each comment. We hope that our modifications can answer your questions. Thank you again!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please find the review attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer #3:

Please find the list of responses attached.

[general] As requested by Reviewer #3, we have carefully examined the issues raised by the

reviewer and meticulously revised the paper's methods section. We have rearranged

the logic in Section 4.1 and added some explanatory text. Additionally, we have corrected

some grammatical errors. We have provided detailed explanations for the issues raised by the

expert and hope that our reasoning will be accepted. Finally, we have answered the reviewers’

questions one by one and marked all revised parts in red font, with yellow highlighting

indicating adjustments to the paragraph structure.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, thank you for carefully addressing comments I left. I cannot fully appreciate the work you have done since manuscript changes slightly since last review. However, if you think the materials and results given in the manuscript meet standard in your research area, I'm not going to push revision process further. I think the main objective could be learned from the manuscript and further details could be requested from authors.

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

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the paper, the simulation of brightness of artificial satellites is carried out on the basis of Augmented Implicit Neural Representation. The results of the F-net model (Fig. 10) correspond to main variations of apparent magnitude of real space targets. The obtained results are interesting and can be used in the following research.

The data processing was provided at a high scientific level with presentation of the necessary mathematical formulas. There are possibilities to slightly improve the astronomical part of the work, in particular, presenting the dependencies of apparent magnitude in the common way, reversing the ordinate axis. Some additional comments, including technical remarks, are in the attached file.

In general, I assume that the manuscript can be published in Remote Sensing after minor revision.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English is good almost throughout the text. There are several unclear phrases that are indicated in the line-by-line comments. In addition, capital letter is sometimes used without a need, and various minor technical notes are possible in some places (some of them are commented in the attached file). But, in any case, all available grammatical errors can be corrected without big efforts.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers, we have made comprehensive changes to the new version of our paper, and we have addressed your valuable suggestions with replies. Please refer to the attached document for more details.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper proposes an optical representation model of space objects based on enhanced implicit neural representation (AINR), which uses neural implicit functions to map the relationship between dimensional input and the amplitude of sunlight reflected from the target surface. Combining the advantages of data-driven and physical-driven, a transfer-based pre-training processing method is designed for post-learning. The article is innovative but needs to be revised.

"However, many previous studies mainly verify the inversion method based on simulated observational data, and it is difficult to combine the measured basic photometric data to further calibrate and optimize the model and method," the author pointed out in the introduction. Does this mean that the author claims that previous work is based on theoretical simulation and calculation? I don't think so.

Then, the author stated the innovation of this paper, which has three points, but obviously, the first two points are just the application and modification of the neural network algorithm, and the third point is just the comparison and compensation of the measured data. Obviously, the innovation at the level of "breaking through traditional methods" is untenable.

Why is the predicted trend in Figure 8 so different from the measured trend?

Why is Figure 11 completely inconsistent with all the previous figures? It is obviously drawn with two drawing softwares, please keep it consistent (at least keep the style consistent).

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing

Author Response

Dear Reviewers#2, we have made comprehensive changes to the new version of our paper, and we have addressed your valuable suggestions with replies. Please refer to the attached document for more details.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see review attached. While the research is promising I had hard time to follow the methods description due to reason described in attached files.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please see review attached.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers#3, we have made comprehensive changes to the new version of our paper, and we have addressed your valuable suggestions with replies. Please refer to the attached document for more details.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx