Improvement Method of Antenna Negative Sidelobes on Cross Beam Correlation Microwave Radiometer

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Have the authors considered another scheme instead of PSO for their optimizations?

2. Are there any particular limitations in the use of (4), namely are there any cases where the specific expression can not provide adequate estimations?

3.  Have the authors tested their technique in other applications?

4. Some additional evidence regarding the numerical simulations must be provided.

 

The authors attempt to suppress side loads by means of the PSO algorithm and thus surpass the till-now use of certain filters. The key of novelty of the paper is the use of a PSO algorithm for the suppression of the side loabs.
To this comment, the answer is similar to that of the previous questions. The authors try to circumvent the use of traditional filters by means of a PSO algorithm. Please refer to my comments that have already been uploaded. Actually, since my recommendation is for minor revision, they are not decisive [yet instructive] ones.Yes, the conclusions are consistent with the arguments, since as can be detected from the results the authors achieved their goal. Yes, they are. There could be always some additional ones, yet in my opinion, these are both representative and adequate. Perhaps the quality of the plots could be enhanced.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No particular issues regarding the language or grammar of the paper were detected.

Author Response

我们非常感谢审稿人的宝贵反馈和意见，这极大地帮助我们提高了论文的技术质量和呈现方式。在附件中，我们详细回答了审稿人的意见和建议。

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been carefully designed and written. Figures are nicely done. The results section demonstrates that the application of Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) improves the issues with negative sidelobes in the case of a cross beam correlation microwave radiometers. Now the authors cite earlier papers that demonstrate that the application of PSO in itself is not original but has been done before. It is the combination with the cosine window function that leads to the improved results. In my view this should be made a little clearer already in the abstract. 

Author Response

We gratefully thank the Reviewer for the valuable feedback and comments that have greatly helped us to improve the technical quality and presentation of our paper. All these have been carefully considered and these corresponding revisions have been seriously carried out. The specific comments are laid out below in italicized font. Our responses are given in standard font and changes/additions to the manuscript are presented in blue text.

Overall Comments:

The manuscript has been carefully designed and written. Figures are nicely done. The results section demonstrates that the application of Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) improves the issues with negative sidelobes in the case of a cross beam correlation microwave radiometers. Now the authors cite earlier papers that demonstrate that the application of PSO in itself is not original but has been done before. It is the combination with the cosine window function that leads to the improved results. In my view this should be made a little clearer already in the abstract.

Response

We thank the Reviewer for recognition of our work and pointing out the problems. To illustrate this problem, " Such a weighting function can be obtained by combining the combined cosine window function with particle swarm optimization (POS)" in Abstract is revised "Such a weighting function can be obtained by combining the combined cosine window function with the existing particle swarm optimization (POS)".

Thanks again for the reviewer's comments and suggestions.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Well presented paper. However I don't understand the significance of title " Patents" at the end. Shouldn't it be acknowledgement?

 

Implementation of weighing function for correlation radiation measurement system based on Mills cross array by minimizing the impact of negative sidelobes and reducing the loss of spatial resolution. The implemented optimization method can make full use of the prior knowledge of the cosine window function and reduce the dimension of optimized particles to improve the convergence performance of the optimizer. Compared with the traditional PSO scheme, the window function generated by this method can inherit the excellent performance of the cosine window function and obtain the desired power pattern. The methodology employed is satisfactory.

--Conclusions are consistent with the study presented.  

Author Response

We gratefully thank the Reviewer for the valuable feedback and comments that have greatly helped us to improve the technical quality and presentation of our paper. All these have been carefully considered and these corresponding revisions have been seriously carried out. The specific comments are laid out below in italicized font. Our responses are given in standard font.

Overall Comments:

Implementation of weighing function for correlation radiation measurement system based on Mills cross array by minimizing the impact of negative sidelobes and reducing the loss of spatial resolution. The implemented optimization method can make full use of the prior knowledge of the cosine window function and reduce the dimension of optimized particles to improve the convergence performance of the optimizer. Compared with the traditional PSO scheme, the window function generated by this method can inherit the excellent performance of the cosine window function and obtain the desired power pattern. The methodology employed is satisfactory. --Conclusions are consistent with the study presented.

Response

We thank the Reviewer for recognition of our work.

Comment 1

1、Well presented paper. However I don't understand the significance of title " Patents" at the end. Shouldn't it be acknowledgement?

Response

We thank the reviewers for their careful review and for pointing out the problem. The title "Patents" at the end of the article is only a remnant from the use of the template, and we have removed it from the manuscript.