Improving Serial Detection Using MAP Algorithm for Bit-Patterned Media Recording

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Although the serial detection using the MAP algorithm for Bit-Patterned Media Recording is discussed in this paper, the effect of the proposed MAP algorithm is not explained except for the BER performances, so the detail of this effect is not understood. Thus, I think that a major correction is necessary for this paper.

1) (Section 2 and Section 3) The effect of the proposed MAP algorithm is not explained except the BER performances, so the details of this effect are not understood. The author needs a more detailed explain the effects of the proposed MAP algorithm by using another data or figure.

2) (page 5, line 128) The sigma in the SNR equation is not defined. 

3) (Fig.3 to Fig.6) It is difficult for readers to compare because there is no mark on the performance of the comparison method.

4) (page 6, Fig.3) Since the BER performance of the comparison method [11] has not reached 10-5, the BER performance cannot be compared.

5) (page 7, Fig.5) Why isn't it compared to the champion data (Soft output horizontal (inner) detection (asymmetric GPR)) in Fig.7 of Ref. [11]?

6) (page 7, line 152) I do not understand the conditions of bit position for "the position fluctuation of 6%". Please more detail explain. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Please indicate explicitly how the channel coefficient H in Eq. (11) is obtained.
2. It should be bit error ratio rather than bit error rate in this work.
3. In Figs. 3-6, the unit in x axis should be given, such as (dB) and (%).
4. A comparison between the proposed model and serial detection with hard output in [10] should be provided in Fig. 6.
5. A 6% position fluctuation is considered in Fig. 6. Such fluctuation should also be considered in Section of Proposed Model, where a BER expression should be derived as a function of position fluctuation.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

This study has not been fully verified and the content is difficult to understand.

I look forward to a detailed discussion in future research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed all my concerns.

Author Response

Thank you for your kind review.