A Recursive Least-Squares with a Time-Varying Regularization Parameter

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this paper, a novel strategy is proposed for updating the regularization parameter in Recursive Least-Squares problems. 
I think that the overall presentation should be improved and the proposed algorithm more clearly presented. References to the current literature on the same issue are missing. Only one experiment is presented where the proposed strategy is compared with RLS with fixed regularization parameter. I think that the reported results are not sufficient to asses the performance of the updating strategy proposed in the paper.  

Author Response

Thank you for your review. 

I attached a pdf highlighting the sections (in yellow)  that have major changes based on your review. 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I suggest that the paper needs some improvements before publication in Applied Sciences.

Comments:

1. You have submitted article to Applied Sciences. Why is Electronics written in the left panel of page 1, at the bottom of page 1 and at the top of rest pages?
2. Page 1, abstract. In my opinion abstract is too short. Please expand it.
3. Page 2, lines 63-64. Please rewrite the sentence (word “problem” is used twice).
4. Page 2, under Eq. (2). Please add “where ∥⋅∥ – Euclidean norm”.
5. Page 4, subsection 4.1. Please add explanation what matrix P_m means (name of the matrix).
6. Page 4, lines under Eq. (17) and (21). What is (??)? I suppose that you forgot symbol here.
7. Page 5, line under Eq. (25). Please add explanations (names) of Q, M, δ (if possible).
8. Page 5, Algorithm 1. In my opinion it would be better if Algorithm 1 was at the end of subsection 4.1.
9. Pages 5-6. Simulation results and Conclusion. In my opinion these sections are too short. Please provide more results (with comprehensive results discussion) and expand the conclusions.

Author Response

Thank you for your review. 
I attached a pdf highlighting the sections (in yellow) that have major changes. For the specific issues/comments you raised in your review, we highlighted them in blue. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Please see the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your review. 
I attached a pdf highlighting the sections (in yellow) that have major changes. For the specific issues/comments you raised in your review, we highlighted them in blue. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The Authors have addressed all of my concerns with the original manuscript;  I think that the revised manuscript can be published in the present form.

Author Response

Thank you for your review

Reviewer 2 Report

The revised version of the paper is hard to read because changes are not marked in color (only headings of sections are marked) or built-in track changes function. However, the authors considered most of my remarks. Now I have only one remark – description of axes and the legend (Figs 1 and 2) are illegible – please give bigger font.

Author Response

Thank you for your review. 

The font sizes of legends and labels of Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 are now larger, highlighted in yellow as attached.

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.