Metamaterial Design with Nested-CNN and Prediction Improvement with Imputation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this manuscript, authors have proposed that using deep learning, researchers or users can generate meta-materials for antenna design. The unique aspect of the proposed research is that the authors have proposed a nested CNN architecture that can be used to train and design metamaterials for antennas. This is a well-written paper with thoroughly designed experiments.

My suggestion to the authors would be they should make the dataset of reflection coefficients and meta-materials public. To date, this is the only research paper that has created the dataset for reflection materials and corresponding metamaterials design. It would be beneficial for the scientific community if other researchers can get the dataset from GitLab or some other public repo to move such innovative ideas forward.

Author Response

Dear Referee,

Thanks for your guidance,

Another study on the dataset is currently in progress. When the study is finished, the dataset will be shared in a suitable repo. A cover letter detailing changes is attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The Authors discussed a Deep Learning model that allow to examine reflection of metamaterials. 

General remarks:

1. In my opinion Abstract is too long, mostly because of quite long description of proposed method. It should be shortened to meet Journal's requirements.
2. At the end of the Introduction I used to read a paragraph containing document outline. The Authors ommited it in their work. On the other hand, the article is well written and correctly structured.
3. Line 201: There are W_t and W_t-1 in Equation (1) and W_new and W_old in the text. It should be corrected.
4. In my opinion, Table 9. can be omitted - the Authors presented full names and their abbreviations in the main text.

In my opinion, the paper should be accepted, but needs minor revision.

Author Response

Dear Referee,

Thanks for your guidance,

• Abstract has been shortened
• A document outline has been added to the last paragraph of the introduction section.
• Denotations of Equation (1) have been corrected in line 192.
• The abbreviations section and Table 9 have been removed.

A cover letter detailing changes is attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

In my opinion, the paper can be accepted in the present form.