Harmonic Detection Method Based on Parameter Optimization VMD-IWT Combined Noise Reduction

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

·        The use of a correlation coefficient method to distinguish between effective and ineffective modal components is briefly mentioned but not elaborated upon. More information on this step would help in assessing its reliability and efficiency.

·        While the paper claims better performance in terms of SNR and RMSE, it does not provide specific numerical results or benchmarks. More concrete data would strengthen the claim of superiority over existing methods. Discuss the computational complexity and cost of the proposed technique. Understanding the resource requirements is crucial for assessing its feasibility in real-world applications.

·        The paper does not discuss the range of applications or environments where this method can be effectively employed. Understanding the practical applicability and limitations would provide a clearer picture of its utility. Outline the potential applications and limitations of the method in various environments. This would help in understanding the scope and generalizability of the technique.

 

·        Include a brief comparison with standard harmonic detection methods to highlight the advantages and improvements offered by the proposed technique in a more concrete manner.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor revisions are needed.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your careful review of our paper and for providing valuable suggestions. We have made specific revisions to the paper based on your feedback, and the revised version is attached. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The scientific work presented is valuable, the authors succeeding - through the case studies presented - to demonstrate, macroscopically, the strength of the proposed method. I say, macroscopically, because, although the first part of the work is almost flawless, in the validation part, there are some inconveniences/discrepancies.

Here are the main deficiencies identified:

1) In lines 329 and 330, it is stated that only the calculation relation for SNR is to be presented, but then two relations follow: the first for RMSE and, barely, the second for SNR. It is necessary to agree the text with the relations presented;

2) Figure 7 shows a comparison of waveforms obtained by different noise reduction methods. But this comparative analysis is not conclusive enough. It is recommended to make a spatial representation (similar to figures 8 and 10) and, possibly, small representations, in facsimile, of the comparison of the proposed RIME-VMD-IWT method with each of the other methods (taken in turn) for a clear validation of the strength of the method proposed;

3) There is no correlation between what is presented in table 3 and the statement in the text. It would be good to explain what the SNR is for the amplitude and frequency errors indicated in table 3. And, possibly, the interpolation curve in which to find the values ​​mentioned in the text for the RIME-VMD-IWT method at an SNR of 10 dB;

4) And figure 9 should be presented in the same form as that recommended for figure 7 (spatial representation);

5) Line 411 talks about the data indicated in Table 4. It is a wrong reference, as it is about the data captured in Table 5;

6) There is no correlation between the data written in the text - in lines 412 and 413 and the information captured in table 5. Just as in table 3, the SNR for which the amplitude and frequency errors were obtained should also be indicated from table 5 and even the interpolation curve that offers the possibility of identifying the values ​​specified in the text for the proposed RIME-VMD-IWT method, at an SNR of 26 dB;

7) Instead of the wording Conclusion in line 426, the phrase Conclusions (plural) should be used.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your careful review of our paper and for providing valuable suggestions. We have made specific revisions to the paper based on your feedback, and the revised version is attached. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The corrections and additions made raised, in my opinion, the level of the work. It can be stated, in full knowledge of the cause, that the proposed method is superior to all other methods used in the specialized literature (and within the comparative analysis in the paper).