An Integrated Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing Chirp Waveform Processing Method for Joint Radar and Communication Based on Low-Density Parity-Check Coding and Channel Estimation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
In this work, the authors proposed an integrated signal design and processing method for radar and communication based on Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) and Low-Density Parity-Check (LDPC) coding. The method addresses challenges such as out-of-band radiation, adjacent channel interference, and efficient channel estimation, aiming to improve the bit error rate (BER), Peak Side Lobe Ratio (PSLR), and Integrated Side Lobe Ratio (ISLR) for integrated radar-communication systems. This work is of interest, however there are some concerns of this reviewer to be addressed. Please find below my comments.
¾ How does the proposed OFDM-LDPC integrated signal design ensure significant advancement over existing systems in terms of BER, PSLR, and ISLR?
¾ Can you provide detailed comparative analysis showing your method's superiority in minimizing out-of-band radiation and adjacent channel interference?
¾ What are the specific innovations in your channel estimation technique, especially regarding its efficiency and accuracy in complex environments?
¾ How does the integration of LDPC coding enhance the overall performance of the system, particularly in challenging scenarios like deep fading?
¾ What are the limitations and potential drawbacks of your proposed method in real-world applications, considering factors like scalability and adaptability?
¾ How does your method address the synchronization challenges, particularly Symbol Timing Offset (STO) and Carrier Frequency Offset (CFO), in integrated radar-communication systems?
¾ Can you elaborate on the practical implementation aspects of your method, including hardware requirements and computational complexity?
¾ How does the proposed method contribute to the advancement of integrated sensing and communication (ISAC) technologies in the context of emerging wireless communication standards?
¾ What are the potential future research directions and improvements for your proposed method?
¾ Can you discuss the feasibility and effectiveness of your method in different operational environments, such as urban and rural settings?
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageAcceptable
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. In response to your questions and suggestions, please see the attachment for details. We appreciate your thorough review and look forward to any further feedback you may have.
Yours sincerely，
Chenchen Zhu
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for your interesting work.
I have some comments that must be considered in the revised manuscript.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Both (Abstract) and (conclusion) sections need some numerical values for the main findings.
2) At the end of "Introduction", add a paragraph for paper organization.
3) Some equations need a reference. Ex. Eq. 2 and Eq. 7.
4) In Table 1, you assumed SNR = 10 dB. In what basis?
5) In Figs. 4, 8 and 13, horizontal axis, signal to noise ratio is written wrong (Correct to Eb/No).
6) In Fig. 13, the comparison includes only one reference (previous work)... a) can you use more than one reference? b) calculate the percentage improvement.
7) Last paragraph in "Discussion" section, you mentioned Fig. 14. I do not see this figure in the manuscript.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. In response to your questions and suggestions, please see the attachment for details. We appreciate your thorough review and look forward to any further feedback you may have.
Yours sincerely，
Chenchen Zhu
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author has demonstrated commendable work in proposing "An Integrated OFDM-Chirp Waveform Processing Method for Joint Radar and Communication Based on LDPC Coding and Estimation." The outcomes of the study are deemed satisfactory. The approach detailed in the text is geared towards refining the fusion of radar and communication signals. It encompasses a thorough consideration of technical nuances and incorporates advanced modulation, coding, and signal processing techniques. The primary focus lies in augmenting system performance and bolstering reliability, especially in intricate and demanding environments.
Certainly, here are rephrased versions of the concerns you've outlined:
1) Clarity of Novelty:
The paper's novelty compared to prior research is not sufficiently articulated. Further clarification and comparative analysis with previous studies are needed to establish the distinct contributions of this work.
2) EVM Calculation from BER:
Could the author calculate Error Vector Magnitude (EVM) values based on Bit Error Rate (BER) data? This step would provide valuable insights into the quality of the proposed NMSA system.
3) Performance Evaluation Across Metrics:
The presentation includes only the BER curve. It would be beneficial for the authors to discuss the performance of the Error Vector Magnitude (EVM) curve in relation to Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR).
4) Experimental Validation:
The proposed system is currently validated through simulation software. Is there a possibility of experimental validation to enhance the credibility of the results?
5) Software Utilized:
Could the authors specify the software used for simulation? Is it a platform like VPI? Clarifying the software employed would provide a clearer understanding of the simulation environment.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. In response to your questions and suggestions, please see the attachment for details. We appreciate your thorough review and look forward to any further feedback you may have.
Yours sincerely，
Chenchen Zhu
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for addressing the comments of this reviewer. I have no more comments.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageAcceptable
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper can be accepted for publication
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
