Application of Seismic Interferometry by Multidimensional Deconvolution to Earthquake Data Recorded in Malargüe, Argentina
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
remotesensing-1446811 REVIEW //
This paper is a straightforward presentation of an example of seismic interferometry (SI) using cross correlation (CC) compared with SI using multidimensional deconvolution (MDD) to retrieve surface wave responses using regional earthquake data. The presentation is thorough and comprehensive. The authors conclusions are appropriate, namely, that SI-MDD is only slightly better (not much better) in this case than SI-CC, but that the improvement could possibly be greater if the subsurface was more homogeneous. Perhaps this inference could be substantiated by following up this paper with a future similar paper (or a letter to the editor referring to this paper for the details) using data from a region where the subsurface is more laterally homogeneous. The paper is suitable for publication, in my opinion. I have only minor comments and questions, which follow. //
Page 4, line 141: Perhaps label S_rec in Figure 1. //
Page 7: As Table 1 and Figure 3 are sorted differently, perhaps it would be useful to label each trace in Figure 3 with its corresponding number (1-11) from Table 1. //
Page 8, line 248: Why TN11? Also, I am curious what the results would have been like without this normalization. //
Page 15, lines 464-466: The CC curve in Figure 15a is narrower than the MDD curves, and at 0.2 for instance, the CC deviation value appears smaller than the MDD values. Can one really say that MDD is better? //
Page 15, lines 472: Can back-scattered arrivals be filtered out? //
Page 17, line 507: Can the proper threshold be predicted in advance? Presumably, it will not be 97 for all data sets, even for the same frequency range. //
Page 17, line 515: But SI-CC is easier to apply, computationally speaking, correct? //
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We are sincerely grateful for your thorough review of our manuscript and for the suggestions we received. We have made an effort to adequately respond to each point received . Please see the attachment the responses.
Yours Sincerely,
Faezeh Shirmohammadi
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This is a very interesting paper which examines the application of seismic interferometry with the technique of multidimensional deconvolution. The paper is well-written in good language. The mathematics is adequately explained and the figures provide nice illustrations when appropriate. My only concern is about the organization of the paper which could be improved. More precisely, the Section 4 “Application to Data” includes also the results, therefore it is better to rename it as “Application to Data and Results”. In Section 5 “Conclusions”, the first paragraph (lines 489-496) is a repetition of the work done, does not contain conclusions. I recommend to omit it. The rest part of this section is well-organized and should be remained as it already stands.
A minor correction in the abstract: please write Chile instead of Chili.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We are sincerely grateful for your thorough review of our manuscript and for the suggestions we received. We have made an effort to adequately respond to each point received . Please see the attachment the responses.
Yours Sincerely,
Faezeh Shirmohammadi
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
