A Floating Small Target Identification Method Based on Doppler Time Series Information

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1.Formulas (3) and (4) on page 4 are copied from (2), please modify them.

2.The content ” This procedure……” on Figure 2 on page 6 is duplicated, please modify it.

3. Why choose AR (1), AR (2), and AR (3) as the secondary features? Further reasons need to be provided.

4. Suggest providing experimental results in the form of a list for clearer clarity.

There are some inconsistencies in the format of symbol descriptions in the text, which require careful inspection.

Author Response

Thanks for the constructive suggestions and comments. The response to the review comments is in the Word file, please check it.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Please see the attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Thanks for the constructive suggestions and comments. The response to the review comments is in the Word file, please check it.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Please define all abbreviations before first use even if they are used as standard in radar nomenclature. Examples of undefined abbreviations include CGM (page 2), PRP (page 4).

Page 2: Define what you mean by "dual-high" systems radar

Equation 1: you have repeated x(1), x(1). You probably meant x(1), x(2). Also what does u_{N/I} mean. What did you try to convey with the term N/I?

What data is x(n), is it data collected at ADC (i.e., time domain data or data after pulse compression, i.e., range domain)? A flow diagram of the processing of the front end would be helpful to follow the wordings in section 2. This comment applies to most of the sections in the paper.

I cannot find any difference among equations (2) through (4). They simply appear copies of one another?

No mathematical definition of S^{hat}_{phi} is given though it is possible to infer what the authors mean by them.

AR modeling is very sensitive to order selection. The authors are showing results of model order 3. Is there any physical basis for that model order? Is it purely experiment driven? Does it fall apart if model order of 2 or 4 is used? A better discussion on model order selection would be useful.

The authors claimed 256 pulses and 50 consecutive centroids etc for experimentation at the beginning of the paper (in introduction). However, the radar details were given during experimentation (1700 Hz PRF etc). Since the model order, the number of pulse needed to process will be dependent on PRF, it is better to clearly identify parameters of radars used early as a section rather than being hidden in the detailed body.

Author Response

Thanks for the constructive suggestions and comments. The response to the review comments is in the Word file, please check it.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

No more comments

Author Response

Thank you for your careful review. We have made changes to these points in the paper

Author Response File: Author Response.docx