Airborne Single-Pass Multi-Baseline InSAR Layover Separation Method Based on Multi-Look Compressive Sensing
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript titled “Airborne Single-pass Multi-baseline InSAR Layover Separation Method Based on Improved Compressive Sensing” is interesting. The authors have made some contribution to upgrade the remote sensing technique. The paper is structured well however it is poorly written. There are too many errors and mistakes. It is difficult to list out all of them, please check the mistakes carefully. Some of my comments are listed below.
1. In line 47 after hot spots please improve the remaining part of the sentence. It is not well written.
2. in line 79,80,81 the sentence “However, spaceborne SAR requires repeat-pass to get SAR data for layover separation, which need follow pre-defined orbits and usually experience a temporal baseline of at least several days” should be “However, spaceborne SAR requires repeated pass to get SAR data for layover separation, which needs to follow pre-defined orbits and usually experience a temporal baseline of at least several days.” Similarly, the line after it can be simplified breaking it into two or more simpler sentences.
3. In line 88 after And In should be small.
4. 4th, 5th or kth, th should be superscript. For example, in line 138 Kth is not correct and there are many other places th is wrongly written.
5. Line 145: Zhu X.X. [16] is it correct or Zhu et al. [16] is correct?? Please make sure which one is correct.
6. Replace the word formula with equation and mention equation number in the sentence too. For example, in line 151 replace formula with equation and mention equation (3) somewhere in the sentence. This improvement should be done for all the equations. (check line 225 and 227 also there is formula instead of equation (3)).
7. Line 261: Properly speaking should be strictly speaking.
8. Sentence in line 262, 263 and 264 should be improved.
9. In table 1 the heading “Type of Radar” is it correct?? Are frequency and slant angle type of radar?? So the heading should be changed, right???
10. Line 378: Sparsity should be sparse.
11. Line 412: What is num???
12: The results from the study are limited but authors have already mentioned that they will carry out further research, therefore, this paper can be published after making significant corrections in writing.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We really appreciate the reviewer’s help very much not only for the suggestions, but also for the patience and kindness to point out some existing problems. And we are very sorry and ashamed for the various problems in the writing of the paper, and thank you very much for your careful reading. We have made these corrections in revised manuscript. The positive comments indeed encourage us for a further study on the layover separation of airborne InSAR.
The attachment is our response to reviewer’s comments.
Yours sincerely.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Hello,
I apologize for the delay in my answer, my health did not allow me. Attached is my answer.
Thanks.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We really appreciate the reviewer’s help very much not only for the suggestions, but also for the patience and kindness to point out some existing problems. And we are very sorry and ashamed for the various problems in the writing of the paper, and thank you very much for your careful reading. We have made these corrections in revised manuscript. The positive comments indeed encourage us for a further study on the layover separation of airborne InSAR.
The attachment is our response to reviewer’s comments.
Yours sincerely.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The study has very interesting findings.
The abstract requires improvement by adding more explanation regarding the method, and results. It should be more informative. Abstract needs to modify and to be revised to be quantitative. You can absorb readers' consideration by having some numerical results in this section.
In the introduction, the problem statement and research gaps should be explained more in detail.
The discussion section in the present form is relatively weak and should be strengthened with more details and justifications. In conclusion section, limitations and recommendations of this research should be highlighted.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We really appreciate the reviewer’s help very much not only for the suggestions, but also for the patience and kindness to point out some existing problems. We have made these corrections in revised manuscript. The positive comments indeed encourage us for a further study on the layover separation of airborne InSAR.
The attachment is our response to reviewer’s comments.
Yours sincerely.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors present two ways to deal with the layover shown in InSAR. Several comments are given as follows.
1. Compressed sensing is to restore the original data based on limited observations. The title based on "improved compressed sensing" seems to find the differences with traditional compressed sensing hardly. Mathematical symbols are different.
2. The proposed methods are similar except for the L0 and L1. Two approaches are to improve the calculation efficiency, but the computation efficiency cannot be found.
3. The numbers of the formulas are too many, but the symbol definitions are missed. A table of symbol definitions may be given first before the introduction.
4. Fig. 5 and Fig. 8 are the processed results. Fig 8 zoom in Fig. 5. Is there any connection? More explanations are necessary.
The authors are encouraged to resubmit their revisions.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We really appreciate the reviewer’s help very much not only for the suggestions, but also for the patience and kindness to point out some existing problems. We have made these corrections in revised manuscript. The positive comments indeed encourage us for a further study on the layover separation of airborne InSAR.
The attachment is our response to reviewer’s comments.
Yours sincerely.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
