Prediction Parameters for Mining Subsidence Based on Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar and Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Collaborative Monitoring

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

I revised the article titled Reversal of parameters of mining subsidence predictions based on joint InSAR and UAV monitoring. The article is well structured and organized. But the article needs introduction and discussion. Comparisons with other methods and indication of the strengths of the proposed approach.

Below are my comments:

Please indicate what is the main purpose of the introduction.

There should be an SRTM mission in version 2.1.

Please add more information about the accuracy of GNSS leveling and measurement.

How was made deformation decompostion based on only one orbit?

Fig. 4 - Please also show the wrapped phase.

What does the height in Fig. 7? For better presentation, the same scale of legends should be used.

Is the title of table 3 correct? What is the value of q for different noise levels? Do you provide RMSE with what ratio value? A q value greater than 0.9 is invalid. This is an analysis of the impact of more than one mountain science.

Table 5. Why is there no RMSE for LevelL?

Please add additional information and description of the BFGS method. Any comparison with other methods?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript “Inversion of Prediction Parameters for Mining Subsidence Based on InSAR and UAV Collaborative Monitoring” is within the scope of the journal. This paper presents a novel approach to monitor coal mining-induced surface subsidence by integrating In-SAR and UAV monitoring techniques. By fusing data from both methods, the study successfully verified data accuracy within a 10 cm margin through levelling data verification. Using a probability integration method and BFGS optimization algorithm, the paper demonstrates that the integrated data can effectively invert subsidence parameters. The results align with ground surface movement and deformation patterns, showcasing the potential of collaborative InSAR and UAV technologies to enhance surface subsidence monitoring in mining areas and leverage multi-source data for accurate assessments.

The paper addresses the question whether UAV and InSAR based observation can be merged for subsidence monitoring. The research on this topic is still in budding phase.

The approach used is novel and the methodology is innovative and original.

The authors have used BFGS algorithm citing that “The accuracy of the BFGS algorithm's parameter inversion remains consistent even when faced with varying levels of random errors, demonstrating robust parameter estimation performance and strong anti-interference capabilities.”

But it has several shortcomings. Foe eg:

·        Lack of global convergence, sensitive to initial guesses.

·        Variable convergence rates, especially for ill-conditioned functions.

·        Limited suitability for non-smooth or discontinuous objective functions.

·        Sensitivity to the choice of line search methods.

·        Potential instability and poor convergence behavior under certain conditions.

Have authors considered these?

Can T-test can be employed to compare the subsidence observations from different sources? If it is possible then authors can do it.

What are the limitations of the study conducted?

Minor Comments:

1.      Write the full form of BFGS in abstract.

2.      Literature review can be updated by adding few more studies of very recent or for substantiating the background claims. For example, these apers have extensively reviewed papers and put a focus on synergy of UAV and satellite remote sensing. Also, put emphasis on benefits of UAV in addition to satellite data.

·        https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ace/2023/3544724/

·        Alvarez-Vanhard, E., Corpetti, T., & Houet, T. (2021). UAV & satellite synergies for optical remote sensing applications: A literature review. Science of remote sensing, 3, 100019.

For SAR Remote sensing application for mineral exploration induced subsidence, you can see these:-

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1569843223002480

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030324342100146X

3.      Authors can put scale in SI units as it is the standard system followed by the world.

4.      Refrain from using term “tilt-photogrammetry”

5.      Introduce full form of DOM when it is used for first time

6.      Figure 7, legends and scale needs to be in high resolution as they are not legible

7.      Somewhere in manuscript there is space between magnitude and units of quantities and somewhere space is not there. Make it uniform.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors

After detailed readings in the manuscript, entitled: "Inversion of Prediction Parameters for Mining Subsidence Based on InSAR and UAV Collaborative Monitoring", the need for studies on food security and sustainable agricultural production is understood. I suggest ACCEPT the manuscript with minor corrections:

1 - I suggest modifying the title: "Inversion of Prediction Parameters for Mining Subsidence Based on InSAR and UAV Collaborative Monitoring", for "Prediction Parameters for Mining Subsidence Based on InSAR and UAV Collaborative Monitoring".

2 - At the end of the Abstract, it is necessary to address the importance and need for this study on a global scale.

3 - There are Keywords similar to the title, it is necessary to attribute a more global reach. It is necessary to replace it with broader terms

4 - The introduction is very well reasoned, but I suggest adding the importance of this study to the world at the end of the introduction. This would arouse the interest of readers more.

5 - The methodology is well founded. The authors really did a good job. Congratulations.

6 - The conclusion is well founded, together with the good quality of the English used in the text, which is clear and understandable. Congratulations.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Overall, the manuscript's organization and language are OK. Also, the conclusion of the manuscript was convincing. In light of these, I recommend moderate revision. The article can be published if the following small points are made.

The authors should give a clearer statement about the novelty of your work in the Introduction part. In the introduction part, the originality of the paper needs to be further clarified based on comparison analysis with previous studies and current research. Also, fully explain how the authors filled in research gaps in this paper.

The purpose of the study given at the end of the introduction section should be detailed.

The meaning of this expression given in the "BFGS" abstract section should be written beforehand.

Figure 1 should be replaced with a more detailed map.

The country and city names of the study area shown in Figure 1 should be given. In this way, it will be more understandable for the readers.

Figure 4-7 should be given in a more detailed and understandable way. When you look at the maps, nothing is clear.

The discussion section is insufficient, so it should be expanded. The results of the study should be compared with the findings of the relevant studies published in recent years to support the contributions and novelties of the study.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,
thank you for the extensive answers and explanations that clarified my doubts.
Please correct Fig. 7 with the following comments:
Fig. 7 - observation line points are missing, colors and legend for height should have the same range, e.g. -5 - +75 m.

I recommend article to publish in current form.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have incorporated your feedback by adding observation points to Figure 7 and aligning the height legend to the same range.(Please see Page 8, Line 235). Your review has significantly enhanced the quality of our thesis, and we would like to express our heartfelt gratitude to you once again.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Editor

Revision - ok. Accept in present form 

Author Response

Your review has significantly enhanced the quality of our thesis, and we would like to express our heartfelt gratitude to you once again.

Reviewer 4 Report

The revised manuscript has met the publication requirements and is approved for publication.

Author Response

Your review has significantly enhanced the quality of our thesis, and we would like to express our heartfelt gratitude to you once again.