Integer Ambiguity Parameter Identification for Fast Satellite Positioning and Navigation Based on LAMBDA-GWO with Tikhonov Regularization
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
please see attached
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for your support and the provided valuable comments, which help us to further improve the paper. We have carefully revised our paper by taking all your comments into consideration. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
There are some minor corrections. The introduction of the manuscript must be improved. The conclusion must be enhanced.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for your support and the provided valuable comments, which help us to further improve the paper.
Point 1: There are some minor corrections. The introduction of the manuscript must be improved. The conclusion must be enhanced.
Response 1: We thank the reviewer for the support and the provided valuable comments. According to your suggestions, we have carefully revised the manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper proposes an Integer ambiguity parameter identification for fast satellite positioning and navigation based on LAMBDA-GWO with Tikhonov regularization. The paper is god, but in my opinion it lacks a better description of the state of the art and a better explanation of the novelty of this work.
Page 1, line 16: Can you explain the range resolution or error, compared with what work?
Page 3, Section 2.1: authors propose a Modeling and analysis of carrier-phase differential positioning. Is it the first attempt? Are there other techniques used to improve linearity, positioning, and resolution? Please improve the state of the art in this part
Page 4, line 135: why the authors are introducing the dX, dY, dZ, and lambda. please define the lierals.
Page 4, line 137: why the authors are introducing the (Vicn)? Vicn is not shown in schematic and is not used afterward.
How do the authors achieve the equation 1,2,3? Please give more details or a reference.
Equation 4. In my opinion there is a mistake in the equation. Please correct and better explain
please check all literals as some of them get confused when changing from vector to coordinate.
Page 9, line 204. I cannot understand the explanation of Figures 3 to 8. Please better explain it, or give a reference.
Page 9, line 191-200: in my opinion the explanation is not very clear, and I could not understand the issue justifying the usage of 5 seconds (The sampling interval of the 522m baseline 192 (baseline 1) is 5s).
This is my major concern regarding this work. At this step, authors should compare their work with other ones in other to demonstrate the novelty of their work.
Authors say Experiment results based on two baselines show that the success rate of parameter identification of the proposed method is both more than 99%, which is 12% and 23% higher than that of the traditional algorithm. Compared with other 2 works… Is it better or worse? Please report values in order to make the comparison and the analyses feasible.
Please, make a better state of the art references are very old
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for your support and the provided valuable comments, which help us to further improve the paper. We have carefully revised our paper by taking all your comments into consideration. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have incorporated all the corrections. The manuscript may be accepted for publication.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors
The manuscript looks better.
