Statistical Theory of Optimal Stochastic Signals Processing in Multichannel Aerospace Imaging Radar Systems
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
See attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
All corrections and explanations based on the reviewer's comments are presented in the attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
very interesting and important contribution.
The math looks a little bit heavy, but in principle should be OK und is necessary for the explication of the method.
In the introduction the application statements should be explained in more detail using/presenting/describing examples, especially for the medical application and the mechanical application.
e.g. for medical applications: How can the size resolution of radar be suffient for medical applications? how can the absorbance of water (main content of human beings) be avoided? which tissue contrasts can be achieved (skin? bones? muscles? tumors? ignitions?...)?
which frequence ranges are proposed (perhaps sub tera hertz?)
At least in the abstract a spelling correction should be repeated (first line: problem.. s) and some words come very often.
Author Response
All corrections and explanations based on the reviewer's comments are presented in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
In this paper, the authors presented statistical theory of radar cross section estimation. The received signals are written as a probability function parameterized by the scattering coefficients. The optimal processing method was derived from the maximum likelihood estimation, resulting in additional decorrelation operations. The proposed method was compared to the classical method on one specific example, showing both qualitative and quantitative improvements.
The overall structure of the paper is clear. The introduction section was very well written with a clear motivation why the proposed statistical theory of optimal stochastic signals processing was necessary and how it extended the existing work. I have the following comments and questions for the authors regarding the technical details of this paper:
It can be more clear at the beginning of section 2.1 to state that parameter lambda in the scattering coefficient is to be estimated.
Listing author names in line 52-55 may not be necessary and is not consistent with the rest of the paper.
Equation (3) and line 116, vector sign is missing in dr.
The expression (0, *) in the RHS of equations (5), (8), and (19) are not clear.
Line 140-141 ‘and its energy image’ not clear.
Not sure why equation (20) is named “plausibility functional” or “plausibility equation”. I would use “probability function” or “likelihood function”.
Awkward phrasing in Line 218-220, e.g. “the exponent and its exponent”
The meaning of line 223-224 is not clear.
I didn’t find clear definitions of alpha and gamma in equation (22).
Can add some discussion about the extra computation complexity in the decorrelation and filtering steps compared with the classical method.
Only one result was provided for method comparison. Please provide more if feasible.
As the paper used equations and notions heavily, I recommend using LaTex for better formatting.
Author Response
All corrections and explanations based on the reviewer's comments are presented in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The actual version of the manuscript is very similar to the previous one.
To clarify better the proposed approach and improve the quality of the manuscript, the authors are strongly encouraged to clarify most of their development and they should consider the different points raised in the previous version and previous reports. They are also encouraged to write a report and reply to all the points raised by the reviewers.
