Evaluating GNSS Receiver Resilience: A Study on Simulation Environment Repeatability

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is well written and presents an interesting study on Evaluating GNSS Receiver Resilience. A number of oregional studies are presented that confirm the functionality of the work presented. My only recommendation is to expand the description of the results and further explain the graphs in chapter three so that they are easily understood by the general community. I recommend acceptance of the publication

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is at a good level and there is no need for corrections regarding the language

Author Response

Thank you for your time and valuable feedback on our article. Please find our detailed responses to your comments in the attached PDF document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper proposed a robust framework for the interpretation of results for GNSS receiver performance under jamming attacks. Three low-cost receivers were used as a case study to demonstrate the proposed method. The publicly available dataset, along with this paper, could be beneficial for researchers in this field.

 

There are some questions to be addressed:

1. It was emphasized that the "low-cost" receivers were used. How does the "cost" impact the result and conclusion of this paper? For example, what if a better receiver could be applied? Some comments would be good.
2. What would be some potential limitations of the current results in a lab environment compared to a real-world environment?
3. The open-source dataset is a key contribution of this paper. Although the dataset download is available online, the code is not yet. Some sample codes for data processing will be helpful for other researchers. For example, the code for reading the dataset and the plotting code.

Author Response

Thank you for your time and valuable feedback on our article. Please find our detailed responses to your comments in the attached PDF document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study addresses a critical gap in GNSS research by focusing on the repeatability and reliability of interference testing in controlled environments. Given the increasing prevalence of GNSS jamming incidents, this work is highly relevant to academic and industrial stakeholders. However, there are concerns and questions that need to be addressed.

1. While the controlled environment eliminates external variables, the study does not fully address how the findings translate to real-world scenarios with dynamic conditions (e.g., moving platforms, urban canyons). A discussion on this limitation would strengthen the paper.
2. The study tests CW, multi-frequency, and FM jamming but does not explore more sophisticated, increasingly relevant spoofing attacks. Future work could expand this scope.
3. The paper highlights receiver vulnerabilities but offers limited discussion on practical mitigation strategies or recommendations for manufacturers. Adding actionable insights would enhance its practical impact.

Author Response

Thank you for your time and valuable feedback on our article. Please find our detailed responses to your comments in the attached PDF document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents a publicly available dataset of extensive GNSS receiver response measurements, acquired under controlled interference conditions. There are some problems:
1. The contribution of this paper is unclear. It seems that a dataset is provided by authors.
2. The organization of this paper should be fully revised. If the dataset is the main contribution, the categories and description of the data should be provided.
3. Figure 7-10 have too many curves, so they are hard to read. Another form to present these results might be better.
4. The difference between the data from the provided dataset and the real-word data should be discussed.
5. Overall, in my opinion, the novelty and contribution of this paper are limited, authors should enhance the significance of this work.

Author Response

Thank you for your time and valuable feedback on our article. Please find our detailed responses to your comments in the attached PDF document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A part of my concerns have been addressed by authors. I still do not know the novelty of this paper. Directly, the contribution of this work is a report about some phenomenons, right?

Author Response

Review response

Response to Reviewer 4 Comments (Round 2)

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your insightful feedback regarding the novelty of our work. We have carefully addressed your concerns through revisions to the manuscript. Specifically, we have refined the Introduction to more clearly articulate the novelty of our approach, expanded the Results section with additional context, and, importantly, included a new Appendix A detailing the mathematical formulation of our proposed statistical analysis methodology.

We understand your point about the potential perception as a mere report of observed phenomena. However, our intent is to highlight a critical yet often overlooked aspect in the current literature: the inherent unpredictability of GNSS receiver software response to interference, particularly within the operational power limits of jamming signals. Existing studies frequently lack a rigorous statistical foundation in their analysis of interference impact, often relying on limited real-world measurements with unclear environmental parameters.

Our work addresses this gap by proposing a novel, statistically sound methodology for assessing GNSS receiver vulnerability. This methodology, now mathematically described in Appendix A, emphasizes the necessity of analyzing multiple repetitions to discern meaningful trends from the inherently variable receiver responses. As you noted, individual measurements can be misleading, underscoring the importance of statistical processing to reveal the underlying, often unpredictable, software behavior.

Therefore, the novelty of our contribution lies in the proposed methodology for statistically valid assessment of GNSS receiver response to disturbances, explicitly accounting for the unpredictable nature of the software's behavior. To the best of our knowledge, this comprehensive methodological approach, encompassing controlled experimental setup, repeated measurements, and a mathematically formulated statistical analysis, is unique in the current literature.

This article aims to provide a comprehensive guide for researchers, including those new to GNSS receiver design, on how to scientifically and statistically evaluate interference effects. We cover crucial aspects such as understanding the potential impact of interference, designing a controlled measurement environment (including interference signal generation and coupling), and meaningfully displaying statistically processed results. The Conclusion also offers key findings and recommendations for future research in this domain.

 

We believe that the inclusion of Appendix A, detailing the mathematical framework of our proposed analysis, directly addresses your concerns about the novelty and rigor of our methodology. We have also revised the Introduction and Results sections to better emphasize this contribution. These changes are clearly marked in the revised manuscript with track changes.

We appreciate your time and hope that these revisions demonstrate the significance and novelty of our work in providing a statistically robust framework for assessing GNSS receiver vulnerability to interference, thereby warranting its publication in the journal.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf