the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Design and evaluation of a specific differential phase estimation algorithm for dual-polarization radar using scale-adaptive local polynomial fitting
Abstract. We propose a method for estimating the specific differential phase (KDP) with high spatial resolution from the received differential phase (ΨDP) observed by dual-polarization radar and then evaluate the performance of the estimated KDP. Because ΨDP contains noise, its range derivative, KDP, is prone to significant errors. The proposed method performs scale-adaptive local polynomial fitting, wherein the fitting window is dynamically adjusted based on the magnitude of the KDP. This adjustment enables high resolution in regions with large KDP and noise suppression in regions with small KDP through optimal setting of parameters. The method was applied to ΨDP data from both idealized synthetic experiments and actual radar observations. Compared to existing algorithms, the method improved noise suppression in low-KDP regions while enhancing accuracy in regions exhibiting fine-scale KDP variation. The good agreement of the results with ΨDP in terms of the cumulative phase shift demonstrated a balance between fine-scale accuracy and robustness.
- Preprint
(3823 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 27 Jul 2026)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-1290', Anonymous Referee #1, 17 Jul 2026 reply
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-1290', Anonymous Referee #2, 18 Jul 2026
reply
This manuscript presents a scale-adaptive local polynomial fitting algorithm for estimating the specific differential phase (KDP) from dual-polarization radar observations. The method provides a useful improvement to KDP estimation techniques. However, several aspects of the manuscript require further clarification and improvement.
Line 15, The good agreement between calculated and observed Ψdp...
Line 22, KDP represents the range derivative of the differential phase, and this definition should be revised.
Line 49, achieves a spatial resolution of 250 m
Line 80, where Δr
Line 126, as follows.
Line 135, Section 2 provides a clear description of the algorithm, noting that a threshold N is used to distinguish between signal and noise. However, the process of determining N by sensitivity analysis is not presented. How can the choice of N be justified as reasonable? The dose parameter N related to a and b?
Line 143, an azimuthal range resolution of 250 m ?
Line 175, Idealized experiments involving parameters a and b demonstrate the effectiveness of the adjustment window in improving Kdp estimation. Dose hese parameters require adjustment for different radar systems and precipitation types?
Line 185,distributions cantered, recommand changed into centered
Figure 8, Line 256 0145 UTC, Line 265 0114 UTC. Which time is correct?
Reference formatting, Please check the formatting of the reference list. The references of Marshall and Palmer (1948) and Reimel and Kumjian (2021) appear to be merged without proper line separation.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1290-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17 | 10 | 2 | 29 | 2 | 3 |
- HTML: 17
- PDF: 10
- XML: 2
- Total: 29
- BibTeX: 2
- EndNote: 3
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Find attached the minor comments about the manuscript