⬇

We would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable feedback, comments, and

detailed suggestions. In our revised manuscript, we included more references to

more recent works on LEO PNT, improved the treatment of the ACZ property,

expanded the discussion on future work, and added additional comparisons with

prior work in the introduction. We also addressed the incorrect usage of the

term "SNR" throughout the manuscript, improved the wording in several places,

and fixed inconsistencies in the notation. We will first discuss the Cramer-Rao

bound (CRB), and then address the specific comments of the reviewers.

First, we would like to thank the editor and second reviewer for bringing to our

attention the prior works on using the CRB to evaluate PRN codes. Indeed, the

CRB provides a theoretical motivation for the ACZ property, as mentioned by the

second reviewer and discussed in the references [1] and [2]. In our revised

manuscript, we included a discussion on the CRB and its connection to the ACZ

property. However, unlike the objective function we considered in this paper,

the CRB does not characterize the performance of code family as a whole, taking

into account the cross-correlation. Therefore, we do not compute the CRB in our

numerical experiments, and leave further theoretical analysis of code family

performance in terms of the CRB for future work.

We will now address the questions and comments of the reviewers.

To Reviewer 1:

1. Thank you for bringing our attention to our incorrect usage of the term "SNR" in

the paper.

2. We revised the abstract to more accurately reflect the code lengths and

family sizes considered in our experiments.

3. We added additional references to more recent works on LEO PNT, including

refernce to the ESA’s LEO-PNT project.

4. We included an outline of the paper in the introduction.

5. Section 2, on spreading code optimization, now includes textbook references

to code design (reference 37 in the text) and integer programming (reference 14

in the text). For a reference on using BCD for MICPs, see reference 30 in the text.

5. Thank you for the suggestion to move Figure 1, to improve the flow of the

paper.

6. In our experiments, we compared against Gold and Weil codes, since they are

currently used in GPS, and therefore provide a natural benchmark. However, those

codes are only available for a limited number of code lengths and family sizes.

In our first experiment we only compared against Gold codes, since a Weil code

family of size 66 and length 127 is not available. Similarly, we only compared

against Weil codes in our second experiment, there are no Gold codes of length

257. We clarify this in the revised manuscript.

7. We clarified the importance of our work for LEO in the conclusion.

To Reviewer 2:

1. Thank you for the extensive feedback, especially regarding the ACZ property.

The context on the potential usefulness of the property with respect to tracking

was very helpful, and is greatly appreciated. We have modified the discussion of

ACZ in the text, to more accurately reflect the role of the ACZ property.

2. Thank you for bringing our attention to our incorrect usage of the term "SNR"

in the paper, as well as the errors in the notation.

References

[1] Medina, Daniel, et al. "Compact CRB for delay, Doppler, and phase

estimation-application to GNSS SPP and RTK performance characterisation." IET

Radar, Sonar & Navigation 14.10 (2020): 1537-1549.

[2] Ortega L, et al. On the time-delay estimation performance limit of new GNSS

acquisition codes. In2020 International Conference on Localization and GNSS

(ICL-GNSS) 2020 Jun 2 (pp. 1-6). IEEE.