“…Therefore, using modern data processing technology to remove the strong interference existing in measured MT signals has become an important research topic in the field of electromagnetic exploration, and the improvement of MT data quality in the strong interference area will provide strong technical support for the subsequent inversion interpretation (Ren et al ., 2013; Qi et al ., 2020). A wide variety of methods have been proposed for solving this problem, such as short‐time Fourier transform (Vozoff, 1972; Kao and Rankin, 1977; Griffin and Lim, 1984), remote reference (RR) method (Goubau et al ., 1978; Gamble et al ., 1979; Clarke et al ., 1983; Kappler, 2012), robust estimation (Egbert and Booker, 1986; Larsen, 1989; Chave and Thomson, 1989, 2004; Larsen et al ., 1996; Egbert, 1997), wavelet transform (Trad and Travassos, 2000; He et al ., 2009; Carbonari et al ., 2017), Hilbert–Huang transform (HHT) and empirical mode decomposition (EMD; Chen et al ., 2012; Cai, 2014; Chen and Fomel, 2018; Liu et al ., 2019), mathematical morphological filtering (MMF; Tang et al ., 2012b), inter‐station transfer functions (Wang et al ., 2017), Self‐organizing Map (SOM) neural networks (Carbonari et al ., 2018), multifractal spectrum and matching pursuit (MP; Li et al ., 2019), Mahalanobis distance and magnetic field constraints (Platz and Weckmann, 2019), shift‐invariant sparse coding (Li et al ., 2020) etc. These methods have certain advantages and promote the development of MT signal–noise separation research to a certain extent, but there are still some shortcomings.…”