kumoh national institute of technology
Networked Systems Lab.

Review Comment

NSL > Works@NSL> About Review> Review Comment
Jean-Claude Sangano, Asatilla Abdukhakimov and Kim Dong-Seong, "4D Trajectory Planning, Guidance and Communication Handover between UAVs in Ad Hoc Network", IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC 2019), 20-24 May 2019, Shanghai, China (R)
By :
Date : 2019-02-06
Views : 77

Thank you for submitting your paper - #1570505415 ("4D Trajectory Planning, Guidance and Communication Handover between UAVs in Ad Hoc Network") to IEEE ICC 2019.

This year, IEEE ICC received over 2,590 submissions. All papers underwent a rigorous review process. Due to presentation space limitations, many good and interesting papers could not be included in IEEE ICC 2019��s program. As a result of the reviews and the discussion among the symposium co-chairs and the program chairs, we regret that your paper could not be accepted for inclusion in the IEEE ICC 2019 program.

We still welcome your attendance and participation in IEEE ICC 2019 to discuss your research work with many hundreds researchers and practitioners expected to attend the conference.

The conference will provide you with numerous opportunities to network with peers, as well as share your thoughts and experiences with leading industry professionals, scholars, and government advisors.

To register for the conference please go to http://icc2019.ieee-icc.org/registration. Note that this link will soon be made active.

We would also like to encourage you to revise your paper based on the reviews and resubmit it to another conference. A list of ComSoc conferences can be found at http://www.comsoc.org/conferences/portfolio-events.

Review reports of your paper are shown at the end of this email or they can be found on EDAS at https://edas.info/showPaper.php?m=1570505415, which we hope you will find useful to improve your paper. Thank you again for submitting your paper to IEEE ICC 2019, and we hope that you will be able to attend the conference in Shanghai, China in May 2019.

Thank you and best regards,

Hossam Hasanein, Jiajia Liu, Christos Douligeris
IEEE ICC 2019 AHSN Symposium Co-Chairs

------- Review Reports ------
======= Review 1 =======

> *** Relevance and timeliness: Rate the importance and timeliness of the topic addressed in the paper within its area of research.
Little (2)

> *** Technical content and scientific rigour: Rate the technical content of the paper (e.g.: completeness of the analysis or simulation study, thoroughness of the treatise, accuracy of the models, etc.), its soundness and scientific rigour.
Marginal work and simple contribution. Some flaws. (2)

> *** Novelty and originality: Rate the novelty and originality of the ideas or results presented in the paper.
Minor variations on a well investigated subject. (2)

> *** Quality of presentation: Rate the paper organization, the clearness of text and figures, the completeness and accuracy of references.
Readable, but revision is needed in some parts. (3)

> *** Strong aspects: Comments to the author: what are the strong aspects of the paper

This paper calculates trajectory planning and provides guidance and handover solution for a two-UAV system.

> *** Weak aspects: Comments to the author: what are the weak aspects of the paper?

There are only two UAVs, one is collecting data and the other one is standing by. The problem setting is very simple.

There is no technical challenge in this paper.

> *** Recommended changes: Please indicate any changes that should be made to the paper if accepted.

Some figures are not clear. Use a better version for them.

It would be better to have multiple UAVs collecting data at the same time. Then problem can be challenge, e.g., by considering how to cover a specific area.

Although the title is 4D planning, the fourth dimension (time) is not in problem formulation.

> *** Submission Policy: Does the paper list the same author(s), title and abstract (minor wording differences in the abstract are okay) in its PDF file and EDAS registration? (yes/no)

yes

======= Review 2 =======

> *** Relevance and timeliness: Rate the importance and timeliness of the topic addressed in the paper within its area of research.
Acceptable (3)

> *** Technical content and scientific rigour: Rate the technical content of the paper (e.g.: completeness of the analysis or simulation study, thoroughness of the treatise, accuracy of the models, etc.), its soundness and scientific rigour.
Valid work but limited contribution. (3)

> *** Novelty and originality: Rate the novelty and originality of the ideas or results presented in the paper.
Minor variations on a well investigated subject. (2)

> *** Quality of presentation: Rate the paper organization, the clearness of text and figures, the completeness and accuracy of references.
Readable, but revision is needed in some parts. (3)

> *** Strong aspects: Comments to the author: what are the strong aspects of the paper

This is a control theoretic paper describing trajectory planning for two UAVs which perform a handover of the duty of circling an area.

> *** Weak aspects: Comments to the author: what are the weak aspects of the paper?

The innovation level is minimal. Dubins paths are well-known and well researched in robotics. There are no new algorithms proposed, only the application of well-known math to a specific, simple problem.

It is not clear what the authors mean when they talk about 4D modeling. Basically, any path planning algorithms will take into consideration the time, and most of them can handle temporal constraints - this doesn't mean that they are 4D. In fact, all the simulation experiments take place in 2D space, at constant altitude.

The authors are discussing in the related work whether certain algorithms can handle or not complex paths - but then the scenario they are considering is about the UAV going on a circle - this is not a complex path!

The authors are not comparing their approach to any other possible approach.

It is not clear why this scenario is specific to ad hoc networks (or is it a sensor network scenario, with the UAV as a mobile sink?)

> *** Recommended changes: Please indicate any changes that should be made to the paper if accepted.

See weak aspects.

> *** Submission Policy: Does the paper list the same author(s), title and abstract (minor wording differences in the abstract are okay) in its PDF file and EDAS registration? (yes/no)

Yes, but the order of the authors is different.

======= Review 3 =======

> *** Relevance and timeliness: Rate the importance and timeliness of the topic addressed in the paper within its area of research.
Little (2)

> *** Technical content and scientific rigour: Rate the technical content of the paper (e.g.: completeness of the analysis or simulation study, thoroughness of the treatise, accuracy of the models, etc.), its soundness and scientific rigour.
Marginal work and simple contribution. Some flaws. (2)

> *** Novelty and originality: Rate the novelty and originality of the ideas or results presented in the paper.
Minor variations on a well investigated subject. (2)

> *** Quality of presentation: Rate the paper organization, the clearness of text and figures, the completeness and accuracy of references.
Readable, but revision is needed in some parts. (3)

> *** Strong aspects: Comments to the author: what are the strong aspects of the paper

The paper considers a scenario where two UAVs are used to collect data transmitted from a ground WSN. At sometime, the UAV collecting the data may be low on energy while the other UAV has full energy. It is desired to handover the data collection task to the other UAV.

The paper develops a flyable path for both (fixed-wing) UAVs by considering their kinematic and dynamic constraints.

> *** Weak aspects: Comments to the author: what are the weak aspects of the paper?

Developing equations to specify a flyable path taking care of turns and climbing and descending patterns while minimizing cross-track and along track errors is a topic that minimally overlaps with the scope of the ICC AHSN symposium.

> *** Recommended changes: Please indicate any changes that should be made to the paper if accepted.

As mentioned above, the topic is not suitable for the symposium. Author names should not be prefixed with 1st, 2nd, and 3rd.

> *** Submission Policy: Does the paper list the same author(s), title and abstract (minor wording differences in the abstract are okay) in its PDF file and EDAS registration? (yes/no)

Yes, except for the order of the authors on the paper is different from the online page.

======= Review 4 =======

> *** Relevance and timeliness: Rate the importance and timeliness of the topic addressed in the paper within its area of research.
Acceptable (3)

> *** Technical content and scientific rigour: Rate the technical content of the paper (e.g.: completeness of the analysis or simulation study, thoroughness of the treatise, accuracy of the models, etc.), its soundness and scientific rigour.
Valid work but limited contribution. (3)

> *** Novelty and originality: Rate the novelty and originality of the ideas or results presented in the paper.
Minor variations on a well investigated subject. (2)

> *** Quality of presentation: Rate the paper organization, the clearness of text and figures, the completeness and accuracy of references.
Substantial revision work is needed. (2)

> *** Strong aspects: Comments to the author: what are the strong aspects of the paper

The authors proposed a framework for trajectory planning in terms of time and space (i.e. trajectory planning 4D). The main purpose of this work is to handle the handover between a UAV that is collecting data from ground sensors and another fully charged UAV when the first is about to run out of power. This work is important in areas that got hit by a natural disaster or a military conflict where the communication infrastructure is no longer operative.

> *** Weak aspects: Comments to the author: what are the weak aspects of the paper?

1- The first thing that caught my eyes is the use of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd to show the authorship order. There is no need for that. This is my first time seeing this technique! The names are already ordered from left to right and the norm in electrical engineering literature is that the names' order shows the level of contribution.

2- In the abstract, the authors say: "the simulation results for the 4D trajectory planning and guidance show higher performance" but it is not clear to the reader "higher performance" in terms of what? and compared to what?

3- To me, it is unclear what is the main contribution of the paper. The only thing I would say is a contribution is just putting the main system model aspects (i.e. planning, guidance, and handover) together as a summary from the literature.

4- It's also unclear to me why UAV doesn't follow exactly the preplanned path? In other words, what are the sources of error in the system that makes the UAV shift away from the preplanned path?

5- There are some punctuation errors, for example, "respectively" should be preceded by a comma.

6- All the figures have a really bad quality, there're unclear with small unreadable fonts.

7- In the sentence: "Prior to any computation the distance between the two poses must be checked whether it is greater than four times the minimum turning radius r." I don't know how this can be done, and how the UAVs know their coordinates, and which network entity do the distance checking!

8- "The equation (20) can be written as follows:" should be "Equation (20) can be written as follows:"

9-The authors mentioned that the planning should consider the obstacles existing along the path, but the used system model doesn't take this fact into consideration at all!

10- In the handover subsection (i.e. V B), the handover for the ground nodes isn't well explained, the authors only gave some assumptions. Also, the handover assessing function was not given.

11- The paper provides only one simulation to the work. This isn't enough in order to show the effectiveness of the work. Also, in this only simulation, the assumption is that the two UAVs are on the same level! then why it is called 4D trajectory planning, if one dimension got eliminated?! I think, in any simulation regarding this work, all dimensions should be considered at the same time.

> *** Recommended changes: Please indicate any changes that should be made to the paper if accepted.

All the weak aspects should be considered.

> *** Submission Policy: Does the paper list the same author(s), title and abstract (minor wording differences in the abstract are okay) in its PDF file and EDAS registration? (yes/no)

Yes.