kumoh national institute of technology
Networked Systems Lab.

Efficient-Spectrum Management Based on Localization of Primary User Position Toward 5G Communications Technologies
By : Gaspard
Date : 2019-11-15
Views : 320

Dear Prof. Kim,

I am writing to you in regards to manuscript TCCN-IRM-19-0011 entitled "Efficient-Spectrum Management Based on Localization of Primary User Position Toward 5G Communications Technologies" which you submitted to IEEE Transactions on Cognitive Communications and Networking.

In view of the criticisms of the qualified reviewers and on the recommendation of one of our technical editors, which you will find below or attached, I will not be able to recommend your paper for publication in the IEEE Transactions on Cognitive Communications and Networking.

I would like to thank you for considering our journal as a means of publication of your work. We hope you will consider us again with regard to your future technical contributions.

Best Regards

Ying-Chang Liang
Editor in Chief
IEEE Transactions on Cognitive Communications and Networking

Comments to the Author:
(There are no comments. Please check to see if comments were included as a file attachment with this e-mail or as an attachment in your Author Center.)

Bcc: Reviewers
Reviewer: 1

Comments to the Author
- Please identify the paradigm of CR used in this work (I think in your case it's overlay).
- Please fix the grammatical typo at first page second column (to avoid harmful to...).
- Considering opportunistic spectrum sharing (overlay CR) usually add many complications on determining the spectrum holes and detecting inactive primary users. It may also causes some serious interference (and hence service degradation) from the CR users to primary users. Please discuss the acquired performance gain (in terms of enhanced spectrum efficiency, system complexity and primary user QoS) for using overlay cognitive radio instead of underlay CR (if there are any gain). Recall that in underlay CR the secondary user (CR user) is allowed to access the spectrum simultaneously with the primary user as long as the interference caused by the secondary user on the primary user falls bellow some predefined threshold value.
- What is the distribution of h? And how it affected the calculation of probability of active primary user (Eq. 4).
- Rewrite Eq. 4 in a more suitable form (usually the probability of an event is written as p(event)).
- Please proof read the whole manuscript and fix all grammatical and spelling mistakes.

Reviewer: 2

Comments to the Author
This paper studies spectrum management in cognitive radio networks by proposing a primary user localization method that uses the RSSI (received signal strength indicator) values measured by distributed sensing devices. However, the language and the presentation of this paper is poor, some concepts are not clearly motivated and explained, the overall contribution and quality of the paper in the current form is not suitable for publication in this journal. Therefore, I recommend reject this paper in its current form due to following comments, and suggest to the authors to carefully refine their work and address the listed concerns before the resubmission:
1. The novelty of the paper and the technical contribution is rather incremental.
2. In the introduction section, the concept of spectrum sharing is not fully explained, in particular, the authors did not mention the schemes of the spectrum sharing (i.e., underlay, overlay, and interweave) to give the whole picture. Moreover, in the key contribution list, point (1) and point (3) should be combined as a single point.
3. In section 2, the motivation about GPS is kind of irrelevant to this work, it is better to focus on the RSSI methods and give the state of the arts for the specific approach of primary users localization in spectrum sharing networks.
4. In Eq. (1) and Eq. (2), the parameter (n) is not clearly explained, and the authors use first \eta(n) and then \eta without (n), please address this confusion. Also, path loss exponent is set to its smallest value while it is in very the rich scattering propagation environment.
5. In the proposed solution, the authors suggest to collect information and store it in mapping database and one of the information is size of the antennas (especially the height) but it is not clear how to acquire this information!
6. In REM based localization technique, since it only considers the non-line-of-sight fading, the Rician propagation model should represent the scattering environment to make your solution technically sound.
7. There is no reference for the considered Kriging interpolation technique, and it is not mathematically described.
8. \alpha_k, \alpha_l, and \alpha_m, are computed by least squares fit, where is the equation for this calculation?
9. The problem in Eq (16) does not follow the correct optimization formulation.
10. Number of sensors is a key aspect in this system model, however, its optimization with respect to other parameters is missing.
11. The performance of the proposed scheme is not investigated versus the number of the severed secondary users.
12. The references list does not follow IEEE standard, specifically the abbreviations of the journal names, they need to be in IEEE style.
13. This manuscript has many typos and grammar errors, and some of the sentences are confusing and not clear, so a careful and significant proofread is highly recommended.

Reviewer: 3

Comments to the Author
The paper makes use of Kalman Filter to estimate the PU transmitter location and track its movement. Kriging interpolation is used to construct the radio environment map. My comments are highlighted below.

1. The paper lacks novelty as KF and Kriging interpolation is a common approach for tracking and mapping. Lots of work has been carried out in this direction. For example, [1], [2]. Thus, paper contribution is not clear.
2. Further, how this localisation information is made use of to enhance the secondary users performance is not explained/understood. How Figs. 9 and 10 are arrived at are not understood.
3. For CR operation, it is required to safeguard the PU receivers and not the transmitters. In this paper, PU transmitters are tracked instead of receiver. I do not see any benefit from this mechanism.
4. There are lots of typos in the paper. Please rewrite.

[1] R. Yang and Y. Bar-Shalom, "Adaptive target tracking using multistatic sensor with unknown moving transmitter positions," 2017 IEEE 7th International Workshop on Computational Advances in Multi-Sensor Adaptive Processing (CAMSAP), Curacao, 2017, pp. 1-5.

[2] D. Mao, W. Shao, Z. Qian, H. Xue, X. Lu and H. Wu, "Constructing accurate Radio Environment Maps with Kriging Interpolation in Cognitive Radio Networks," 2018 Cross Strait Quad-Regional Radio Science and Wireless Technology Conference (CSQRWC), Xuzhou, 2018, pp. 1-3.