kumoh national institute of technology
Networked Systems Lab.

Sanjay Bhardwaj, Dong-Seong Kim "Dragonfly Approach for Resource Allocation in Industrial Wireless Network", Physical Communication,2020
By : sanjay
Date : 2020-05-06
Views : 321

Manuscript Number: PHYCOM-D-20-00042  

Dragonfly Approach for Resource Allocation in Industrial Wireless Networks

Dear Professor Kim,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to Physical Communication.

I have completed my evaluation of your manuscript. The reviewers recommend reconsideration of your manuscript following major revision. I invite you to resubmit your manuscript after addressing the comments below. Please resubmit your revised manuscript by Jun 20, 2020.

When revising your manuscript, please consider all issues mentioned in the reviewers' comments carefully: please outline every change made in response to their comments and provide suitable rebuttals for any comments not addressed. Please note that your revised submission may need to be re-reviewed. 

To submit your revised manuscript, please log in as an author at https://www.editorialmanager.com/phycom/, and navigate to the "Submissions Needing Revision" folder.  

Physical Communication values your contribution and I look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,    

Muhammad Ismail
Area Editor
Physical Communication

Editor and Reviewer comments:

Reviewer #1: The authors study the problem of resource allocation in industrial wireless networks by introducing the dragonfly search mechanism to allocate multiple resources by considering that the end nodes act as swarms. The proposed framework is evaluated by a statistical analysis-based approach by adopting various statistical analysis methods and comparing them among each other in terms of the efficiency of the proposed framework.
1. The paper is overall well-written and the proposed analysis is easy to follow.
2. The paper is rich in terms of numerical results and evaluation of the pure proposed framework.
3. There are several other methods that have been proposed in the literature to deal with multi-objective optimization problems, either based on game theory, e.g., Tsiropoulou, E.E., P. Vamvakas, and S. Papavassiliou. "Joint utility-based uplink power and rate allocation in wireless networks: A non-cooperative game theoretic framework." Physical Communication 9 (2013): 299-307, or based on optimization techniques, e.g., M.R. Musku, A.T. Chronopoulos, D.C. Popescu, A. Stefanescu, A game-theoretic approach to joint rate and power control for uplink CDMA communications, IEEE Transactions on Communications 58 (3) (2010) 923-932. Those techniques keep the individual characteristics of the nodes in the wireless network. The authors should clarify their contribution compared to such types of approaches, as the manuscript considers swarms of nodes.
4. The wireless communication model that is adopted is not described in the paper. The authors should at least refer to similar communication models, e.g., Singhal, Chetna, and Swades De, eds. Resource allocation in next-generation broadband wireless access networks. IGI Global, 2017, if they want to save some space in their manuscript and focus on the proposed algorithmic approach.
5. The paper provides detailed numerical results regarding the operation of the proposed algorithm by evaluating it with different statistical models. However, the authors should show the benefits of this approach as compared to others proposed in the literature dealing with multi-objective resource management.
6. The authors should provide some discussion regarding the computational complexity and real-execution time of the proposed framework that makes it a candidate for adoption in realistic industrial wireless networks.



Reviewer #2: First and foremost, I would strongly suggest the authors to be careful (very) about addressing to the reviewers comments, "we thank the reviewer for 'his' comments" must be changed to "her/his" or "his/her". However, this has not affected the review decision, which was based solely on the merits of authors' response.

The authors have fairly responded to my earlier comments. However, the manuscript still has some confusing aspects that needs to be addressed in order to improve its quality. Please check the following comments:
1- The formulation for latency is not proper. (see (5) and (6), and the use of \min). Also, the model needs further description on resource allocation using proposed multi-objective optimization solution.
2- In (11), it should be \gamma_k and \alpha_{k = 1} instead of 'i'.
3- Similarly, (12) is not a properly defined. The index (1) in \gamma_k has some meaning? Is \epsilon a typo there? Does the authors mean \alpha in RA? But, is RA defined as set before? This portion is very confusion. I suggest the authors to carefully check the formulations.
4- The throughput objective function (9) is not a set. Please check the use of \{\ } everywhere.
5- I think connectivity functionalities (C_f) needs further explanation.
6- How quantification error is defined?
7- The manuscript requires further proofreading to improve readability. In this regard, the used notations and definitions can be significantly improved.
8- Some changes like below can be done:
- i.e -> i.e.,
- for roman text use \textrm{}, \max, \min