Coverage Optimization Protocol in Wireless Sensor Networks'', submitted for
publication in the AD HOC NETWORKS journal. Indeed, we have started the
submission process in September 2014 and obtained the comments of only ONE
-reviewer during July 2015. Its suggestion were very helpful and we incorporated
+reviewer in July 2015. Its suggestion were very helpful and we incorporated
them in the revised article submitted in September 2015.
-In particular, we have stopped the resolution of the Branch-and-Bound method
-after a time threshold empirically defined and we retain the best feasible
-solution found by the solver, as it was suggested by the reviewer. We made our
-best to carefully address the issues raised by the referee and revise our paper
-accordingly. So we would like to clarify some of the points raised by the
-reviewer, since some them seem not to be not relevant or fair.
+In particular, we have stopped the resolution of the Branch-and-Bound
+method after a time threshold empirically defined and we have retained
+the best feasible solution found by the solver, as it was suggested by
+the reviewer. We made our best to carefully address the issues raised
+by the referee and revised our paper accordingly. So we would like to
+clarify some of the points raised by the reviewer, since some them
+seem to be irrelevant or unfair.
\noindent {\bf 1.} The authors have partially taken into account the comments
of my previous review. Additional content has been added, but these additions
\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{\textsc{Answer:} We clearly indicated in Section~3.2
that the rounds are of equal duration and we explained that this parameter
- should be set according to the types of application (see our answer in part
+ should be set according to the types of application (see our
+ answer in the part
``minor comments'' in our previous answer).}}\\
\noindent {\bf 3.} In Section~3.1, all nodes are assumed to be ``homogeneous
the first time, the aforementioned hypothesis is not likely to be satisfied
again.\\
-\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{\textsc{Answer:} Maybe the honorable reviewer misread
+\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{\textsc{Answer:} The reviewer might have misread
the sentence in Section~3.1: ``We assume that all nodes are {\bf
homogeneous} in terms of communication and processing capabilities, and
{\bf heterogeneous} from the point of view of energy provision.'' }}\\
the literature for area coverage, the authors should read them.\\
\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{\textsc{Answer:} This remark is rather offensive. Of
- course we read literature for area coverage. We use the metric ``Coverage
- Ratio'' (defined in Section~4.3) to measure how much the area is covered.
+ course we have read the literature for area coverage. We have used the metric ``Coverage
+ Ratio'' (defined in Section~4.3) to measure how much of the area is covered.
But the optimization process to decide which sensor has to be active or not
in each round is based on the coverage of only a specified set of points
called primary points. So the area coverage problem is transformed into the
- target coverage problem.}}\\
+ target coverage problem. So from our point of view, this remark is
+ not justified.}}\\
\noindent {\bf 5.} In Section 3.2, the reason why a subregion is defined in such
a way that the distance between any two sensors in the same subregion is less
impact in terms of these additional metrics. Hence, measuring them is
pointless.\\
-\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{\textsc{Answer:} We disagree this remark. It is quite
+\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{\textsc{Answer:} We disagree with this remark. It is quite
possible to optimize a criterion to have an impact on another one. In the
problem formulation proposed here, the number of active sensors is minimized
in each round for a maximal level of coverage. Limiting the activation time
Brachytherapy} Volume 3, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 147-152): the objective in
the problem formulation is to minimize a weighted sum of the differences
between prescribed doses and obtained doses in reference points, whereas
- many criterion (like dose-volume histograms, conformal index COIN) are used
+ many criteria (like dose-volume histograms, conformal index COIN) are used
for quantitative evaluation of dose plans.}}\\
%si vous avez d'autres exemples plus parlants?
We hope that these observations will allow you to revise your decision
-concerning our manuscript. If possible, we would like to have comments of an
+concerning our manuscript. If possible, we would like to benefit
+from the comments of an
additional reviewer.
\begin{flushright}
