Merge branch 'master' of ssh://bilbo.iut-bm.univ-fcomte.fr/LiCO

[LiCO.git] / PeCO-EO / reponse2.tex

diff --git a/PeCO-EO/reponse2.tex b/PeCO-EO/reponse2.tex
index f44c224f6942f808051a116d884b8212cd8063c8..7141baea49ea04b26abda90a550f293a50bf2b1f 100644 (file)
--- a/PeCO-EO/reponse2.tex
+++ b/PeCO-EO/reponse2.tex
@@ -40,17 +40,8 @@ by Ali Kadhum Idrees, Karine Deschinkel, Michel Salomon and Raph\"ael Couturier
 \end{center}
 Dear Editor and Reviewers,
 
 \end{center}
 Dear Editor and Reviewers,
 

-First of all, we would like to thank you very much for your kind help to improve
-our article  named: ``Perimeter-based Coverage Optimization  to Improve Lifetime
-in  Wireless  Sensor Networks''.  We  highly  appreciate the  detailed  valuable
-comments of the reviewers on our  article. The suggestions are quite helpful for
-us and we incorporate them in the revised article. We are happy to submit to you
-a revised version that considers most of your remarks and suggestions to improve
-the quality of our article.
-
-As below, we  would like to clarify  some of the points raised  by the reviewers
-and we hope the reviewers and the  editors will be satisfied by our responses to
-the comments and the revision for the original manuscript.
+
+Comments (here in red color) raised by the reviewer n°1  after a first revision have been carefully considered. Please find below our answers highlighted in green. We did our best to satisfy your requests.

 
 %Journal: Engineering Optimization
 %Reviewer's Comment to the Author Manuscript id GENO-2015-0094
 
 %Journal: Engineering Optimization
 %Reviewer's Comment to the Author Manuscript id GENO-2015-0094


@@ -59,10 +50,7 @@ the comments and the revision for the original manuscript.
 
 \section*{Response to Reviewer No. 1 Comments}
 
 
 \section*{Response to Reviewer No. 1 Comments}
 

-This paper  proposes a  scheduling technique  for WSN  to maximize  coverage and
-network lifetime.  The novelty of this  paper is the integration  of an existing
-perimeter  coverage   measure  with  an  existing   integer  linear  programming
-model. Here are few comments:\\
+

 
 
 
 
 
 


@@ -77,29 +65,7 @@ cooperate and make these decisions was not discussed.\\
 
 \textcolor{red}{\textbf{\textsc{Reviewer's response:} I see at the end of page 8 the description of the INFO packet. However, you are not including any description of the position coordinates, remaining energy, sensor node ID, etc. in the write up. I suggest adding this into the write up to make the communication clear.}}\\
 
 
 \textcolor{red}{\textbf{\textsc{Reviewer's response:} I see at the end of page 8 the description of the INFO packet. However, you are not including any description of the position coordinates, remaining energy, sensor node ID, etc. in the write up. I suggest adding this into the write up to make the communication clear.}}\\
 

-
-\noindent {\bf  6.} The  authors have  performed a  thorough review  of existing
-coverage  methodologies.  However,  the clarity  in the  literature review  is a
-little off. Some of the descriptions of the  method s used are very vague and do
-not bring out their key contributions.  Some references are not consistent and I
-suggest using the journals template to adjust them for overall consistency.\\
-
-\textcolor{red}{\textbf{\textsc{Reviewer's response:}  I do like the way you have presented the different literature related to each aspect of
-the problem. I think I was just concerned that the sentences presenting each work are not very
-clear. After reading through them however, everything is clear. I like the addition of the last
-paragraph and believe it is definitely needed since you are directly comparing these
-methodologies.}}
-
-
-\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{\textsc{Answer:} References have been carefully checked
-    and seem to be consistent with the journal template. In Section~2, ``Related
-    literature'',  we refer  to papers  dealing  with coverage  and lifetime  in
-    WSN. Each  paragraph of this section  discusses the literature related  to a
-    particular aspect of the problem : 1. types of coverage, 2. types of scheme,
-    3. centralized versus distributed protocols,  4. optimization method. At the
-    end of each  paragraph we position our  approach. We have also  added a last
-    paragraph  about  our  previous  work  on  DiLCO  protocol  to  explain  the
-    difference with PeCO. }}\\
+\textcolor{green}{\textbf{\textsc{Answer:}  Right, we have included more description about the INFO packet and the ActiveSleep packet into the write up at the end of section~3.}}\\

 
 \noindent {\bf 7.} The methodology is implemented in OMNeT++ (network simulator)
 and tested  against 2 existing algorithms  and a previously developed  method by
 
 \noindent {\bf 7.} The methodology is implemented in OMNeT++ (network simulator)
 and tested  against 2 existing algorithms  and a previously developed  method by


@@ -107,20 +73,24 @@ the authors.   The simulation results  are thorough  and show that  the proposed
 method improves the  coverage and network lifetime compared with  the 3 existing
 methods. The results are similar to previous work done by their team.\\
 
 method improves the  coverage and network lifetime compared with  the 3 existing
 methods. The results are similar to previous work done by their team.\\
 

+\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{\textsc{Answer:} Although  the study conducted  in this
+    paper reuses the  same protocol presented in our previous  work, we focus in
+    this  paper on  the mathematical  optimization model  developed to  schedule
+    nodes  activities.   We deliberately  chose  to  keep the  same  performance
+    indicators to  compare the results  obtained with this new  formulation with
+    other existing algorithms.}}\\
+

 \textcolor{red}{\textbf{\textsc{Reviewer's response:}  
 I agree that you should show the same performance indicators and that this paper is
 about the way you formulated the problem. The mathematical optimization model is the main
 \textcolor{red}{\textbf{\textsc{Reviewer's response:}  
 I agree that you should show the same performance indicators and that this paper is
 about the way you formulated the problem. The mathematical optimization model is the main

-contribution but it’s less convincing since the results are slightly better if not the same for the two
+contribution but it's less convincing since the results are slightly better if not the same for the two

 methodologies you have developed. Could you include some other measure that shows that the
 PeCO is better? Maybe include computation time or something that is as convincing as the energy
 consumed per sensor.}}
 
 methodologies you have developed. Could you include some other measure that shows that the
 PeCO is better? Maybe include computation time or something that is as convincing as the energy
 consumed per sensor.}}
 

-\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{\textsc{Answer:} Although  the study conducted  in this
-    paper reuses the  same protocol presented in our previous  work, we focus in
-    this  paper on  the mathematical  optimization model  developed to  schedule
-    nodes  activities.   We deliberately  chose  to  keep the  same  performance
-    indicators to  compare the results  obtained with this new  formulation with
-    other existing algorithms.}}\\
+\textcolor{green}{\textbf{\textsc{Answer:}  In fact, we defined in section 5.1 a new performance metric linked to the energy, called Energy Saving Ratio (ESR). We added a new section (5.2.3) in the result part related to this performance metric which shows that our PeCO protocol provides better energy saving compared with other approaches.}}\\
+
+

 
 \noindent {\bf 8.}  Since this paper  is attacking the coverage problem, I would
 like  to  see more  information  on  the amount  of  coverage  the algorithm  is
 
 \noindent {\bf 8.}  Since this paper  is attacking the coverage problem, I would
 like  to  see more  information  on  the amount  of  coverage  the algorithm  is


@@ -137,22 +107,19 @@ coverage ratio. \\
     the end of Section 5.2.4.}}\\
 
 \textcolor{red}{\textbf{\textsc{Reviewer's response:}   
     the end of Section 5.2.4.}}\\
 
 \textcolor{red}{\textbf{\textsc{Reviewer's response:}   

-I’m glad you added the explanation. I am confused with your conclusion in the last
-sentence though, “DiLCO is better for coverage ratios near 100%, but in that case PeCO is not
-ineffective for the smallest network sizes”. I suggest adjusting it to something like this. “DiLCO
-outperforms PeCO when the coverage ratio is required to be >90%, but PeCo extends the network
-lifetime significantly when coverage ratio can be relaxed. “ Also, can you add applications where
-you would want to have a coverage ratio of 50%? This seems like a very small ratio and as you
-increase it, DiLCO becomes the methodology that has the maximum network lifetime. If you don’t
-include application examples, your statement “Indeed there are applications that do not require a
-100$\%$ coverage of the area to be monitored.” stronger. }}
+I'm glad you added the explanation. I am confused with your conclusion in the last
+sentence though, "DiLCO is better for coverage ratios near $100\%$, but in that case PeCO is not ineffective for the smallest network sizes". I suggest adjusting it to something like this. "DiLCO outperforms PeCO when the coverage ratio is required to be $>90\%$, but PeCo extends the network lifetime significantly when coverage ratio can be relaxed." Also, can you add applications where
+you would want to have a coverage ratio of $50\%$? This seems like a very small ratio and as you
+increase it, DiLCO becomes the methodology that has the maximum network lifetime. If you don't
+include application examples, your statement "Indeed there are applications that do not require a
+100$\%$ coverage of the area to be monitored." stronger. }}

 
 

+\textcolor{green}{\textbf{\textsc{Answer:} Thank you so much to your suggestion for adjusting the sentence in the end of Section 5.2.5. (previously Section 5.2.4.), It is done. 
+For the applications, we added some applications examples in the end of the sentence "Indeed there are applications that do not require a 100$\%$ coverage of the area to be monitored." as well as we changed the figure 10 (previously figure 9) by adding DilCO/70 and PecO/70 instead of DilCO/50 and PeCO/50 }}\\

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

-We are very grateful to the  reviewers who, by their recommendations, allowed us
-to improve the quality of our article.

 
 \begin{flushright}
 Best regards\\
 
 \begin{flushright}
 Best regards\\