X-Git-Url: https://bilbo.iut-bm.univ-fcomte.fr/and/gitweb/LiCO.git/blobdiff_plain/072a29f1c58efb183d8a9996c6eedf4ec0b7b5c6..f6596f038828729f02f48efdf049c4c08e4118e8:/PeCO-EO/reponse2.tex?ds=sidebyside

diff --git a/PeCO-EO/reponse2.tex b/PeCO-EO/reponse2.tex
index f44c224..2c4b47d 100644
--- a/PeCO-EO/reponse2.tex
+++ b/PeCO-EO/reponse2.tex
@@ -28,29 +28,15 @@
 \bigskip
 
 \begin{center}
-Detailed changes and addressed issues in the revision of the article
-
-``Perimeter-based Coverage Optimization \\
-to Improve Lifetime in Wireless Sensor Networks''\\
+Revision of the manuscript ``Perimeter-based Coverage Optimization to Improve Lifetime in Wireless Sensor Networks''\\
 
 by Ali Kadhum Idrees, Karine Deschinkel, Michel Salomon and Raph\"ael Couturier
 
 \medskip
 
 \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.
+Dear Editor and Reviewers,\\
+Comments (here in red color) raised by the reviewer n\textsuperscript{o}1  after a first revision have been carefully considered. Please find below our answers highlighted in green. We also highlighted the changes we made in the manuscript by using coloured text. We did our best to satisfy your requests.
 
 %Journal: Engineering Optimization
 %Reviewer's Comment to the Author Manuscript id GENO-2015-0094
@@ -59,15 +45,12 @@ the comments and the revision for the original manuscript.
 
 \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:\\
 
 
 
 
-\noindent  {\bf  3.}  The  communication and  information  sharing  required  to
+
+\noindent  {\textbf{3. \textsc{Reviewer's comment:} } } The  communication and  information  sharing  required  to
 cooperate and make these decisions was not discussed.\\
 
 \textcolor{blue}{\textbf{\textsc{Answer:}  The   communication  and  information
@@ -77,44 +60,14 @@ 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{green}{\textbf{\textsc{Answer:}  Right, we have included more description about the INFO packet and the ActiveSleep packet at the end of section~3.}}\\
 
-\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. }}\\
-
-\noindent {\bf 7.} The methodology is implemented in OMNeT++ (network simulator)
+\noindent {\textbf{7. \textsc{Reviewer's comment:}}}  The methodology is implemented in OMNeT++ (network simulator)
 and tested  against 2 existing algorithms  and a previously developed  method by
 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.\\
 
-\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 itâs 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.}}
-
 \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
@@ -122,7 +75,19 @@ consumed per sensor.}}
     indicators to  compare the results  obtained with this new  formulation with
     other existing algorithms.}}\\
 
-\noindent {\bf 8.}  Since this paper  is attacking the coverage problem, I would
+\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
+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{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 {8. \textbf{\textsc{Reviewer's comment:}}} Since this paper  is attacking the coverage problem, I would
 like  to  see more  information  on  the amount  of  coverage  the algorithm  is
 achieving. It seems that  there is a tradeoff in this  algorithm that allows the
 network to increase  its lifetime but does not improve  the coverage ratio. This
@@ -137,22 +102,18 @@ coverage ratio. \\
     the end of Section 5.2.4.}}\\
 
 \textcolor{red}{\textbf{\textsc{Reviewer's response:}   
-Iâm glad you added the explanation. I am confused with your conclusion in the last
-sentence though, âDiLCO is better for coverage ratios near 100%, but in that case PeCO is not
-ineffective for the smallest network sizesâ. I suggest adjusting it to something like this. âDiLCO
-outperforms PeCO when the coverage ratio is required to be >90%, but PeCo extends the network
-lifetime significantly when coverage ratio can be relaxed. â 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 donât
-include application examples, your statement âIndeed there are applications that do not require a
-100$\%$ coverage of the area to be monitored.â 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 for your suggestion, we modified the sentence at the end of Section 5.2.5. (previously Section 5.2.4.). As recommended, we added some applications examples. We also changed the figure 10 (previously figure 9) by replacing DilCO/50 and PecO/50 by DilCO/70 and PeCO/70.}}\\
 
 
 
 
-We are very grateful to the  reviewers who, by their recommendations, allowed us
-to improve the quality of our article.
 
 \begin{flushright}
 Best regards\\
