From 072a29f1c58efb183d8a9996c6eedf4ec0b7b5c6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: ali Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 14:48:26 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] update by ali --- PeCO-EO/reponse2.tex | 164 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 164 insertions(+) create mode 100644 PeCO-EO/reponse2.tex diff --git a/PeCO-EO/reponse2.tex b/PeCO-EO/reponse2.tex new file mode 100644 index 0000000..f44c224 --- /dev/null +++ b/PeCO-EO/reponse2.tex @@ -0,0 +1,164 @@ +\documentclass[14]{article} + +\usepackage{color} +\usepackage{times} +\usepackage{titlesec} +\usepackage{pifont} +%\usepackage[T1]{fontenc} +%\usepackage[latin1]{inputenc} + +\renewcommand{\labelenumii}{\labelenumi\arabic{enumii}} +%\titleformat*{\section}{\Large\bfseries} + +%\title{Response to the reviewers of \bf "Perimeter-based Coverage Optimization to Improve Lifetime in Wireless Sensor Networks"} +%\author{Ali Kadhum Idrees, Karine Deschinkela, Michel Salomon and Raphael Couturier} + +\begin{document} + +\begin{flushright} +\today +\end{flushright}% + +\vspace{-0.5cm}\hspace{-2cm}FEMTO-ST Institute, UMR 6174 CNRS + +\hspace{-2cm}University Bourgogne Franche-Comt\'e + +\hspace{-2cm}IUT Belfort-Montb\'eliard, BP 527, 90016 Belfort Cedex, France. + +\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''\\ + +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. + +%Journal: Engineering Optimization +%Reviewer's Comment to the Author Manuscript id GENO-2015-0094 +%Title: \bf "Perimeter-based Coverage Optimization to Improve Lifetime in Wireless Sensor Networks" +%Authors: Ali Kadhum Idrees, Karine Deschinkela, Michel Salomon and Raphael Couturier + +\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 +cooperate and make these decisions was not discussed.\\ + +\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{\textsc{Answer:} The communication and information + sharing required to cooperate and make these decisions is discussed at the + end of page 8. Position coordinates, remaining energy, sensor node ID, and + number of one-hop neighbors are exchanged.}}\\ + +\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. }}\\ + +\noindent {\bf 7.} 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 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{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.}}\\ + +\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 +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 +may be an issue if this approach is used in an application that requires high +coverage ratio. \\ + +\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{\textsc{Answer:} Your remark is very interesting. Indeed, + Figures 8(a) and (b) highlight this result. The PeCO protocol allows to achieve + a coverage ratio greater than $50\%$ for far more periods than the others + three methods, but for applications requiring a high level of coverage + (greater than $95\%$), the DiLCO method is more efficient. It is explained at + 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. }} + + + + + +We are very grateful to the reviewers who, by their recommendations, allowed us +to improve the quality of our article. + +\begin{flushright} +Best regards\\ +The authors +\end{flushright} + + + +\end{document} -- 2.39.5