First add-ons

[Sensornets15.git] / reponse.tex

diff --git a/reponse.tex b/reponse.tex
index ab569817261ccf57b98359111c9f6f2c2b3961d7..014db29ce4bdf5d40dc06ccede57eb73389e7a15 100644 (file)
--- a/reponse.tex
+++ b/reponse.tex
@@ -58,8 +58,8 @@ by Ali Kadhum Idrees, Karine Deschinkel, Michel Salomon, and Raph\"ael Couturier
 Dear Editor and Reviewers,
 
 First of all, we would like to thank you very much for your kind help to improve
 Dear Editor and Reviewers,
 
 First of all, we would like to thank you very much for your kind help to improve

-our article  named: `` Distributed Lifetime Coverage Optimization Protocol in Wireless Sensor Networks
-''.  We  highly  appreciate the  detailed  valuable
+our article  named: ``  Distributed Lifetime  Coverage Optimization  Protocol 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
 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


@@ -70,31 +70,74 @@ and we hope the reviewers and the  editors will be satisfied by our responses to
 the comments and the revision for the original manuscript.
 
 
 the comments and the revision for the original manuscript.
 
 

-

 \section*{Response to Reviewer $\#$1 Comments}
 
 \section*{Response to Reviewer $\#$1 Comments}
 

-The paper present a new system to optimize sensord detections. The work present the algorithm in a cleare and well descrived way. The main problem is connected with the luck of examples and also on the practical applications. I suggest in future to make a more formal description of the process.\\
+The paper present a new system  to optimize sensord detections. The work present
+the algorithm in a cleare and well  descrived way. The main problem is connected
+with the luck of  examples and also on the practical  applications. I suggest in
+future to make a more formal description of the process.\\

 
 
 
 

-\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{\textsc{Answer:} Right.  We  have  included a  paragraph on the examples and practical applications of WSNs in section~1. }}
-\textcolor{red}{Je pense que la question porte sur un exemple d'application de notre protocole?}
+\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{\textsc{Answer:} Right.   We have included  a paragraph
+    on  the  examples  and  practical  applications of  WSNs  in  section~1.  }}
+\textcolor{red}{Je pense que  la question porte sur un  exemple d'application de
+  notre protocole?}
+\textcolor{magenta}{Je pense que oui.}

 
 
 \section*{Response to Reviewer $\#$3 Comments}
 
 
 \section*{Response to Reviewer $\#$3 Comments}

-This work proposed a distributed lifetime coverage optimization (DiLCO) protocol to apply to predefined subregions, which are generated from the area of interest using a classical divide-and-conquer method, to improve the lifetime of a wireless sensor network. Their proposed protocol is devised with a two-step process, including a leader election technique in each subregion and a sensor's activity scheduling by each elected leader. In general, it is a good idea to pre-divide the network domain into several sub-areas, and assign a single cluster head in each sub-area for achieving more balanced energy dissipation for the wireless sensor network. As we known, Heinzelman et al. (2000) first proposed a clustering protocol called LEACH for periodical data-gathering applications. Also many variants of LEACH protocol or a variety of distributed protocols had proposed enhanced energy efficient adaptive clustering protocols by pre-dividing the network domain into several
-sub-areas, and assigning a single cluster head in each sub-area to achieve more balanced energy dissipation. Hence, I suggest that the authors could clearly state the differences and benefits between their leader selection technique and the methods of cluster head election in LEACH or other distributed protocols. Moreover, they used the two protocols, DESK and GAF, for assessing the performance of their protocols is not convincible. The authors may include more well-known or recently developed protocols for comparison. 
-

 
 

-\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{\textsc{Answer :}  
+This work proposed a distributed lifetime coverage optimization (DiLCO) protocol
+to apply to predefined subregions, which are generated from the area of interest
+using  a classical  divide-and-conquer  method,  to improve  the  lifetime of  a
+wireless  sensor network.  Their proposed  protocol is  devised with  a two-step
+process, including a leader election technique  in each subregion and a sensor's
+activity scheduling  by each elected  leader. In general, it  is a good  idea to
+pre-divide  the network  domain  into  several sub-areas,  and  assign a  single
+cluster head in each sub-area for achieving more balanced energy dissipation for
+the  wireless sensor  network.  As  we known,  Heinzelman  et  al. (2000)  first
+proposed  a  clustering  protocol  called LEACH  for  periodical  data-gathering
+applications. Also many  variants of LEACH protocol or a  variety of distributed
+protocols had  proposed enhanced energy efficient  adaptive clustering protocols
+by  pre-dividing the  network domain  into  several sub-areas,  and assigning  a
+single  cluster  head   in  each  sub-area  to  achieve   more  balanced  energy
+dissipation.  Hence,  I  suggest  that  the  authors  could  clearly  state  the
+differences  and  benefits between  their  leader  selection technique  and  the
+methods   of   cluster   head   election   in   LEACH   or   other   distributed
+protocols. Moreover,  they used the two  protocols, DESK and GAF,  for assessing
+the performance of  their protocols is not convincible. The  authors may include
+more well-known or recently developed protocols for comparison.
+
+
+\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{\textsc{Answer :}

 %The difference between our leader selection technique and the methods of cluster head election in LEACH or other distributed protocols in that our approach  assumes  that the sensors are deployed almost uniformly and with high density over the region. So we only need  to fix a regular division of the  region into subregions to make the problem tractable.  The subdivision is made using divide-and-conquer concept such that the number of hops between any pairs  of sensors inside a subregion is  less than or equal to~3. The sensors inside each subregion cooperate to elect one leader. Leader applies sensor activity scheduling based optimization to provide the schedule to the sensor nodes in the subregion. The advantage of our approach is to minimize the energy consumption required for communication. The sensors only require to communicate with the other sensors inside the subregion to elect the leader instead of communicating with other nodes in the WSN. \\Whereas in LEACH and other cluster head election methods, the cluster heads are elected in distributed way where sensors  elect  themselves  to  be local cluster-heads  at any  given time  with  a  certain  probability. These cluster-head  nodes  broadcast  their  status  to  the  other  sensors  in the network.  Each sensor node determines to which cluster it wants to belong by choosing the cluster-head that requires the minimum communication energy. Once all the nodes are organized into clusters, each cluster-head creates a schedule for the nodes in its cluster.   \\\\
 %The difference between our leader selection technique and the methods of cluster head election in LEACH or other distributed protocols in that our approach  assumes  that the sensors are deployed almost uniformly and with high density over the region. So we only need  to fix a regular division of the  region into subregions to make the problem tractable.  The subdivision is made using divide-and-conquer concept such that the number of hops between any pairs  of sensors inside a subregion is  less than or equal to~3. The sensors inside each subregion cooperate to elect one leader. Leader applies sensor activity scheduling based optimization to provide the schedule to the sensor nodes in the subregion. The advantage of our approach is to minimize the energy consumption required for communication. The sensors only require to communicate with the other sensors inside the subregion to elect the leader instead of communicating with other nodes in the WSN. \\Whereas in LEACH and other cluster head election methods, the cluster heads are elected in distributed way where sensors  elect  themselves  to  be local cluster-heads  at any  given time  with  a  certain  probability. These cluster-head  nodes  broadcast  their  status  to  the  other  sensors  in the network.  Each sensor node determines to which cluster it wants to belong by choosing the cluster-head that requires the minimum communication energy. Once all the nodes are organized into clusters, each cluster-head creates a schedule for the nodes in its cluster.   \\\\

-In our approach, the leader selection technique is quite different from the LEACH protocol or from its variants. Contrary to the LEACH protocol, the division of the area of interest into subregions is assumed to be performed before the head election. Moreover we assume that sensors are deployed almost uniformly and with high density over the area of interest, such that the division is fixed and regular. As in LEACH, our protocol works in round fashion. In each round, during the pre-sensing phase, nodes make autonomous decisions. In LEACH, each sensor elects itself to be a cluster head, and each non-cluster head will determine its cluster for the round.  In our protocol, nodes in the same subregion select their leader. In both protocols, the amount of remaining energy in each node is taken into account to promote the nodes that have the most energy to become leader. Contrary to the LEACH protocol where all sensors will be active during the sensing-phase, our protocol allows to deactivate a subset of sensors through an optimization process which reduces significantly the energy consumption. \\\\
-As explained by the reviewer, there is a large variety of energy-efficient protocols for WSN. We focus on GAF and DESK protocols for two main points. First,  our protocol is inspired from the two other ones. DiLCO uses a regular division of the area as in GAF protocol and a temporal division in rounds as in DESK algorithm. Secondly, GAF and DESK are well-known protocols, easy to implement, and often used as references for comparison. \textcolor{red}{je ne sais pas si on ne devrait pas inclure une ref à LEACH dans la biblio, mais je ne sais pas trop comment l'introduire dans le papier...}
- \\\\
-}}
+In our  approach, the  leader selection  technique is  quite different  from the
+LEACH  protocol or  from  its  variants. Contrary  to  the  LEACH protocol,  the
+division of  the area  of interest  into subregions is  assumed to  be performed
+before the head  election. Moreover, we assume that sensors  are deployed almost
+uniformly  and with  high  density over  the  area of  interest,  such that  the
+division is fixed and regular. As in LEACH, our protocol works in round fashion.
+In each round, during the pre-sensing phase, nodes make autonomous decisions. In
+LEACH, each sensor elects itself to be a cluster head, and each non-cluster head
+will determine its  cluster for the round.   In our protocol, nodes  in the same
+subregion select their leader. In both protocols, the amount of remaining energy
+in each  node is  taken into  account to promote  the nodes  that have  the most
+energy to become leader.  Contrary to  the LEACH protocol where all sensors will
+be active during  the sensing-phase, our protocol allows to  deactivate a subset
+of  sensors through  an  optimization process  which  reduces significantly  the
+energy consumption. \\\\ As explained by  the reviewer, there is a large variety
+of energy-efficient  protocols for WSN. We  focus on GAF and  DESK protocols for
+two main reasons. First, our protocol is  inspired by both of them. DiLCO uses a
+regular division  of the  area as  in GAF  protocol and  a temporal  division in
+rounds  as in  DESK.  Second,  GAF and  DESK are  well-known protocols,  easy to
+implement, and  often used as  references for comparison.  \textcolor{red}{je ne
+  sais pas si on ne devrait pas inclure une ref \`a LEACH dans la biblio, mais je
+  ne sais pas trop comment l'introduire dans le papier...}
+\textcolor{magenta}{Le premier paragraphe de ta r\'eponse me semble pas mal, juste pour situer
+notre protocole par rapport à LEACH. On pourrait le mettre dans la section~2 ?}\\\\ }}

 %In fact, GAF algorithm is chosen for comparison as a competitor because it is famous and easy to implement, as well as many authors referred to it in many publications. DESK algorithm is also selected as competitor in the comparison because it works into rounds fashion (network lifetime divided into rounds) similar to our approaches, as well as DESK is a full distributed coverage approach. }}
 
 %In fact, GAF algorithm is chosen for comparison as a competitor because it is famous and easy to implement, as well as many authors referred to it in many publications. DESK algorithm is also selected as competitor in the comparison because it works into rounds fashion (network lifetime divided into rounds) similar to our approaches, as well as DESK is a full distributed coverage approach. }}
 

-
-
+% Michel => TO BE CONTINUED

 
 \noindent The following improvements may be suggested to make it even better:\\
 \noindent {\bf 1. What is the "new idea" or contribution of this work?}    \\
 
 \noindent The following improvements may be suggested to make it even better:\\
 \noindent {\bf 1. What is the "new idea" or contribution of this work?}    \\