Semantic Information Recovery in Wireless Networks
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. In this work authors model semantics by means of hidden random variables and define the semantic communication task as the data-reduced and reliable transmission of messages over a communication channel such that semantics is best preserved.
2. Provide evidence for “it has become clear that semantics-agnostic communication limits the achievable 23 efficiency in terms of bandwidth, power, and complexity trade-offs.” More discussion is needed here.
3. Separated related work from Section 1 and put it as a separate section (section 2). This will help you to elaborate section 1 properly.
4. The problem statement is not properly presented in section 1. The background of wireless networks and the associated problem needs to be discussed. The work “Recent Advances in Attacks, Technical Challenges, Vulnerabilities and Their Countermeasures in Wireless Sensor Networks” will be helpful.
5. Section 2 is the heart of the paper and is well written.
6. The considered simulation parameters must be presented in a table before results and discussion.
7. It is advisable to add relevant future research directions so as to guide future researchers and solve the related unsolved issues.
8. The role of ML for Wireless Network must be discussed in detail.
9. Works cited in related work is not recent. Also limited works have been discussed here. Section 2 must be the related work in which authors must discuss recent advancements in the field.
10. Authors must revise the manuscript and check the entire manuscript for typos, spelling mistakes and grammatical errors.
Needs Improvement
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1, thank you very much for your positive and constructive feedback. Attached you will find our detailed response to your comments.Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper describes a theoretical contribution regarding the semantic information recovery in case of wireless networks. The paper is well structured, and the scientific content well presented.
Few minor issues that the Authors have to solve are listed bellow:
1. Line 630: There is "{BPSK, BPSK, 16-QAM}." Why two times BPSK, is it a typo?
2. The Conclusion Section is too weak. Some numerical comparison and discussion should be added.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2, we would like to thank you for the really positive feedback on our manuscript. Attached you will find a detailed response to your comments.Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
