Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Q1. The authors proposed a quantitative deep neural network design method, which was verified on VGG10 1D-CNN model, and good results were obtained. Further testing of other similar models is recommended to make the results more convincing.

Q2. In order to further verify the superiority of this quantitative design method. Has the author considered comparing the quantization algorithm designed by using the quantitative design method in this paper with the existing quantization algorithm?

Q3. For the aquamarine color points in Figure 4, in addition to the two points (i2,a2,w2 and (i8,a8,w8), other representative points should also be marked to show the regularity.

Q4. Figures 8 and 9 show the results of the different quantized versions of the model. Is this result actually deployed in an FPGA experiment?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper proposed a quantized deep neural networks-based automatic modulation recognition method. Both the technical contribution and the presentation are acceptable.  The reviewer has a main concern about the novelty.  There are much deep learning-based AMR or AMC methods that have been proposed in recent years, such as: 

Multitask-Learning-Based Deep Neural Network for Automatic Modulation Classification. IEEE Internet Things J. 9(3): 2192-2206 (2022)

Automatic Modulation Classification Using Gated Recurrent Residual Network. IEEE Internet Things J. 7(8): 7795-7807 (2020)

Lightweight Automatic Modulation Classification Based on Decentralized Learning. IEEE Trans. Cogn. Commun. Netw. 8(1): 57-70 (2022)

NAS-AMR: Neural Architecture Search-Based Automatic Modulation Recognition for Integrated Sensing and Communication Systems. IEEE Trans. Cogn. Commun. Netw. 8(3): 1374-1386 (2022)

What is the main difference between these works? Hence, it is better to highlight the novelty of the proposed method in this paper.

The algorithm statement of the proposed method should be given. Also, there are some format problems and typos. Please check the whole paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is well revised according to the comments of reviewers, and it can be accepted in its current version.