Entice to Trap: Enhanced Protection against a Rate-Aware Intelligent Jammer in Cognitive Radio Networks

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The reviewed paper proposes aims to improve the protection Against a Rate-Aware Intelligent Jammer for cognitive radios. 

The paper is well written and easy to follow. The state of the art is highly clear and provides clear and good view on the domain. 

however, some comments are raised in order to larfy some points:

1- Since the jammer targets only the secondary transmissions and avoids the primary ones due to the higg penalty (row 263), distinguishing between these two types of transmissions becomes of high importance. How does the jammer differentiate between these two types of transmissions?

2- It was not clear what are the methods  used to evaluate the data-rate of SU. This is essential for the jammer to target the SU with the highest data-rate as proposed by the authors.

3- The PSU should send at a data-rate higher than the other SUs, as proposed by the authors. This assumptions insists some kind of cooperation between the secondary transmitters. Actualy, this cooperation is not always guaranteed, especially where different SUs from different kind of networks operate in the same area. 

Some comments:

1- increase the size of Fig. 1

2- row 189: "we have have" to be fixed

3-  (SU) defined in row 52. no need to re-define it in rows 203 and 208

4- generaly, the paper should be revised to avoid the grammar and the spelling mistakes

Author Response

Kindly see the attached PDF

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

General evaluation

The paper presents the results of analytical study devoted to anti-jamming deception in cognitive radio networks, based on the game theorem. This game is designed to protect the SUs from intentional jamming. Deception is based on the introduction of the fake SU which attracts attention of the jammer. As the criterion of the results evaluation the bandwidth efficiency in bps/Hz was used.

The paper is well written. There are some errors (some typical examples are given below) Please, correct all such errors.

1. Regarding the scientific content:

1. 1. Please explain, how the network utility is mapped into bandwidth efficiency presented in Fig. 3, 4, 5, 6? Is it according to Equation (17)? If yes, this Equation should be described and presented before Fig. 3.
   2. Equation (6) introduces two new symbols (G and J) which were not explained.
   3. Equation (5) - the index “i” used in the denominator (sum from 1 to N) cannot be the same as the index “i” used in the nominator (R_i).
   4. Similar remarks for Equations (9), (11), (16).

2. Regarding the formatting and presentation:

1. 1. In the Abstract in lines 14-16 the sentence is repeated. One of them should be removed.
   2. In line 52 the “SNR” abbreviation appears for the first time. However, the explanation for this abbreviation is given in line 228.
   3. In Table 1 for reference [16] in column NE/SE there is upper footnote 1 after NE. Please explain or remove it.
   4. There is not reference to Table 2 in the paper.
   5. Equation (6) should be presented before equation given in line 322 (not numerated), because equation in line 322 is based on Equation (6).
   6. Please, numerate equation given in line 322 and update numeration for the rest of equations.
   7. Something is missing in the description of factor “i” in line 363 and similar for Equation (10).
   8. In lines 363 and 364 there are two factors “i”. Is it the same factor or two different factors? They have different ranges.
   9. Footnote 2 (reference to the factor “L” given in line 409) should be changed into normal sentence in the paragraph text and introduced after factor “L” in line 409. Otherwise, it simply means that “L” is squared, which is not true.

3. Grammar and style:

There is lack of affiliation for Muhammad Islam and Sheroz Khan (upper footnote no. 5).

In lines 10-11, the phrase “is introduced” is used two times. One of these phrases should be removed (e.g., on the end of the sentence).

In line 154 there is the abbreviation (SPNE). Probably it should be (NE).

In line 157 there is “The transmitter receiver node”. It should be “The transceiver node”.

In line 189 there is double “have”. One of them should be removed.

In the header of the Table 2 there is “Throughout”. It should be “Throughput”.

In line 193 there is “introducing it attraction factor”. It should be “introducing an attraction factor”.

In line 200 there is “Section 5 concludes the paper”. It should be “Section 6 concludes the paper”.

In line 234 there is double “with”. One of them should be removed.

In line 272 there is “increase the chances of jamming”. It should be “increase the risk of jamming”.

In the Figure 2 there is “Neithgher PU”. It should be “Neither SU”.

In line 349 there is “jammer takes the a impression”. It should be “jammer takes an impression”.

In line 354, in description of Definition 1 there is “solution to to a bimatrix game”. It should be “solution to a bimatrix game”.

In line 366 there is “and R is”. It should be “and R_p is”.

In line 395 there is “overall throughout”. It should be “overall throughput”.

In footnote number 2 there is “of sun-channel”. It should be “of sub-channel”.

In line 445 there is “the results in and [28] shows”. It should be “the results in [28] shows”.

In line 477 there is “the jammeer”. It should be “the jammer”.

In the list of abbreviations there is “DHSS”. It should be “DSSS”.

In the list of abbreviations there is “Power Comtroll”. It should be “Power Control”.

Author Response

Kindly see the attached PDF.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

• General concept comments

Regardless of the high substantive assessment of the content of the article and the undoubted scientific value, it seems important to clarify several issues:

- what model of the CR system was adopted, there is no information about the mobility of radios,

- what are the time relations between transmissions and the impact of time delay, jitter and time synchronization in overall,

- it should be clearly indicated which model of dynamic access to the spectrum was adopted, the article mentions the leasing method, but it is not adequate for the model described, where the spectrum is shared between PU and SU,

- why the FH mode was omitted in the solution?

• Specific comments 

There is no reference in the text to figure 2 and tables. Figure 2 should be moved to subsection 3.2. Also Equation 6 is misplaced because it refers to subsection 3.4.1.

There are several mistakes in Figure 2: P=0 for active PU (see description) in blue field should be “SU” instead “PU”

SE (Stackelberg Equilibrium)  is not used in the text (only in table 1 and abbreviations). The same is true for the abbreviations TS, RA, and PC in Table 2.

Line 154 – what means abbreviation SPNE

In table 1 -  8 row, 2 column should be “Markov”, 11 row 4 column should be “Convex”

Line 209 – W is total used bandwidth not sub-channel’s one

Line 312 – twice “the”

Line 384 - the text below the sub-chapter title appears to be pasted as there is no line relating to it. Here in definition third row is twice “do”

In abbreviations should be DSSS instead DHSS, line 492 should be PC Power Control

Author Response

Kindly see the attached PDF.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have responded to all the raised points.