Analysis and Research on Secondary LT Coding Anti-Eavesdropping Scheme Based on LT Code Degree-1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In line 133, the authors refer to the research as the essay, please change.
In line 150, it should read the channel, not The Channel.
Figure 2. should include Eve in the structure and explain in detail in section 2.3.
Section 4 discusses the results of Figure 2.2 indicating modeling Eve which is missing from the structure. This will make the discussion of the results invalid. The authors need to rectify this issue.
The conclusion section is very brief, the authors need to elaborate more to reflect the scientific viability of the research.
The quality of the English language generally is good. However, there is a need for more editing to reflect the quality of the research.
Author Response
Comment1: In line 133, the authors refer to the research as the essay, please change.
Response1: We appreciate you pointing this out and we have completed the changes here.
Comment2: In line 150, it should read the channel, not The Channel.
Response2: This revision has also been completed in the new manuscript.
Comment3: Figure 2. should include Eve in the structure and explain in detail in section 2.3.
Response3: We have added the Eve structure to Figure 2.2 in Section 2.3 and made a detailed explanation of the Eve part below the figure. We are very grateful to the reviewers for pointing out this issue and making the model more complete.
Comment4: Section 4 discusses the results of Figure 2.2 indicating modeling Eve which is missing from the structure. This will make the discussion of the results invalid. The authors need to rectify this issue.
Response4: In response to this question, Figure 2.2 is indeed insufficient to support the analysis in Section IV due to its missing Eve modeling. For this reason, we have included the Eve structure in Fig. 2.2 to make the discussion in Section IV more meaningful, and even in Section IV, we have additionally included a comparative simulation analysis with the literature [21] and [22] schemes to make the analysis more adequate.
Comment5: The conclusion section is very brief, the authors need to elaborate more to reflect the scientific viability of the research.
Response5: For the conclusion section, we have reworked it to show how the scheme in this paper is coded, and its superiority over other existing schemes is that the second LT coding is only for a small number of degree-1 symbols, so the complexity and the number of encoded symbols sent by the source is reduced to some extent, and the same exists for a higher rate of untranslated by the eavesdropper to achieve the anti-eavesdropping effect. It is also pointed out that double LT long codes are more effective when the main channel is better or slightly worse than the eavesdropping channel.
We have labeled the changes involved and uploaded them in word form.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Although you state that the paper is theoretical you are publishing (in order to provide benchmarks) graphs with the performance of the algorithms. I believe you should either try to provide more details and explanations of these 'Matlab' graphs or stick to the theoretical part. For me, the tests you make for your conclusion are not sufficient. So, please try to adjust that.
Author Response
Comment: Although you state that the paper is theoretical you are publishing (in order to provide benchmarks) graphs with the performance of the algorithms. I believe you should either try to provide more details and explanations of these 'Matlab' graphs or stick to the theoretical part. For me, the tests you make for your conclusion are not sufficient. So, please try to adjust that.
Response: We thank the reviewer for their kind suggestions. To address this issue, we have made the following modifications:
Firstly, in the theoretical part of Section III, in 3.2 Decoding Complexity, we add a comparative analysis with two other existing fountain code schemes to enhance its theoretical persuasiveness.
Secondly, in the simulation experiment part of Section IV, we additionally add four diagrams to compare with other schemes under different conditions, so as to make the combination of theory and simulation more convincing.
We upload the revised manuscript in word form below.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
- It is necessary that authors discuss the existing literature pertaining to LT Coding anti-eavesdropping. I would suggest adding a section for related works in which the authors discuss the limitations of the existing solutions and highlight the research problem that this paper solves.
- Authors also are advised to write a paragraph at the end of the Introduction section to highlight the contribution/novelty of the paper.
- In the results section, it is necessary that the authors compare the proposed scheme with the existing schemes, and highlight how this work addresses the limitations of the existing ones.
Proofreading is recommended
Author Response
Comment1: It is necessary that authors discuss the existing literature pertaining to LT Coding anti-eavesdropping. I would suggest adding a section for related works in which the authors discuss the limitations of the existing solutions and highlight the research problem that this paper solves.
Response1: We thank the reviewer for their suggestions. To this end, we have added theoretical analysis and simulation experiments of the literature [21] and [22] throughout the paper, with the aim of highlighting the superiority of the scheme in this paper through comparison. That is, although the literature [21] and [22] realize the anti-eavesdropping, the coding complexity and the number of encoded symbols sent by the source are relatively high due to the twice encoding. In contrast, the scheme in this paper not only ensures the anti-eavesdropping effect, but also reduces the complexity and the number of encoded symbols sent by the source, which has high application value.
Comment2: Authors also are advised to write a paragraph at the end of the Introduction section to highlight the contribution/novelty of the paper.
Response2: We explain in the last part of the introduction that the work in this paper aims to achieve an anti-eavesdropping feature in addition to reducing the decoding overhead compared to other schemes.
Comment3: In the results section, it is necessary that the authors compare the proposed scheme with the existing schemes, and highlight how this work addresses the limitations of the existing ones.
Response3: We have reworked the concluding section in Section V to show that the literature [21] and [22], while achieving a high eavesdropper untranslated rate, have a high decoding overhead due to the need to go through twice LT coding. For this reason, the scheme in this paper encodes only a small number of degree-1 symbols for the second time, and the decoding complexity and the number of encoded symbols sent by the source are reduced to some extent, which realizes the anti-eavesdropping function and reduces the decoding overhead.
We upload the revised manuscript in word form below.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
I would like to suggest considering a comparative analysis with the following related works :
- Zhang et al., 'LT Codes with Double Encoding Matrix Reorder Physical Layer Secure Transmission,' Journal of Sensors, 2022.
- Zhang et al., 'Design of Anti-Eavesdropping Scheme for SLT-LT Codes Based on Random Symbol Sets,' IEEE Access, 2022.
- Zhang et al., 'Shifted LT Code Security Scheme for Partial Information Encryption,' Entropy, 2022.
A comparison between your innovative approach and the methodologies proposed in these papers could further enrich the insights of your study.
Author Response
We appreciate the reviewers' suggestions to make the paper more complete. We make the following adjustments.
First, for 'Zhang et al., 'Shifted LT Code Security Scheme for Partial Information Encryption,' Entropy, 2022.', since this literature is not in the erase channel original environment, but additionally introduces noise, leading to the fact that it is not possible to compare with this scheme without being under the same conditions.
Secondly, for the other two literatures, the comparison has been added to this paper in a large extent, and in Section III.3.2 the decoding complexity, the theoretical comparison is carried out. In Section IV, another comparison of simulation experiments is carried out. Through the theoretical derivation and experimental results, it can be obtained that the scheme of this paper gets a decrease in both the decoding complexity and the number of encoded symbols sent by the source.
We upload the revised manuscript in word form below.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
This paper is written clearly, with understandable language. The paper has a well defined structure followed by Figures and Algorithm explanation that helps to understand the Authors idea.
However, some minor omissions have occurred. Here is the list of reviewer comments, and also in attached .pdf document.
Line 44: Sentence starts with „[5] ...” could it be written differently?
Line 76: abbreviation RF first time introduced. Please write full meaning.
Line 85: abbreviation BER first time introduced. Please write full meaning.
Line 99: abbreviation LT first time introduced. Please write full meaning.
Line 113: abbreviation BP first time introduced. Please write full meaning.
Line 119: abbreviation SLT - LT first time introduced. Please write full meaning.
Line 142: abbreviation RSD first time introduced. Please write full meaning.
Line 182: “Alice and Bob. and while” seems like end of sentence after word Bob? could it be written differently?
Line 399: reference [23] seems a bit odd. Please check reference language.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
We are grateful to the reviewer for these details, and we have corrected them all, but SLT-LT in line 119 is itself the name of the anti-eavesdropping scheme that has been directly proposed, and has been cited here, so we apologize for not being able to correct it here. Other than that, all other details have been revised, labeled, and uploaded in word form below.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors addressed all the concerns raised in the previous review
minor editing that can be done during the read proof phase
Author Response
Thanks to the reviewer for the suggestion. We have reorganized 3.1 Safety Capacity, the content has not changed significantly, we have just restructured it to make it clearer, the modifications have been highlighted in yellow, and the modified version has been uploaded below.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Seems improved.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We would like to make the following explanation of our paper.
We are based on the literature [23], and together with the original authors, we further theoretically deduce and prove the paper, analyze and excavate the advantages and applicability of the scheme. It is proved that the scheme improves the secure channel capacity compared to LT codes. Compared with other quadratic fountain code schemes (DEMR-LT fountain code [21] and SLT-LT fountain code [22]), it guarantees a higher eavesdropper untranslated rate while at the same time reduces the decoding complexity and the number of encoded symbols sent by the source. Compared with the above three schemes, when the eavesdropping channel conditions are better than the main channel, the scheme in this paper has the highest eavesdropper untranslated rate, which effectively ensures the security of information transmission. It is also pointed out that the double LT fountain code using long codes has a greater eavesdropper untranslated rate when the main channel is better or slightly worse than the eavesdropping channel conditions, but instead the decoding overhead is lower.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
