Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. The study presents the results of original research.

2. Results reported have not been published elsewhere.

3. Experiments, statistics, and other analyses are performed to a high technical standard and are described in sufficient detail.

4. Conclusions are presented in an appropriate fashion and are supported by the data.

5. The article is presented in an intelligible fashion and is written in standard English.

6. The research meets all applicable standards for the ethics of experimentation and research integrity.

7. The article adheres to appropriate reporting guidelines and community standards for data availability.

Author Response

The response has been sent to you in the word file, please check it

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1. How the average weekly traffic data is calculated and combined with the FedGSA.

2. Telecom Italia in the European... Is this dataset openly available. I am confused about the results. Therefore, before reviewing the whole algorithm the author should submit a code either in matlab or anyother tool they are using. Authenticity is required to check for this idea. Which is not significant at this stage

Author Response

The response has been sent to you in the word file, please check it

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors presented work titled "Wireless Traffic Prediction Based on Gradient Similarity 3 Fedeated Aggregation Algorithm" is a good work. However, there are some points that need to be addressed before the final publication.

1- The Contribution and Paper Organization should be clearly written in a separate subsection.

2- Please elaborate in detail about the proposed Technique.

3- Figures should be more clear in reading like Figure 4 which needs to be changed.

4- More detailed analysis should be presented in the Results section.

5- Comparative Analysis should be presented with other techniques in graphical form.

Author Response

The response has been sent to you in the word file, please check it

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

1. ....... In the literature [12],    ..... should be written a In [12],.......

2. Related work part is confusing. Author should explain the figure in Section 1. And here only the state of the art work. None of the recent work is explained. 

3.line 302...................Here we use gradients to measure the similarity of individual client models and ex- 302 plore how similarity knowledge can be inferred by comparing client model gradients ra- 303 ther than based on the data of the clients themselves....................................The paper need detailed proof reading. Sentence structure is very bad.

 

4. I am still confusing how the data is being generated. How the author get data from overseas when its not available? The team of the author is also actively working on a disaster modeling of the city of Cyprus and Uk. The crusial data required some permission and source. In my opinion I am taking all these results still "CONFUSING"

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, The response to the review comments has been replied to you as an attachment, thank you for your guidance.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Yes, the authors addressed all the comments, which may now be accepted in present form. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, The response to the review comments has been replied to you as an attachment, thank you for your guidance.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

N/A