Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1: The authors must include the importance of thieir study in the introduction.

- To do this they can include a table including the key contributions of recent studies.

- They need to include the key contributions of this study.

2: All the abbreviation should first mention and then it could be used in the article. In the Absytract the abbreviated word SUI's elaborated form is unavailable.

3: In Table 1, if the authors used Km to mean kilometer, the it is wrong. They need to correct it, in that case.

4: How to understand the data mentioned in Table 3, as latitude value's unit is y and longitide units value are missing?

5: The authors need to discuss the results they obtained in this study. How their results align the previous knowledge.

6: They should include at least some comments about how do their obtained results is generalized.

7: They should include some numeric results in the abstract and in the conclusion as well.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for your comments, which are addressed in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author analyzes and compares Wi-Fi coverage modeling, which has some reference value. The shortcomings of this paper are as follows:

1. The abstract should highlight the purpose and results.

2. The innovation points and contributions of the paper are not prominent and clear enough.

3. The designed method and model should give a flow chart, which is not clear enough now.

4. Formula (11) and formula (12) are ambiguous and need to be modified and improved.

5. The formulas of the full text should be written in a standardized way, and some descriptive words should be more organized.

6. During simulation, the simulation parameter settings are not fully set.

7. In simulation, the comparison of existing classical algorithms should be added to prove the superiority of the designed method.

 8. Some simulation figures and experiments are too simple.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English expression can be improved.

Author Response

Thanks to the reviewer for your important suggestions, which have been addressed in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors response about previous round comment — "They should include at least some comments about how their obtained results are generalized" did not addressed the comment considering every perspectives.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer again for allowing us to further expand the discussion of the results and future work which is attached in the document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have carefully revised the paper based on the opinions of experts, and the quality of the paper has been greatly improved. Now,the paper can be accepted.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions for improving the article.