POTMEC: A Novel Power Optimization Technique for Mobile Edge Computing Networks
, Rajendirane Rajmohan 2, Sunday Adeola Ajagbe 3,4,*, Oluwatobi Akinlade 5 and Matthew Olusegun Adigun 3
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is appropriate However there are certain concerns that must be addressed .
The abstract section must represent the result of the proposed study , and I haven't seen such result authors used maybe which is not appropriate.
A protocol or framework of the proposed system must be presented in methodology section. The authors have provided only a general figure about UDEC architecture.
Compare your methods with other pioneer methods / approaches and contradicts the results.
Evaluation tables of the proposed method is missing. the authors must provide these.
Include Threats / Limitations and validations of the model in conclusion section.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageProofreading of the language is required . complex words or phrases may be modified to easier and professional one.
Author Response
Reviewer 1 Comments
Comment 1: The abstract section must represent the result of the proposed study , and I haven't seen such result authors used maybe which is not appropriate.
Response 1: Abstract is revised.
Comment 2: A protocol or framework of the proposed system must be presented in methodology section. The authors have provided only a general figure about UDEC architecture.
Response 2: UDEC architecture is added.
Comment 3: Compare your methods with other pioneer methods / approaches and contradicts the results.
Response 3: Figure 3 compares the proposed PO's performance in terms of energy consumption. As the number of mobile users grows, so does the energy needed to transport data. Because PO consistently uses less power even when the usage of cellular users changes, this suggests that PO is more efficient at spectrum sharing and can save more energy than other algorithms.
Comment 4: Evaluation tables of the proposed method is missing. the authors must provide these.
Response 4: Table 2 is added.
Comment 5: Include Threats / Limitations and validations of the model in conclusion section.
Response 5: limitation is added in conclusion.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors investigate the power allocation for mobile edge networks with offloading computations to a server. This is a topic, which has been considered extensively in the past, so it is unclear what the contributions are. Moreover, the presentation could/must be improved. Please consider the following revisions:
- Abstract: no need for extensive description of context, it is better to directly explain the problem being considered and why it is important. It is unclear what the key strategy or idea is behind any a new proposed scheme. There should be also more specific conclusion about the performance - how much is the new scheme better than other schemes? In addition, what is a trained model? Are the authors suggesting to use Matlab in the devices? Are there several models or schemes being learned? It is completely unclear. Thus, Abstract should be completely rewritten.
- Delete lines 38-44.
- Literature survey can be merged into Introduction including identifying explicitly what the new contributions are.
- Problem formulation can be merged into Section 3, which also described the proposed solution (better to refer to it as protocol or method).
- The presentation of the algorithm and all displayed equations should be improved including their numbering in the proper format and style.
- It would be useful to know the difference between the proposed algorithm/method/protocol and the schemes, that are being compared.
- Evaluation and discussion of the results and the proposed method belongs to Section 4 (Numerical evaluations). Conclusions should be brief - 1 paragraph only.
- English writing should be improved to comply with grammar rules.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We sincerely appreciate the time and effort taken by the reviewers to evaluate our manuscript. We have carefully addressed all comments and revised the manuscript accordingly. Below is a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ feedback. Changes in the revised manuscript are highlighted in yellow for easy identification.
Comment 1: Abstract: no need for extensive description of context, it is better to directly explain the problem being considered and why it is important. It is unclear what the key strategy or idea is behind any a new proposed scheme. There should be also more specific conclusion about the performance - how much is the new scheme better than other schemes? In addition, what is a trained model? Are the authors suggesting to use Matlab in the devices? Are there several models or schemes being learned? It is completely unclear. Thus, Abstract should be completely rewritten.
Response 1: Abstract is revised.
Comment 2: Delete lines 38-44.
Response 2: The lines are deleted.
Comment 3: Literature survey can be merged into Introduction including identifying explicitly what the new contributions are.
Response 3: Few lines are modified.
Comment 4: Problem formulation can be merged into Section 3, which also described the proposed solution (better to refer to it as protocol or method).
Response 4: Problem formulation is added in section 3.
Comment 5: The presentation of the algorithm and all displayed equations should be improved including their numbering in the proper format and style.
Response 5: Algorithm is formatted.
Comment 6: It would be useful to know the difference between the proposed algorithm/method/protocol and the schemes, that are being compared.
Response 6: Comparison details are added.
Comment 7: Evaluation and discussion of the results and the proposed method belongs to Section 4 (Numerical evaluations). Conclusions should be brief - 1 paragraph only.
Response 7: Table 2 is added.
Comment 8: English writing should be improved to comply with grammar rules.
Response 8: Article is corrected with native English speaker.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAttached the review comments.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Some of the sentences are vague and difficult to understand the context of the research issue.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We sincerely appreciate the time and effort taken by the reviewers to evaluate our manuscript. We have carefully addressed all comments and revised the manuscript accordingly. Below is a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ feedback. Changes in the revised manuscript are highlighted in yellow for easy identification.
Comment 1: The authors have mentioned the following statement in the abstract. The following statement looks like it may develop near-optimal offloading techniques and not the
concrete or guaranteed outcome. If possible, please rewrite this statement.
“Experiments demonstrate that the 31 suggested methods may accurately and effectively
develop near-optimal offloading techniques.”
Response 1: This sentence is revised.
Comment 2: I would recommend the authors to either elaborate this sentence (what is excellent combination property) or avoid this sentence.
“It also has an excellent combination property.”
Response 2: Unnecessary sentences are removed.
Comment 3: I would recommend the authors to reorganize the structure of the paper. Could you please move the objectives of paper and problem formulation into section 3 instead
of literature review in section 2.
Response 3: Problem statement is moved into Section 3.1.
Comment 4: Could you summarize how the proposed technique is different from the conventional offloading techniques in section 2?
Response 4: The differences are discussed in section 2. (Three key innovations distinguish the POTMEC technique from traditional offloading methods, such as IHRA [10] or Lyapunov-based [12]. (2) A distributed edge-tier architecture aligns micro-BS-level decisions with macro-BS oversight, enabling scalable operation in ultra-dense networks (100+ devices) where traditional methods (e.g., SAGA) are hindered by O(3ⁿ) comp. K-fold cross-validation (K=5) on real-world MEC traces gives POTMEC 95% accuracy in dynamic environments, a significant improvement over simulation-only benchmarks [10,15]. This comprehensive method improves 5G/IoT scalability and addresses the critical latency-energy trade-off in traditional systems.)
Comment 5: In section 2.1, the authors have mentioned that “XBest n denotes the ideal price”. What is the meaning for YBest? I would recommend the authors to edit Equation 1 and 2 using some equation editor?
Response 5: In the POWER Optimization Algorithm, YBest represents the current local optimum observed during iterative power allocation, while XBest (as noted) denotes the global ideal value (e.g., minimal energy cost under constraints). Specifically: YBest temporar-ily stores the best solution found in the current iteration. XBest tracks the overall best solution across all iterations until convergence.
Comment 6: The authors have mentioned that “V1 means that the total amount of up-link bandwidth that can be made accessible to all users in this system cannot go above the maximum bandwidth”. Where is V1 in Equation 1 and 2? It is not listed in Table 1 also.
Response 6: The equations are revised.
Comment 7: The authors have mentioned a base station which acts as the coordinator for the complete execution. However, I don’t see the base station in the diagram and I would suggest the authors elaborate more details about the proposed system.
Response 7: Block diagram is added as Figure 2.
Comment 8: The authors have mentioned that “M= 1, 2,..., u and N = 1, 2,..., n, represent the set of mobile users and BSs.” in the proposed system”. I believe that the representation should follow the uniform approach.
Response 8: The notations are revised.
Comment 9: The authors have mentioned that “The procedure for transferring subtasks from
Work-stations (WDs) to Manufacturing Execution Systems (MES) involves a series of
operations” Where are the workstations and the manufacturing execution systems in the
proposed system? How did the readers understand the context of the proposed system?
Response 9: These details are added in section 3.1.
Comment 10: It is very difficult for the readers to understand the details of the algorithm explained in section 3.1.
Response 10: Algorithm is explained well.
Comment 11: The algorithm described in A which looks very similar to Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) algorithm. What is the novelty in your algorithm? Please clarify this in detail.
Response 11: - Minimize: Total energy consumption (∑Eₙ)
- Subject to:
* Bandwidth constraint: ∑Yᵤ ≤ Uₘₐₓ
* Latency bounds: tₙ ≤ tₙᵈⁱᵐⁱᵗ ∀n
* Power limits: 0 ≤ pₙ ≤ pₘₐₓ
The proposed algorithm is not a PSO variant but a novel hybrid combining:
- Gradient-aware optimization (like convex methods).
- Iterative local/global comparison (inspired by PSO’s pbest/gbest).
- MEC-specific adaptations (channel/power/latency constraints).
Comment 12: How do you claim that your proposed algorithm is obvious to deliver a more reliable result? These statements are literally vague
Response 12: The phrases are revised.
Comment 13: How did you achieve less consumption of energy using your proposed algorithm? However, there is no explanation of how you have achieved this result?
Response 13: Explanation for energy consumption is added in section 4.
Comment 14: There is no detailed explanation for the graphical notation of the experimental results depicted in figures (2) - (4).
Response 14: Figure explanations are added.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe abstract is unbalanced; the expected structure is: 1/3 describes the problem, 1/3 explain the solution, 1/3 explains the results obtained.
In Introduction, explicitly identify the paper contributions, and at the end, explain the paper structure.
The numbering of mathematical expressions is wrong.
Table I: add borders
Algorithm on p. 8 could be better formatted (use proper indentations).
Author Response
Comment 1: The abstract is unbalanced; the expected structure is: 1/3 describes the problem, 1/3 explain the solution, 1/3 explains the results obtained.
Response 1: We have revised the abstract accordingly.
Comment 2: In Introduction, explicitly identify the paper contributions, and at the end, explain the paper structure.
Response 2: We have revised the introduction section accordingly.
Comment 3: The numbering of mathematical expressions is wrong.
Response 3: Mathematical expression are renumbered.
Comment 4: Table I: add borders
Response 4: Table 1 is formatted with borders.
Comment 5: Algorithm on p. 8 could be better formatted (use proper indentations).
Response 5: Algorithm is formatted accordingly.
