A Coalition Formation Game-Based Multi-User Grouping Approach in the Jamming Environment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this paper, the authors propose an approach to maximize users’ transmission rates while avoiding channels jamming through the optimizing of the coalition formation strategy. The authors have used game theoretical approaches and shown that the proposed update strategy has Nash equilibrium points and works better than other greedy and pareto solutions. In general the paper's technical contributions are suitable for publications. However, section organizations should be reorganized. Some sections such as Section 4 is too small in size. Some sections also need proofreading. Therefore I recommend major revision.

Some  comments:

- Which simulation environment is used for evaluations?

- Where is the location of jamming in Fig. 3?

- How close are you to optimal solution? How hard is it to obtain optimal one? Can you compare in small examples?

- A notation table would be helpful

- Use an appropriate text editor. Some of the formulas are larger than text and some are smaller.

- On page 8 line 240, it should be "Fig.5 shows the..."

- On page 8 line 242, the sentence is incomplete

- On page 4 line 117, it should be "make  the following definitions:"

 

 

Author Response

 

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper proposes a game-theoretical model to develop algorithms with which transmission rates of users using wireless communication networks are optimized in jamming environments. The authors find that the algorithm corresponding to “reciprocity preference”, so called by the authors, shows the best performance. It is true that the content of the paper is interesting, but there are some unclear points that reduce the readability of the paper and that should be addressed before publication:

 (1)  In some formulas, some variables are used without clear definitions. For example, what are u_i^n in Eq.(1), {Co}_pi in Eq.(3),  phi_i(CO_n) or phi_i(CO_n\u_i) in Eq.(6), and set M in line140? Please make it sure that all variables are clearly defined in the text.

 (2)  Sometimes, variables are defined multiple times in different places. For example, Co_n appears three times in Eq.(1), Eq(3), and in line222 and they seem to have different meanings. Or, the definition of R(CO_n) also appears three times in line111, line 126, and line 158.

 (3)  I am confused by some inconsistent descriptions in the text. For example, in line 120 it is noted “users u_i” and in line 142 “ a user u_i”. Does u_i denote a set of users or an individual user?

 (4)  The reference 19 is cited in the main text, but it cannot be found in the reference list.

Author Response

 

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The review is attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

 

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have partially responded to my comments. Still some of the equations are not matching the font of the text. The comparison discussion with optimal results is not embedded into text.

Author Response

请参阅附件。

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I recommend the paper for publication

Author Response

Thank you very much for your recommendation to publish this paper.