Wireless Communication Channel Scenarios: Machine-Learning-Based Identification and Performance Enhancement
John Tsiligkaridis
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Explanation needed for : “Then the evaluation … labels” p13 lines 281-283
Author Response
attached file is submitted.
Reviewer 2 Report
Please see the attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors propose identification and performance improvement for wireless communication channels using ML. It is an interesting job. Instead, I have some proposal and doubt to solve.
The authors propose this work is in the framework of the future 6G; instead, the authors have not considered the satellite within the group of channels. The 3GPP, since Release 15, recommends introducing the satellite as one more member of the terrestrial networks. Therefore, we must consider the Satcom link within the wireless channels group.
This opens the door to a series of channels that the authors should consider and have not considered. Recently, there has been work that collects just all the channel models to integrate into wireless communications. Authors should at least reference the following work as a future line within the introduction or their conclusions.
- V.M. Baeza, E. Lagunas, H, Al-Hraishawi and S. Chatzinotas, “An Overview of Channel Models for NGSO Satellites” in IEEE 96th Vehicular Technology Conference Fall. London 2022.
Among the parameters included in section 2, from my point of view for the model, it is also necessary to consider the Doppler effect. The authors must explain why they do not consider the Doppler.
Author Response
Please see the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
I have the following comments for improvements in the paper.
1. I am missing the motivation for the proposed method.
3. The authors fail to provide the research gap and the limitations of the previous works.
4. A comprehensive overview of the previouse works along with their analysis and limitations is needed.
5. The problem statement and motivation should be clearly identified.
6. The authors should provide the motivation for their proposed works.
7. Novel contributions should be provided and included in the paper.
8. The paper lacks a comparison with the previous similar schemes.
9. A table of notations should be provided.
10. Results and analysis sections need improvement and should be compared with previous works also logically.
11. Future directions should be provided.
Author Response
Please see the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank to the Authors for addressing all my comments.
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors have revised according to comments.
