CRLB Analysis for Passive Sensor Network Localization Using Intelligent Reconfigurable Surface and Phase Modulation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
CRLB Analysis for Passive Sensor network Localization using Intelligent Reconfigurable Surface and Phase Modulation
1- The Authors propose two solutions for passive wireless sensor localization by phase modulation: First one is the approximation algorithm. The second solution utilizing a Genetic Algorithm.
22- The authors find that the sensors localization performance the second solution using Genetic Algorithm is much better than approximation algorithm.
33- The researchers used complex mathematical formulas, some of which need more explicit analysis. It could confuse the reader without prior clarification.
4- It is good to explain your results in some details.
55- It is better to enrich the results and clarify them by adding more tables and figures for the different simulation points in the paper.
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer for the thorough and comprehensive review of our paper. We have carefully read your comments and made corresponding modifications in our revision. The presentation of the paper has benefited greatly thanks to your contribution. We try our best to correct all the grammatical mistakes and inaccurate English usages. And the technical responses are listed in the attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper "CRLB Analysis for Passive Sensor network Localization using Intelligent Reconfigurable Surface and Phase Modulation" addresses the issue of localization in the IOT field, focusing on passive wireless sensor devices.
The authors perform a detailed analysis of the method to estimate the position of passive nodes using received power and cooperative localisation. Then, few simulation results are given.
The following comments/concerns regarding the manuscript can potentially improve its overall quality and readability:
1. The authors should highlight more clearly the advantage of their main contribution, compared toq other systems cited in the introduction.
2. The proposed system (with hundreds of IRS) seems to be a very high constraints for an IOT ecosystem including a few active nodes. In addition, the proposed algorithms appear to be time and resources consuming for small nodes, embedded a limited amount of memory and computing power. Could the authors discuss this issue?
3. Previous authors’ work should be cited, such as “Y. Zhao, X. Li and M. Xia, "Cooperative Localization in Wireless Powered Communication Network," ICC 2021 - IEEE International Conference on Communications, 2021, pp. 1-6, doi: 10.1109/ICC42927.2021.9500689.”
4. The authors use many acronyms, in some sentences, the readability becomes rather low.
5. The equation development for the cooperative localization is quite similar to the previous done in section 3.1, confirmed by the sentence on lines 161-163 “Note that, since the single target and multiple target localization performances are quite similar to the cooperative localization mode, we just evaluate the cooperative localization performance”.
6. Line 101, “and nni ∼ N (0, σni2) is the noise which follows a normal distribution with zero mean and variance of σ2”: in IOT ecosystem, the communications are generally short, with relatively high power and low frequency repetition, leading to a non normal distributed noise coming from other nodes. Is there any implications on the presented mathematical developments ?
7. Section 4.2 could be improved by providing more details on the selection process and crossover for the GA.
8. Figures 2 and 3 have a y-axis that calls out. First, there is not unit. Secondly, the range is very dilated: the graphics seem to show large variations, but in fact, the change is limited to about 1% for the two figures !
9. Section 5.1 is too small. The analysis of the graphics is limited and the statement such as “GA attains the smallest SPEB” could be discussed (is the SPEB variation from 3.52 down to 3.485 significant ?)
10. Figure 4 and section 5.3 should be more explicit on the interest of the provided solution, since the three curves are almost superimposed.
11. In section 5.4, the number of iterations is changed from 200 to 100, the authors should explain why?
12. lines 55-56 : the sentence should be rewritten for a better understanding.
13. There are typos in the manuscript that need to be fixed, some examples:
• line 14: “In the passive wireless sensor network (PWSN),” => In passive wireless sensor networks (PWSN),
• line 27 : remove “etc” ?
• Line 29 : WET is not defined (done after, on line 42),
• line 37 : IRS is not defined,
• lines 69-70 : “Here we put a IRS to reflect the wireless energy waves” could be rewritten in the passive form,
• line 77: “we can only control We control ψ for phase” two times we control
• Figure 1: RIS instead of IRS ?
• Line 153 : “ 100 × 100m2.” a space lacks
• Line 167 : “There are 5 anchor and 15 target” => There are 5 anchors and 15 targets
• Figure 4: x axis : targetS.
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer for the thorough and comprehensive review of our paper. We have carefully read your comments and made corresponding modifications in our revision. The presentation of the paper has benefited greatly thanks to your contribution. We try our best to correct all the grammatical mistakes and inaccurate English usages. And the technical responses are listed in the attached files.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The work is interesting in terms of theory, but difficult to assess due to not very extensive numerical tests and a complete lack of any practical verification. Nevertheless, interesting in terms of applications in monitoring and IoT.
Some sentences do not follow the grammar rules of the English language, for example in the sentence: Since the PWSN employs the harvested energy to generate the ranging signal, and researchers mainly focus on how to use WET to determine the location of each network node the word 'and' is used unnecessarily. There are several errors of such type.
I hope that further works will illustrate the method in practical use.
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer for the thorough and comprehensive review of our paper. We have carefully read your comments and made corresponding modifications in our revision. The presentation of the paper has benefited greatly thanks to your contribution. We try our best to correct all the grammatical mistakes and inaccurate English usages.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Te reviewer would like to thank the authors for the corrections to the manuscripts.
There are still some small typos, but without big concern to the publication:
- line 152: "benefit the the localization" => benefit to the localization
- lines 153-154: "more targets contribute more observations" => more targets contribute to more observations
- line 154: "he overall performance is improved" => are improved
- Figure 5: RIS => IRS ?
- line 256: "Here, we also adapt the Tx power of E-AP" could be changed to passive way
- line 257: "is highly relies" => relied
- line 260: "more energy efficiency" => efficient
- line 268: " can be significant improved" => significantly
