GPU Acceleration and Game Engines for Wireless Channel Estimation in Millimeter Waves

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript presents a GPU method to measure ray tracing in mmwave.

How much is the time reduced using GPU? Are there influences on where the devices are placed within the room?

Why there is such difference between measurement and simulation? How precise is the simulation with GPU to locate a given object? 

You must improve the state of the art with more similar approaches.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors are studying the MIMO channel in millimeter wave communication by using hardware acceleration, game engines and heuristic algorithms applied to optical ray techniques. Their main goal is to increase the communication capacity of the system in terms of concurrent users. The topic of the paper is interesting and relevant to the journal. The authors have well-structured the analysis and the flow of information in their manuscript.

The authors should address the following comments in order to further improve the quality of presentation and scientific depth of their paper.

In Section 1 – at the beginning – the authors provide a discussion regarding “ increase the efficiency of the wireless channel through transmission in the shortest time and with an acceptable quality to the greatest number of possible users.” And they abruptly introduce the MIMO. However, in 5G networks, multiple technologies have been proposed in order to increase the number of possible users, such as the heterogeneous networks, e.g., "Femtocell networks: a survey." arXiv preprint arXiv:0803.0952 (2008), by proposing sophisticated resource management frameworks, g., Tsiropoulou, Eirini Eleni, Panagiotis Vamvakas, Georgios K. Katsinis, and Symeon Papavassiliou. "Combined power and rate allocation in self-optimized multi-service two-tier femtocell networks." Computer Communications 72 (2015): 38-48. Based on the previous comment, the authors should improve the discussion at the beginning of Section 1, by discussing other technologies that have been proposed in 5G networks and address the problem of network capacity. The list of references should be updated with more relevant references, respectively. In Section 2, the authors discuss the overall setup considered in the manuscript for testing and analysis. The reviewer’s major concern is that this environment is very controlled in terms of communication conditions and it is not obvious, how the proposed framework will behave in different communication setups, e.g., open space communication environment, smart city communication environment, etc. Based on the previous comment, the authors should include a new section in the manuscript, discussing these aspects in their analysis, by sketching what will be the behavior of their model in a high-level discussion, as the reviewer understands that is difficult to provide a real numerical evaluation. The quality of the figures should be improved, as currently, they are blurry. The usage of the English language should be improved, especially considering syntax errors.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have NOT practically addressed the reviewer's comments, BUT have made some changes by their own that were never requested by the reviewer. The manuscript turned to be in a much lower quality compared to the original version of the paper. The authors should seriously address the comments of the original review, which is again attached below, answer to all the reviewer's comments (and not selectively), and avoid having 1/3 of their references being their own research works.

The authors are studying the MIMO channel in millimeter wave communication by using hardware acceleration, game engines and heuristic algorithms applied to optical ray techniques. Their main goal is to increase the communication capacity of the system in terms of concurrent users. The topic of the paper is interesting and relevant to the journal. The authors have well-structured the analysis and the flow of information in their manuscript.

The authors should address the following comments in order to further improve the quality of presentation and scientific depth of their paper.

In Section 1 – at the beginning – the authors provide a discussion regarding “ increase the efficiency of the wireless channel through transmission in the shortest time and with an acceptable quality to the greatest number of possible users.” And they abruptly introduce the MIMO. However, in 5G networks, multiple technologies have been proposed in order to increase the number of possible users, such as the heterogeneous networks, e.g., "Femtocell networks: a survey." arXiv preprint arXiv:0803.0952 (2008), by proposing sophisticated resource management frameworks, g., Tsiropoulou, Eirini Eleni, Panagiotis Vamvakas, Georgios K. Katsinis, and Symeon Papavassiliou. "Combined power and rate allocation in self-optimized multi-service two-tier femtocell networks." Computer Communications 72 (2015): 38-48. Based on the previous comment, the authors should improve the discussion at the beginning of Section 1, by discussing other technologies that have been proposed in 5G networks and address the problem of network capacity. The list of references should be updated with more relevant references, respectively. In Section 2, the authors discuss the overall setup considered in the manuscript for testing and analysis. The reviewer’s major concern is that this environment is very controlled in terms of communication conditions and it is not obvious, how the proposed framework will behave in different communication setups, e.g., open space communication environment, smart city communication environment, etc. Based on the previous comment, the authors should include a new section in the manuscript, discussing these aspects in their analysis, by sketching what will be the behavior of their model in a high level discussion, as the reviewer understands that is difficult to provide real numerical evaluation. The quality of the figures should be improved, as currently they are blurry. The usage of the English language should be improved, especially considering syntax errors.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed the reviewer's comments.