Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Distributed Antenna Systems for Improving Indoor Wireless Network Coverage

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper addresses the issue of signal attenuation caused by the shielding effects of building structures on indoor coverage in modern wireless networks.Through empirical measurements conducted in a multi-story residential complex,the study demonstrates the effectiveness of a GPON-based Distributed Antenna System in enhancing indoor radio coverage.However,the manuscript exhibits several notable deficiencies regarding academic novelty,the integration of theoretical models with experimental data,the standardization of data presentation,and overall formatting. Detailed review comments are provided below:

1. The manuscript merely presents a before-and-after comparison of the system's deployment,lacking theoretical innovation or algorithmic optimization tailored to specific scenarios.
2. Although several theoretical models are introduced in Section 2,the experimental results and analysis section completely lacks any fitting,comparison,or validation of the measured data against these models.
3. The visual presentation of Figure 2 lacks academic rigor,it appears to rely on AI-generated illustrations and an table format.The authors are requested to redraw the schematic using professional scientific software and present the data as a standard,editable academic table.
4. The bibliography lacks sufficient citations from the last three years,failing to adequately reflect the most recent research advancements in this field.
5. Comments on language and presentation are as follows:

—The manuscript contains multiple instances of unclear logical references.

—It is recommended to succinctly highlight the main contributions of this paper using bullet points in the final paragraph of the Introduction.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions highlighted in green in the revised manuscript. All comments have been carefully addressed, and the manuscript has been substantially improved in terms of scientific rigor, structure, and clarity.

Comments 1: The manuscript merely presents a before-and-after comparison of the system's deployment,lacking theoretical innovation or algorithmic optimization tailored to specific scenarios.

Response 1: Thank you for this valuable comment. We agree that highlighting the scientific contribution is essential. Therefore, the manuscript has been revised to emphasize the novelty of the work. Specifically, we clarified the contribution as an experimental validation of indoor propagation characteristics and the performance evaluation of a GPON-based DAS system under real urban conditions. Additional analytical discussion has also been included. Changes in manuscript:

Introduction (final paragraph) and Section 3 (Results and Discussion).

Comments 2: Although several theoretical models are introduced in Section 2,the experimental results and analysis section completely lacks any fitting,comparison,or validation of the measured data against these models.

Response 2: We fully agree with this comment. A comparison between experimental results and theoretical propagation models (log-distance path loss model and ITU-R P.1238) has been added. The observed discrepancies are analyzed and explained based on building materials and multipath propagation effects. Changes in manuscript: lines 445-469

Comments 3: The visual presentation of Figure 2 lacks academic rigor,it appears to rely on AI-generated illustrations and an table format.The authors are requested to redraw the schematic using professional scientific software and present the data as a standard,editable academic table.

Response 3: Thank you for this important observation. Figure 2 has been completely redesigned using professional scientific tools. Additionally, the data have been presented in a structured table format to improve clarity and reproducibility. Changes in manuscript: lines 234-249

Comments 4: The bibliography lacks sufficient citations from the last three years,failing to adequately reflect the most recent research advancements in this field.

Response 4: We agree with this comment. The reference list has been updated to include recent publications from the last three years to reflect current developments in the field. Updated references in Introduction and related sections.

Comments 5: Comments on language and presentation are as follows:

—The manuscript contains multiple instances of unclear logical references.

—It is recommended to succinctly highlight the main contributions of this paper using bullet points in the final paragraph of the Introduction.

Response 5.1: Thank you for this observation. The manuscript has been carefully revised to improve logical flow, remove ambiguity, and enhance clarity. Redundant expressions and unclear references have been corrected. Changes in manuscript: Revisions applied throughout the manuscript.

Response 5.2: We appreciate this helpful suggestion. A concise list of the main contributions has been added in the final paragraph of the Introduction. Changes in manuscript: Introduction updated (final paragraph).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper addresses an important and practical problem in modern wireless communications. As 5G networks become increasingly prevalent, the issue of indoor signal attenuation in buildings has become more critical than ever. The proposed Distributed Antenna System (DAS) based on GPON technology represents a promising deployment strategy with significant potential for improving indoor wireless coverage. The authors' real-world testing in an actual residential complex provides valuable empirical data that contributes to our understanding of indoor propagation challenges and potential solutions.

However, the paper's argumentation lacks sufficient depth and critical comparative analysis, which significantly limits the persuasiveness of the conclusions and the practical value of the research. Several key technical aspects require substantial improvement.

1. Critical Performance Indicators Missing. The paper lacks essential network performance measurements, particularly latency data, which is crucial for evaluating user experience in modern applications. While RSRP is extensively measured, SINR data is extremely limited, appearing only sporadically without systematic analysis. The authors should conduct comprehensive end-to-end latency measurements comparing pre- and post-DAS deployment scenarios, provide systematic SINR analysis across all operators and floor levels, and include additional network quality indicators such as packet loss rates, connection establishment times, and handover success rates to present a complete performance profile.

2. Superficial Analysis of Operator Performance Differences. While the paper observes significant variations in signal strength among different operators (e.g., Kcell performing best, Beeline worst), it fails to provide technical explanations for these differences. The authors should investigate and analyze the specific technical factors contributing to these variations, including base station locations, transmission power levels, frequency band allocations, network load distributions, and user density patterns. A detailed technical analysis explaining why Kcell demonstrates superior performance while Beeline shows the poorest results would significantly enhance the paper's scientific value.

3. Absence of Comparative Testing with Alternative Deployment Methods. The paper only provides theoretical discussions of small cells and repeaters in the introduction but lacks experimental validation comparing these approaches. This represents a fundamental weakness in the research methodology, as it prevents readers from understanding the relative merits of the proposed solution. The authors should conduct parallel deployments of small cells or repeaters in comparable environments and provide direct performance comparisons using identical metrics (RSRP, SINR, throughput, latency). Additionally, quantitative analysis of coverage uniformity, interference levels, and deployment complexity across different solutions is essential.

4. Missing Cost-Benefit Analysis. The paper completely omits economic considerations, which are crucial for practical deployment decisions. Without understanding the financial implications, the technical superiority (if any) of the GPON-DAS solution cannot be properly evaluated. The authors should provide detailed cost breakdowns including equipment costs, installation expenses, and ongoing maintenance requirements for different deployment options. A comprehensive return-on-investment analysis comparing GPON-DAS with alternative solutions, along with coverage efficiency metrics per unit cost, would significantly strengthen the practical applicability of the research.

5. Insufficient Engineering Feasibility and Deployment Complexity Analysis. The paper briefly mentions antenna orientation challenges but lacks comprehensive discussion of practical deployment issues that would be encountered in real-world implementations. The authors should provide detailed descriptions of installation procedures, including fiber optic cabling requirements, antenna positioning optimization, and system calibration processes. Analysis of deployment adaptability across different building types, installation timeframes, skilled labor requirements, and maintenance accessibility would provide valuable guidance for potential implementers.

6. Inadequate Coverage Effectiveness Quantification. While the paper presents signal strength measurements, it lacks rigorous statistical analysis of coverage distribution and uniformity. The authors should provide comprehensive statistical parameters including mean values, variance, standard deviation, and coverage probability distributions for signal strength across the test area. Detailed signal strength heat maps with higher spatial resolution, definition and measurement of key performance indicators such as "dead zone elimination rate" and "coverage uniformity index," would provide more objective evaluation criteria.

7. Missing Interference Analysis. The paper does not evaluate the potential interference impact of the DAS system on surrounding networks, which is crucial for understanding system coexistence in dense urban environments. The authors should conduct measurements of inter-system interference levels, analyze the impact on neighboring base stations and other DAS installations, evaluate frequency reuse efficiency, and assess the system's electromagnetic compatibility with existing infrastructure to ensure responsible deployment practices.

8. Insufficient System Scalability and Robustness Analysis. The paper lacks evaluation of system capacity limits and failure recovery capabilities, which are essential for understanding long-term viability and reliability. The authors should analyze the maximum number of concurrent users and peak data throughput the system can support, conduct single-point failure testing to assess impact on overall performance, evaluate system upgrade pathways and maintenance convenience, and test performance degradation under various stress conditions to demonstrate system reliability.

 

Recommendations

Priority Actions: The authors should first address the comparative testing with alternative deployment methods and comprehensive performance indicator measurements (especially latency and systematic SINR analysis). Critical Additions: Technical analysis of operator performance differences and cost-benefit evaluation are essential for demonstrating the practical value of the proposed solution. Enhancement Opportunities: User experience evaluation and engineering feasibility analysis would significantly strengthen the paper's applicability to real-world scenarios.

Upon addressing these improvements, this paper would provide substantial academic value and practical guidance for indoor wireless coverage enhancement in dense urban environments.

Author Response

Comments 1: Critical Performance Indicators Missing. The paper lacks essential network performance measurements, particularly latency data, which is crucial for evaluating user experience in modern applications. While RSRP is extensively measured, SINR data is extremely limited, appearing only sporadically without systematic analysis. The authors should conduct comprehensive end-to-end latency measurements comparing pre- and post-DAS deployment scenarios, provide systematic SINR analysis across all operators and floor levels, and include additional network quality indicators such as packet loss rates, connection establishment times, and handover success rates to present a complete performance profile.

 

Response 1: Thank you for this important and constructive comment. We fully agree that a comprehensive evaluation of network performance is essential. Therefore, the manuscript has been significantly extended to include additional key performance indicators, including latency, SINR, packet loss rate (PLR), connection establishment time, and data throughput. A comparative analysis before and after DAS deployment has been provided. Changes in manuscript: Section 3.2 (Results and Discussion), where additional KPIs and corresponding analysis have been introduced.

Comments 2: Superficial Analysis of Operator Performance Differences. While the paper observes significant variations in signal strength among different operators (e.g., Kcell performing best, Beeline worst), it fails to provide technical explanations for these differences. The authors should investigate and analyze the specific technical factors contributing to these variations, including base station locations, transmission power levels, frequency band allocations, network load distributions, and user density patterns. A detailed technical analysis explaining why Kcell demonstrates superior performance while Beeline shows the poorest results would significantly enhance the paper's scientific value.

Response 2: We appreciate this valuable observation. The manuscript has been revised to include a deeper technical analysis of the observed differences in operator performance. The discussion now considers factors such as base station location, frequency band characteristics, propagation conditions, and building penetration losses, which influence signal strength and quality across different operators. Changes in manuscript:

Section 3.1 (Results), where the analysis of operator performance has been expanded.

Comments 3: Absence of Comparative Testing with Alternative Deployment Methods. The paper only provides theoretical discussions of small cells and repeaters in the introduction but lacks experimental validation comparing these approaches. This represents a fundamental weakness in the research methodology, as it prevents readers from understanding the relative merits of the proposed solution. The authors should conduct parallel deployments of small cells or repeaters in comparable environments and provide direct performance comparisons using identical metrics (RSRP, SINR, throughput, latency). Additionally, quantitative analysis of coverage uniformity, interference levels, and deployment complexity across different solutions is essential

Response 3: Thank you for this important comment. We agree that comparative analysis enhances the practical relevance of the study. Due to the limitations of real-world deployment conditions, direct experimental implementation of alternative systems was not feasible. However, the manuscript has been revised to include a structured comparative analysis based on performance characteristics reported in the literature, as well as a qualitative comparison of DAS, small cells, and repeaters in terms of coverage, interference, and deployment complexity. Changes in manuscript: Section 3.2 (Results and Discussion), where comparative analysis has been added.

Comments 4: Missing Cost-Benefit Analysis. The paper completely omits economic considerations, which are crucial for practical deployment decisions. Without understanding the financial implications, the technical superiority (if any) of the GPON-DAS solution cannot be properly evaluated. The authors should provide detailed cost breakdowns including equipment costs, installation expenses, and ongoing maintenance requirements for different deployment options. A comprehensive return-on-investment analysis comparing GPON-DAS with alternative solutions, along with coverage efficiency metrics per unit cost, would significantly strengthen the practical applicability of the research.

Response 4: We appreciate this important suggestion. Due to the lack of access to detailed financial data, a full quantitative economic analysis was not feasible. However, a qualitative assessment of the cost-effectiveness of the GPON-based DAS system has been added, considering factors such as scalability, centralized architecture, and long-term maintenance efficiency. Changes in manuscript: Section 3.2 (Discussion), where economic considerations have been introduced.

Comments 5: Insufficient Engineering Feasibility and Deployment Complexity Analysis. The paper briefly mentions antenna orientation challenges but lacks comprehensive discussion of practical deployment issues that would be encountered in real-world implementations. The authors should provide detailed descriptions of installation procedures, including fiber optic cabling requirements, antenna positioning optimization, and system calibration processes. Analysis of deployment adaptability across different building types, installation timeframes, skilled labor requirements, and maintenance accessibility would provide valuable guidance for potential implementers.

Response 5: Thank you for this valuable comment. The manuscript has been expanded to include a more detailed discussion of the practical deployment aspects of the DAS system, including fiber-optic infrastructure, antenna placement strategies, and system calibration procedures.

Section 2 (Experimental Setup), where deployment and implementation aspects have been clarified.

Comments 6: Inadequate Coverage Effectiveness Quantification. While the paper presents signal strength measurements, it lacks rigorous statistical analysis of coverage distribution and uniformity. The authors should provide comprehensive statistical parameters including mean values, variance, standard deviation, and coverage probability distributions for signal strength across the test area. Detailed signal strength heat maps with higher spatial resolution, definition and measurement of key performance indicators such as "dead zone elimination rate" and "coverage uniformity index," would provide more objective evaluation criteria.

Response 6: We fully agree with this comment. A comprehensive statistical analysis of signal distribution has been added, including mean values, variance, standard deviation, and additional performance indicators such as coverage uniformity index and dead zone ratio. Signal distribution has also been visualized using heat maps and histograms. Section 3.2 (Results), where statistical analysis has been introduced.

Comments 7:  Missing Interference Analysis. The paper does not evaluate the potential interference impact of the DAS system on surrounding networks, which is crucial for understanding system coexistence in dense urban environments. The authors should conduct measurements of inter-system interference levels, analyze the impact on neighboring base stations and other DAS installations, evaluate frequency reuse efficiency, and assess the system's electromagnetic compatibility with existing infrastructure to ensure responsible deployment practices.

Response 7: Thank you for this important observation. The manuscript has been revised to include an analysis of interference characteristics based on SINR measurements and qualitative assessment of system impact on neighboring networks. The discussion also addresses frequency reuse efficiency and electromagnetic compatibility. Section 3.2 (Results and Discussion), where interference analysis has been added.

Comments 8:  Insufficient System Scalability and Robustness Analysis. The paper lacks evaluation of system capacity limits and failure recovery capabilities, which are essential for understanding long-term viability and reliability. The authors should analyze the maximum number of concurrent users and peak data throughput the system can support, conduct single-point failure testing to assess impact on overall performance, evaluate system upgrade pathways and maintenance convenience, and test performance degradation under various stress conditions to demonstrate system reliability.

Response 8: We appreciate this insightful comment. The manuscript has been extended to include an analysis of system performance under varying load conditions and fault scenarios. The results demonstrate the system's ability to maintain operational stability under stress conditions and partial failures, confirming its robustness. Section 3.2 (Results), where performance under load and fault conditions has been analyzed.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1) No statistical results have been shown in the abstract. 

2) The novelty aspect and technical aspects are highly missing. The work seems to be a survey, rather than a technical paper. Most of the graphs are screen shots. 

3) The experimental work lack proper detail and explaination. 

4) conclude all the results in tabular form.

5) No comparison has been made with the state of the art. 

6) Thus overall work lack novelty, technical contribution and explanation. 

7) kindly reorganise the work with proposed suggestions. 

Author Response

We would like to sincerely thank the reviewer for the detailed evaluation and constructive comments. We acknowledge the concerns raised and have substantially revised the manuscript to improve its scientific rigor, technical depth, structure, and clarity. The revised version includes additional analysis, improved data presentation, and clearer articulation of the novelty and contributions. All revisions have been highlighted in green.

Comments 1: No statistical results have been shown in the abstract.

Response 1: Thank you for this important comment. The abstract has been revised to include key quantitative results, such as improvements in RSRP, throughput, and other performance indicators, to provide a clearer summary of the main findings. Abstract section updated.

Comments 2: The novelty aspect and technical aspects are highly missing. The work seems to be a survey, rather than a technical paper. Most of the graphs are screen shots

Response 2: We appreciate this critical observation. The manuscript has been substantially revised to clearly highlight its novelty and technical contribution. In particular, the work now emphasizes the experimental validation of indoor signal propagation and the performance evaluation of a GPON-based DAS system under real urban conditions. Additionally, the main contributions have been explicitly stated in the Introduction. Introduction (final paragraph) updated with clear contributions.

Comments 3: The experimental work lack proper detail and explaination.

Response 3: Thank you for this comment. The Experimental Setup section has been significantly expanded to provide detailed descriptions of the measurement environment, equipment, methodology, and deployment configuration. This improves reproducibility and clarity. Section 2 (Experimental Setup) revised.

Comments 4: conclude all the results in tabular form.

Response 4: We agree with this suggestion. The results have been reorganized and summarized in structured tables to improve clarity and facilitate comparison of key performance metrics before and after DAS deployment. Section 3 (Results), where summary tables have been added.

Comments 5: No comparison has been made with the state of the art.

Response 5: We appreciate this important comment. The manuscript has been revised to include a comparative analysis with existing approaches reported in the literature, including small cells and repeaters. This comparison highlights the advantages and limitations of the proposed DAS-based solution. Section 3.2 (Results and Discussion) updated with comparative analysis.

Comments 6: Thus overall work lack novelty, technical contribution and explanation.

Response 6: We acknowledge this concern and have significantly improved the manuscript to address it. The novelty and technical contributions are now clearly articulated, and the analysis has been deepened with additional performance metrics, statistical evaluation, and interpretation of results. Introduction and Section 3 revised.

Comments 7: kindly reorganise the work with proposed suggestions.

Response 7: Thank you for this suggestion. The manuscript has been reorganized to improve logical flow and readability. The structure of the Results and Discussion sections has been refined, redundant content has been removed, and the overall presentation has been improved. Sections 2 and 3 reorganized.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The relevance and importance of articles like "Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Distributed Antenna Systems for Improving Indoor Wireless Network Coverage" is undeniable; such articles are long overdue. The article's excellent illustrations are a major strength. The excellent selection of the research subject is also noteworthy.

However, the article currently has a number of shortcomings.

The division of the article into sections is unclear. In my opinion, the section up to line 183 would be best moved to the introduction. Then, the problem statement should be more clearly written.

The paper shows very clear and understandable description of the problem, excellent illustrations, and concrete conclusions. On the other hand, there is no description of the experimental setup, and only

«Measurements were carried out using specialized mobile network monitoring applications that allow recording key radio signal parameters, including the Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP) level in dBm, as well as the availability and stability of 5G coverage. The testing was conducted for several mobile network operators, including Altel, Beeline, Kcell, Tele2, and Activ.»

In my opinion this description of the experiments is insufficient for a scientific journal of this caliber. It's probably sufficient for a journal covering industrial applications or marketing. But perhaps I'm wrong. That's for the editorial board to decide.

This is a highly complex experimental radiophysical problem: experiments to study distributed antenna systems (DAS) for indoor wireless communication, signal propagation, signal attenuation, and indoor coverage enhancement. Modern buildings are dynamic environments. Unlike open spaces, indoor conditions are constantly changing (people moving, doors opening). Indoor conditions make it difficult to accurately model multipath propagation. 5G signals are sensitive to blocking by the human body, especially since the human body has a very high complex permittivity (ε1 and ε2), which can create "dead zones" even in the presence of antennas. Experimental data is often difficult to scale due to the unique architecture of each building.

In my opinion, it's entirely possible that testing using mobile network operators, including Altel, Beeline, Kcell, Tele2, and Activ, developed such a complex system correctly. However, nothing is said about this in the article. Therefore, it's currently difficult to judge the accuracy of the scientific data obtained, not the data for users of these providers.

As a reviewer for a scientific journal, I would like to see a diagram of a normal experimental setup in the article, a measurement diagram, the scheme of the directions of the electromagnetic waves, how the problem of mutual interference (PIM – passive intermodulation) is solved, what approximations are used, etc. If the experiment is based on mobile network monitoring applications, maybe all these problems are solved, but it is now clear for readers. All date, scheme and diagrams should be presented.

It is difficult to judge about scientific part at this point.

Author Response

We would like to sincerely thank the reviewer for the detailed, thoughtful, and constructive evaluation of our manuscript. We greatly appreciate the positive assessment of the relevance, illustrations, and overall problem formulation. We fully acknowledge the concerns regarding the experimental description and scientific rigor. The manuscript has been substantially revised to address all comments by improving structure, expanding the experimental setup, and enhancing the scientific clarity of the work. All revisions have been highlighted in green.

Comments 1: The structure of the paper is unclear; part should be moved to the Introduction.

Response 1: Thank you for this valuable suggestion. The manuscript structure has been revised to improve clarity and logical flow. Background-related content has been reorganized, and the problem statement has been more clearly formulated in the Introduction. Introduction and Section 2 reorganized.

Comments 2: The experimental setup description is insufficient.

Response 2: We fully agree with this important comment. The experimental setup has been significantly expanded. A detailed description of the measurement environment, equipment, user devices, data acquisition process, and DAS architecture has been added. In addition, a schematic diagram illustrating the experimental setup and signal distribution has been included to improve clarity and reproducibility. Section 2 (Experimental Setup) significantly expanded; Figure illustrating the system added.

Comments 3: Lack of detailed scientific description (wave propagation, interference, modeling assumptions, etc.).

Response 3: We appreciate this insightful observation. The manuscript has been revised to include a more comprehensive discussion of signal propagation conditions, including multipath effects, attenuation mechanisms, and indoor environmental factors. Additionally, aspects related to interference and system behavior have been clarified within the limitations of practical measurements. Sections 2 and 3 updated with additional discussion on propagation and interference.

Comments 4: Insufficient justification of experimental validity and scientific accuracy.

Response 4: Thank you for raising this important concern. The manuscript has been revised to clarify the experimental methodology and data reliability. The use of standardized mobile network diagnostic tools, consistent measurement procedures, and repeated measurements across multiple locations has been emphasized to ensure the validity of the obtained results. Changes in manuscript: Section 2 (Experimental Setup) and Section 3 (Results) updated.

Comments 5: Missing diagrams, measurement schemes, and system representation.

Response 5: We agree with this comment. To address this, schematic representations of the experimental setup and system architecture have been added. These diagrams illustrate signal distribution, antenna placement, and the general measurement configuration. New figures added in Section 2.

Comments 6: Difficulty in assessing the scientific contribution.

Response 6: We appreciate this important remark. The manuscript has been revised to clearly emphasize its scientific contribution, including experimental validation of indoor signal propagation and performance evaluation of GPON-based DAS systems under real-world conditions. The novelty and contribution are now explicitly stated in the Introduction. Introduction (final paragraph) updated.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have successfully addressed the previous concerns. The revised manuscript now meets the publication criteria of this journal, and I recommend it for publication.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the positive evaluation of our revised manuscript. We greatly appreciate your time, effort, and constructive feedback throughout the review process.

Comments 1: The authors have successfully addressed the previous concerns. The revised manuscript now meets the publication criteria of this journal, and I recommend it for publication. 

Response 1: We thank the reviewer for the positive assessment of our work and for recommending the manuscript for publication. We truly appreciate your valuable feedback and support.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents an interesting topic about the evaluation of the effectiveness of indoor wireless network coverage. The authors have substantially improved the article, and their work has now been presented clearly. I suggest the article accepted in present form.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the positive evaluation of our manuscript and for the recommendation to accept the article. We greatly appreciate your time and valuable feedback.

Comments 1: This paper presents an interesting topic about the evaluation of the effectiveness of indoor wireless network coverage. The authors have substantially improved the article, and their work has now been presented clearly. I suggest the article accepted in present form.

Response 1: We thank the reviewer for the positive assessment of our work and for recommending the manuscript for publication. We truly appreciate your support.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed all the comments. I have no more comments. 

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful evaluation of our manuscript and for the positive feedback. We appreciate your time and valuable comments, which have helped us improve the quality of our work.

Comments 1: The authors have addressed all the comments. I have no more comments..

Response 1: We thank the reviewer for the positive assessment of our revised manuscript. We greatly appreciate your support and valuable feedback.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have substantially revised the article and corrected all the flaws noted in the review. However, the newly submitted materials still contain the same flaw. All experimental graphs do not show experimental errors. Since experimental errors are not shown in all graphs, the authors should generally pay attention to how they evaluate experimental errors, specifically by writing a paragraph about this in the text.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your careful review and for your constructive comment. We appreciate your positive assessment of the revised manuscript. In response to your remark regarding the absence of experimental error representation in the graphs, we have added a dedicated paragraph explaining how measurement uncertainty and experimental variability are evaluated. The manuscript has been revised accordingly, and all changes have been clearly highlighted.

Comments 1: The authors have substantially revised the article and corrected all the flaws noted in the review. However, the newly submitted materials still contain the same flaw. All experimental graphs do not show experimental errors. Since experimental errors are not shown in all graphs, the authors should generally pay attention to how they evaluate experimental errors, specifically by writing a paragraph about this in the text.

Response 1: Thank you for this important and valuable comment. We fully agree that the evaluation of experimental uncertainty is an essential aspect of scientific analysis.

In the revised manuscript, we have added a dedicated paragraph explaining how measurement variability and experimental uncertainty are evaluated. Specifically, repeated measurements were performed under consistent conditions using the same user equipment and configuration.

The variability of the measured parameters is assessed using statistical indicators such as variance and standard deviation, which are presented in Section 3.2. These indicators 

provide a quantitative evaluation of the dispersion of the measured data and allow assessing the stability of the results.

Due to the nature of real indoor environments, the measured signal values may fluctuate as a result of multipath propagation, dynamic environmental conditions, and user movement. However, the consistency of repeated measurements confirms the reliability of the observed trends.

Error bars were not included in the figures in order to maintain visual clarity; however, the measurement uncertainty has now been explicitly described in the manuscript and linked to the statistical analysis.

Changes in manuscript:

A paragraph describing the evaluation of experimental error has been added in Section 3.2 (after the statistical analysis formulas). Lines 504-521

Author Response File: Author Response.docx