Study on Selection Diversity for MIMO 3-User Interference Channel with Interference Alignment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. What are “IA” and ‘M’ in the abstract? The full forms must be mentioned when the abbreviations are used first time.

2. Authors have stated that “the proposed ML decoding increases complexity compared to zero-forcing”.  Complexity analysis and comparison should be conducted.

3. The details of interference alignment are missing.

4. How the proposed beamforming matrices for IA are different than presented in [4]?

5. The novelty in the results, presented in Figure 3 are very poor.  Also, the label of Y-axis is missing.

6. Why the SNR is ranged from 10 to 16? Mention the basis.

7. In section 5, the details of simulation environment, parameters values are missing.

8. IA for DO, M should be plotted.

9. Novelty and contributions are limited. In section 1, authors contributions should be made point-by-point and clear.

10. Literature study is very limited. Authors are strongly recommended to conduct rigorous literature review on the Interference alignment.

11. In section 5, the results section needs major revision in terms of rigorous analysis.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are few grammatical errors in sentence formation. Authors are recommended to update the manuscript in the presence of English expert.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments.

We have revised our paper as your comments.
The details of responses are written in the following file

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Some comments are appeared while reading the paper:

 

The abstract could be improved by including the metrics used, the datasets, the simulation software or testbed, and the key findings of the research.

 

Certain terms, such as "SVD" and others, are used without clear definitions or explanations. Providing definitions upon first use would enhance clarity and understanding.

 

A section on related work, highlighting the gaps in the literature addressed by this paper, would improve clarity and provide better guidance for readers.

 

While the topic is recent, some references are outdated. Additionally, the paper uses a mix of formats for citations and references (e.g., DOI, ISSN, URLs). Standardizing these would enhance clarity and professionalism.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments.

Our response is provided in the attatched file

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper proposed a selection diversity for MIMO 3-user interference channel with interference alignment, but there are several issues that needs to be improved to make proper contribution.

 

My comments as follows:

Major issues:

1-      There is no organized related literature review for given problem (to see the contribution).

2-      There is no clear validation for the current state of arts (need to validate with same works).

3-      Need to explain the given models.

4-      Limited results and discussion.

 

Minor issues:  

1-      Need to define the terms at first time such as IA in abstract and CSI in page 2 line 43.

2-      Need to provide numerical values for finding in abstract.

3-      Need to cite the sentence at page 4 line 87.

 

“In short - there is a lot of works that will be needed to improve the credibility of the work.

Overall, the paper in its current form is not suitable for a journal, I believe.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English writing need to be more coherent. 

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments

Our response is provided in the attatched file

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Most of the review comments were addressed by the authors. However, there are certain comments to be addressed which are mentioned as follows:

1. In the title of section 3.1, is it “MIMO Inference Channel” or “MIMO Interference Channel”?

2. In figure 1, what are the different color codes of signal representation?

3. In section 3.2, what is “Gram-Schumidt orthogonalization”? Is it “Gram-Schmidt orthogonalization”?

4. Titles of Figures 2 and 3 should be refined.

5. In section 5, under observation 1, it is mentioned that SER is increased for M=4 over M=2, explain how it is?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are certain improvements needed in terms of grammar. Authors are instructed to read the manuscript carefully and update the manuscript in terms of English grammar.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments.

I have revised the paper to reflect the provided comments as much as possible, and the key updates are included in the attached file. Thanks to your valuable comments, the quality of the paper has significantly improved. I sincerely appreciate your feedback.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has been improved significantly 

Author Response

Thanks to your valuable comments, the quality of the paper has significantly improved. I sincerely appreciate your feedback.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Need to improve the English writing. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Need to improve the English writing. 

Author Response

These revisions enhance clarity, grammatical correctness, and consistency across the text. Let me know if you'd like detailed corrections applied throughout the document.

Thanks to your valuable comments, the quality of the paper has significantly improved. I sincerely appreciate your feedback.