Hierarchical Matching Algorithm for Relay Selection in MEC-Aided Ultra-Dense UAV Networks
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
For the responses, I still do not think it is appropriate to put assumptions into formulation, i.e., C4 should not be a constraint to (20). UAV locations are not variables, as the authors respond. UAV locations are input to the problem. The constraints are assumptions, not constraints to variables. In terms of the formulated problem, this constraint is redundant.
In addition, C1 in formulation (21) should not be a constraint. I have not seen anyone putting assumptions into constraints.
There are many typos.
- There must be something wrong with the affliation, what is 'School of Electronic Information Collage'? What is 'Collage'?
- In the abstract and in Section III, what is 'relastic'? Is it 'realistic', or 'elastic'?
Author Response
see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Authors proposed work:
" Hierarchical Matching Algorithm for Relay Selection in MEC aided Ultra-Dense UAV Networks " has been modified well according to reviewers comments previously given . The work can be accepted after authors have clarified with explaination to editor this few doubts below or corrected. Editor may use his discretion after correction is effected to make sure it is complied by authors:
1. -What is B in eqn 13?
- statement in simulation and result section deicting M =20 is confusing -authors should justify in:"Fig. 4 presents the system throughput using our proposed
hierarchical matching relay selection algorithm with the com-
parison algorithm for a different number of UAVs when the
ground users M = 20, same applies to the remaning graph figures chosen parameters for M values and UAV correspondence
Final proof read few gramertical construction errors in introduction section must be corrected
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The formulated problem is rather confusing. Above Eq.(20), it states that the control variables consist of relay selection and power allocation, but in the formulation, constraint C4 require UAV locations to be seperated by a certain distance. Are UAV locations to be optimized? The objective is C. What does it mean? It is currently unrelated to other variables in the formulation.
Eqs. (21) and (21) are claimed to split Eq.(20) into subproblems, but they are definitely not equivalent. The two subproblems have different objectives and may be conflicting, while the orignal problem (20) has a single objective. Why are they equivalent? In addition, the objective of (22) is unrelated to the rest variables, and the constraints in the problem. It is an independent variable and the maximum value is positive infinity.
In the system model, the first paragraph, it states that there is one ground base station, but above formula (1), it mentions ith ground base station. How many base stations are used in the paper?
The proposed matching algorithm is too simple. It is a heuristic approach and the performance is not anayzed. Stability can be easily achieved. The problem is that whether the stable point is a good solution.
The writing is fine.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors proposed "Hierarchical Relay Selection in Ultra-Dense UAV Networks Based on Matching Theory"
However the are concerns with the manuscript that will not make ready for acceptance as below.
1.The introduction could be clear and the research contribution not clear
2. The modeling methods used in used by authors does not show experiment is well conducted.
3. mathematical analysis is informative but does not show any real modeling of the result of the research.
4. Benchmark the authors used does not show research method was well conducted. in essence the authors just used that in simulation result but no account on that.
5. Equations derivation example 5 is not clear.
6. Many terms are used that were not explained example NOMA, DF.
7. No related work provided, authors include few description in introduction
8. Lot of grammatical and english concerns
English should be well checked especially grammatical constructions
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is interesting. However, there are some concerns to be addressed as follows:
1- In the abstract, there is no clear statement on the limitations of related works to justify the need for the proposed work and its novelty.
2- In the abstract, it is not clear what evaluation metrics are used to evaluate the proposed work.
3- In the abstract, there is one mistake in one sentence: ", and the stable of the proposed algorithms could be verified." This should be corrected.
4- In Section1, Introduction, it is important to clearly state the limitations of related works, not general challenges encountered in 6g networks, mobile edge computing, and UAV-MEC systems.
5- In Section2, System model, it is important to include a table of notations, parameters, and acronyms used in defining the model to make it easier for readers to follow the explanation.
6- In Section3, it is not clear to me if the proposed algorithm is one algorithm or two algorithms that function together. More details should be provided on how the two algorithms (Algorithm1 and Algorithm2) function together to find the solution.
7- In Section3.3, it is not clear what kind of proof logic is used. Normally, when proving any property of any algorithm/theorem, there should be a formal way to do that mathematically not just by explanation. For example, the sequent calculus is a way to do that. Indeed, the proof is done properly if the algorithm and system model are precisely specified in a mathematics/formal way.
8- In Section4 Simulation Results and Analysis, how do you decide the simulation parameter values in Table1 and based on what?
9- In Figure3 and Figure4, why do you consider comparing your algorithms with only these algorithms: Max-Min Algorithm, Max-RD Algorithm and Max-SR algorithm?
10- In Figure3, how do you decide the range of the number of ground users 4 to 24?
11- The same above question applies to Figure4. how do you decide the range of the number of UAVs 2 to 7?
12- In simulation results in Figure3, Figure4, and Figure5, it seems you consider comparing the proposed algorithm with the other algorithms referring to one factor separately (number of ground users, number of UAVs, and Ground user power/dBw). would this affect the simulation results and the analysis of the proposed algorithm?
13- The conclusion is so limited and it does not present any added value to the paper. It is a very limited brief summary of what has been done. More details should be included in terms of the novelty of the proposed algorithm, how it is evaluated, the proposed work limitations, and how the algorithm could be improved in the future.
There are some language mistakes; for example: In the abstract, there is one mistake in one sentence: ", and the stable of the proposed algorithms could be verified." This should be corrected.
