PAtCH: Proactive Approach to Circumvent Holes in Wireless Sensor Networks
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please explain relevance to the focus of journal.
There is no 2023 reference item. There is only one 2022 reference item. There is only one 2021 reference item. Please discuss 2023, more 2022 and more 2021 relevant solutions and explain how own solution is original and better than existing recent solutions.
Explain in good technical details on computational complexity of the solutions, such as compare algorithm 1 in page 6 with relevant existing solutions.
Explain parameters selections and settings, such as in Table 1 in page 8 about experiments with more technical details.
Please improve the analysis on validity and generalisability of the results, such as those in Figure 5 and 6 in page 10.
Could the titles of Figure 5 and 6 in page 10 be more specific?
The paper listed 56 reference items, are all of them relevant to the main innovation of this paper?
On page 5, is Figure 2 own innovation? If not, explain source reference.
Please explain limitation of the current solution with technical details.
Author Response
A) Comments from Reviewer 1:
1. There is no 2023 reference item. There is only one 2022 reference item. There is only one 2021 reference item. Please discuss 2023, more 2022 and more 2021 relevant solutions and explain how own solution is original and better than existing recent solutions.
- Answer: We greatly appreciate all comments received. We have no doubt that the review suggestions served to enhance our work and will certainly be fully considered.
After a careful search for prior art related to the algorithm presented in this work, we understand that there is a gap for recent approaches that cover the set of functionalities presented in the present work. However, we realize that there are still gaps to be explored by boarding the contours of hole regions in wireless sensor networks, which will be considered in our future research.
2. Explain in good technical details on computational complexity of the solutions, such as compare algorithm 1 in page 6 with relevant existing solutions.
- Answer: Thank you very much for pointing this out. We provide a comparative table that shows the main features present in the approaches cited in this work. Also, we added a text excerpt that elucidates this table, in an attempt to improve my understanding of the approach.
- TABLE:
3. Explain parameters selections and settings, such as in Table 1 in page 8 about experiments with more technical details.
- Answer: Thank you. Simulation parameters have been updated and scored in section 4.1 as requested.
4. Please improve the analysis on validity and generalisability of the results, such as those in Figure 5 and 6 in page 10.
- Answer: We certainly thank you for this contribution. Results relevant to figures 5 and 6 have been updated, as requested.
--- 5. Could the titles of Figure 5 and 6 in page 10 be more specific?
6. The paper listed 56 reference items, are all of them relevant to the main innovation of this paper?
- Answer: After a careful evaluation, we kept most of the references due to their relevance to the work.
7. On page 5, is Figure 2 own innovation? If not, explain source reference.
- We appreciate this further observation. The figure in question was conceived from the reading and interpretation of some articles. The main references were added to the Figure label, as suggested.
8. Please explain limitation of the current solution with technical details.
- Answer: Thank you for such an observation. The limitations of our approach were made explicit in the conclusion section, as requested.
Conclusions: Updates arising from your contributions are highlighted in red, valid for texts, citation changes and tables.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper presents a new routing algorithm in wireless sensor networks that does not need geographic (GPS) coordinates but rather uses distance information which is obtained by measuring RSSI values of a communication event with the sink node. It "pays" for that by requiring the sink to be able to reach all nodes in a one-hop communication. The new algorithm is simulated and compared with existing and well-known algorithms. The simulation results are promising.
The approach is definitely interesting, and it is also realistic to assume having such a powerful sink - which can typically be directly controlled by the administration and also typically has a power supply other than batteries. The simulation graphs of the topologies are convincing, as are the performance numbers. The paper is very well-written and easy to understand. There are a few spelling errors and a few LaTex problems (some broken references), but apart from that, this is a nice paper that should be accepted.
Author Response
B) Comments from Reviewer 2:
The paper presents a new routing algorithm in wireless sensor networks that does not need geographic (GPS) coordinates but rather uses distance information which is obtained by measuring RSSI values of a communication event with the sink node. It "pays" for that by requiring the sink to be able to reach all nodes in a one-hop communication. The new algorithm is simulated and compared with existing and well-known algorithms. The simulation results are promising.
The approach is definitely interesting, and it is also realistic to assume having such a powerful sink - which can typically be directly controlled by the administration and also typically has a power supply other than batteries. The simulation graphs of the topologies are convincing, as are the performance numbers. The paper is very well-written and easy to understand. There are a few spelling errors and a few LaTex problems (some broken references), but apart from that, this is a nice paper that should be accepted.
Response to reviewer 2:
We greatly thank the reviewers for their insightful comments. Their wise remarks have significantly improved the quality of our manuscript. All spelling errors and LaTex issues were fixed.
Reviewer 3 Report
The primary objective of the paper revolves around the development of a suitable routing algorithm to effectively circumvent the presence of holes within Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs). The conceptual foundation of this idea holds substantial validity and promising potential. Nonetheless, to enhance the overall clarity and comprehensibility of the paper, several key points warrant consideration, as outlined below:
· 1- It is imperative to provide a lucid delineation of the notion of a "hole" within WSNs, elucidating the specific interpretation employed. For instance, does the term "hole" denote an absence of nodes within a certain geographical region, or does it pertain to nodes that lack interconnectivity?
· 2- The references cited within the paper appear to skew toward older sources. A more contemporaneous collection of references from current literature would substantiate and fortify the paper's academic foundation.
· 3- In Figure 3, a more comprehensive elucidation is necessary to expound upon the methodology employed for the identification of red nodes. Providing additional details regarding the process of identifying these nodes would enhance the clarity of the visual representation.
· 4- While the paper constructs its premise based on a singular hole, it is pertinent to address scenarios wherein multiple holes are present. How does the proposed algorithm perform under such circumstances? A discussion of the algorithm's efficacy in scenarios involving multiple holes is warranted.
· 5- The incremental enhancement depicted in Figure 5 appears relatively modest. Conversely, there is a notable increase in the average path length, as evidenced by Figure 6, particularly with the integration of a significant number of nodes. A comprehensive explanation is needed to elucidate the factors contributing to these observed trends.
· 6- The notion of a fixed path within WSNs appears to be challenged by the energy consumption implications for nodes along said path. In light of this, it is imperative to address how the algorithm accommodates the utilization of alternate paths, thereby mitigating the energy consumption concerns associated with fixed paths.
NA
Author Response
C) Comments from Reviewer 3:
The primary objective of the paper revolves around the development of a suitable routing algorithm to effectively circumvent the presence of holes within Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs). The conceptual foundation of this idea holds substantial validity and promising potential. Nonetheless, to enhance the overall clarity and comprehensibility of the paper, several key points warrant consideration, as outlined below:
1. It is imperative to provide a lucid delineation of the notion of a "hole" within WSNs, elucidating the specific interpretation employed. For instance, does the term "hole" denote an absence of nodes within a certain geographical region, or does it pertain to nodes that lack interconnectivity?
- Answer: As a way of clarifying the choice of the term Hole regions, in the context of wireless sensor networks, we rewrote the passage that talks about holes, still in the first section.
2. The references cited within the paper appear to skew toward older sources. A more contemporaneous collection of references from current literature would substantiate and fortify the paper's academic foundation.
- Answer: We greatly appreciate all comments received. We have no doubt that the review suggestions served to enhance our work and will certainly be fully considered.
After a careful search for prior art related to the algorithm presented in this work, we understand that there is a gap for recent approaches that cover the set of functionalities presented in the present work. However, we realize that there are still gaps to be explored by boarding the contours of hole regions in wireless sensor networks, which will be considered in our future research.
3. In Figure 3, a more comprehensive elucidation is necessary to expound upon the methodology employed for the identification of red nodes. Providing additional details regarding the process of identifying these nodes would enhance the clarity of the visual representation.
- Answer: Thank you very much for this contribution. We emphasize on the choice of safe jumps (nodes in red) in the text.
4. While the paper constructs its premise based on a singular hole, it is pertinent to address scenarios wherein multiple holes are present. How does the proposed algorithm perform under such circumstances? A discussion of the algorithm's efficacy in scenarios involving multiple holes is warranted.
- Answer: Thank you for this contribution.. The present proposal considers the existence of a single hole, despite having the potential to deal with multiple holes. As future work already under development, we hope to fill this gap.
5. The incremental enhancement depicted in Figure 5 appears relatively modest. Conversely, there is a notable increase in the average path length, as evidenced by Figure 6, particularly with the integration of a significant number of nodes. A comprehensive explanation is needed to elucidate the factors contributing to these observed trends.
- Answer: Thank you for such an observation. We revised the description of the results to provide more clarity on the evaluated observations, as recommended.
6. The notion of a fixed path within WSNs appears to be challenged by the energy consumption implications for nodes along said path. In light of this, it is imperative to address how the algorithm accommodates the utilization of alternate paths, thereby mitigating the energy consumption concerns associated with fixed paths.
- Answer: I am immensely grateful for this contribution. In fact, the challenge of energy management by the nodes is latent. In this sense, we are committed to continue advancing towards grid energy balancing in future approaches.
Conclusions: Updates arising from your contributions are highlighted in red, valid for texts, citation changes and tables.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
no further comments from my side.
NA
