Multi-Granularity Mission Negotiation for a Decentralized Remote Sensing Satellite Cluster

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

>> General appreciation.

- The introduction section is well presented. The introduction explains the general context of the problem and the many facets of the study. Provide bibliographic references to define the topics.
mentioned.
- The main text of the research is clear and easy to understand.
- The description of the research materials is explicit and clear.
- The discussion presents relevant aspects of the study.
- The conclusions are refined.
- Provide bibliographic references to define the topics mentioned.

A detail of the review is shown below:

>> Introduction

Does the introduction provide sufficient background information for readers not in the immediate field to understand the problem/hypotheses?
- Yes, the introduction is appropriated.
Line 70 is missing a reference.

Are the reasons for performing the study clearly defined?
- Yes.

Are the study objectives clearly defined?
- Yes.

>> Methods/technical rigor

Are the methods used appropriate to the aims of the study?
- Yes, the methods are appropriate

Is sufficient information provided for a capable research to reproduce the experiments described?
- This research is partially reproducible.
- Required improvements (Optional): Considering that it is published in an Open Access Journal, it is required that the authors of the research provide the source code of the experiment performed. This, so that the experiment can be reproduced and replicated. https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies/instructions#suppmaterials
- It is recommended: Include the source code of scientific research (github or figshare).
- Commentary: But in general terms the design of the experiment can be partially replicated quickly, and with a little programming it can be replicated in its entirety.
- Required: Although the ranges of the test data have been partially outlined in the experiments section, these data were randomly generated. Therefore, in order to reproduce the experiment, a barrier is generated, especially for Open Access publications. It is required to attach the test data of the experiment, in a repository of citable data such as zenode or figshare that generate a doi, or in the appendix of the publication.
see line 285 “We randomly generated a set of targets and missions.”

Are any additional experiments required to validate the results of those that were performed?
- No.

Are there any additional experiments that would greatly improve the quality of this paper?
- No.

Are appropriate references cited where previously established methods are used?
- Yes

>>> Results/Statistics

Are the results clearly explained and presented in an appropriate format?
- Yes.
- I see that some figures and texts are blurred, please consider re-importing them to svg, eps or pdf and attach them in your latex folder, and check the font-size. The diagrams explain the flow of the experiment very well, consider that it is one of the things that are read first when making a first reading of the article.

Do the figures and tables show essential data or are there any that could easily be summarized in the text?
- Not applied.

Are any of the data duplicated in the graphics and/or text?
- No

Are the figures and tables easy to interpret?
- Yes.

Are there any additional graphics that would add clarity to the text?
- Figures are legible

Have appropriate statistical methods been used to test the significance of the results?
- It’s not necessary.

>> Discussion

Are all possible interpretations of the data considered or are there alternative hypotheses that are consistent with the available data?
- No applied.

Are the findings properly described in the context of the published literature?
- Yes.

Are the limitations of the study discussed? If not, what are the major limitations that should be discussed?
-The limitations are explicitly defined.

>>> Conclusions

Are the conclusions of the study supported by appropriate evidence or are the claims exaggerated?
- The conclusions are balanced and mention the relevant aspects of the research.

 

>> Literature cited (introduction, results, discussion)

Is the literature cited balanced or are there important studies not cited, or other studies disproportionately cited?
- Yes.

Please identify statements that are missing any citations, or that have an insufficient number of citations, given the strength of the claim made.
- The number of citations is appropriate

>>> Significance and Novelty

Are the claims in the paper sufficiently novel to warrant publication?
- Yes.

Does the study represent a conceptual advance over previously published work?
- Yes.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors evaluated the neural-network-based multi-granularity negotiation under decentralized  architecture methodology to resolve the problem of time delay caused by communication and computation and according to the discussed results they found that with the lower cost-effectiveness ratio the multi-granularity negotiation method can be considered as practical methodology and I think that it is a promising result.

There are some comments and suggestions to authors:

Line 70: there is an empty parenthesis: an unfinish phrase or missing reference ?

Figure 1: Please correct Traditional method not Tranditional  method

Table 1: if there is a unit for profit please mention it

In equation number 8 lg is log ?

Line 307: please remind what is step 1

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The negotiation mechanism is very important and efficient for the scheduling of remote sensing satellites to improve the observation efficiency, and the problem is interesting.  In my opinion, the Multi-agent System method is also  appropriate and effective. However, I think the English presentation in this paper is very poor,  for example, in Abstract, "firstly, we divided negotiation into three levels of granularity working in different modes". It is an obvious typo, and the presentation is difficult for readers to understand. Hence, I suggest the authors rewrite and revise this paper carefully, and they can refer to some native English speakers.

In addition, I suggest the authors cite more literature in the scheduling of remote sensing satellites, such as 

He, Y., et al. , Scheduling multiple agile earth observation satellites with an edge computing framework and a constructive heuristic algorithm. Journal of Systems Architecture, 2019.

Jianjiang Wang, Erik Demeulemeester, Dishan Qiu. A pure proactive scheduling algorithm for multiple earth observation satellites under uncertainties of clouds. Computers & Operations Research.

Nag, S., A.S. Li, and J.H. Merrick, Scheduling algorithms for rapid imaging using agile Cubesat constellations. Advances in Space Research, 2018.

Expectation and SAA models and algorithms for scheduling of multiple earth observation satellites under the impact of clouds.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx