Data Transmission in Wireless Sensor Networks Based on Ant Colony Optimization Technique
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsOverall, the authors have prepared the manuscript well and provided clear insights into the wireless sensor network optimization algorithms. Here are some minor comments and corrections.
1. The integrated whale algorithm used for the maximization of coverage that represents an importance of wide-area coverage of nodes, how does this model handle obstacles or signal interference that could affect the coverage in real time scenarios?
2. How were the values of parameters α, β, and ρ determined as 5,10 and 0.6 from the simulations for the ant colony optimization-based routing algorithm? Are there any criteria or parametric study that has been carried out to finalize the values?
3. Mention the simulation tool that has been used for this study.
4. The authors should carefully revise the format of the manuscript (spaces, commas, alignment etc.). In this current format, there are many flaws.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageGood
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestion. My modification details are attached for your review
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe overall quality of this paper is acceptable. There are some areas that must be addressed. First, the paper is focused on ant colony optimization. The reasons and motivation must be strengthened, or otherwise, why this method and not other method? Second, comparisons with other optimization and other methods should be presented more, such ass the one similar or having closer aims/objectives, eg A direction aware particle swarm optimization with sensitive swarm leader. Big data research (2018), 14, 57-67. Third, there are numerous mentions on data, but how big and complex the data will be? Please quantify them more, or use/refer to them during your experiments or simulations. Fourth, please strengthen your novelty and research contributions. Finally, please improve your language editing, clarity and presentation.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Please improve your language editing, clarity and presentation.
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestion. My modification details are attached for your review
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper is well presented.
Some suggestions:
1.In the abstract, some results
2.The Fig.6 is not relevant
3.In Table 1 the first row can use the abbreviations.
4.The Discussion and Conclusion are well presented
Author Response
Thank you for your review and suggestions. My modification details are attached for your review. Please review
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper presents an approach to improve wireless sensor networks using ant colony optimization, whale optimization algorithm, and Pareto optimization. The subject of wireless sensor networks is relevant and this paper might be of interest to readers working in the field.
I found some issues in the paper. I will present them next grouped by “issues related to presentation” and “issues related to content”. Beforehand I must clarify the following: any question, suggestion or any type of remark I make has the goal of improving the paper. Thus, in any response the authors might put forward towards me should necessarily be accompanied with some sort of clarification in the paper text (unless the authors do not agree with the suggestions), as the ultimate goal of the review is to benefit the future reader of the paper and not the reviewer.
Issues related to the presentation
- The abstract as some format errors. It is broken at the middle ant there seems to be some incomplete sentences near the place were that break happens.
- The acronym EE is used before it is defined (actually, it seems it is not defined at all anywhere in the paper)
- Related work appears as a subsection of the introduction. I suggest that it is promoted to a full section.
- In the related work, there are descriptions of several works and approaches, however, only one reference appears at the end. More specifically, in each paragraph the is only one reference at the very end, and it seems that more references should be inserted, one for each of the works and approaches discusses in the paragraph. His happens in several paragraphs in the related work.
- The Gap analysis section doesn’t really seem to work well. Perhaps the entire part of the related work should be restructured to make “related work”, “overview of previous studies” and “gap analysis” work better with each other.
- The reference list is rather strange. References 2-8 and 10-20 are missing the authors. This doesn’t seem appropriate at all and must be fixed.
On the topic of the references, there seems to be an “[J]” omnipresent throughout the entire reference list. What is the meaning of that “[J]”? Fix that, and the issue of the missing authors, and use a common and consistent format for all the references in the list.
Issues related to the contents
- Reliability was listed as a characteristic or advantage of the method proposed in the paper. However, there is not reliability evaluation of the method in the paper. Please include something in the paper to back up this claim (or remove the claim).
- The method proposed in the paper is labeled as scalable. However, scalability is not evaluated (same as the issue of the reliability). In fact, it is referred to several times, but it is not at all clear how this is evaluated. Please improve or include something in the paper to support this claim of being scalable (or remove the claim).
- Concerning the ant colony optimization, the authors refer to the use of an improved version of this algorithm, specifically the use of pheromone decrease over time. However, this pheromone decreasing over time is already common practice in this algorithm. Thus, it is not clear what is the “optimization”. Either make this clear and sound, or remove the claim of “improved version” of this algorithm.
- The use of the Whale Optimization Algorithm is not clear. It seems that it has to do with the network coverage. Therefore, it seems to affect the initial positioning of the sensor nodes. However, this is me, the reviewer guessing, as the paper text is not clear in this aspects, Authors must clarify this.
- Concerning the improvements made to the Whale Optimization Algorithm, all the paper ex0plains is the use of a “reverse learning”. It seems this is not enough to make the case of an improvement of the WOA. Thus, Authors should explain more thoroughly what exactly is the improvement proposed to the WOA.
- The role of the Pareto algorithm is not very well explained. It seems it is used to calculate the optimal transmission path, but clearly more information is required.
- Around page 16, near Figure 5, the paper mentions backpropagation and number of hidden layers. It seems that there is an ANN at work here. However, the paper is quite unclear in this aspect. Table 1 mentions training sets. What is being trained? What are the datasets? The authors must explain exactly what is this back propagation, what hidden layers are those, and what this (supposed) ANN is doing in the method.
- The discussion section refers to comparisons using several other algorithms. However, it seems that the numerical results using those other algorithms are missing from the paper. All the authors offer are claims such as “the performance is better”, and “the coverage is improved”, but having access to the objective (numerical) results would have greater impact.
Author Response
Thank you for your review and suggestions. My modification details are attached for your review. Please review
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper deals with the optimization of data transmission in wireless sensor networks. The problems in this area are sufficiently complex and the proposed approach is suitable for solving them. As an overall assessment, the manuscript appears well organized and written.
Some comments and suggestions aimed at improving the article:
1. There are a number of minor typos in the manuscript that need to be corrected. For example:
- on line 315, plural of “node” is required.
- line 483 needs correction;
- on line 542, the sentence should be ended with a full stop;
- on line 610, “D.” should be replaced by “C.”;
- on lines 640-647, the punctuation marks should be corrected;
- on line 650, “E.” should be replaced by “D.”;
- on line 677, semicolon should be replaced by a full stop;
- the inscriptions under the figures should end with full stop;
- at the end of line 1012 there is one extra full stop;
- in some places in the text there are symbols that should be italic.
2. On lines 24 and 29 of the abstract, the sentences are not clear.
3. The sentence on lines 459 and 460 should be corrected.
4. Inscriptions on the coordinate axes in Figure 5 are missing.
5. The expression “the most optimal network configurations” is not quite correct, because “optimal” already contains the concept of being the most suitable.
6. The values and role of constants in some of the presented equations are not explained.
7. When evaluating the obtained results, the specific limitations of this research could be explained in more detail.
8. Although the abbreviations used are explained in the text, for easy reading, a complete list could be appended at the end of the article.
9. The numbers of the references are duplicated. Furthermore, this list can be presented in a more precise form.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe text is well written and understandable, but there are some typos and other minor errors that need to be corrected.
Author Response
感谢您的评论和建议。我的修改细节附上供您查看。请查看
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComparisons with other approaches, even not with this approach, must be compared. Otherwise, there's no point just emphasizing one's own work is always better. There's no any big data in detail. Moderate editing is required because the reading experience is not good.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing is required because reading experience is not good.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your feedback. I have made significant revisions to my manuscript based on your feedback, including rewriting the abstract, introduction, and adding and rewriting a large number of algorithm explanations. I also highlighted them in red font in the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper presents an approach to improve wireless sensor networks using ant colony optimization, whale optimization algorithm, and Pareto optimization. The subject of wireless sensor networks is relevant and this paper might be of interest to readers working in the field.
In the first review, I found some major issues in the paper. The authors seem to have addressed some of those issues. I will present a summary of changes and remaining issues
I again clarify that any question, suggestion or any type of remark I make has the goal of improving the paper.
Issues related to the presentation
“The abstract as some format errors. It is broken at the middle ant there seems to be some incomplete sentences near the place were that break happens.”
-> The abstract was slightly improved but it still remains somewhat broke. It seems to be 3 texts independent from each other and the 3rd one seems tho start at the middle of a sentence.
“The acronym EE is used before it is defined (actually, it seems it is not defined at all anywhere in the paper)”
-> Authors included a list of acronyms at the end. However, it is uncomfortable to the reader having to wait to the end to understand the meaning. Suggestion: define the acronym at the first use.
“Related work appears as a subsection of the introduction. I suggest that it is promoted to a full section.”
-> Seems to have been addressed
“In the related work, there are descriptions of several works and approaches, however, only one reference appears at the end. More specifically, in each paragraph the is only one reference at the very end, and it seems that more references should be inserted, one for each of the works and approaches discusses in the paragraph. His happens in several paragraphs in the related work.”
-> This issue remains
“The Gap analysis section doesn’t really seem to work well. Perhaps the entire part of the related work should be restructured to make “related work”, “overview of previous studies” and “gap analysis” work better with each other.”
-> Seems slightly better. Can be improved more
“The reference list is rather strange. References 2-8 and 10-20 are missing the authors. This doesn’t seem appropriate at all and must be fixed.”
-> This was addressed and fixed.
“On the topic of the references, there seems to be an “[J]” omnipresent throughout the entire reference list. What is the meaning of that “[J]”? Fix that, and the issue of the missing authors, and use a common and consistent format for all the references in the list.”
-> This was addresses and fixed
Issues related to the contents
“Reliability was listed as a characteristic or advantage of the method proposed in the paper. However, there is no reliability evaluation of the method in the paper. Please include something in the paper to back up this claim (or remove the claim).”
-> This issue seems not addressed.
"The method proposed in the paper is labeled as scalable. However, scalability is not evaluated (same as the issue of the reliability). In fact, it is referred to several times, but it is not at all clear how this is evaluated. Please improve or include something in the paper to support this claim of being scalable (or remove the claim)."
-> This issue seems not addressed. I can accept that the proposed *may be*, at first sight, scalable. But claiming it to be + showing it to really be is different from simply stating a generic claim based on general attributes of the method. As in the case of the reliability, this claim should be accompanied by some experimental or formal proof.
“Concerning the ant colony optimization, the authors refer to the use of an improved version of this algorithm, specifically the use of pheromone decrease over time. However, this pheromone decreasing over time is already common practice in this algorithm. Thus, it is not clear what is the “optimization”. Either make this clear and sound, or remove the claim of “improved version” of this algorithm.”
-> This issue remains. In line 945, authors clearly state “that our improved ACOA” – our improved ACOA. What improvement is that? The authors included new text explaining Ant Colonization Algorithm, but that is the “regular” algorithm, not the improvement.
“The use of the Whale Optimization Algorithm is not clear. It seems that it has to do with the network coverage. Therefore, it seems to affect the initial positioning of the sensor nodes. However, this is me, the reviewer guessing, as the paper text is not clear in this aspects, Authors must clarify this.”
-> The role of WOA is now clearer.
“Concerning the improvements made to the Whale Optimization Algorithm, all the paper explains is the use of a “reverse learning”. It seems this is not enough to make the case of an improvement of the WOA. Thus, Authors should explain more thoroughly what exactly is the improvement proposed to the WOA.”
-> This seems related to back propagation using what the authors describe as a BP neural network (line 879). I noticed that the authors removed a figure related to a neural network. Instead of removing, the authors should increase the details and explanation. The role, design and use of this ANN should be made more clear, as initially noted in the first review.
“The role of the Pareto algorithm is not very well explained. It seems it is used to calculate the optimal transmission path, but clearly more information is required.”
-> This issue remains unsolved. The authors included new text related to Pareto algorithm which is, quite frankly, very obscure. It mentions 5 nodes without any explanation of the relation of those 5 notes with the methodology or the simulation. Also used Letter ABCD and F, leaving the reader to wander why F instead of E.
“Around page 16, near Figure 5, the paper mentions backpropagation and number of hidden layers. It seems that there is an ANN at work here. However, the paper is quite unclear in this aspect. Table 1 mentions training sets. What is being trained? What are the datasets? The authors must explain exactly what is this back propagation, what hidden layers are those, and what this (supposed) ANN is doing in the method.”
-> This is related to the previous issue regarding the BP neural network. Please address both.
“The discussion section refers to comparisons using several other algorithms. However, it seems that the numerical results using those other algorithms are missing from the paper. All the authors offer are claims such as “the performance is better”, and “the coverage is improved”, but having access to the objective (numerical) results would have greater impact.”
-> Regarding the important aspects of quantification and objective comparison based on numerical results, this issue seems to remain.
Improvements noted:
- The canopy algorithm to describe the initial distribution is an improvement in the right direction.
New issues
- The table around lines 442-443 has no number and it uses colors that are almost impossible to read. The English in the columns tables is not correct. It should be “Traditional” instead of “tradition” , and “improved” instead of “improve”.
- The datasets Iris, Wine, Seeds, and Glass should be described.
- the new text about the Pareto algorithm seems to make the paper even more confusing. It seems to have no relation with the context of the rest of the paper, and it seems to be missing something in itself.
- Table I refers to an error. Errors compared to what? How do we know that the result is in error in this context? What would be the correct results? IS this some sort of supervised learning? What is the ANN (implied here) is learning? In fact, this issue was already present in the first version of the paper.
- In line 801 the paper starts the topic of “Performance Evaluation”. But then, the paper goes to explain what Ant Colonization is. This structure makes no sense. The paper should follow a more natural sequence of topics: first the concepts, then the proposal, then the validation and results. Explaining concepts in the middle of the results simply does not work.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your feedback. I have made significant revisions to my manuscript based on your feedback, including rewriting the abstract, introduction, and adding and rewriting a large number of algorithm explanations. I also highlighted them in red font in the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
While I appreciate that more work and explanations have been added, the paper gets away from focus and novel contributions. Some areas to improve are identified. First, the right acronym, Backpropagation (BP), should be added at the beginning. Second, Whale Optimization Algorithm (WOA) has been mentioned a lot, but until Section 2.6, it's mentioned it combines with BP to work. Steps are written, but algorithms can be presented better., eg HSMA_WOA: A hybrid novel Slime mould algorithm with whale optimization algorithm for tackling the image segmentation problem of chest X-ray images. Applied soft computing (2020). Authors can present their code as the integration of pseudo code and theories, which will be better, instead of lengthy descriptions. If they have some visualized outputs, eg images of objects, it will be easier to demonstrate what they intend to show. Third, authors focus on Wireless Sensor Network (WSN) much, Similar work and alternative solutions have been done, and comparisons with other and similar approaches can be made. eg. Latency-aware path planning for disconnected sensor networks with mobile sinks. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics (2019). Fourth, author's main contributions can be presented much, better, such as a) there are challenge sin WSN and current solutions may fix fix and cannot fix some (your contributions); b) Justify why Whales + BP algorithms can resolve such an issues for WSN; c) results and analysis support authors' claims. Please follow this. Fifth, please fix reference formats. Please cite and compare papers with similar aims or approaches. Last, the authors explain some of the things that are less important (they can be in Appendix or moved to somewhere else) but have missed some important things as above. Quality of images can be improved. All pages should have the same font size and style. Further editing will help. Please ensure a better clarity, writing and presentation.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Further editing will help. Please ensure a better clarity, writing and presentation.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your review. My feedback has been highlighted in different font colors in the corresponding document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
