PDDQN-HHVBF Routing Protocol Based on Empirical Priority DDQN to Improve HHVBF

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper proposes an improved HHVBF protocol based on the empirical priority DDQN algorithm, namely the PDDQNHHVBF protocol. In order to search optimal relay node to forward, this method considers the remaining energy of the candidate relay node, the node’s positional relationship with the sending node and the Sink node, and its number of candidate relay nodes. This method makes the packet delivery rate collected by AUV high at the same time, extending the lifetime of M-UWSNs. The paper is well written and the analyses along with the results are well expressed. These are some of the comments that need to be addressed.

1.    Abstract: should highlight the main idea of the method

2.    Introduction: needs a stronger motivation.

3.    Related work: missing, focus on recent works.

4.    Quality of figures and tables are rather poor; some drawings are stretched; some are too small (Fig. 11, 12 for example).

5.    What is "Store-Carry-Forward” Can you clarify with example?

6.    Clarification is required in Eq 16 and 17, references are missing for equations. 

7.    In terms of PDDQN-HHVBF, how it is efficient than other technologies. The authors should clearly highlight the proposed technologies in terms of performance metrics.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your review. We are honored to revise the article according to your comments. Please see the attachment about our response and revised viesion draft.

Yours sincerely,

Jie Bai

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In this paper, the authors present PDDQN-HHVBF Routing Protocol Based on Empirical Priority DDQN to Improve HHVBF. The paper presents proposes an improved HHVBF protocol based on the empirical priority DDQN algorithm, namely the PDDQNHHVBF (Empirical Priority DDQN to Improve Hop-by-Hop Vector-Based Forwarding) protocol.

 

Some suggestions to improve the paper are as below:

1.The abstract can be rewritten to be more meaningful. The authors should add more details about their final results in the abstract. Abstract should clarify what is exactly proposed (the technical contribution) and how the proposed approach is validated. 

2. Also in the Introduction, Sections must be mentioned in the introduction.

3. Is Figure 1 from your contribution? If not, the reference should be mentioned.

4. What are the main limitations of the work?

5. Proposed methods should be compared with the state-of-the-art existing techniques.

6. Limitations and Highlights of the proposed methods must be addressed properly.

7. Overall, the paper is very well written, and the information is interesting from the field under study. However, some important points need to be take:

a) Bullet 1) is critical, and the authors must highlight and compare with similar papers of the proposal.

8. The conclusion must be improved and avoid redundancy. The conclusion provide some insights into the outcome of the paper. However, I feel that we need further elaboration and critical evaluation within the conclusions.  

9. For easy follow-up: A Table should be provided to compare your results with the literature.

10. It is preferable to mention future works in thies paper?

11. The quality of the figures needs to be improved. 

12. References: Critical: update it.

Finally, paper needs mainor improvements

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your review. We are honored to revise the article according to your comments. Please see the attachment about our response and revised viesion draft.

Yours sincerely,

Jie Bai

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf