Delivering Extended Cellular Coverage and Capacity Using High-Altitude Platforms

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this paper, the authors propose an enhanced and validated recursive HAP antenna beam-pointing algorithm, which forms HAP cells over an extended service area while considering beam broadening and the degree of overlap between neighbouring beams. In general, this topic is very important. However, this paper lacks of some useful discussion, which is currently the hot spot. The comments are listed as follows.

 

1. In section 2.1, the authors discuss the beam deployment. However, the reviewer wanders to know how to determine the altitude. Is any altitude suitable for the beam deployment? The authors should discuss the influence of different altitude on the performance listed in section 2.3.
2. In section 2.3, the authors discuss the performance metrics based on CINR. However, the reviewer wanders to know the model of interference and noise. Currently, many works like following papers discuss non-Gaussian noise and non-Gaussian interference. Do the authors consider the performance under the non-Gaussian noise and non-Gaussian interference? To some degree, the authors should add some discussion about this issue. This can comprehensively enhance the authors work.

[1]X. Zhang，Wenwei Ying, et al．Parameter estimation of underwater impulsive noise with the Class B model．IET Radar, Sonar and Navigation，2020，Doi: 10.1049/iet-rsn.2019.0477．

[2]Jingjing Wang, Jiaheng Li, et al. A Novel Underwater Acoustic Signal Denoising Algorithm for Gaussian/Non-Gaussian Impulsive Noise. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, 2020, Doi: 10.1109/TVT.2020.3044994

[3]X. Feng, H. Sun, et al. Message Passing-Based Impulsive Noise Mitigation and Channel Estimation for Underwater Acoustic OFDM communications. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, 2020, Doi: 10.1109/TVT.2021.3130061

3. The authors should add some experiments in section 5. The influence of different altitude on the performance should be presented to validate this discussion.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for the positive comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors are studying a research problem that has been known and researched over a decade ago. The authors need to address the following comments to improve the quality of the paper:

1- The introduction is insufficient and does not provide enough information to the reader.

2- The literature review section needs improvement and coverage of most recent studies if any exist since this is an old problem.

3- The authors are encouraged to change the value of λ from 2 users to 5, 10 and see the effect of the number of users on the performance of the proposed scheme.

4- It would be beneficial if the authors compare the mean CNIR vs. mean capacity per user for all schemes.

 

 

 

λ

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors well addressed my comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments have been addressed.