Energy-Efficient Power Allocation for Full-Duplex Device-to-Device Underlaying Cellular Networks with NOMA
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Energy-Efficient Power Allocation for Full-duplex Device-to-Device Underlaying Cellular Networks with NOMA
I have read this paper carefully, and I can say the presented work is interesting to deal with NOMA and FD in one communication of users. In addition, I can state that it does provide some intriguing insights; nevertheless, there are a few things about which I am sceptical:
· I hope to see the outcomes appear in the abstract rather than reading through the paper all over.
· I wish the authors stated the operated bandwidth for each user. It will be good to say it is applicable only for narrow bandwidth, based on the assumption stated in the first two sections.
· I wish all symbols be declared after the equations, some of them were not.
· Still I am confused with the FD between the D1 and D2, based on what to differentiate the use of spectrum using one antenna or a code.
· I am interested in the methodology applied in section 3, in which a question will be raised on the payload for such optimisation and the required latency compared to OMA.
· Quite limited approach to the assumption applied in Table 1, any justification for that?
· Very interesting results based on narrow band application.
The English are fine; however minor touch of revision is required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
the authors introduce an Energy-Efficient Power Allocation system for Full-duplex Device-to-Device Underlaying Cellular Networks with NOMA
1- the authors compare the performance of the proposed scheme with the traditional orthogonal multiple access (OMA) scheme, to verifies the superiority of the proposed scheme in terms of energy efficiency. As mention in references there are many researches are published with D2D NOMA systems (Ref. 10,12,16,18,20) the authors must compare the proposed system with these references
2- the paper is poor with table if comparison with previous work
3- conclusion need to be enhanced
4- highly recommended to add future work
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript is in general well written with solid mathematical formulation. However, I have some minor concerns prior publication:
1) Although the authors prove the superiority of the proposed approach in signal cancenallation, there are no details regarding overall complexity. In highly demanding latency scenarios for example, what would be the mean number of steps for convergence?
2) How many active users do you assume in the system? How would results differentiate in the presence of additional mobile stations?
3) In Table 1 the carrier frequency is not mentioned
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The manuscript is well drafted and a good contribution to the field of Cellular Network. However, there are some issues that need attention of the author to improve quality of the manuscript.
1. The paper has lack of related work/literature review section which supports the current work.
2. Restructure the Abstract, starting from the problem, the existing research work, research gap and the proposed solution supported by experiments or simulations towards the results.
3. Try to add some more comparisons on the work already done in this domain.
4. Reduce the mathematical stuff so as easy for quick understanding to the readers, better to move proof to appendix at the end of the paper or citing the source is enough.
5. Add machine learning-related research in your Literature review & how this can help you get good results or to extend the work, such as energy saving using Reinforcement learning (https://doi.org/10.1145/3560265 ), anomaly detection methods (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14343-4_3 ) etc.
6. Add a short paragraph to the conclusion section that how this work can be extended in future and how its beneficial for further research so as other researchers leverage it.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
