Next Article in Journal
Electrical Characteristics of Nanoelectromechanical Relay with Multi-Domain HfO2-Based Ferroelectric Materials
Next Article in Special Issue
ACE-M: Automated Control Flow Integrity Enforcement Based on MPUs at the Function Level
Previous Article in Journal
A Combination Strategy of Feature Selection Based on an Integrated Optimization Algorithm and Weighted K-Nearest Neighbor to Improve the Performance of Network Intrusion Detection
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Binary-Addition Tree Algorithm-Based Resilience Assessment for Binary-State Network Problems

Electronics 2020, 9(8), 1207; https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics9081207
by Yi-Zhu Su * and Wei-Chang Yeh
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Electronics 2020, 9(8), 1207; https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics9081207
Submission received: 4 July 2020 / Revised: 22 July 2020 / Accepted: 24 July 2020 / Published: 27 July 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Safety, Efficiency, and Reliability of Connected Smart Sensor Systems)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is well written and it is focoused on the resilience assessment of a binary-state network, that is considered as a NP-hard problem. Besides, to estimate the binary-state network reliability the authors choose direct algorithms including the binary-decision diagram, since indirect algorithms are more complicated.

Find next some suggestions:

They propose an algorithm for the BAT-based Resilience Assessment, but the authors could improve its presentation, with a different style in the paper in order to improve its comprehension and make it easier to read.

After reading this paper, I feel that there are some other theories that could be discussed. In particular, I am thinking on hidden markov models and in a more complex and robust approach, percolation theory. These theories requires a discussion within the paper.

In section 5.2 is given an example, but this section and this example could be improved by introducing further explanation from a practical point of view, in a similar way as they do in section 6.

The authors should explain better the type of graph, is it directed or undirected? We assume wireless links are bidirecctional.

In Table 3 is show all the X i obtained in the BAT indicating when it is connected the network. I would recommend to plot it, at least some cases for clarity and as an example.

Furthermore, in the conclusion the authors suggest that from their results, some decisions such as having more inventory of or more attentions on these vulnerable components could be used. But, also from a practical point of view tunning routing protocols or adapting them could help to overcome all these issues. This discussions should be interesting.

Finally, I would recommend to add two cites to improve the introduction and motivation, applied to other applications where these techniques could be introduced such as:

1.- Real time monitoring aapplied to sound scape with  WSN:

--A wireless acoustic array system for binaural loudness evaluation in cities
IEEE Sensors Journal, September 2017
DOI: 10.1109/JSEN.2017.2751665

2.-And collaborative beamforming in WSN:

--Practical Considerations in the Implementation of Collaborative Beamforming on Sensors 2017, 17(2) https://doi.org/10.3390/s17020237

As minor issues:

1.- Table 1 Pr’(a with ")" in a different line

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

An interesting article describing the method of resilience assessment based on a tree algorithm for binary state networks. Presented example is a good support for theoretical description, allowing to facilitate the understanding of the algorithm. Interesting analysis for the sensory network. However, the disadvantage of the article is still the illegibility of the method description and algorithm. The authors should refine the method of presenting of the algorithm implementation, because the descriptive version used in the article is very difficult to interpret.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have improved their paper and now you can accept in present form

Back to TopTop