Enhanced Energy Transfer Efficiency for IoT-Enabled Cyber-Physical Systems in 6G Edge Networks with WPT-MIMO-NOMA

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this paper, the authors propose a wireless power transfer optimization method between the user equipment and the base station to mitigate the co-channel interference and improve the energy transfer efficiency. The work of this paper seems feasible. However, several issues do not allow the acceptance of this work:

 

1) Related studies for CCI are not presented in section 2.3.

 

2) When referring to related work in the bibliography, adding citations to well-known worldwide journals (especially publications in recent years) would inspire people in its research community to take an interest in this presentation. I recommend that the authors cite some existing schemes like

"A Game-Based Computation Offloading Method in Vehicular Multiaccess Edge Computing Networks," in IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 4987-4996, June 2020, doi: 10.1109/JIOT.2020.2972061.

"Joint Communication and Computation Resource Scheduling of a UAV-Assisted Mobile Edge Computing System for Platooning Vehicles," in IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 23, no. 7, pp. 8435-8450, July 2022, doi: 10.1109/TITS.2021.3082539.

 

3) The clarity of the figures needs to be further improved. For example, the equipment numbers in Figure 1 are difficult to recognize.

 

 

4) The formatting of the full text (parameters, equations, algorithms, etc.) is confusing and needs to be reorganized.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

N/A

Author Response

Comment 1

When referring to related work in the bibliography, adding citations to well-known worldwide journals (especially publications in recent years) would inspire people in its research community to take an interest in this presentation. I recommend that the authors cite some existing schemes like:

i. "Joint Communication and Computation Resource Scheduling of a UAV-Assisted Mobile Edge Computing System for Platooning Vehicles," in IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 23, no. 7, pp. 8435-8450, July 2022, doi: 10.1109/TITS.2021.3082539.

ii. "A Game-Based Computation Offloading Method in Vehicular Multiaccess Edge Computing Networks," in IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 4987-4996, June 2020, doi: 10.1109/JIOT.2020.2972061.

Response 1

Other existing schemes have been cited and reviewed accordingly in the review of similar works. The following papers amongst others have been further reviewed:

i. “Joint Communication and Computation Resource Scheduling of a UAV-Assisted Mobile Edge Computing System for Platooning Vehicles," in IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 23, no. 7, pp. 8435-8450, July 2022, doi: 10.1109/TITS.2021.3082539” has also been reviewed.

ii. "A Game-Based Computation Offloading Method in Vehicular Multiaccess Edge Computing Networks," in IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 4987-4996, June 2020, doi: 10.1109/JIOT.2020.2972061

Comment 2

The formatting of the full text (parameters, equations, algorithms, etc.) is confusing and needs to be reorganized.

Response 2

The formatting of the full text throughout the document has been corrected to the best of our knowledge.

 Comment 3

Related studies for CCI are not presented in section 2.3.

Response 3

Related studies on CCI have been presented in section 2.3 to further validate the WPT theories.

 Comment 4

The clarity of the figures needs to be further improved. For example, the equipment numbers in Figure 1 are difficult to recognize.

Response 4

Figure (1) has been redrawn for better clarity.

Comment 5

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Response 5

The English has been updated to the best of my knowledge on the whole document.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors propose a user equipment base station connection model to assign each to a single station to mitigate . An energy-efficient resource allocation scheme is developed that integrates the UE-BS connection approach with joint optimization of power control, time allocation, antenna selection and subcarrier assignment. The simulation results demonstrate the scheme relatively improves efficiency under perfect and imperfect CSI conditions, respectively when compared to a benchmark scheme without connections. In my opinion, this work is meaningful for resource allocation. I recommend to give one chance to take a revision. A more comprehensive literature survey may be provided with multi-associated parameters aggregation-based routing and resources allocation in multi-core elastic optical networks, bias-compensation augmentation learning for semantic segmentation in uav networks, a resource allocation scheme for edge computing network in smart city based on attention mechanism, accurate fault location using deep neural evolution network in cloud data center interconnection, brainIoT: brain-like productive services provisioning with federated learning in industrial IoT. The simulation should give the setting in details.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

no comments.

Author Response

Comment 1

A more comprehensive literature survey may be provided with multi-associated parameters aggregation-based routing and resources allocation in multi-core elastic optical networks, bias-compensation augmentation learning for semantic segmentation in uav networks, a resource allocation scheme for edge computing network in smart city based on attention mechanism, accurate fault location using deep neural evolution network in cloud data center interconnection, brainIoT: brain-like productive services provisioning with federated learning in industrial IoT.

Response 1

Other comprehensive literature (about 10 more) has been reviewed accordingly, as suggested. Kindly see citations ranging from [12-21].

Comment 2

The simulation should give the setting in detail.

Response 2

Thanks a lot. Our simulation reflects the settings, as also shown in Table 1

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents an energy-efficient resource allocation scheme that integrates the UE-BS connection approach with joint optimization of power control, time allocation, antenna selection and subcarrier assignment. It improves EE by 24.72% and 33.76% under perfect and imperfect CSI conditions, respectively. 

Some comments are as follows.

1. The second paragraph is too long. Also the introduction of works [7] and [10] is too long, each of which has about 10 lines.

2. The following claim is not accurate: “By enabling Simultaneous Wireless Information and Power Transfer (SWIPT), the base stations can wirelessly charge the IoT devices via WPT in the downlink and receive data from them in the uplink [8].” SWIPT means the energy transfer and data transmission are both conducted in the same RF signal, whereas WPCN (wireless power communication network) means the base stations can wirelessly charge the IoT devices via WPT in the downlink and receive data from them in the uplink.

3. The review of related works is far from enough. There are many related works, like “Wireless powered mobile edge computing networks: A survey “,“DRL-Based Computation Rate Maximization for Wireless Powered Multi-AP Edge Computing”. Introduce these related studies in a reasonable manner.

4.There are a lot of format problems, like formula (5), Algorithm 1 and Figure 5.

5. In Section 4.3.1, the reviewer cannot find the complexity of proposed algorithm.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No

Author Response

Comment 1

Discussions on citations [7] and [10] are too long each of which has about 10 lines.

Response 1

The discussion on the citations has been summarized accordingly to about 5 lines each

Comment 2

The review of related works is far from enough. There are many related works such as “Wireless powered mobile edge computing networks: A survey “ and DRL-Based Computation Rate Maximization for Wireless Powered Multi-AP Edge Computing”. Introduce these related studies in a reasonable manner

Response 2

More works have been reasonably added to the review of related works discussion. This also included the suggested papers:

1. “Wireless powered mobile edge computing networks: A survey“DRL-Based Computation Rate Maximization for Wireless Powered Multi-AP Edge Computing”.

Comment 3

There are a lot of format problems e.g. Algorithm 1 and Figure 5 and Formula 5.

Response 3

The formatting problem has been addressed in the entire document. Also, Algorithm 1, Figure 5, and Formula 5 has been duly formatted as suggested.

Comment 4

The base stations can wirelessly charge the IoT devices via WPT in the downlink and receive data from them in the uplink [8].” SWIPT means the energy transfer and data transmission are both conducted in the same RF signal like whereas WPCN (wireless power communication network) means the base stations can wirelessly charge the IoT devices via WPT in the downlink and receive data from them in the uplink.

Response 4

In the statement, the correct concept “WPCN” has been used to replace SWIPT as suggested.

Comment 5

In Section 4.3.1 the reviewer cannot find the complexity of proposed algorithm.

Response 5

Further discussion and adjustments have been made as regards the discussion on the complexity of the algorithm as seen in section 4.3.1. This is to the best of my knowledge.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Main comments

There are several major flaws in the manuscript to be raised as follows:

1.       Lack of novelty. The content is highly derivative with only minor modifications and changes, showing results that are neither very consistent nor convincing.

2.       Mathematical derivations have been poorly expressed and formulated. For example, size, format, shape and location of symbols varies throughout the manuscript. In addition, there are overlapping symbols and other ambiguities at many places. All these things together make it really difficult for a reader to follow the line of thought of the authors.

3.       The overall layout and organization of the manuscript is also similarly messy. Many figures are of very poor resolution. Fig. 1 seems to be a copy/paste from [10] with some additional edition on top. Fig. 4 does not make sense at all by looking at the values on x- and y-axis scales. Punctuation needs improvements throughout the manuscript.   

Minor comments

More detailed examples of the things requiring revision are listed below.

-          Introduction onwards: Avoid using excessive capitalized words regarding acronyms (first appearance might be acceptable but after that anyway).  

-          System Model onwards: Be consistent in variables' (mathematical symbols in general) appearance. If the symbol appears in italics in equations so should it be in the text as well.

-          Figure 1 caption onwards: Put a full-stop at the end of each figure caption.

-          Line number 206: Begin equation numbering from (1).

-          Line number 209: Integrate equations to be parts of the surrounding phrases with correct punctuation. If the equation closes the sentence it should have a full-stop at the end.

-          Line number 221: Figure (2) -> Figure 2

-          Line number 237: Check the correctness of (5).

-          Line number 330: For consistency, use the reference number instead of mixing referencing formats.

-          Line numbers 396, 398, 406: Remove overlapping extra symbols.

-          Line number 428: Revise appearance of stretched and wrong-sized symbols.

-          Line number 493: Part of the text in the figure goes outside the visible region.

-          References: Unify the format and carefully check the details of each entry. For example, remove all Member, S. texts from [14] and [16].

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language itself is mostly readable and quite fluent. Punctuation, typing and other outlook related issues call for more revisions.

Author Response

Comment 1

 Lack of novelty. The content is highly derivative with only minor modifications and changes, showing results that are neither very consistent nor convincing.

Response 1

To the best of our knowledge, this work has proposed a wireless power transfer optimization method between the user equipment and the base station to mitigate the co-channel interference and improve the energy transfer efficiency.

Comment 2

The overall layout and organization of the manuscript is also similarly messy. Many figures are of very poor resolution. Fig. 1 seems to be a copy/paste from [10] with some additional edition on top. Fig. 4 does not make sense at all by looking at the values on x- and y-axis scales. Punctuation needs improvements throughout the manuscript.   

Response 2

Punctuations have been corrected in the entire document. Figure 1 has been redrawn for clarity. The layout of the manuscript has been formatted in a better way to the best of our knowledge.

Comment 3

Mathematical derivations have been poorly expressed and formulated. For example, size, format, shape and location of symbols varies throughout the manuscript. In addition, there are overlapping symbols and other ambiguities at many places. All these things together make it really difficult for a reader to follow the line of thought of the authors.

Response 3

Mathematical derivations in the entire manuscript have been formatted and further expressed in a better way.

Minor comments

Comment 1

Introduction onwards: Avoid using excessive capitalized words regarding acronyms (first appearance might be acceptable but after that anyway). 

Response 1

The excessive use of capitalized words regarding acronyms after first appearance have been addressed accordingly.

Comment 2

Figure 1 caption onwards: Put a full-stop at the end of each figure caption.

Response 2

A full stop has been placed at the end of all figures caption in the entire document.

Comment 3

Line number 209: Integrate equations to be parts of the surrounding phrases with correct punctuation. If the equation closes the sentence it should have a full-stop at the end.

Response 3

This has been addressed in the entire document to the best of our knowledge.

Comment 4

 Line number 237: Check the correctness of (5).

Response 4

Equation 5 has been corrected.

Comment 5

Line numbers 396, 398, 406: Remove overlapping extra symbols.

Response 5

The overlapping extra symbols has been removed

Comment 6

Line number 493: Part of the text in the figure goes outside the visible region.

Response 6

The part of the text has been formatted to be at the visible region.

Comment 7

References

Response 7

References have been updated

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There are still a lot of writing problems.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are still a lot of writing problems.

Author Response

Comment 1

Comments on the Quality of English Language. There are still a lot of writing problems.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language. There are still a lot of writing problems.

 

Response 1: Thank you for the observation. Significant improvements have been made to the English language throughout the manuscript. We have meticulously addressed issues such as grammar, clarity, and overall readability to enhance the quality of the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Below are my 1^st round comments and responses to each of them after the revision in bold.

Main comments

There are several major flaws in the manuscript to be raised as follows:

1.       Lack of novelty. The content is highly derivative with only minor modifications and changes, showing results that are neither very consistent nor convincing.

Still valid in the sense that builds heavily on prior work in the field but can be acknowledged that some new own ideas have been developed as well. So, this is not necessarily an obstacle for acceptance.

2.       Mathematical derivations have been poorly expressed and formulated. For example, size, format, shape and location of symbols varies throughout the manuscript. In addition, there are overlapping symbols and other ambiguities at many places. All these things together make it really difficult for a reader to follow the line of thought of the authors.

Some changes for better have been made but not enough. The comment remains very valid still, unfortunately.

3.       The overall layout and organization of the manuscript is also similarly messy. Many figures are of very poor resolution. Fig. 1 seems to be a copy/paste from [10] with some additional edition on top. Fig. 4 does not make sense at all by looking at the values on x- and y-axis scales. Punctuation needs improvements throughout the manuscript.

Fig. 1 has indeed been redrawn and Fig. 4 dropped away. Algorithms have been better itemized. Resolution of the figures has not really been improved. Punctuation issue has not been tackled at all.     

Minor comments

More detailed examples of the things requiring revision are listed below.

-          Introduction onwards: Avoid using excessive capitalized words regarding acronyms (first appearance might be acceptable but after that anyway). I do not see this addressed.

-          System Model onwards: Be consistent in variables' (mathematical symbols in general) appearance. If the symbol appears in italics in equations so should it be in the text as well. I do not see this addressed.

 

-          Figure 1 caption onwards: Put a full-stop at the end of each figure caption. This is now OK.

-          Line number 206: Begin equation numbering from (1). This is now OK.

-          Line number 209: Integrate equations to be parts of the surrounding phrases with correct punctuation. If the equation closes the sentence it should have a full-stop at the end. I do not see this addressed.

-          Line number 221: Figure (2) -> Figure 2

I do not see this addressed. Actually, it seems that now other Figure x type of references are also Figure (x) type that they should not be.

-          Line number 237: Check the correctness of (5). This seems to be OK now.

-          Line number 330: For consistency, use the reference number instead of mixing referencing formats. Seems to be modified so that there is no reference at all anymore.

-          Line numbers 396, 398, 406: Remove overlapping extra symbols. I still see peculiar symbols at least three times in (26), twice in (28), once in (29) and one on line number 460.

-          Line number 428: Revise appearance of stretched and wrong-sized symbols. Some changes seen to better direction but not enough.

-          Line number 493: Part of the text in the figure goes outside the visible region. This is now OK.

-          References: Unify the format and carefully check the details of each entry. For example, remove all Member, S. texts from [14] and [16]. There are plenty of additional entries in the bibliography now but they are not consistently listed as requested. Also, the mentioned Member fields in the author lists of [24] and [26] have been only partially removed.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language itself is mostly readable and quite fluent. Punctuation, typing and other outlook related issues call for more revisions.

Author Response

Main Comments

There are several major flaws in the manuscript to be raised as follows:

1a.       Lack of novelty. The content is highly derivative with only minor modifications and changes, showing results that are neither very consistent nor convincing.

Response 1:  We  contributed by integrating WPT with massive MIMO-NOMA networks to enhance EE and mitigate CCI thereby  addressing critical challenges in modern IoT and cyber-physical systems. User Equipment (UE)-Base Station (BS) connection model  was specifically designed to mitigate CCI during WPT. This model assigns each UE to a single BS, thereby optimizing resource allocation and enhancing Energy Efficiency (EE).

2a.       Mathematical derivations have been poorly expressed and formulated. For example, size, format, shape and location of symbols varies throughout the manuscript. In addition, there are overlapping symbols and other ambiguities at many places. All these things together make it really difficult for a reader to follow the line of thought of the authors.

Response 2a:  In the revised version of the manuscript, significant improvements have been made to enhance the clarity and consistency of mathematical expressions. Specifically, we have carefully standardized the size, format, shape, and location of symbols across all equations and text. Measures have been taken to eliminate overlapping symbols and reduce ambiguities, thereby improving the readability and comprehensibility of the mathematical derivations. These enhancements ensure that the logical flow of our arguments is now clearer and more accessible to the reader.

3. The overall layout and organization of the manuscript is also similarly messy. Many figures are of very poor resolution. Fig. 1 seems to be a copy/paste from [10] with some additional edition on top. Fig. 4 does not make sense at all by looking at the values on x- and y-axis scales. Punctuation needs improvements throughout the manuscript.

Response 3:  We have undertaken a comprehensive revision of the manuscript to improve its overall layout and organization. The manuscript's structure has been refined to enhance readability and logical flow. Sections have been reorganized to ensure a coherent progression of ideas. All figures have been redrawn or replaced with high-resolution versions to improve clarity. In particular,  Fig. 1 has been redrawn from scratch to ensure originality and accuracy, and Fig. 4 has been revised to ensure that the values on the x- and y-axis scales are meaningful and correctly represented. We have carefully reviewed and corrected punctuation throughout the manuscript to enhance readability and professionalism. These changes have been implemented to address the reviewer's concerns and improve the overall quality and clarity of the manuscript.

Minor comments

More detailed examples of the things requiring revision are listed below.

-          Introduction onwards: Avoid using excessive capitalized words regarding acronyms (first appearance might be acceptable but after that anyway. I do not see this addressed.

Response :  In the revised version of the manuscript, we have carefully reviewed and adjusted the use of acronyms. Specifically, acronyms are fully capitalized only at their first appearance. Subsequent uses of these acronyms have been revised to lowercase where appropriate, ensuring consistency and readability throughout the manuscript.

-          System Model onwards: Be consistent in variables' (mathematical symbols in general) appearance. If the symbol appears in italics in equations so should it be in the text as well. I do not see this addressed.

Response :  In the revised version of the manuscript, we have meticulously ensured consistency in the appearance of all mathematical symbols. Specifically, all variables and symbols are consistently formatted in italics both in equations and in the text. We have reviewed the entire "System Model" section and subsequent sections to verify and correct any inconsistencies.

-          Line number 209: Integrate equations to be parts of the surrounding phrases with correct punctuation. If the equation closes the sentence it should have a full-stop at the end. I do not see this addressed.

Response :  In the revised version of the manuscript, we have carefully integrated all equations into the surrounding phrases with correct punctuation. Specifically, we ensured that equations are seamlessly incorporated into the narrative of the texts. Appropriate punctuation marks are used, including full stops at the end of equations that close a sentence.

-          Line number 221: Figure (2) -> Figure 2. I do not see this addressed. Actually, it seems that now other Figure x type of references are also Figure (x) type that they should not be.

Response :  In the revised version of the manuscript, we have corrected the format of all figure references. Specifically, we have ensured that all figure references follow the correct format as "Figure x" instead of "Figure (x)". We conducted a thorough review of the entire manuscript to verify and correct any incorrect figure references, ensuring consistency throughout.

-  Line numbers 396, 398, 406: Remove overlapping extra symbols. I still see peculiar symbols at least three times in (26), twice in (28), once in (29) and one on line number 460.

Response :  The overlapping symbols in the equation have been corrected to the best of our knowledge in (26), (28) and (29) accordingly.

-          Line number 428: Revise appearance of stretched and wrong-sized symbols. Some changes seen to better direction but not enough.

Response :  More work has been done in the entire document on the appearance of stretched symbols.

-          References: Unify the format and carefully check the details of each entry. For example, remove all Member, S. texts from [14] and [16]. There are plenty of additional entries in the bibliography now but they are not consistently listed as requested. Also, the mentioned Member fields in the author lists of [24] and [26] have been only partially removed.

 Response:  The mentioned Member fields in the author lists of [24] and [26] have been only fully removed. The references have been consistently listed to the best of our knowledge.

Moderate editing of English language required

Response:  The English has been improved the entire document

Author Response File: Author Response.docx