Parametrical T-Gate for Joint Processing of Quantum and Classic Optoelectronic Signals
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors well presented their research work on parametrical T-gate for joint procession of quantum and classical signals. The work may have potential impact especially processing of quantum and classical data in order to develop quantum and classical coexistent networks. So, I recommend this work to publish in Journal J.
Author Response
Authors are grateful to Reviewer for reading of the manuscript and for useful remarks given in the review.
Main corrections were done in sec.3.2, where additional text fragment was added, better disclosing calculations according to Algorithm 2. Corrections were done in Fig.5. Some text corrections were done in secs. 1.1, 1.4, and 2.2. Figures 8 was also slightly corrected.
All text corrections are highlighted by yellow in the revised version of the paper. We hope that corrections will improve reading of the paper and understanding of proposed in it methods.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
I have find your article very interesting and at the same time demanding to read. It covers large domain from conventional communication to quantum computing and blockchain technology. It introduces a new perspective how secure communication and data control could be realized.
The paper has a well defined structure followed by Figures and Algorithms that helps to understand the Authors idea.
However, some minor to moderate omissions have occurred. Here is the list of reviewer comments, and also in attached .pdf document:
Line 96: Reference 21 seems unreliable, could Authors avoid using web sites, and try to use more conventional source.
Line 147 – 158: Figure 1 is placed in the middle of a sentence. Could it be placed after the sentence end.
Line 226: Sentence starts with „And” could it be written differently?
Line 249 – 251: Since symbol for Min operator is defined, perhaps it should be done for Max operator.
Line 275: word „modulesin” should be ”modules in”?
Line 284: word „comfort” seems miss used. Perhaps different word or words sholud be used, like suitable, more suitable, comfortable, or similar.
Line 304: Is it necessary to use fraze like this (dilettante), Could it be written differently?
Line 326: It seems like cirilic alphabet (i) remain in the text .
Line 331: word „absorption” is mentioned twice.
Line 346-347: seems like reference for Mamdani, Sugeno and etc. is missing.
Line 360: It seems like operator symbols for MIN and MAX are defined differently then in line 249, or perhaps those are different set of operators (Min */ MIN  ; Max + / MAX ). Please try to use same operator symbols and names in entire paper.
Line 374: word „comfort”, perhaps different word should be more appropriate.
Line 378: seems like something (a word or more) is missing after “including” (or example including those used by).
Line 380: “comfort”, please revise use of word comfort in entire article.
Line 408: It seems like lines 396 and 408, should have the same argument list (F(x1,x2,m) – T(m,x1,x2)). Please correct.
Line 411: throughput ?
Line 413/1064: reference [37] seems a bit odd. Please check Authors guide.
Line 432: abbreviation AGA first time introduced. Please write full meaning.
Line 433-434: symbols for input variable x1,x2,… and discrete trouth levels are the same. Is this in order?
Line 437: same as Line 360.
Line 460: “nad” - and?
Line 530: abbreviation first time introduced.
Line 557: abbreviation first time introduced.
Line 608-609: “learned random oracle RO” it seems like “random oracle” or “RO” can be omitted.
Line 619-620: In Algorithm 2., actions of the Agent 2 does not follow Figure 5., and explanation provided in lines 620-628. Please revise Algorithm 2.
Algorithm 1 is explained crystal clear. Could provide example for Algorithm 2. so it can correspond to the explanation of Algorithm 1.
Line 603. Figure 6. is placed in the middle of a sentence. Please place figure after the sentence end.
Line 764: same as Line 360.
Line 831: same as Line 603.
Line 856-867: some letters appear verticaly over the Algorithm 3. Is it an error or there is more to it? (4.The4.Disc)
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
No special comments. English level seems to be fine. Some minor changes needed.
Author Response
Authors are very grateful for Reviewer for very attentive reading of the manuscript and for useful remarks.
The detailed description of done corrections is in the attached file
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Good article combined many technologies.
English can be enhanced starting from the Absrract
Author Response
Authors are grateful to Reviewer for reading of the manuscript and for useful remark in the review.
Main corrections were done in sec.3.2, where additional text fragment was added, better disclosing calculations according to Algorithm 2. Corrections were done in Fig.5. Some text corrections were done in secs. 1.1, 1.4, 2.2. Figures 8 was also slightly corrected.
English text corrections were done.
All text corrections are highlighted by yellow in the revised version. We hope that will improve reading of the paper and understanding of proposed in it methods.
