24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

wangyslyh

金虫 (初入文坛)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 1056.6
帖子: 42
在线: 12.8小时
虫号: 2081489
注册: 2012-10-23
性别: GG
专业: 通信理论与系统

[求助] 小白初投CL被拒（允许重投），求大神帮忙看看再投希望大吗？已有2人参与

Dear Author(s):

The review of the referenced manuscript, CL2014-*, is now complete. I regret to inform you that based on the enclosed reviews and my own reading of your manuscript, I am unable to recommend its publication in IEEE Communications Letters.

After reading the whole paper,  although the main idea is clearly presented, I don't find a great enthusiasm for recommending this paper for publication in its current form. Indeed, the contribution of this paper is unclear compared to existing works in the literature. Besides, the objective function adopted in the paper requires more explanation.  Furthermore,  the presentation styles need to be improved. It is for these reasons that I cannot accept the paper in its current form.
Suggestion: Reject and Resubmission is Allowed

Major comments:

[1] The physical meaning of the objective function in equation (1) is not clear to me.  In particular, * which needs more explanation. Besides,  please indicates the unit of variable y since * .
[2] It is known that when the EE maximized, it's possible that the system data rate can be very low . Thus, in the literature, minimum system data rate requirement is added as a constraint to the problem formulation.
[3] The current * algorithm achieves a stationary point.  However , it's unclear what is the *.
[4] In a two-tier network, how do you*?
[5] what is *?

Minor  comments:
[1] all the log function should be base 2.
[2] After equation (5), W is used as subcarrier bandwidth. However, W is used as total system bandwidth in the simulation section.
[3] Please pay attention on the font type: say in equation (1), the font type of "maximize"
[4] Please put the optimization variables under the "maximize" operator.

You may revise and resubmit your manuscript to IEEE Communications Letters.

Additional comments include:
The reviewers' comments are found at the end of this email.

Reviewer: 1
Comments to the Author
In this paper, the authors proposed to use* to solve the problem of *. They tried to *. Based on my review, I have the following comments:
1. In Introduction, the authors should specify the differences between this work and existing ones, and then summarize the contributions of this work.
2. The authors should discuss more about the implementation issues, such as the distributed implementation manner as the authors claimed.
3. More explanation should be given to the simulation results, not just tell what we can see in the figures.

Reviewer: 2
Comments to the Author
This letter studies *, which is an important and timely topic. The quality of presentation is good and generally the paper is well-written. However, I have two basic concerns.
1) Why do you need the metric in (P1) to motivate*? According to the reviewer's opinion * is not a straightforward objective and must be explained better.
2) Please compare your work with [6] in the introduction, since the objective and the analysis followed in this work is similar to yours.
Moreover, please add numbers to all the equations in order to facilitate the readers to refer to them.
Also, add the following reference:
***, vol. 1, no.1, June 2014

Reviewer: 3
Comments to the Author
This paper studies *. The *, the optimal solution to which is rigorously characterized. This paper is well-written and technically sound.
One suggestion is on further explanation on the objective functions of P1, P2 and Pk.  From the title and abstract, it can be seen that * is the aim of this work; and exactly the objective function of P1 is *. However, P1 is not the problem to be solved in this paper, and the actual objective functions of the*. This could lead the audience to an impression that energy-efficiency is not really the objective.
Another suggestion is to number all equations.

回复此楼