Interference Management Based on Meta-Heuristic Algorithms in 5G Device-to-Device Communications
, Okba Kraa 2,†, Yassine Himeur 3,*, Khaled Telli 2, Shadi Atalla 3 and Wathiq Mansoor 3Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe contribution over existing research work is unclear in the introduction (lines from56-60). Particularly, authors should refer and discuss state of the art references using genetic algorithm (GA), particle swarm optimization (PSO), Bee life algorithm (BLA) and combination between matching algorithm and bee life algorithm. State of the art references about underlay and overlay cognitive radio might also be discussed:
[Ref1] Alzubaidi, Osamah Thamer Hassan, et al. "Interference challenges and management in B5G network design: A comprehensive review." Electronics 11.18 (2022): 2842.
[Ref2] A. M. H. Alibraheemi et al., "A Survey of Resource Management in D2D Communication for B5G Networks," in IEEE Access, vol. 11, pp. 7892-7923, 2023, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3238799.
[Ref3] M. U. A. Siddiqui, F. Qamar, F. Ahmed, Q. N. Nguyen and R. Hassan, "Interference Management in 5G and Beyond Network: Requirements, Challenges and Future Directions," in IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 68932-68965, 2021, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3073543.
[Ref4] Ali Jamoos, Osama Najajri, and Admed Abdou, “Cognitive radio-based solutions for spectrum scarcity in Palestine”, International Journal of Mobile Network Design and Innovation, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2019.
Minor Corrections:
In the abstract, the acronyms Genetic Algorithms (GA), Practical Swarm Optimization (PSO), Bee Life Algorithm (BLA) are used twice.
In Page 6, equation is out of margin.
In line 159, replace “The following diagram” by Figure 4.
Comments on the Quality of English Language---
Author Response
Please check the attached Response Letter.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript considers the meta-heurstic algorithms in 5G D2D communications. The authors proposed the modified version of the bee life algorithm for the problem of channel and power allocation for D2D communication. Appropriate theoretical framework was applied. Simulation results evident that the proposed algorithm demonstrates improving compared to well-known algorithms. The topic is relevant, it addresses a specific gap in this field. Nonetheless, there are aspects that require improvements:
1) The authors should more clearly define the goals, objectives and motivation of the research.
2) In the first section, the authors should add more literature review and research gaps.
3) Figure 7 requires adding explanation.
4) The discussion of the results should clearly show the reader the potential and limitations of the proposal.
Author Response
Please check the attached Response Letter.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper proposes a meticulously comparative study of metaheuristic algorithms. The authors make use of Genetic Algorithms (GA), Practical Swarm Optimisation (PSO), Bee Life Algorithm (BLA), and a combination of matching techniques with BLA to optimise joint channel and power allocation.
Simulation results seem to conclude that the use of bio-inspired algorithms in this type of problem is very promising. Some papers such as "Deep Learning-Based Attack Detection and Classification in Android Devices" are missing.
The conclusions drawn from the experiments in terms of performance are also very encouraging.
The article is novel and significantly contributes to the state of the art, is well structured and provides coherent conclusions.
This paper proposes a meticulously comparative study of metaheuristic algorithms. The authors make use of Genetic Algorithms (GA), Practical Swarm Optimisation (PSO), Bee Life Algorithm (BLA), and a combination of matching techniques with BLA to optimise joint channel and power allocation.
Simulation results seem to conclude that the use of bio-inspired algorithms in this type of problem is very promising. Some papers such as "Deep Learning-Based Attack Detection and Classification in Android Devices" are missing.
The conclusions drawn from the experiments in terms of performance are also very encouraging.
The article is novel and significantly contributes to the state of the art, is well structured and provides coherent conclusions.
Author Response
Please see the attached Response Letter.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAlthough the topic of the paper is of interest, you need to improve the text at conceptual level.
1. Clearly mention which algorithms are new, which algorithms are combined with yours. A comparative table summarizing this, along with legacy solutions, will help for a better understanding and positioning your work.
2. All equations should be numbered (you lost this starting with page 6). Use (1) when you refer within the text to equation (1). You may use "Equation (1)" only at the beginning of a phrase.
3. Testbed scenario (a figure and its description) is missing.
4. The pseudo-codes for the algorithms are missing,
5. A list of acronyms at the end of the paper is needed.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThere are a lot of corrections needed.
1. Start with the title of the paper: "heuristic" instead of "heurstic'
2. There are group of sentences where a word is repeated to many consecutive times: e.g., "resources' in rows 44-47, "interferences" in rows 52-55, "algorithm" in rows 57-59, "throughput" in rows 94-98 etc.
3. Avoid to start the phrases with "And..." (e.g., row 85, 235 etc.)
4. When you refer to a figure, use capital letter: e.g., in row 159 "Figure 4" instead of "figure 4" etc.
5. Keywords in alphabetical order.
6. Review the rows 9-12 within the Abstract (apparently the verb is missing).
Author Response
Please see the attached Response Letter.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI agree with the changes. Some minor corrections:
1. Review the quality of Figure 5 and Figure 6.
2. In Appendix B the acronyms should be in alphabetical order.
3. Review Appendix D and Appendix E. I presume Table 4 is Appendix D and the MBA pseudo-code is Appendix E.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNo additional comments.
Author Response
Please see attached our responses to the reviewers
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
