Half-duplex and full-duplex interference mitigation in relays assisted heterogeneous network

Moubachir Madani Fadoul; Chee-Onn Chow

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0286970

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionDecember 15, 2022
16 Jan 2023 Decision Letter - Praveen Kumar Donta, Editor PONE-D-22-34295Half-Duplex and Full-Duplex Interference Mitigation in Relays Assisted Heterogeneous NetworkPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Madani Fadoul, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 02 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Praveen Kumar Donta, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, all author-generated code must be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse. 3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. ""Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Authors eliminate the IRI, RSI, and RDI by using the hybrid zeroforcing and singular value decomposition (ZF-SVD) beamforming technique based on nullspace projection. Paper is technically sound and well written, i have few major comments: 1: It is important to show the effect on mobility. 2: Some important references are missing: a:NOMA-Based Coordinated Direct and Relay Transmission With a Half-Duplex/ Full-Duplex Relay," in IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 68, no. 11, pp. 6750-6760, Nov. 2020, 2:"Heterogeneous Semi-Blind Interference Alignment in Finite-SNR Networks With Fairness Consideration," in IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 2472-2488, April 2020. Reviewer #2: This manuscript presents a framework for mitigation of the interference in a heterogenous networks where both full-duplex (FD) and half-duplex (HD) relays are exploited. The novel contribution of this work is the consideration of three kinds of interference (inter-relay interference, residual self-interference, and relay-to-destination interference in a multi-cell environment, especially in a heterogenous network. The authors also solve a joint power allocation optimization problem for the relays and the sources. In general, the technical contribution of this work is good and the analysis is presented in a good organization. However, I do have some comments to improve the quality of this manuscript: 1. Although the problem considered in this work is novel and comprehensive, the solutions to the considered problem, such as beamforming, zero-forcing, and singular value decomposition, have been well-studied in the previous works. The beamforming designs for the relays and the destinations are quite independent on each other. Therefore, they are not so difficult to derived. 2. In the system model, the authors consider two adjacent cells, one of which uses half-duplex relay while the other uses full-duplex relay. This is not a typical situation. Why don't they consider two adjacent cells, both of which employ full-duplex relay? 3. Regarding the joint power allocation for source and relay nodes, why is there the total power constraint? These are two independence devices, so each should has its own maximum available power. 4. The baseline schemes for comparison are the HD and FD schemes without interference or with interference but without interference cancellation. These comparisons are trivial. Please compare the proposed method with related works that the authors have introduced. 5. In the Introduction section (page 3, lines 78 - 79), the authors claim that "by changing the level of self-interference, the FD ergodic capacity becomes similar to HD ergodic capacity". But then in the next sentence, they stated that "the ergodic capacity of FD achieves better performance than HD ergodic capacity". Please justify these sentences. 6. In the comments on Figure 3, the authors claim that "With the increase in SNR, the performance of FD without interference cancellation decreases". This is not compatible with the results in Figure 3. 7. In page 11, line 192, what does C^{(M_{S_j}, M_{r_j}) x 1} means? 8. Page 8, line 148: "(x)^{+} denotes x or 0" --> this is not correct mathemmatically. 9. There are many typos and grammar errors in the manuscript: - There are some duplication between the Introduction and the section on Related work, for example: "The main hurdle facing relay assisted ..." or "Small cells such as Femto and Pico ..." - Page 3, lines 84-86: "... relay systems Table 1". - Page 3, lines 101-102: "Though it achieves ... was not considered" --> grammar error. - The first paragraph of the subsection "Summary of Contribution" is not clear in meaning. Also, there is a typo: "Table ??". - "moore-penrose pseudoinverse" --> should be "Moore-Penrose ...". 10. Table 1 is too long, but the readers still cannot see what is the difference between the proposed work and those works in Table 1. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286970.r001
Revision 1
4 Mar 2023 Author Response Manuscript ID PONE-D-22-34295 Firstly, we would like to thank the editor and the reviewers for their efforts in reviewing our manuscript. The comments are useful and constructive. Following the comments, we have made changes to improve the final manuscript. We also respond to individual concerns of the reviewers, where the comments are printed in italic, followed by the responses. In the revised manuscript, all changes are indicated by red colored fonts. The manuscript is edited in order to comply with length policy imposed by PLOS ONE Journal. Response to Editor's Comments We have ensured that the edited manuscript version meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The paper-generated code will be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Reviewers' comments: 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Response to Reviewers' Comments and Questions Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Authors eliminate the IRI, RSI, and RDI by using the hybrid zeroforcing and singular value decomposition (ZF-SVD) beamforming technique based on nullspace projection. Paper is technically sound and well written, i have few major comments: 1: It is important to show the effect on mobility. Response: Thank you for the suggestion, the relay mobility have been added with an additional figure (8). 2: Some important references are missing: a: NOMA-Based Coordinated Direct and Relay Transmission With a Half-Duplex/ Full-Duplex Relay," in IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 68, no. 11, pp. 6750-6760, Nov. 2020, 2:"Heterogeneous Semi-Blind Interference Alignment in Finite-SNR Networks With Fairness Consideration," in IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 2472-2488, April 2020. Response: Thank you for the suggestion, the two references have been added. Reviewer #2: This manuscript presents a framework for mitigation of the interference in a heterogenous networks where both full-duplex (FD) and half-duplex (HD) relays are exploited. The novel contribution of this work is the consideration of three kinds of interference (inter-relay interference, residual self-interference, and relay-to-destination interference in a multi-cell environment, especially in a heterogenous network. The authors also solve a joint power allocation optimization problem for the relays and the sources. In general, the technical contribution of this work is good and the analysis is presented in a good organization. However, I do have some comments to improve the quality of this manuscript: 1. Although the problem considered in this work is novel and comprehensive, the solutions to the considered problem, such as beamforming, zero-forcing, and singular value decomposition, have been well-studied in the previous works. The beamforming designs for the relays and the destinations are quite independent on each other. Therefore, they are not so difficult to derived. Response: Beamforming have been used in different networks with different criteria. In this work, our joint analysis will not be possible without beamforming technique which simplifies the heterogeneous network analysis that equipped with MIMO antennas. 2. In the system model, the authors consider two adjacent cells, one of which uses half-duplex relay while the other uses full-duplex relay. This is not a typical situation. Why don't they consider two adjacent cells, both of which employ full-duplex relay? Response: In cellular standards such as 5G and beyond and due to increased connectivity, in order to satisfy different quality-of-service constraints, ideally the network will comprise of half-duplex, full-deplex, IoT , drone devices, and so on. However, most recent research considered two adjacent cells employing either full–duplex or half-duplex relays. Hence, a heterogeneous network that comprised of multicell, HD and FD is much appreciated. 3. Regarding the joint power allocation for source and relay nodes, why is there the total power constraint? These are two independence devices, so each should has its own maximum available power. Response: In order to optimise the proposed network as a whole system including the sources, relays and destinations, the total power constraint reflects the available power budget, one could easily replace “1” by a desired power budget. 4. The baseline schemes for comparison are the HD and FD schemes without interference or with interference but without interference cancellation. These comparisons are trivial. Please compare the proposed method with related works that the authors have introduced. Response: The baseline schemes for comparison are the HD and FD schemes without interference or with interference have been derived from the literature, we simplify the names for the convenience, however, few references have added. 5. In the Introduction section (page 3, lines 78 - 79), the authors claim that "by changing the level of self-interference, the FD ergodic capacity becomes similar to HD ergodic capacity". But then in the next sentence, they stated that "the ergodic capacity of FD achieves better performance than HD ergodic capacity". Please justify these sentences. Response: The references have been clarified 6. In the comments on Figure 3, the authors claim that "With the increase in SNR, the performance of FD without interference cancellation decreases". This is not compatible with the results in Figure 3. Response: This updated to “With the increase in SNR, the performance of FD without interference cancellation remains flat” 7. In page 11, line 192, what does C^{(M_{S_j}, M_{r_j}) x 1} means? Response: The sentence is updated as follows “ The definitions of symbol vectors and channel matrices are shown in the following. \\mathbf{x}_{\\mathit{S}}\\in\\mathbb{C}^{min(M_{Si},M_{ri})\\times1}, and \\mathbf{\\hat{x}}_{\\mathit{S}}\\in\\mathbb{C}^{min(M_{Sj},M_{rj})\\times1} are the transmitted signals from the S node with dimension min\\,(M_{Si},M_{ri})\\times1 and R node with dimension min\\,(M_{Sj},M_{rj})\\times1, respectively”. 8. Page 8, line 148: "(x)^{+} denotes x or 0" --> this is not correct mathemmatically. Response: The sentence is updated as follows \\left[x\\right]^{+}\\triangleq max\\{x,0\\}. 9. There are many typos and grammar errors in the manuscript: - There are some duplication between the Introduction and the section on Related work, for example: "The main hurdle facing relay assisted ..." or "Small cells such as Femto and Pico ..." - Page 3, lines 84-86: "... relay systems Table 1". - Page 3, lines 101-102: "Though it achieves ... was not considered" --> grammar error. - The first paragraph of the subsection "Summary of Contribution" is not clear in meaning. Also, there is a typo: "Table ??". - "moore-penrose pseudoinverse" --> should be "Moore-Penrose ...". Response: Thank you for pointing out the syntax errors. The duplicating sentences have been removed. Page 3, lines 84-86: "... relay systems Table 1" is changed to “....relay systems as shown in Table 1”. The first paragraph of the subsection "Summary of Contribution" is changed to “Contribution". "moore-penrose pseudoinverse" --> is changed to "Moore-Penrose ...". "Though it achieves ... was not considered" is updated to “...designed based on additional hardware. However, the system did not capture the network heterogeneity. 10. Table 1 is too long, but the readers still cannot see what is the difference between the proposed work and those works in Table 1. Response: We have revised the final manuscript with the above suggestion and introduced the last row of the table to highlight our contribution. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286970.r002
20 Mar 2023 Decision Letter - Praveen Kumar Donta, Editor PONE-D-22-34295R1Half-Duplex and Full-Duplex Interference Mitigation in Relays Assisted Heterogeneous NetworkPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Madani Fadoul, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by May 04 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Praveen Kumar Donta, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: (No Response) ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Authors have addressed all my comment's, not more comments. Authors have addressed all my comment's, not more comments. Authors have addressed all my comment's, not more comments. Reviewer #2: In this revised manuscript, the authors have made some appropriate changes to improve the presentation of their work. However, some of technical concerns that I have commented in the previous review have not been responded seriously. 1. Regarding the comment on the assumption that the adjacent cell uses half-duplex transmission instead of full-duplex, please state clearly in the manuscript the practical situations that this work can be applied. This should be done to show a solid motivation for their work. 2. Regarding the question on the constrain on the total power constraint, it seems that the authors misunderstood my comment. I don't care what the values the authors set for the total power constraint (1 or any). My main concern is that any device should have their own power constraint, which does not depend on the power consumption of other devices. In your model, does the relay need to contact the base station to know about the maximum power that it (the relay) can transmit? Please clarify this setup by solid argument, not by references (because this should be specific to your model). 3. In response to the concern about the claim "by changing the level of self-interference, the FD ergodic capacity becomes like HD ergodic capacity", then "Finally, the ergodic capacity of FD achieves better performance than HD ergodic capacity", the authors referred to two previous references but actually, they were not related. So, please elaborate on those claims or rewrite the sentences to make it easier to follow. In general, I expect more serious response from the authors on the technical points, not just 2-3 sentences and without any changes in the manuscript. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286970.r003
Revision 2
10 Apr 2023 Author Response Manuscript ID PONE-D-22-34295R1 Firstly, we would like to thank the editor and the reviewers for their efforts in reviewing our manuscript. The comments are useful and constructive. Following the comments, we have made changes to improve the final manuscript. We also respond to individual concerns of the reviewers, where the comments are printed in italic, followed by the responses. In the revised manuscript, all changes are indicated by red colored fonts. The manuscript is edited in order to comply with length policy imposed by PLOS ONE Journal. Reviewers' comments: 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: (No Response) 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Authors have addressed all my comment's, not more comments. Authors have addressed all my comment's, not more comments. Authors have addressed all my comment's, not more comments. Response: Thank you very much Reviewer #2: In this revised manuscript, the authors have made some appropriate changes to improve the presentation of their work. However, some of technical concerns that I have commented in the previous review have not been responded seriously. 1. Regarding the comment on the assumption that the adjacent cell uses half-duplex transmission instead of full-duplex, please state clearly in the manuscript the practical situations that this work can be applied. This should be done to show a solid motivation for their work. Response: We have revised the final manuscript with the above suggestion (lines 161 to 168). 2. Regarding the question on the constrain on the total power constraint, it seems that the authors misunderstood my comment. I don't care what the values the authors set for the total power constraint (1 or any). My main concern is that any device should have their own power constraint, which does not depend on the power consumption of other devices. In your model, does the relay need to contact the base station to know about the maximum power that it (the relay) can transmit? Please clarify this setup by solid argument, not by references (because this should be specific to your model). Response: We have revised the final manuscript with the above clarifications (lines 327 to 336). 3. In response to the concern about the claim "by changing the level of self-interference, the FD ergodic capacity becomes like HD ergodic capacity", then "Finally, the ergodic capacity of FD achieves better performance than HD ergodic capacity", the authors referred to two previous references but actually, they were not related. So, please elaborate on those claims or rewrite the sentences to make it easier to follow. In general, I expect more serious response from the authors on the technical points, not just 2-3 sentences and without any changes in the manuscript. Response: We revised the final manuscript and highlighted the above suggestions (lines 77 to 83). Thank you for taking the time to improve the manuscript; we eagerly await your feedback. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286970.r004
29 May 2023 Decision Letter - Praveen Kumar Donta, Editor Half-Duplex and Full-Duplex Interference Mitigation in Relays Assisted Heterogeneous Network PONE-D-22-34295R2 Dear Dr. Madani Fadoul, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Praveen Kumar Donta, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: (No Response) ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: (No Response) ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: (No Response) ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: (No Response) ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: (No Response) ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: (No Response) ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286970.r005
Formally Accepted
9 Jun 2023 Acceptance Letter - Praveen Kumar Donta, Editor PONE-D-22-34295R2 Half-Duplex and Full-Duplex Interference Mitigation in Relays Assisted Heterogeneous Network Dear Dr. Madani Fadoul: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Praveen Kumar Donta Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286970.r006

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .