======= Review 1 =======

> *** Technical content and scientific rigour: Rate the technical content of the paper (e.g.: completeness of the
analysis or simulation study, thoroughness of the treatise, accuracy of the models, etc.), its soundness and scientific rigour.
Valid work but limited contribution. (3)

> *** Relevance and timeliness: Rate the importance and timeliness of the topic addressed in the paper within its area of research.
Good (4)

> *** Novelty and originality: Rate the novelty and originality of the ideas or results presented in the paper.
Some interesting ideas and results on a subject well investigated. (3)

> *** Quality of presentation: Rate the paper organization, the clearness of text and figures, the completeness and accuracy of references.
Readable, but revision is needed in some parts. (3)

> *** Strong aspects: Comments to the author: what are the strong aspects of the paper

1. This paper proposed an adaptive upper confidence bound-based multi-arm bandit method to choose the appropriate version of the HD map under the different wireless communication statuses. To evaluate the performance of the method, The simulation results show the proposed method, which achieves the best compared with the baseline methods.
2. This paper takes the change in wireless network conditions into consideration.
3. This paper proposed a love-of-variety-based approach to model the different versions of HD maps.

> *** Weak aspects: Comments to the author: what are the weak aspects of the paper?

1. The explanation of definition 1 is not clear.
2. The Communication Model is too simple compared to the realistic use case.
3. The paper needs more evaluation to show the performance of the method.
4. Some typos.

> *** Recommended changes: Please indicate any changes that should be made to the paper if accepted.

1. Add more evaluations with more baselines.
2. Add more explanations of the Adaptive Upper-Confidence-Bound Method.
3. The communication model needs to be improved.
4. The Writing needs to be improved.

======= Review 2 =======

> *** Technical content and scientific rigour: Rate the technical content of the paper (e.g.: completeness of the
analysis or simulation study, thoroughness of the treatise, accuracy of the models, etc.), its soundness and scientific rigour.
Solid work of notable importance. (4)

> *** Relevance and timeliness: Rate the importance and timeliness of the topic addressed in the paper within its area of research.
Excellent (5)

> *** Novelty and originality: Rate the novelty and originality of the ideas or results presented in the paper.
Some interesting ideas and results on a subject well investigated. (3)

> *** Quality of presentation: Rate the paper organization, the clearness of text and figures, the completeness and accuracy of references.
Well written. (4)

> *** Strong aspects: Comments to the author: what are the strong aspects of the paper

1. Novel approach: The paper proposes a love-of-variety-based method to model different versions of HD maps with different data sizes, which is a novel approach that has not been explored in existing literature.
2. Effective algorithm: The paper introduces an AUCB algorithm to address the HD map version selection problem regarding different wireless communication statuses. Simulation results show that this algorithm achieves the best total accumulative rewards and the least regret compared with baseline methods.
3. Real-world application: The paper addresses a real-world problem in autonomous driving, where frequent updates and low latency requirements are crucial for safety. The proposed method can help ensure that HD maps are delivered on time despite varying channel conditions.
4. Clear presentation: The paper is well-organized and clearly presents the problem, proposed method, and simulation results. This makes it easy for readers to understand the contributions of the paper.

> *** Weak aspects: Comments to the author: what are the weak aspects of the paper?

1. Limited scope: The paper focuses on the problem of adaptive HD map selection for autonomous driving, but it does not address other potential applications of the proposed method.
2. Lack of real-world testing: While the simulation results are promising, the proposed method has not been tested in a real-world setting. It is unclear how well it would perform in practice.
3. Limited comparison with existing methods: The paper compares the proposed method with only two baseline methods, which may not be representative of all possible approaches to this problem.
4. Lack of discussion on limitations: The paper does not discuss any limitations or potential drawbacks of the proposed method, which could be important for future research.

> *** Recommended changes: Please indicate any changes that should be made to the paper if accepted.

1. While the paper focuses on the problem of adaptive HD map selection for autonomous driving, it could be beneficial to explore other potential applications of the proposed method.
2. Conducting real-world testing of the proposed method would provide more insight into its effectiveness and limitations.
3. Comparing the proposed method with a wider range of baseline methods would provide a more comprehensive evaluation of its performance.
4. Discussing potential limitations or drawbacks of the proposed method would help readers understand its applicability and potential areas for improvement.

======= Review 3 =======

> *** Technical content and scientific rigour: Rate the technical content of the paper (e.g.: completeness of the
analysis or simulation study, thoroughness of the treatise, accuracy of the models, etc.), its soundness and scientific rigour.
Excellent work and outstanding technical content. (5)

> *** Relevance and timeliness: Rate the importance and timeliness of the topic addressed in the paper within its area of research.
Excellent (5)

> *** Novelty and originality: Rate the novelty and originality of the ideas or results presented in the paper.
Significant original work and novel results. (4)

> *** Quality of presentation: Rate the paper organization, the clearness of text and figures, the completeness and accuracy of references.
Excellent. (5)

> *** Strong aspects: Comments to the author: what are the strong aspects of the paper

The paper utilizes the love-of-variety-based method to model the different versions of the HD maps with different data sizes. Based on that, the paper proposes an adaptive
upper confidence bound-based multi-arm bandit method to choose the appropriate map under the different wireless communication statuses. The simulation results demonstrate that the proposed method achieves the best total accumulative rewards and the least regret as compared to the baseline methods.

> *** Weak aspects: Comments to the author: what are the weak aspects of the paper?

In general, the paper is well-written. Addressing the following comments may further improve the quality of the paper.
1. Could the proposed method find the optimal solution to Problem 3? If not, what is the optimality of the proposed method?
2. What is the complexity of the proposed method?
3. The font size and color in Fig. 3-5 need to be consistent.

> *** Recommended changes: Please indicate any changes that should be made to the paper if accepted.

1. Please add the unit of the x-axis.
2. Please scrutinize the paper to correct the typos and grammar errors, e.g., Page 5, the t increases-->t increases. Page 6. we firstly propose a love-of-variety method -->we first propose the love-of-variety method.