Operation Health Assessment of Power Market Based on Improved Matter-Element Extension Cloud Model
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Strong points:
The article is interesting, well structured and well presented.
The methods are presented explicitly without being too long.
The reading of the article is fluid, without stops.
Weaknesses:
Weaknesses are minimal, as follows, followed by suggestions for change:
1. Review the abstract because it appears repeated terms and very close. For example on lines 13-14 the expression "electric power market" appears 3 times, 2 times appears on the same line. As the expression "power market" also appears often and occurrences are very close to each other.
2. Review the spaces in keywords and other situations where space appears before / after curved parentheses when it should be the other way around.
3. Lines 60-66 need to include the source of the OHDPM concept.
4. Review the citations, for example on line 96 appears "Dawei S ..." the "S" is over, as it represents the author's proper name. There are more occurrences of this kind.
5. In Table 1, the abbreviations HHI, RSI1 and GDP should be spelled out either in their meaning or in the caption.
6. In a black and white print, in figure 5 it is not possible to distinguish the indexes. It is suggested to place a dashed line in one of the indexes.
7. Review the font size in the document in general and in particular on page 4.
Author Response
Thank you for your comment. I recommend following corrections.
Point 1: Review the abstract because it appears repeated terms and very close. For example on lines 13-14 the expression "electric power market" appears 3 times, 2 times appears on the same line. As the expression "power market" also appears often and occurrences are very close to each other.
Response 1: We have revised the usage of the word "electricity market" in the abstract, please see the revisions marked in red.
Point 2: Review the spaces in keywords and other situations where space appears before / after curved parentheses when it should be the other way around.
Response 2: We use the revised model to modify the keyword, the blank problem has been modified.
Point 3: Lines 60-66 need to include the source of the OHDPM concept.
Response 3: In lines 59-60, we add the source of the concept of OHDPM, please see the revisions marked in red.
Point 4: Review the citations, for example on line 96 appears "Dawei S ..." the "S" is over, as it represents the author's proper name. There are more occurrences of this kind.
Response 4: In lines 96 and 99, the author's name has been amended, please see the revisions marked in red.
Point 5: 5. In Table 1, the abbreviations HHI, RSI1 and GDP should be spelled out either in their meaning or in the caption.
Response 5: In Table 1, the abbreviations HHI, RSI1 and GDP have been spelled out in the caption, please see the revisions marked in red.
Point 6: In a black and white print, in figure 5 it is not possible to distinguish the indexes. It is suggested to place a dashed line in one of the indexes.
Response 6: In Figure5, the curve of index weight is changed to a dashed line.
Point 7: Review the font size in the document in general and in particular on page 4.
Response 7: Because the formula font is larger, the overall font size is different, and has been revised.
Ends.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments
In the abstract the term power market is used 8 times, in the introduction 13 times, please improve.
Line 56: the its, what is meant?
Line 134: evaluate the evaluation object, doesn't sound well.
General recommendation: Improve formatting of equations and mathematical expressions in text phrases.
Section 2 is too long, too theoretical and extremely difficult to understand, this will bore the reader.
Since the article is of a theoretical nature, the quintessence is not really clearly recognizable, only picture 5 with the corresponding descriptions can be reproduced.
Author Response
Thank you for your comment. I recommend following corrections.
Point 1: In the abstract the term power market is used 8 times, in the introduction 13 times, please improve.
Response 1: We used the revision model to modify the article. The use of the term power market in the abstracts and introduction has been revised. Please see the revisions marked in red.
Point 2: Line 56: the its, what is meant?
Response 2: Its refers to the operation of electricity market. The sentence has been revised, please see the revisions marked in red.
Point 3: Line 134: evaluate the evaluation object, doesn't sound well.
Response 3: Modifications have been made, please see the revisions marked in red.
Point 4: General recommendation: Improve formatting of equations and mathematical expressions in text phrases.
Response 4: In the original text, those equations size are larger, and the f formatting of equations and mathematical expressions in text phrases have been modified.
Point 5: Section 2 is too long, too theoretical and extremely difficult to understand, this will bore the reader.
Response 5: For the second section, the connection between the models introduced in the first section has not been explained before, which may make the reader unclear. So at the beginning of the second chapter, the relationship between several models is explained. In addition, the unnecessary content was deleted. Please see the revisions marked in red.
Point 6: Since the article is of a theoretical nature, the quintessence is not really clearly recognizable, only picture 5 with the corresponding descriptions can be reproduced.
Response 6: The cloud model used in this paper can evaluate the overall situation of the OHDPM, and also can judge the operation status of each index. Figure 4 shows the overall status of OHDPM, and Figure 5 shows the health status of each index weight. Add a paragraph to the article to describe it. Please see the section marked red in the article.
Ends.
Reviewer 3 Report
The article needs a nomenclature of terms used, because there are numerous terms which are not defined in the article’s equations, or have multiple definitions. Some examples:
-Line 174 : N is defined as “the number of cloud droplets” , while on Line 183 : N is defined as “the name of the thing”.
-Equation 4: the term bi is not defined;
-Equation 5: the terms α’, β’ and w’ are not defined;
-Equation 6: the terms αi’, βi’ and wi’ are not defined;
-Equation 7: the term h(w’) is not defined, as well as the subscript o;
Line 238: the declared Lagrange function and its multipliers are not presented. At the same time, it is not specified why the authors consider that the extreme of the Lagrange function is a minimum and not a maximum.
Lines 321-322 : the term tau is described twice.
Line 322: it results that hyperentropy is constant and imposed by the user through the constant tau, not determined according to the characteristics of the analyzed process. I think the authors should give some explanations here.
Equation 19: the terms Exz , Enz and Hez are not clearly defined.
Equation 20: the term σ is not defined.
On the other hand, it is not clear to me whether the authors can specify the range of values for the OHDPM indicator in general: what is the minimum value, what is the maximum value, which is the optimal value for a power market. Is the value of this indicator influenced by the size of the market and its characteristics and complexity: installed power, traded energy, consumption value, number of consumers, number and types of electricity transactions?
Author Response
Thank you for your comment. I recommend following corrections.
Point 1: The article needs a nomenclature of terms used, because there are numerous terms which are not defined in the article’s equations, or have multiple definitions. Some examples:
-Line 174 : N is defined as “the number of cloud droplets” , while on Line 183 : N is defined as “the name of the thing”.
-Equation 4: the term bi is not defined;
-Equation 5: the terms α’, β’ and w’ are not defined;
-Equation 6: the terms αi’, βi’ and wi’ are not defined;
-Equation 7: the term h(w’) is not defined, as well as the subscript o;.
Response 1:
-Line 174 : Modified the number of cloud droplets to represent the letter, expressed in .
The definitions of terms , , , , , , , , , and have been added.
For formula 7, the letters of the previous formula are incorrect and have been modified.
Point 2: Line 238: the declared Lagrange function and its multipliers are not presented. At the same time, it is not specified why the authors consider that the extreme of the Lagrange function is a minimum and not a maximum.
Response 2: In order to get the minimum deviation , the Lagrange function with the minimum objective function is constructed under the condition of . The minimum value is obtained by solving the Lagrange function. For the specific steps of constructing Lagrange function and the subsequent solving process, references are cited in the article. Please see the revisions marked in red.
Point 3: Lines 321-322 : the term tau is described twice.
Response 3: We have revised the duplicate parts.
Point 4: Line 322: it results that hyperentropy is constant and imposed by the user through the constant tau, not determined according to the characteristics of the analyzed process. I think the authors should give some explanations here.
Response 4:
Thank you for your comments. The explanation of the value of hyperentropy is supplemented, please see the revisions marked in red.
In addition, because the process of value selection of is not the focus of this paper, the detailed process of value selection is not explained. Now the following explanation is given. On the basis of cloud atomization constraint , the selection of value is not unique, but can be selected randomly in a reasonable range. Since the value in the standard hierarchical cloud model is 0.296, should satisfy . Five values were selected for the test, and the relative distinction of grade boundaries was observed. It is found that 0.05 was appropriate in a reasonable range.
Following are some examples of cloud images:
1) When , let's assume .
a)
From this figure, we can see that the cloud appears atomization phenomenon.
2）
b)
3）
c)
4）
d)
As can be seen from figure b), c), and d), the grade boundaries in the figure d) are relatively clear, so it is better to take (not unique).
Point 5: Equation 19: the terms Exz , Enz and Hez are not clearly defined.
Equation 20: the term σ is not defined.
The definitions of terms , , , have been added, please see the revisions marked in red.
Response 5:
Point 6: On the other hand, it is not clear to me whether the authors can specify the range of values for the OHDPM indicator in general: what is the minimum value, what is the maximum value, which is the optimal value for a power market. Is the value of this indicator influenced by the size of the market and its characteristics and complexity: installed power, traded energy, consumption value, number of consumers, number and types of electricity transactions?
Response 6:
The classification of OHDPM is explained in section 2.4 please see the revisions marked in red. OHDPM is divided into five grades, the hierarchical I-V corresponds to the lower, low, medium, higher and high health levels respectively. The range of values for the OHDPM grade has been modified in Table 4. OHDPM is affected by market scale, characteristics and complexity. Firstly, the market scale is an absolute quantity. Only when the market scale meets the needs of the development of the electricity market, can it be healthy. The large market scale is not necessarily healthy, and the small market scale is not necessarily unhealthy. Similarly, the installed power, the number of electricity transactions, consumption value are the same. For the market size, we choose some indicators to measure OHDPM, such as the proportion of market-oriented transactions and trans-provincial and cross-regional transaction proportion. These indicators can differentiate the health level through the numerical range. For the characteristics of electricity market, HHI, Top-m and RSI are selected as indicators to measure the characteristics of market structure. For the complexity of the electricity market, the index of market transaction setting and the level of market supervision are selected as representatives. In addition, the proportion of installed power mentioned above needs to be reasonable and flexible, this factor belongs to the reliability content of power system mentioned in the article. The content of power transaction type is included in market transaction setting index.
The number of consumers has a certain impact on OHDPM, which may affect the demand side market structure, and will be considered in the follow-up study.
For the above mentioned indicators, we will focus on the following studies. Thank you for your suggestions.
Ends.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
I read with interest the authors' answers. They responded well to most of the issues raised at the first review of the article.
The answer to Point 2 remains to be improved. Thus, the authors still ignore the main aspect: in order to be able to determine the minimum of the h(w) function by the Lagrange method, the h(w) function must be convex. If the authors cannot prove that the function h(w) - equation 7, is convex, then by the first derivative of the function h(w) (as the Lagrange method works) we can find the extreme points, which cannot be guaranteed to be of minimum or maximum. In order that the authors to be sure that the function h(w) has a minimum found by the Lagrange method, the second derivative must be calculated. Therefore, the authors should either prove that the function h(w) is convex, or present the calculations showing that the extremum of the function h(w) is a minimum and not a maximum.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your comments. Please find our responses attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
