Optimization of Power System Stabilizers Using Proportional-Integral-Derivative Controller-Based Antlion Algorithm: Experimental Validation via Electronics Environment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this paper, an Antlion-based proportional integral derivative (PID) PSS is presented to improve the power system stability. The paper is well organized and presented. some minor comments are suggested for improving the paper as follows:

1) What is the reason for choosing the ALO to optimize controller parameters? Why are new algorithms not used?

2) One of the disadvantages of ALO is getting caught in premature convergence. Why haven't the authors improved the algorithm's performance in this situation?

3) The data relating to Table 1 as well as the tables presented in the appendix of the paper should be cited.

4) The amount of general and adjusted parameters of the ALO should be added to section 4.

5) Why is the performance of the ALO compared with the modified PSO instead of the conventional PSO?

6) The performance of the proposed methodology should be compared and validated with the methods presented in the literature in the introduction section.

7) What is the advantage of the proposed method with the methods presented in the literature in the introduction section?

Author Response

Dear Prof. 

Please see the attachment.

Thanks, for you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper presents a proportional integral derivative controller to improve the power system stability.

The manuscript needs to be improved, clarification and completions are necessary.

If possible, you should avoid using abbreviations in the title. Define abbreviations and acronyms the first time they are used in the text, even after they have been defined in the abstract.

What type of power plant was simulated?

The results obtained are not supported by a solid mathematical model. The mathematical model must be described in sufficient detail to allow another researcher to reproduce the results.

The results in tables 5-16 are difficult to understand if they are not accompanied by units of measure or presented in another form (graphically).

Author Response

Dear Prof. 

Please see the attachment.

Thanks, for you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper presents an Antlion-based proportional integral derivative (PID) PSS to improve the power system stability. This is an interesting research paper. However, the following concerns must be addressed:

1. Enhance the later part of the abstract by providing the outcome when using the proposed concept.
2. Adding nomenclature will help the readers quickly understand the terms and symbols used.
3. The introduction must be improved to prove the objective of this work. State the novelty of this work at the end of the introduction. After reading the full article, the reviewer felt the authors' contribution needed more.
4. The introduction section should add the latest references, containing more relevant literary sources. 
5. I suggest dividing the introduction into the following paragraphs: i.e. motivation and incitement, literature review, contribution and paper organization.
6. How are the different parameters of the Antlion Optimizer (ALO) algorithm calculated?
7. What is the termination condition of a flowchart of ALO in Figure 5?
8. How is the ALO algorithm used to optimize the gains of the PID-based PSS?
9. How the ALO-based PID-PSS controller has robust performance over the MPSO-based PID-PSS controller?
10. The format of the tables is different from the MDPI guidelines. Furthermore, the manuscript needs to be formatted as required.
11. There needs to be more than a comparison for possible publication. The proposed scheme should be compared with recently proposed techniques to improve the power system stability.
12. Could the experimental results be included in this research work?
13. There are grammatical things that could be improved in this article.
14. Extend the conclusion with more general usability. The present study's drawbacks and perspectives should be added to the conclusion section.

Author Response

Dear Prof. 

Please see the attachment.

Thanks, for you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors responded to all my requests.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have addressed all the concerns of the reviewer. Hence, I accept this paper in its present form.