Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

 

General Comment

The two key questions

- How big is the problem?

- How bad the existing solutions are?

 

"Finding manually the optimal luminaire layout design can be difficult and its impact on lighting power density is uncertain."

My Comment

This activity requires a lot of experience. Expert will quickly find the optimal solution.

 

The Authors use the Genetic Algorithm. Why was this option chosen? This algorithm has drawbacks. Please explain.

 

The model room is symmetrical and the simulation result is asymmetrical. Why? What is the difference between one side of the model and the other? Please explain.

 

My Conclusion

The paper does not effectively explain the benefits of the project.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank You for your review. We are kindly sending reply to your questions and comments in the following text:

The two key questions:

[Comment 1] - How big is the problem?

[Response 1] To better describe the depth of the problem, we've added an additional explanation to it on lines 93 - 101 (in pdf)

[Comment 2] - How bad the existing solutions are?

[Response 2] The comparison with existing solution was added to lines 366-391 (in pdf)

 

[Comment 3] "Finding manually the optimal luminaire layout design can be difficult and its impact on lighting power density is uncertain."

[Response 3] An additional explanation has been added to the lines 64 – 65 (in pdf)

[Comment 4] This activity requires a lot of experience. Expert will quickly find the optimal solution.

[Response 4] Yes, we agree, it requires a lot of experience. But experts could quickly find the optimal soulution based on conventional methods, as desctibed at the lines 64 – 65 and 366-391 (in pdf).

[Comment 5] The Authors use the Genetic Algorithm. Why was this option chosen? This algorithm has drawbacks. Please explain.

[Response 5] Yes, we agree, genetic algorithms has drawbacks, but also benefits, why we have chosen this option. The explanation was added to lines 19-21 and  87-89 and it was partly described in the original paper, now at lines 108-109.

 [Comment 6] The model room is symmetrical and the simulation result is asymmetrical. Why? What is the difference between one side of the model and the other? Please explain.

[Response  6] Thank You to point that out. The vast majority of rooms where lighting is designed are symmetrical. But there is only a few reasons, why the solution used to be symmetrical. It is mostly about simplifying the designer's work using only conventional design methods, without knowledge of alternative methods, like this proposed one. The independent solution (either symmetrical or assymetrical) could increase the energy savings, as shown in our paper. We have added lines  366-391 and 399-401 (in pdf) to highlight this.

[Comment 7] The paper does not effectively explain the benefits of the project.

[Response 7] The benefits are explained mainly at lines 103-110 and 366-410.

 

With kind regards

Marek Balsky & other authors

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article emphasizes the strategy of luminaire layout design, which significantly influences the quantity of lighting fixtures within a structure. This method impacts the energy consumption and the overall sustainability of the building. Here are some suggestions for the revision of the manuscript.

1. In the abstract and conclusion, the authors should provide more concrete data and examples to illustrate the key contribution of the genetic algorithm with radiosity implementation. This will help to clarify the novelty and creativity of the work.
2. The author is advised to combine short single-sentence paragraphs into more substantial sections to avoid a disjointed narrative. This will enhance the flow and readability of the introduction.
3. In the introduction, it is recommended that the author discusses recent challenges in luminaire layout design and explicitly outlines how the proposed method addresses these issues, thereby providing a clearer rationale for the research.
4. The manuscript should be restructured to follow a clear and consistent sequence when presenting figures. If Fig. 1a is introduced first, its description should immediately follow, ideally on the same page or at least in close proximity to the introduction. The same principle applies to Fig. 1b and Fig. 3. The author should avoid introducing a figure and then discussing it after other figures have been introduced. This will help readers to easily reference the figures as they are being discussed, enhancing the clarity and coherence of the manuscript.
5. For Fig. 2 and other figures, the author should include a detailed discussion of the data presented and its significance to the research. This will aid the reader in understanding the relevance and contribution of each figure.
6. In the section on "3. Genetic Algorithm," the author should delete many common sense, and consider condensing the background information and referring to relevant literature for readers who seek a deeper understanding.
7. To make Fig. 4 more comprehensible, the author should consider reorganizing the figure and adding explanatory notes or annotations to guide the reader through the content.
8. The author is encouraged to explore and discuss other methods that utilize genetic algorithms for similar goals. A comparative analysis can highlight the advantages and potential limitations of the proposed method in relation to existing work.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

none

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank You for your review. We are kindly sending reply to your questions and comments in the following text:

[Comment 1] In the abstract and conclusion, the authors should provide more concrete data and examples to illustrate the key contribution of the genetic algorithm with radiosity implementation. This will help to clarify the novelty and creativity of the work.

[Response 1] Yes, we agree. We provided more concrete data to conclusion at lines 366-391 and 399-401 (in pdf) and also to introduction at lines 19-20 and 93-102 (in pdf).

[Comment 2] The author is advised to combine short single-sentence paragraphs into more substantial sections to avoid a disjointed narrative. This will enhance the flow and readability of the introduction.

[Response 2] Thank you to point that out. We have combined single-sentence paragraphs into more substantial sections.

[Comment 3] In the introduction, it is recommended that the author discusses recent challenges in luminaire layout design and explicitly outlines how the proposed method addresses these issues, thereby providing a clearer rationale for the research.

[Response 3] Thank you to point that out. We have added some more discusses to recent challenges in luminaire layout design (on lines 64-64, 93-102 in pdf) and the explanation how the proposed method addresses these issues (on lines 214-218  in pdf)

[Comment 4] The manuscript should be restructured to follow a clear and consistent sequence when presenting figures. If Fig. 1a is introduced first, its description should immediately follow, ideally on the same page or at least in close proximity to the introduction. The same principle applies to Fig. 1b and Fig. 3. The author should avoid introducing a figure and then discussing it after other figures have been introduced. This will help readers to easily reference the figures as they are being discussed, enhancing the clarity and coherence of the manuscript.

[Response 4] We are very sorry for that mistake. We have moved the figure 1, which now immediately follows the description. This also fulfills the figure 3.

[Comment 5] For Fig. 2 and other figures, the author should include a detailed discussion of the data presented and its significance to the research. This will aid the reader in understanding the relevance and contribution of each figure.

[Response 5] Thank you to point that out. We have added the detailed informations to figure 2 – above it in the lines 179-182 (in pdf) and also to figure 4 (in the description)

[Comment 6] In the section on "3. Genetic Algorithm," the author should delete many common sense, and consider condensing the background information and referring to relevant literature for readers who seek a deeper understanding.

[Response 6] Yes, we agree, that many common sense was deleted and literatur eis reffered.

[Comment 7] To make Fig. 4 more comprehensible, the author should consider reorganizing the figure and adding explanatory notes or annotations to guide the reader through the content.

[Response 7] Thank you to point that out. The figure 4 was reorganized and detailed description of it is provided.

[Comment 8] The author is encouraged to explore and discuss other methods that utilize genetic algorithms for similar goals. A comparative analysis can highlight the advantages and potential limitations of the proposed method in relation to existing work.

[Response 8] The comparative analysis at lines 65 to 105 was extended (lines 87-102 in pdf)  

With kind regards

Marek Balsky & other authors

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

 

General Comment

In the paper is only one mistake (Reference [27]).

This reference is not in the text. I suggest eliminating this disadvantage.

 

 

My Conclusion

Authors' replies to my queries are satisfactory. After this addition, I accept this paper. Thank you.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank You for your review. We are kindly sending reply to your questions and comments in the following text:

Comments 1: In the paper is only one mistake (Reference [27]). This reference is not in the text. I suggest eliminating this disadvantage.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. The reference was inadvertently dropped from the text during edits requested by the second reviewer. We have corrected it and the reference is back in the text at line 207.

With kind regards

Marek Balsky & authors

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The formatting of the newly added Reference 19 is incorrect, as it contains the element "XXX". We kindly request a thorough review of the entire manuscript to ensure that such errors are not present elsewhere.

2. The spacing at the end of Reference 26 is insufficient. Please ensure that adequate spacing is added to meet the manuscript's formatting requirements.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

None

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank You for your review. We are kindly sending reply to your questions and comments in the following text:

Comment 1: The formatting of the newly added Reference 19 is incorrect, as it contains the element "XXX". We kindly request a thorough review of the entire manuscript to ensure that such errors are not present elsewhere.

Response 1: The element "XXX" in the newly added Reference 19 is not a mistake. The official conference name is "IEEE XXX International Conference on Electronics, Electrical Engineering and Computing " and the element "XXX" in Roman numerals means "thirtieth", see the original https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10326064 . If you agree, we will keep the name of the conference in the reference 19 in our article as it appears in the original.

Comment 2: The spacing at the end of Reference 26 is insufficient. Please ensure that adequate spacing is added to meet the manuscript's formatting requirements.

Response 2: Thank you to point that out. The spacing at the end of Reference 26 was added. We apologize for this error.

With kind regards

Marek Balsky & authors