Multi-Objective Optimization of Ultra-Low Energy Housing in Hot Summer Cold Winter Climate Zone of China Based on a Probabilistic Behavioral Model
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper deals with a current topic, examining occupant behavior in building design.
In the first part of the introduction, the authors explain the motivation of the topic; the paper shortly introduces state-of-the-art papers for zero-emission buildings and other occupant behavior models. It would be nice to highlight the advances and drawbacks of these models more in detail.
Some more references should be added to this part, where the authors explain state-of-the-art of literature. Many papers have been published that explains that the location has a significant impact on building design with FEM-based analysis (https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/13/12/2052, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.09.197).
The next subsection of the introduction deals with multi-objective optimization problems. There are many ways to handle multi-objective problems; one of them uses a weighted average of the objective function. However, this does not a 'traditional approach', this is a valid solution of the optimization problem please see this paper, which compares many multi-objective algorithms https://doi.org/10.3390/app10196653.
Another problem with the selection of a genetic algorithm, it is hard to say that it is a good or bad, better or improved algorithm, due to the no-free lunch theorem of mathematical optimization, which states that there is not exist mathematical optimization algorithm which performs better for all of the possible problems.
In the study's aims, the authors should show the novelty of the problem in more detail and compare it to the current literature. The main problem is that the current aims of the work only summarize the content of the paper.
Minor comment:
The tables and the figures should be improved, especially the following ones:
- Figure 1, Tables 1, 5, 6, and Figure 8 should be improved, there are many details with small letters shown in this paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This study aims to construct a probabilistic model of residents' energy use behavior in the Hot Summer and Cold Winter Zone, and adopt a multi-objective optimization method. After reviewing the paper, I have the following observations and comments:
1. Although the subject of the paper is somehow in line with the scope of the journal, the overall writing of the manuscript and detailed analysis related with energy are poor.
2. The organization of the paper is not at an acceptable quality level. The material method is not rigorous/clear enough to correctly understand how the assessment was performed.
3. There are a number of ambiguous points related to the presentation of the theory and the justification of the usage. For example, the heating and cooling devices and strageis presented as on/off state. However, the present technology does not require any user control or response. They have control system such as temperature, humidity and air quality.
4. Optimization procedure resulted with insulation application optimization. This is already well known application for energy saving.
5. Some data, notations, and presentations are not rigorous/clear enough to correctly understand the contents and how they are used. For example, they mentioned about the thermal comfort, but there is no specific definition of this as well as the control of this.
6. This study presents the cases without giving an innovative approach neither from the methodological point of view nor from that of the analysis of the results. There are many published articles considering similar applications in the current literature. This study shows generally known information, and there is nothing important to add to the current scientific literature. It is not possible to realize any useful outcome from the proposed system and the conducted work.
7. The usefulness of such results in terms of the uncertainty aspects should be provided. There is no acceptable validation and error analysis for the numerical works must be performed. Comparisons with others works must be performed.
Unfortunately, I could not find any new and useful outcomes and generalized knowledge in the paper. There is no novelty in comparison to the open literature. Therefore, I concluded that this paper cannot be acceptable for publication in the journal.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The topic of the article is interesting and the authors have employed a variety of methods for the calculation of a behavioral model. Unfortunately, the paper is missing too much information to be scientifically sound. The most important weakness is the lack of a clear and thorough presentation of the results of the survey. Since the probabilistic behaviour model is based on the survey results, it is paramount to present these results to the reader.
Further, the hourly indoor thermal discomfort is calculated as an objective function. Thus, it is important to present hourly profiles of user behaviour, both from the survey and from the model, as well as profiles of the hourly indoor and outdoor temperatures.
As well, the calculation of costs is missing key considerations, such as a detailed description of energy prices, operation and maintenance costs, equipment replacement costs, and salvage values. Also, the calculation period is mentioned but not described.
The descriptions of the methods are incomplete. For example, an artificial neural network was used, but there is no description of it in the manuscript (layers, number of neurons, activation function, etc.). Also, it is not mentioned what the constraints are in the optimization model, or if it is unconstrained.
Finally, some of the figures should be formatted. For example, Figure 7 is unnecessarily large, yet the axis labels are very small, and it is very hard to interpret the Pareto fronts from Figure 12.
The authors have done interesting, significant and valuable work; it could be beneficial to split the presentation of said work into two articles, which would allow to adequately present all the methods and results.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 5 Report
The title needs to be reformed to remove hot summer and cold winter.
Remove the values from the abstract (reform abstract)
In the introduction section, the authors wrote, "Since the oil crisis in the 1970s, countries in Europe and the United States have started to pay great attention to energy conservation ..." it is old, repeated info. And classical subject and unrelated to your topic subject. Please remove it
The introduction section is extended and exaggerated; please reduce it
Figure 1 is complex to be understood. Please improve it
The method used is not clear
Figure 8 needs to be divided and explained clearly in the text
The conclusion is very simple , improve it
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors answered all of my questions.
Author Response
Thank you very much for this acknowledgement and recognition of our work.
Reviewer 2 Report
After reviewing the revised paper, I have the following main observations.
1. It is seen that the comments from the reviewers were properly considered and evaluated by the authors, and necessary revisions were performed accordingly. The quality of the paper is substantially improved.
2. The structure of the paper is improved. Research approach and methodology are presented clearly in the present form of the paper.
3. References section is improved with enough credit given to the contributions of the authors in this field.
4. Meaningful discussion and conclusions were made with the supporting data.
With the view of the above observations, I concluded that the present form of the paper can be accepted for publication in the journal.
Author Response
Thank you very much for this acknowledgement and recognition of our work.
Reviewer 3 Report
I believe the manuscript has been sufficiently improved to warrant publication in Buildings.
Author Response
Thank you very much for this acknowledgement and recognition of our work.
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors have taken the comments under consideration and addressed them sufficiently.
Author Response
Thank you very much for this acknowledgement and recognition of our work.
Reviewer 5 Report
Figure 2 needs improvement
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
