Low-Cost Active Anomaly Detection with Switching Latency

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors propose a strategy to minimize the expected cumulative cost incurred by analyzing different anomalies during a detection procedure. The strategy has proven to be asymptotic optimal in terms of minimizing the expected cumulative costs under certain conditions.

 

Overall I think the paper would benefit from a visual abstract.

How does the approach can cope with a scenario where the number of anomalies is NOT known in advance?

Section 1.1 : The paper would benefit from a Table in which authors summarize (in bullets for example) and show differences with works in literature (pros and cons).

Section 1.2: The section is named "main results" but such title does not seem to match the content of the section. Indeed here authors highlight the problem, the proposal and how they faced it rather than showing just the results. I guess the title is wrong.

Section 2.1: H has two different fonts. Authors should uniform them. 

Line 168 and 174: missing subject?

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors propose valuable and interesting research in abnormal processes identification and management. 

There are, however, some issues, mostly associated with the state of the art, references and conclusions. Namely:

• in section 1.1 - you list many references with no definition limiting the approach, impact and benefits of the papers. In lines 70 or 73, you stated multiple references. Can you summarize their contributions and results reached relevant to your paper. I strongly recommend to extend this section. Moreover, you reference many improper and too old papers, which, in my opinion, are not so strongly relevant to your research. Many current papers written in 2019 or 2020 are missing. I recommend to rewrite such section.
• Individual figures and results should be more precisely described in the text. I recommend to add one section dealing with the results and discussion, comparing existing approach with your contribution with emphasis on the bottlenecks, limitations and future perspectives. 
• In such manner, please extend the conclusions to point to your contribution covered in the paper.

After passing and solving such issues, paper will have better quality and will propose relevant contribution. Please, compare solution with other relevant approaches. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, thank you for applying my recommendations and comments. 

Now, I have a minor issues, which can improve the contribution. Namely, in lines 617-618, you deal with the problem, which can be studied in the future. I would really appreciate to add one more paragraph dealing with the future perspectives and improvement possibilities, which can be done. Please, locate it directly in the Conclusions section. 

I suggest to rearrange the paper, to exclude the related work and contribution definition to the separate chapter (just as an idea, not required). Then, the structure will be located directly after the problem definition in the Introduction section. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf