A Framework for Diagnosing Urban Rail Train Turn-Back Faults Based on Rules and Algorithms

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper presents a solution for urban rail train fault diagnosis. The paper firstly introduces the problem, then takes a look at the literature survey. However, in the end of the introductory part the novelty of the paper should be highlighted better, the question I think answered in 1-2 sentences that why are the given methods selected for the study and the analysis?

• the source of the data used for figure one is should be referenced
• in the introduction, there are many ai methods listed, please attach some references
• table 5-7 are in the Chinese language -> these data should be translated to English, without this it is hard to understand the results
• in the introductory section it should be mentioned that due to Wolpert's no free lunch theorem, there is no general artificial intelligence or machine learning method, which can perform better in any kind of optimization problems, so the best solver/ai technique can be selected if we know the problem (see this paper https://doi.org/10.3390/app10196653)
• which frameworks, tools used to create the machine learning model? Keras, sklearn? or some robust engineering framework (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8942318)?

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is readable and comprehensive. However, important revisions are needed prior to publishing. See below my comments:

1) language usage can be checked substantially, reducing the length of sentences and the consequentiality of paragraphs. Especially conclusions and the abstract need to be checked.

2) Literature review is rather modest and should be developed substantially, especially focusing on international studies.

3) Pros & cons of the mainstream research is not clearly outlined here. I would see a more critical perspective, since literature is not lacking in weak points that should be cricitized and improved.

4) indications for future studies need to be clarified at the end of the conclusion chapter. 

5) Tables 1, 6 and 7 can be placed successfully in a specific appendix. Tables 6 and 7 are in Chinese, why? I think that the manuscript needs a substantial revision for structure, coherence and quality. thank you.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors answered all of my questions.

Reviewer 2 Report

The revision was carried out appropriately. Thank you.