Multi-Objective Optimization Using Cooperative Garden Balsam Optimization with Multiple Populations
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
applsci-1715375-peer-review-v1
Multi-objective Optimization Using Cooperative Garden Balsam Optimization with Multiple Populations.
The contribution of the presented work is very limited with respect to the state of the art. First thing the concept of garden balsam optimization with multiple populations is not easily help for the decision maker to solve the problem. How an expert will provide such ratings during the problems? Further, the objective and motivation of the work is missing in the study. Sections 2, 3 & 4 are not clear.
Due to the lack of the novelty and contribution, I must reject this paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper proposes a new version of Garden Balsam Optimization to solve multi-objective problems. A selection procedure is proposed to ensure the convergence of the Pareto regions. The validation of the algorithm is made using some test functions, and the results seem promising.
The paper is well organized. However, the mathematical formulas should be newly edited, and typos corrected.
In addition, I recommend the following amendments:
-Define acronyms before you use them (e.g., MOPSO, etc...)
On page 2, 2nd paragraph, “Yet, by combining artificial neural network with NSGA II algorithm, NN-DNSGA-II is proposed in 11. In 12, indicators are directly used in the optimization process, leading to the introduction of Indicators Based Evolutionary Algorithm (IBEA).” - I suggest deleting this sentence because it has already been mentioned in this paragraph.
On page 4, Do IHV and HV represent the same metric? If yes, it should be changed from HV to IHV on line 150.
On Algorithm 3, The NFE counter is not understandable, and may a non-expert do not understand it. So, NFE should be defined.
In Table 1, The parameters description should be presented and include the references where are described the algorithms.
In Table 2, The second column content (Variables M) is not explicit. It would be better to clarify it.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Reviewer 3 Report
- The manuscript is concerned with the co-evolutionary multi-swarm garden balsam optimization (CMGBO) for solving multi-objective optimization problems It is interesting. relevant and within the scope of the journal.
- However, the manuscript, in its present form, contains several weaknesses. Adequate revisions to the following points should be undertaken in order to justify recommendations for publication.
- For readers to quickly catch the contribution in this work, it would be better to highlight major difficulties and challenges, and your original achievements to overcome them, in a clearer way in the abstract and introduction.
- The both crowding distance computation and epsilon dominance relation were adopted in this paper. What are the other feasible alternatives? What are the advantages of adopting these techniques over others in this case? How will this affect the results? More details should be furnished.
- The authors have used the name chancery in this paper which is not very usual in the field of EA. The authors should replace this word with either external archive, external memory, or external population.
- The authors have published the algorithm “Garden Balsam Optimization” two years ago. The authors should detail the framework of GBO and its flowchart in more illustrative way.
- The authors must provide a more professional description for their algorithm by providing flowcharts and illustrative figures.
- The stochastic parameters were provided in Table 1. On what basis these settings were considered? More details should be provided as well as sensitivity analysis.
- The authors have used very old test functions. The authors can refer newer test sets mainly the newer Congress of Evolutionary Computation (CEC) test sets.
- The authors have used the IGD and the HV as performance metrices. Nevertheless, the authors only provided the non-dominated solutions as figures to compare the results. The convergence curves of IGD and HV should be provided to compare between the developed algorithm and its counterparts.
- The discussion in the present form is relatively weak and should be strengthened with more details and justifications. A separate discussion section should be added to the manuscript.
- Both abstract and conclusion should be written in more scientific way.
- English writing is not standard. The paper should go through proofreading. Moreover, the authors have used a strange language along the paper. Please avoid using unscientific vocabulary.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
No comment
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Reviewer 3 Report
The reviewer is regretful for not accepting the manuscript in its current form due to the following problems:
1- The authors did not conduct the necessary modifications and did not reply to the major review comments properly.
2-They did not do any extra experiment to verify the performance of their algorithm.
3-Some replies show that they did not grasp the question such as question 2.
4-Moreover, questions 5,6, and 7 were not replied and the response of: "This work will be added in the subsequent study" is not accepted.
5- According to question 8. The authors simply did not work for a short period to provide a one-page discussion section that can enrich the paper and make it publishable.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
No further comments for this manuscript
