A Hybridized Flower Pollination Algorithm and Its Application on Microgrid Operations Planning

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

(1) The introduction should be improved. Especially, the current sisuation and problems on microgrid operation planning should be clearly stated.

(2) Many editing mistakes, please check and revise.

(3) If possible, the verification section on microgrid operation planning can be improved.

Author Response

The authors want to thank sincerely Reviewer#1 for this constructive suggestion. We addressed the comment's point-by-point response and uploaded an updated manuscript with highlighted fonts indicating changes.
Refer to the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In this paper, the authors present a heuristic hybrid algorithm between the flower pollination algorithm and the sine and cosine algorithm. They apply this variant to the microgrid operations planning problem.

In my opinion, the contribution of this paper is not very remarkable. Maybe improving the quality of the text and better tests help to be considered as possible publication in this journal.

While each individual idea (flower pollination algorithm, sine and cosine algorithm, microgrid operations planning problem) is not new, the authors nicely combine these known ideas to implement a valid algorithm, however the results are not clear and most of the cases are too numerically small to make comparisons sufficiently significant.

Major comments:

• The model presented is not clear enough. There is insufficient information about the objective function, the variables, sets, and the bounds of these variables. Also, there is no mention of the complexity of the problem or possible reformulations, or linearizations, or convexifications that would make it more addressable.
• It is also not clear why to choose a heuristic algorithm instead of an exact method.
• A mathematical proof of convergency is necessary.
• As already mentioned, the results are not clear. In particular, Tables 2,3, and 4. Most of the cases seem too numerically small to make comparisons sufficiently significant.
• The authors also talk about multi-objective formulation, however, it is not clear whether this is the case or not. In case a model has multiple variables in objective function does not obligatorily mean that this is multiobjective. A more accurate description is needed.
• It is not clear if solutions are always feasible.
• It is not clear why parameters assume the presented values.

Minor comments:

• Page 1, line 15 it should be “Hybridizing”.
• In several cases there seems to be repeated whitespace, but it could be a style issue.
• Page 4, line 128 there is a missing whitespace.
• Equations 4 have no consistency in style.
• Page 4, line 148 there is a missing whitespace.
• Page 5, line 190. Please, rephrase “the plant itself's self-pollination”.
• Equation 13, j and k should be defined.
• Page 6, line 226. The paragraph should be substituted with a pseudo algorithm.
• Algorithm 1. Input and Output should be defined.

Author Response

The authors want to thank sincerely Reviewer#2 for this constructive suggestion. We addressed the comment's point-by-point response and uploaded an updated manuscript with highlighted fonts indicating changes.
Refer to the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

 In this paper the authors have hybridized the Flower Pollination Algorithm (FPA) with the Sine-cosine algorithm. The hybridized optimizer is named as the HSFPA. It is said that the HSFPA overcomes certain drawbacks of the FPA. The applicability of HSFPA is tested for the microgrid operations planning and global optimization problems. The objective function of microgrid operations planning is constructed based on the power generation distribution system's relevant economic costs and environmental profits.

This is a topic of interest. However following points should be addressed.

1. The structural design and expression description of the paper need to be improved. In abstract and conclusion the studied case and quantitative results should be clearly defined and reported. The introduction section could be improved by clarifying the similarities and differences between the related work and the proposed method. It is recommended to add subsections “related works”, “research gap” and “contribution” in the introduction.
2. In Table 2 a performance comparison of HSFPA with the FPA, and SCA is understandable. However authors should justify that why the performance HSFPA is specifically compared with the PSO and MFPA. A similar comment for Table 3 where the performance of HSFPA is specifically compared with GA, BA and DE algorithms.
3. The manuscript should be carefully revised to improve the clarity of text and to avoid any typos such as on Line#378 “Application of the HSFPA for Mirogrid Operations Planning” should be “Application of the HSFPA for Microgrid Operations Planning”.
4. It is recommended to clearly describe the evaluation measures used in this study with a justification of their choice.

 

Author Response

The authors want to thank sincerely Reviewer#3 for this constructive suggestion. We addressed the comment's point-by-point response and uploaded an updated manuscript with highlighted fonts indicating changes.
Refer to the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The research applies the hybrid metaheuristic method FPA and SA to microgrid operations planning. Overall the research approach is acceptable. However, the following is noted:

-        In section 2 some expressions and numerical values are not adequately justified and referenced (e.g. line 145, line 158, line 176, etc).

-        It is suggested to relate the traditional methods for microgrid operation planning and compare them with the proposed HSFPA method. In the paper, the comparison is only with popular metaheuristic methods and hybrid methods.

-        The microgrids will be connected to classical power grids fed by conventional power plants (Pex). Although it may not be the subject of this research, it is suggested to make some assessment of the influence of the types of power plants on the model.

-        The gas price (line 173) is very out of phase with the current price.

-        In some cases, the format of the tables is not as foreseen by the journal (e.g.: Table 1, 2, 3, etc.).

-        A list of abbreviations should be added after the conclusion section.

-        Some references are not expressed correctly.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

The authors want to thank sincerely Reviewer#4 for this constructive suggestion.

The point-by-point response to the comments is revised and uploaded, an updated manuscript with highlighted fonts indicating changes.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I thank the authors for correcting all the typos. However, I find that most of my major comments have not been adequately addressed.

1.     Exact solutions are obviously preferable to heuristic solutions. There are numerous nonlinear solvers that can provide such a result. If this is not the case because for instance the problem is too complex or extremely nonconvex, it should be proved.

2.     There is still no proof of convergence of the proposed approach.

3.     Most of the results cannot be considered valid for comparison because their values are below the tolerance. This can create randomness, and the true conclusion could absurdly be contrary to what the proposed numbers show. It is necessary to rescale the data or change the instances to validate the approach.

4.     It is a common mistake to consider problems as multi-objective since they have physically different elements in objective function. The definition actually states that the objective functions should be in competition with each other. The way the model has been presented such competition, if it exists, is not clear.

Author Response

We want to express our gratitude to Reviewer#2 for your valuable and professional comments on our manuscript. 
Yours sincerely,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors have incorporated most of the recommendations in the revised version of manuscript.

However, still a minor update is required: Mention the key quantitative results (such the highest performance for the testing function, etc.) in the abstract and conclusion.  

Author Response

We want to express our gratitude to Reviewer#3 for your valuable and professional comments on our manuscript. 
Yours sincerely,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf