AWMC: Abnormal-Weather Monitoring and Curation Service Based on Dynamic Graph Embedding
, Jiakai Gu 1,†, Gen Li 1,†, Heeseung Yun 1,†, Jason J. Jung 1,*, Sojung An 2 and David Camacho 3Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors investigated the abnormal weather monitoring and curation service based on dynamic graph embedding.
1. In line 1 of the abstract, what do the authors mean by application paper?
2. The abstract needs to be revised to include key numerical findings.
3. Please, revise lines 11-12 for clarity. It is unclear what the authors meant by ..."in the some time interval that.."
4. Rather than presenting related papers in a sequential manner, the authors need to synthesize and critically analyze the literature with a view to identifying the gaps that the study would fill.
5. What is the justification for using a dynamic graph as stated in the method section?
6. The author needs to critically discuss the finding in comparison with previous studies reported in the literature.
7. Please, revise for language and syntax errors.
Author Response
Thanks for your comments. We already revised the paper based on the reviewer's comments. Please see the attachment to check the response letter.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
I am really grateful for reviewing this manuscript. In my opinion, this manuscript can be published once some revision is done successfully. This study used dynamic graph embedding and hourly weather data on 18 cities in Korea during 2018-2021 to achieve the F1 score of 0.913-0.928 for the prediction of abnormal weather status. I would like to point out that this is a great achievement. However, it needs to be noted that the F1 score registered a certain variation from 0.913 in Busan to 0.928 in Incheon in Table 1. I would like to ask the authors to explain the possible causes of this variation in Discussion and Conclusion.
Author Response
Thanks for your comments. We already revised the paper based on the reviewer's comments. Please see the attachment to check the response letter.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have addressed the comments raised. I therefore recommend the manuscript for acceptance.
