Strategic Portfolio Optimization Using Simulated, Digital, and Quantum Annealing
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript studies the optimization of strategic investment portfolio, which is an interesting study, but I think there are some defects in the manuscript. The author must answer the following questions after major modifications, and then reconsider the manuscript
(1) the importance of the issue addressed and problem solved, (2) novelty and distinctive features of proposed methodology/models/approaches against published methods, and (3) important findings/ managerial insights drawn from analytical results.
Author Response
Dear reviewer 1,
Thank you very much for your helpful review. Please find attached a response letter in which we explained all modifications we have made. In particular, we address your comments in section "Reviewer 1".
Thanks, the authors.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
the author modify the existing QUBO models for portfolio optimization and tested New York Stock Exchange using Simulated, Digital and Quantum Annealing. The experiment results show the portfolios were generated that respect the given preferences of the investor. Here I have some suggestions.
1. The author used a lot of space to introduce the basic knowledge and development process, but the introduction of the revised QUBO is too little. It is suggested that the author readjust the chapters of manuscript.
2. The manuscript pays attention to the analysis of experimental results, it is suggested to carry out theoretical analysis on the modified QUBO.
Author Response
Dear reviewer 2,
Thank you very much for your helpful review. Please find attached a response letter in which we explained all modifications we have made. In particular, we address your comments in section "Reviewer 2".
Thanks, the authors.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The article deals with "Strategic Portfolio Optimization using Simulated, Digital and Quantum Annealing". The paper is well written. I have a few suggestions to the authors to improve the quality of the article:
1. The selection of the "efficient E,V combination" in Fig. 1 should be clearer. The "bolded" part is visible only when image is zoomed in. Consider maybe coloring the section.
2. Terms TPOR and DUSL (p. 16) are not explained.
Author Response
Dear reviewer 3,
Thank you very much for your helpful review. Please find attached a response letter in which we explained all modifications we have made. In particular, we address your comments in section "Reviewer 3".
Thanks, the authors.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The first paragraph in the Introduction is too long. It should be broken into at least 3 paragraphs, as it contains different ideas, too. FOr example, one paragraph should start at "Based on several successful...", another paragraph should start at "Current research efforts can be split into two main classes ....", another at "Commercially available quantum ....".
The paper is well written. The description of the optimization problem it tackles is very self contained, even though it is brief.
The algorithms are very scarcely discussed. I would suggest to add psudocode for the compared algorithms, where it is possible, in order to ensure at least a theoretical reproduction of the results.
Author Response
Dear reviewer 4,
Thank you very much for your helpful review. Please find attached a response letter in which we explained all modifications we have made. In particular, we address your comments in section "Reviewer 4".
Thanks, the authors.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have made significant revisions to the manuscript, which I am glad to see. I consider the manuscript to be up to publication standards.
