Set-Based Group Search Optimizer for Stochastic Many-Objective Optimal Power Flow

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper deals with Set-Based group search optimizer for stochastic many-objective optimal power flow. Based on reviewer opinion, the paper is well written and organized. Besides, this paper has practical application in various industries. Therefore, I strongly recommend it for publication after minor revision as the following:

1)      The difference between present work and previous studies should be mentioned at the end paragraph of introduction

2)      The novelty of present work must be more emphasized.

3)      There are some typo and grammatical errors, please polish the manuscript carefully.

4)      Please add more reference in the literature review (Please use 2022 and 2023 references)

5)      Numerical results should be supported by physical explanation.

6)      Please add some achievements of your investigation in the abstract.  

7)      Please rewrite the conclusion, the conclusion should be explained with point by point (use numbers in conclusion section)

 

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

We are grateful to the editor and the reviewers for spending time reviewing our work. The reviewers have presented us a very helpful set of comments, which are valuable for improving the strength of our manuscript and the presentation of our work. Please see the attached file for the repsonse. In the file, we have addressed the comments of all reviewers analytically and carefully. We hope our revision is now up to the standards of Applied Science and if requested, we would be glad to address any further issues in the subsequent revisions. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We are grateful to the editor and the reviewers for spending time reviewing our work. The reviewers have presented us a very helpful set of comments, which are valuable for improving the strength of our manuscript and the presentation of our work. Please see the attached file for the repsonse. In the file, we have addressed the comments of all reviewers analytically and carefully. We hope our revision is now up to the standards of Applied Science and if requested, we would be glad to address any further issues in the subsequent revisions. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

1) In the abstract, the problem statement is not clearly stated that motivates the author to propose the Set-Based GSO. In addition, please add the numerical performance index results at the end of abstract to justify the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm.

2) In the Section, the organization of paragraph should be improved. There are too many short paragraph, which I think can be merged according to the topic to be discussed. Moreover, the survey on the similar strategy like Set-Based GSO is too few, while there many similar optimization that already implemented group or multi-resolution or hierarchical based type optimization, such as:

[a] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2014.03.038

[b] https://doi.org/10.3390/en7095624

[c] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2020.113702

[d] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2021.103046

[e] https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-020-05107-y

3) In the Figure 1, it is not clear where the process loop should be started. It is suggested to put the step number for each block.

4) It is suggested to improve the flow chart in the Figure 3 or the procedure after the flow chart by adopting equations (17) - (19).

5) The procedure to apply the Set-Based GSO to the OPF problem is not stated in the paper. Please add this procedure at the end of Section 3.

6) The analysis of the performance of each presented algorithm seems not sufficient. Since the presented algorithm are stochastic in nature, please add the statistical performance value of the objective function as well as the ranking analysis (i.e., Wilcoxon rank test) to justify the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm. Please add the statistical analysis for each case study. Moreover, it is good to compare with the original GA, since the author also presents the Set-GA results.

 

Author Response

We are grateful to the editor and the reviewers for spending time reviewing our work. The reviewers have presented us a very helpful set of comments, which are valuable for improving the strength of our manuscript and the presentation of our work. Please see the attached file for the repsonse. In the file, we have addressed the comments of all reviewers analytically and carefully. We hope our revision is now up to the standards of Applied Science and if requested, we would be glad to address any further issues in the subsequent revisions. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

1. The contribution of the paper (besides the solution approach) could be explained more.

2. In section 2.1. Problem Formulation, the objective of operational safety could be explained more.

3. In section 2.1. Problem Formulation, the referred formula is wrong, it is (13) but it should be (3).

4. Explain formula (4) or use a reference in the literature. Why it can be modeled as a quadratic formula?

5. Explain formula (5) or use a reference in the literature.

6. In Figure 3, set-based evolutionary strategy section, a "Yes" is misplaced.

Author Response

We are grateful to the editor and the reviewers for spending time reviewing our work. The reviewers have presented us a very helpful set of comments, which are valuable for improving the strength of our manuscript and the presentation of our work. Please see the attached file for the repsonse. In the file, we have addressed the comments of all reviewers analytically and carefully. We hope our revision is now up to the standards of Applied Science and if requested, we would be glad to address any further issues in the subsequent revisions. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I thank the authors for addressing all my concerns. No issues.

Author Response

Many thanks for the reviewer's supportive comments on our revised manuscript. 

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors did not carefully considered the requested concerns. Therefore, I have written again the comments as follows:

1) In the abstract, the problem statement is not clearly stated that motivates the author to propose the Set-Based GSO. In addition, please add the numerical performance index results at the end of abstract to justify the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm.

2) In the Section, the organization of paragraph should be improved. There are too many short paragraph, which I think can be merged according to the topic to be discussed. Moreover, the survey on the similar strategy like Set-Based GSO is too few, while there many similar optimization that already implemented group or multi-resolution or hierarchical based type optimization, such as:

[a] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2014.03.038

[b] https://doi.org/10.3390/en7095624

[c] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2020.113702

[d] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2021.103046

[e] https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-020-05107-y

3) In the Figure 1, it is not clear where the process loop should be started. It is suggested to put the step number for each block.

4) It is suggested to improve the flow chart in the Figure 3 or the procedure after the flow chart by adopting equations (17) - (19).

5) The procedure to apply the Set-Based GSO to the OPF problem is not stated in the paper. Please add this procedure at the end of Section 3.

6) The analysis of the performance of each presented algorithm seems not sufficient. Since the presented algorithm are stochastic in nature, please add the statistical performance value of the objective function as well as the ranking analysis (i.e., Wilcoxon rank test) to justify the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm. Please add the statistical analysis for each case study. Moreover, it is good to compare with the original GA, since the author also presents the Set-GA results.

Therefore, please provide a clear point-to-point responses to the comments.

 

Author Response

Sorry for making mistakes in uploading the seperating response file in the system. Please find the attachment for the correct response to your comments.

We are grateful to the editor and the reviewers for spending time reviewing our work. The reviewers have presented us a very helpful set of comments, which are valuable for improving the strength of our manuscript and the presentation of our work. Please see the attached file for the repsonse. In the file, we have addressed the comments of all reviewers analytically and carefully. We hope our revision is now up to the standards of Applied Science and if requested, we would be glad to address any further issues in the subsequent revisions. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

First of all,  thank you very much for providing the point-to-point responses to the comments. However, it is found that the provided supplementary files and the manuscript is not same in terms of the highlighted part. It is quite confusing for me on which version the author response to the reviewer. Moreover, it is found that some of the responses are not properly answered and still not sufficient. My comments are as follows:

1) At the end of abstract, I can't find any numerical performance index provided to justify the effectiveness of the proposed method. The author just put the statement without any significant numerical values.

2) Regarding the survey of similar strategy, the author just add few of them, which are the hierarchical and group based only. Please also add the multi-resolution types as stated in the previous comments.

3) Regarding the procedure to apply the set-based GSO to OPF. The author just simply add the statement without properly explain which objective function will be used. Please add a separate procedure from GSO and put them after the step-by-step procedure of set-based GSO. The author should carefully related with equations of OPF when stating the procedure.

4) The response of the author to add the statistical performance seems not acceptable. Note that the paper in reference [40] also provides the statistical analysis of the stated criterion even with additional box plot analysis. Therefore, I can't find a clear reason, why the author can't provide the statistical analysis.

Author Response

Many thanks for taking time to provide valuable suggestions on your paper. As suggested, we have revised our manuscript point by point according to the comments. Please find the attached file for the response to the comments. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx