Upscaling Porous Media Using Neural Networks: A Deep Learning Approach to Homogenization and Averaging

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Congratulation to the Author(s) for writing a very well-written manuscript. There are some issues to improve the manuscript.

Comments on (Upscaling Porous Media Using Neural Networks: A Deep Learning Approach to Homogenization and Averaging)

 

(Line – 35): Check the reference numbers as there is something wrong with the format as “?” is there.

(Line – 36) Same as above

(Line – 41 – 47) May be an inclusion of some reference here.

In general, kindly check the references format as authors used ( and [ simultaneously.

(Line – 50 – 51) the given reference is irrelevant.

(Line – 90 – 95) reference may be provided.

(Line – 98) Does figure 3 need a reference? if so, please mention it.

(Line –119 – 132) must provide some reference.

In general, lots of information is provided but without references. Please check.

(Line –204) K* should have * as an exponent.

(Line –233) check reference.

(Line –83) Figure 1 is never discussed in the text.

(Line –142) Figure 2(a) must be checked as 2(a) is not there.

(Line –176) ) Figure (a) must be checked as 3(a) is not there.

(Line –227) Figure 4 is never discussed in the text.

(Line –405) Figure 17 was never discussed in the text kindly check

 

Figure reference and their discussion in the text have to be checked.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

 

I have gone through the correction for the paper no. processes-2161195. Individual reviewer comments are addressed below. I would like to add that for figure 10, 11 and 15 due to large sizes of these figures I had difficulty using the subfigure and the figures are going all over the place and its impacting figure quality, which I hope can be fixed by the editing department.

Please see my responses and also find the corrected manuscript for review.

Regards

Mayur Pal

 

Review 1:

 

(Line – 35): Check the reference numbers as there is something wrong with the format as “?” is there. - Fixed

(Line – 36) Same as above - Fixed

(Line – 41 – 47) May be an inclusion of some reference here. - Fixed

In general, kindly check the references format as authors used ( and [ simultaneously.

(Line – 50 – 51) the given reference is irrelevant. (text and reference have been removed)

(Line – 90 – 95) reference may be provided. (Reference has been added)

(Line – 98) Does figure 3 need a reference? if so, please mention it. – (No its original figure created for this paper)

(Line –119 – 132) must provide some reference.- Reference has been added.

In general, lots of information is provided but without references. Please check. – All the reference has been checked and fixed.

(Line –204) K* should have * as an exponent. – corrected.

(Line –233) check reference. – corrected.

(Line –83) Figure 1 is never discussed in the text. – Figure 1 reference has been included.

(Line –142) Figure 2(a) must be checked as 2(a) is not there. - corrected

(Line –176) ) Figure (a) must be checked as 3(a) is not there. – corrected.

(Line –227) Figure 4 is never discussed in the text. – Reference to Figure 4 has been included.

(Line –405) Figure 17 was never discussed in the text kindly check – Reference to figure 17 has been included.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I have some observation regarding this work,

1. There are some missing references, see ??

2. The original equation must be referenced.

3. The problem considered must be explained

4. Equations (13) and (14) need to be explained.

5. Missing ([11,22,29? ]). ?

6. Solution procedure must be given for the problem solution, which time unit, method etc must be explained in details.

7. Limitation of the method must be given

8. Explain the research gap, and  try to compare the result with the previous studies.

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Editor,

 

I have gone through the correction for the paper no. processes-2161195. Individual reviewer comments are addressed below. I would like to add that for figure 10, 11 and 15 due to large sizes of these figures I had difficulty using the subfigure and the figures are going all over the place and its impacting figure quality, which I hope can be fixed by the editing department.

Please see my responses and also find the corrected manuscript for review.

Regards

Mayur Pal

 

Review 2:

 

 

1. There are some missing references, see ?? – missing reference has been corrected.
2. The original equation must be referenced. – reference has been included.
3. The problem considered must be explained – problem context is improved in introduction.
4. Equations (13) and (14) need to be explained. – text has been added to improve the understanding.
5. Missing ([11,22,29? ]).? – missing reference has been corrected.
6. Solution procedure must be given for the problem solution, which time unit, method etc must be explained in details. – Solution procedure if detailed in section 5 “Neural Upscaling”
7. Limitation of the method must be given – Limitations have been highlighted in conclusions.
8. Explain the research gap, and  try to compare the result with the previous studies. – This has been extensively covered in section 3 and section 4.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The publication is interesting. However, the introduction did not make me convinced that this publication fits the journal and especially the "energy systems" section. Therefore, I suggest that this part of the manuscript be corrected. Mathematics is a general language. I expect a better correlation between math and real problems. Of course, taking into account the profile of the magazine and section (energy systems).

The quality of figure 2 should be corrected. 

equation 6 should be corrected. Probably there should be +...+

add information about MATLAB version

figure 10 missing symbols a, b c, and d. also quality is poor. 

figure 11 missing symbols a, b c, and d. also quality is poor. 

figure 15 missing symbols a, b c, d and e. 

line 447 missing reverence

in the reference section there is a figure. This is not clear why. 

Author Response

Dear Editor,

 

I have gone through the correction for the paper no. processes-2161195. Individual reviewer comments are addressed below. I would like to add that for figure 10, 11 and 15 due to large sizes of these figures I had difficulty using the subfigure and the figures are going all over the place and its impacting figure quality, which I hope can be fixed by the editing department.

Please see my responses and also find the corrected manuscript for review.

Regards

Mayur Pal

 

Review 3:

 

The publication is interesting. However, the introduction did not make me convinced that this publication fits the journal and especially the "energy systems" section. Therefore, I suggest that this part of the manuscript be corrected. Mathematics is a general language. I expect a better correlation between math and real problems. Of course, taking into account the profile of the magazine and section (energy systems).

Additional context to the problem has been provided in introduction section.

The quality of figure 2 should be corrected.  – Figure is improved

equation 6 should be corrected. Probably there should be +...+ - corrected.

add information about MATLAB version – MATLAB version is added in text.

figure 10 missing symbols a, b c, and d. also quality is poor.  – I had difficulty using the subfigure in overleaf for some reason symbols a, b and c are not showing and I am not able to fix it perhaps the editing department can help fix this issue. The image quality is also getting impacted as these are large images and size adjustment make the figure go all over the place.

figure 11 missing symbols a, b c, and d. also quality is poor. – I had difficulty using the subfigure in overleaf for some reason symbols a, b and c are not showing and I am not able to fix it perhaps the editing department can help fix this issue. The image quality is also getting impacted as these are large images and size adjustment make the figure go all over the place.

figure 15 missing symbols a, b c, d and e.  – I had difficulty using the subfigure in overleaf for some reason symbols a, b and c are not showing and I am not able to fix it perhaps the editing department can help fix this issue. The image quality is also getting impacted as these are large images and size adjustment make the figure go all over the place.

line 447 missing reverence – reference has been added.

in the reference section there is a figure. This is not clear why. – this again due to figure alignment issues.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx