Multi-Objective Workflow Optimization Algorithm Based on a Dynamic Virtual Staged Pruning Strategy
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this paper, the authors purpose an optimization algorithm to achieve the actual production needs. This is a work based on optimization of classical algorithms to improve their performances.
The paper is organized on 6 chapters, well presented, starting with a concise introduction about the research followed by problems that need to be optimized. Synthetically with example for validation in chapter 4. A comparative performance is presented in chapter 5.
My recommendation are the followings:
- Detail the chapter 3 that is the main contribution work in the paper;
- Use the same term uses the same terms both in chapter 2 and in chapter 3. For example, in equation 5 and 6 you work in terms of f function that is not resented in problem description. Also the notation in algorithms are hardly find in equations;
- It is well described the performance in chapter 5 but need to be compared with results from another similar works from the references.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
On behalf of all the authors, I would like to express our heartfelt thanks for the letter and the constructive comments of the reviewers for our article entitled "Multi-objective Workflow Optimization Algorithm Based on Dynamic Virtual Phase Pruning Strategy". These comments are all valuable and help to improve our article. Based on comments from the reviewers, we revised our manuscript extensively and supplemented it with additional data to make our results convincing. In this revision, our changes to the manuscript are highlighted in the document in red font. Below this letter is a list of one-by-one responses to this kind commenter. Thank you again for your advice and wish you good health and success in your work.
Point 1: Detail the chapter 3 that is the main contribution work in the paper.
Response 1: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. After careful modification, we adjust the overall structure of the paper and expand the theoretical research content in Chapter 3. Firstly, we add a detailed description of the pruning strategy and the algorithm process in section 3.1, add the algorithm explanation of the virtual strategy in 3.2, and enrich the specific details of the DVSP algorithm process in section 3.3 and 3.4. At the same time, the theoretical and revised parts are indicated in red fonts in the revised draft. Thank you again for your suggestions.
Point 2: Use the same term uses the same terms both in chapter 2 and in chapter 3. For example, in equation 5 and 6 you work in terms of f function that is not resented in problem description. Also the notation in algorithms are hardly find in equations.
Response 2: Thank you for your suggestions. According to your comments, we carefully check the formulas and symbols in the paper, and explain and illustrate the function f in the problem description section. fq(pi,ti) represents the cumulative production quality of the current task node, and fc(pi,ti)represents the cumulative production cost of the current node. Some symbols have been explained in the relevant definitions in Chapter II, and some symbols in the algorithm have been explained in more detail in the definitions. For example, Task node degree of freedom (HSY(i)) in Definition 4, Wrong Route (N-route) in Definition 10, etc., thank you again for your advice, I wish you good health and smooth work.
Point 3: It is well described the performance in chapter 5 but need to be compared with results from another similar works from the references.
Response 3: Thank you for your suggestions. According to your opinions, we have made corrections. We re-quote the relevant literature of comparison algorithms in the revised draft, add the comparison process of MCP algorithm and PCP-B2 algorithm in Chapter 5, and add the algorithm comparison table to compare the efficiency of the algorithm in this paper and the algorithm in the literature, so that the comparison of the algorithm is more visible. Thanks again for your suggestions so that you can see the performance of the algorithm more clearly.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
To improve the overall quality of paper authors need to address following:
1. The contribution of the algorithm is ambiguous. Dynamic Virtual Staged Pruning Strategy needs more clarity in terms of some comments.
2. All of the abbreviations should be provided with the full definition at their first occurrence, and refrain from repeating the use of the full form after the first time.
3. I strongly advise authors to include a comparison table in their related work. For the sake of comparison, newly published papers should be used.
4. In introduction section need to mention why pruning and overview of workflows.
5. Contributions need to mention in pointwise.
6. Figure1 explanation is required and not cited.
7. All the algorithm are difficult to read, rewrite the all algorithm in proper way.
8. Equations 5 and 6 explanation is need to be checked.
9. Figure 6 is not clear.
10. In the result section Comparative algorithms are not cited.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
On behalf of all the authors, I would like to express our heartfelt thanks for the letter and the constructive comments of the reviewers for our article entitled "Multi-objective Workflow Optimization Algorithm Based on Dynamic Virtual Phase Pruning Strategy". These comments are all valuable and help to improve our article. Based on comments from the reviewers, we revised our manuscript extensively and supplemented it with additional data to make our results convincing. In this revision, our changes to the manuscript are highlighted in the document in red font. Below this letter is a list of one-by-one responses to this kind commenter. Thank you again for your advice and wish you good health and success in your work.
Point 1: The contribution of the algorithm is ambiguous. Dynamic Virtual Staged Pruning Strategy needs more clarity in terms of some comments.
Response 1: Thank you very much for your suggestions. To solve this problem, we have made a more detailed explanation of the algorithm contribution of this paper in the introduction and Chapter 3. The modified part is marked by the red part in the revised draft. Thank you again for your suggestion, and I wish you a smooth work and a happy life.
Point 2: All of the abbreviations should be provided with the full definition at their first occurrence, and refrain from repeating the use of the full form after the first time.
Response 2: Thank you for your careful examination. We are sorry for our carelessness. According to your comments, we have made a correction. The abbreviation of this article gives the full definition when it first appears, and the abbreviation form is used when it is mentioned in the following article. There is no repetition of the definition.
Point 3: I strongly advise authors to include a comparison table in their related work. For the sake of comparison, newly published papers should be used.
Response 3: Thank you very much for your suggestions. We think this is a good suggestion. We have added the latest papers to the related work in the revised manuscript, and added Table 4 as the algorithm comparison table of the latest papers in Section 5, so that we can observe the execution performance of the algorithm more clearly. Thank you again for your suggestions.
Point 4: In introduction section need to mention why pruning and overview of workflows.
Response 4: Thank you very much for your suggestions. According to your comments, we made corrections. In the introduction part, we added the purpose of using the pruning strategy to make the pruning strategy clearer. At the same time, we also explained and explained the working process of the pruning strategy in the discussion of the algorithm in Chapter 3.
Point 5: Contributions need to mention in pointwise.
Response 5: Thank you very much for your suggestions. According to your comments, we will make a more concise and specific discussion on the contribution of the algorithm. This paper proposes a workflow multi-objective optimization algorithm based on dynamic virtual Stage pruning strategy (DVSP) for the multi-stage nonlinear production process optimization problem. Based on the actual production process, the algorithm establishes a virtual workflow model, and proposes a pruning strategy to eliminate the indirect constraint relationship between tasks. The virtual hierarchical strategy was used to divide the task node set, the Pareto optimal service set was calculated by backward iteration in stages, the optimal path was generated by forward scheduling, and the global optimal solution was obtained by algorithm integration. Thank you again for your advice. I wish you good health and success in your work.
Point 6: Figure1 explanation is required and not cited.
Response 6: Thank you for your suggestions. According to your opinions, we have made corrections. The content and working process of Figure 1 have been explained and explained in detail in the revised draft, and marked in red font in the text.
Point 7: All the algorithm are difficult to read, rewrite the all algorithm in proper way.
Response 7: Thank you for your suggestions. This is a good suggestion. After careful modification, the form and content of all the algorithms appearing in the article are modified more carefully, making the form of the algorithm clearer and more concise. Thank you again for your suggestion.
Point 8: Equations 5 and 6 explanation is need to be checked.
Response 8: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. We have carefully checked formula 5 and 6, and added the explanation and explanation of the formula to the revised draft, and marked the modified content with red font in the text. Thank you again for your suggestion.
Point 9: Figure 6 is not clear.
Response 9: Thank you for your advice. We have replaced Figure 6 in the article with a clearer visio image. Please kindly refer to the relevant content of the image again. Thank you again for your suggestions
Point 10: In the result section Comparative algorithms are not cited.
Response 10: Thanks to the experts for their suggestions, we are very sorry for our careless mistakes. Thank you for reminding us. In the revised draft, we re-cited the relevant literature of comparison algorithms. At the same time, we added Table 4 to compare the algorithms in Chapter 5, so that you can more clearly see the execution performance of the algorithms.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Editing of English language and style required
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
On behalf of all the authors, I would like to express our heartfelt thanks for the letter and the constructive comments of the reviewers for our article entitled "Multi-objective Workflow Optimization Algorithm Based on Dynamic Virtual Phase Pruning Strategy". These comments are all valuable and help to improve our article. Based on comments from the reviewers, we revised our manuscript extensively and supplemented it with additional data to make our results convincing. In this revision, our changes to the manuscript are highlighted in the document in red font. Below this letter is a list of one-by-one responses to this kind commenter. Thank you again for your advice and wish you good health and success in your work.
Point 1: Editing of English language and style required
Response 1: Thank you very much for your advice. In order to solve this problem, we have greatly modified and polished the language style of the article. The changes in the revisions are indicated in red. Thanks again for your advice. We wish you success in your work and happiness in your life.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
