Global Evolution Commended by Localized Search for Unconstrained Single Objective Optimization
, Muhammad Asif Jan 2,*,†, Nasser Tairan 3,†, Wali Khan Mashwani 2,†, Muhammad Sulaiman 4,†, Hidayat Ullah Khan 5,† and Habib Shah 3,†Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript proposes an optimization algorithm, and compares multiple existing algorithms to assess their ability to find optimal parameters for various functions as outlined in Liang (2013).
The methods need to be described in greater detail for it to be accessible to the readers of this journal.
There are several spelling, formatting and grammatical errors throughout the manuscript that need to be fixed.
The authors have used too many (non-standard) abbreviations, and haven't necessarily defined them it in the text (e.g. LS, NMS, DEELS, to name a few), making it difficult to follow the content.
The algorithms and flowchart diagrams have been squished, making it difficult to read and follow the steps.
Overall, the steps utilized in the proposed algorithm don't seem to be well explained in the text.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Comment 1: The methods need to be described in greater detail for it to be accessible to the readers of this journal.
Response 1: More details are added to the methods. Hopefully, the readers will have a bit more info to follow the methods.
Comment 2: There are several spelling, formatting and grammatical errors throughout the manuscript that need to be fixed.
Response 2: The paper is thoroughly reviewed for spelling checks, formatting, use of appropriate words and grammatical mistakes.
Comment 3: The authors have used too many (non-standard) abbreviations and haven't necessarily defined them it in the text (e.g. LS, NMS, DEELS, to name a few), making it difficult to follow the content.
Response 3: The unnecessary abbreviations, like NMS, DEELS etc., have been removed.
Comment 4: The algorithms and flowchart diagrams have been squished, making it difficult to read and follow the steps.
Response 4: Algorithms are retyped and readable now. The flowchart is designed in Latex, which is readable, too.
Comment 5: Overall, the steps utilized in the proposed algorithm don't seem to be well explained in the text.
Response 5: The steps of the proposed algorithm have been explained in text. The readers can easily follow the idea from pseudocodes and flowchart of the algorithm.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper describes an interesting algorithm approach for improving global search minimum optimizations. The paper is quite interesting as they have an interesting combination of two algorithms. There are a number of issues with the paper that need to be addressed before acceptance.
The English in the paper needs significant improvement.
Line 9. The use of the word ‘elite’ here is not good. I do not know ehat they mean.
Fix the typographical errors, the ?, on lines 22 and 24.
Please define all variables in a table. Otherwise, it is hard to see what they are doing and what their equations mean.
Algorithm 1 needs to be retyped as it is essentially not readable.
Section 2.2. Where is the Fletcher Powell reference? Also, the Davidon method is older than 1991.
Line 75, the use of the word heal here is not correct. Use fix or address instead.
What is alopax? Line 81.
Algorithm 2 needs to be retyped as it is essentially not readable.
Section 5. Give references to all of the methods.
I do not know what they mean for the sentence starting on line 153 in terms of the mean.
Table 1. what is meant by 0, +, -?
In tables 1 and 2, do they really have that many significant figures?
Table 3. use 57% and 43%. They do not need the additional two decimal palces. The same int eh text.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Comment 1: The English in the paper needs significant improvement.
Response 1: The paper is thoroughly reviewed for spelling checks, use of appropriate words and grammatical mistakes.
Comment 2: Line 9. The use of the word ‘elite’ here is not good. I do not know ehat they mean.
Response 2: The word elite is replaced by comparatively best.
Comment 3: Fix the typographical errors, the ?, on lines 22 and 24.
Response 3: The typographical errors, the ?, on lines 22 and 24 have been fixed.
Comment 4: Please define all variables in a table. Otherwise, it is hard to see what they are doing and what their equations mean.
Response 4: All the variables have defined in table 1 on page 2.
Comment 5: Algorithm 1 needs to be retyped as it is essentially not readable.
Response 5: Algorithm 1 is retyped and readable now.
Comment 6: Section 2.2. Where is the Fletcher Powell reference? Also, the Davidon method is older than 1991.
Response 6: Latest available references, where the two mentioned methods have been used, are cited (please see reference [51] and [52]).
Comment 7: Line 75, the use of the word heal here is not correct. Use fix or address instead.
Response 7: The word heal is replaced with fix.
Comment 8: What is alopax? Line 81.
Response 8: Definition of Alopex : a genus (family Canidae) comprising the arctic foxes.
Alopex-based local search decides the movement direction based on the fitness of the randomly selected individuals.
Comment 9: Algorithm 2 needs to be retyped as it is essentially not readable.
Response 9: Algorithm 2 is readable now.
Comment 10: Section 5. Give references to all of the methods.
Response 10: All the methods are properly referred now.
Comment 11: I do not know what they mean for the sentence starting on line 153 in terms of the mean.
Response 11: The function error values, which is the difference between the known function value and approximated function value of an algorithm, is calculated in each run of the adopted method and then mean value of all runs of the algorithm is calculated.
Comment 12: Table 1. what is meant by 0, +, -?
Response 12: The “+” shows that the specific algorithm wins against our algorithm, the “-” indicates that the particular algorithm loses against our algorithm and the “=” shows that both algorithms in comparison obtained the same statistics. This statement is added to text as well.
Comment 13: In tables 1 and 2, do they really have that many significant figures?
Response 13: Yes, they are checked with statistical T-test.
Comment 14: Table 3. use 57% and 43%. They do not need the additional two decimal places. The same in the text.
Response 14: Numbers as advised are corrected in text and Table 3 (now Table 4).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
OK
