Next Article in Journal
An Informational–Entropic Approach to Exoplanet Characterization
Next Article in Special Issue
A Kalman Filter-Based Localization Calibration Method Optimized by Reinforcement Learning and Information Matrix Fusion
Previous Article in Journal
Stochastic Entropy Production for Classical and Quantum Dynamical Systems with Restricted Diffusion
Previous Article in Special Issue
Adaptive Kalman Filtering Localization Calibration Method Based on Dynamic Mutation Perception and Collaborative Correction
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Further Exploration of an Upper Bound for Kemeny’s Constant

Entropy 2025, 27(4), 384; https://doi.org/10.3390/e27040384
by Robert E. Kooij 1,2,* and Johan L. A. Dubbeldam 1
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Entropy 2025, 27(4), 384; https://doi.org/10.3390/e27040384
Submission received: 12 February 2025 / Revised: 1 April 2025 / Accepted: 2 April 2025 / Published: 4 April 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Complexity, Entropy and the Physics of Information II)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See attachement

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

see the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In itself, this paper presents a valuable contribution to the field of spectral graph theory and its applications. The authors investigate Kemeny's constant, a crucial metric in network analysis, focusing on developing and analyzing an upper bound for its computation. The work is well-structured and the methodology is clearly presented. The numerical paragraphs are impeccable. However, I have a major concern about why this is suitable for a journal called "Entropy". I have not directly seen any entropy-related topic in this paper.

The author are therefore invited to provide a clear connexion with this topic.

In addition, some aspects could be strengthened. In particular:

  • In the introduction, the (very first) definition of K(P) is not expressed. A more comprehensive discussion on what K(P) is and what it does (and why it is important) is more than welcome.
  • From lines 26 to 29, this should be referenced.
  • Replace "links" by "edges" in line 32
  • Equation (2) not not clear. \mu_1 is a function of G?
  • Define a "tight" upper bound in line 40.
  • End of Section 1. There is no discussion on which of the two upper bounds K_U or K* is best.
  • Theorem 1: careful with notations! d_1 (d_2) have been changed with k_1 (k_2).
  • I don't see why Eqs (5) and (6) are relevant?
  • Here again careful with notations. "D(G_1)", "D"... Is D a function of G or and average?
  • You do not deduce Eq(7) from Eqs (5) and (6), thus the "therefore" doesn't look to have anything to be there.
  • Eq. (10) should be proven. Generally speaking, there is no reason to remain obscur even if easy. It makes the text more fluent (and beautiful).
  • Type in line 107
  • line 113: "largest Laplacian eigenvalue of Q" incorrectly said.
  • Before line 115, "imply that all terms vanish except the term with v_1". Please make it fluent (prove it).
  • Section 2.3 : how is K-K_U converging when N_1, N_2 tend to +\infty?
  • So K* is not a good upper bound here?
  • Section 3.1: "Given the results [...] with diameter 2". Why this intuition? Please explain.
  • Line 146: typo "the the"
  • Remind the graphs for which K* is a good upper bound in the intro. You only say this in the conclusion, but throughout the text I was really wondering why you were wasting your time with K*.
  • Section 5: should be more rigorously written. In particular, I don't know why you stated Proposition 1 but you don't look to use is anywhere in the text. Also, while the authors discuss the computational complexity, a more formal analysis would strengthen the paper. They mention "nearly-linear" complexity but lack a more precise characterization.
  • Table 1: I was curious about the bitcoin network?
  • Table before the conclusion: show time in format "hour:min:sec"

Providing an entropy connection and the resolution of the above problems would lead me to accept the paper.

Author Response

please see attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have reviewed the suggestions overall from the first suggestions. The paper is close to its final version, and is clear and good! I suggest the minor following points.

  • in Equation (4), write \mu_1(G)
  • I still don't understand why the authors deduce Eq.(7) from Eqs.(5-6). To me the latter equations are not needed as Eq.(7) is simply and average. The "therefore" looks inappropriate.
  • I don't see any additional comment on the convergence of K and K as asked in my previous review. This is not regarding Prop 1 about convergence of the algorithm, but close are K and K with n.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop