A Review: Machine Learning for Combinatorial Optimization Problems in Energy Areas
, Ziyi Wang 2, Hengxi Zhang 3, Nan Ma 1, Ning Yang 2,*, Hualin Liu 1, Haifeng Zhang 2 and Lei Yang 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review of A Survey: Machine Learning for Combinatorial Optimization Problems in Energy Areas
This manuscript presents a survey about recent works on solving COPs using ML as well as game theoretic methods.
This manuscript provides some interesting information, however revision is recommended before it may be considered future, namely:
1. At the end of introduction please underline the novelty of this research and archival value of results, if it may be published in high quality journal. So, the research gap should be delivered on more clear way with directed necessity for the conducted research work.
Please underline the novelty also in abstract.
2. The main objective of the paper must be written on the clearer and more concise way at the end of introduction section;
3. Please be aware that using multiple references is not very helpful for a reader. If authors need to use more references at least a short assessment/justification should be provided
4. please try to write in third person. So, please avoid …we… : please revise this in your manuscript;
5. please consider to change the title: survey ??? rather review;
6. in section 2: please try to provide more comparison between described solutions and critical discussion from your side;
7. in introduction please provide how you made your review (which, how many sources, which kind of key words, etc.)
8. Critical discussion about the applicability and weak points of the proposed approach will make this manuscript much better. Some discussion is given in chapters dealing with results and conclusion but that is not enough.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors surveyed and analyzed machine learning- and game-theory-based research works on solving combinatorial optimization problems in the field of energy. The manuscript provided an overview of methods that applied supervised learning, reinforcement learning, and game-theoretic strategies. However, it is missing a critical assessment of the surveyed works. Also, the authors should discuss future research directions in the paper. The quality of their survey can be improved by adding a comparative discussion of the related works with considering relevant experimental platforms/datasets. Finally, the conclusions/inferences of their surveyed work are not clear to me.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper provides an extensive review of the combinatorial optimization algorithms in energy studies. Generally, the manuscript surveys a significant number of previous studies. The paper is well organized. The authors are invited to address the following concerns before publication:
1. Please add more description to the abstract. A general description of the classification and categories should be added. Also, please highlight the key results of the scoping study in the last paragraph of this section.
2. Please proofread the manuscript. Make sure that all the acronyms are identified in the first use. Also, provide a table of acronyms to increase the readability.
3. Line 63: use the next line for "(2)Static game.." .Please do the same for other sections.
4. Many studies address energy optimization in the agricultural sector. Please survey a few papers in this regard, one example, doi.org/10.1002/er.6017.
5. Line 118: you should use "section" instead of "chapter".
6. Numbering of headlines should be organized. Please check.
7. Generally, extensive explanations are provided in the manuscript. However, the authors are recommended to classify the algorithms in tables and figures to give graphical insight to readers. It increases the visibility of your work.
8. Caption of tables should be on the upside.
The paper can be accepted for publication after addressing the comments accordingly.
Good luck.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript is revised according to my comments.
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for addressing my questions/comments.
