Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

• The abstract should be a short statement about the work designed and it should give a complete but concise, understanding of your paper's research and findings. I suggest summarizing the abstract in a more concise way as, in my opinion, it is too long.

• Bibliographical references should be added along the document to support the authors’ statements (e.g. in the section 2 and in the section 3), as it is not clear what are the results of the authors and what are the results of previous works.

• A workflow diagram/methodology chart should be added to properly describe the specific processing method from line 354 to the line 367.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

I have reviewed the manuscript “Intelligent identification of the line-transformer relationship in distribution networks based on GAN processing unbalanced data", Manuscript number: Sustainability-1753445 that has been submitted for publication in the Sustainability MDPI Journal, and I have identified a series of aspects that in my opinion must be addressed in order to bring a benefit to the manuscript.

In this article, the authors address the problem of wrong line-transformer relationship by proposing an intelligent identification method for distribution network line-transformer relationship based on Generative Adversarial Networks (GAN) processing unbalanced data.

The article under review will be improved if the authors address the following aspects in the text of the manuscript:

Ø Comments concerning the "Abstract" section of the paper:

·       The authors should improve the structuration of their abstract. They should not lose sight of the fact that a well-written abstract summarizes, usually in one paragraph of 300 words or less, the major aspects of the entire paper in a prescribed sequence that includes: 1) the overall purpose of the study and the research problem(s) you investigated; 2) the basic design of the study; 3) major findings or trends found as a result of your analysis; and, 4) a brief summary of your interpretations and conclusions.

·       The actual abstract is exaggeratedly long. The author should reduce it at a acceptable level respecting the structuration above.

·       Besides, authors should keep in mind the general rules regarding tense usage while you write your Abstract: Use present tense while stating general facts; Use past tense when writing about prior research; Use past tense when stating results or observations; Use present tense when stating the conclusion or interpretations; Use present tense when referring to your study/paper

·       I suggest authors the author the following as a starting point towards improving their abstract (The authors can improve it if necessary):

“Improving the line-transformer relationship is becoming a priority for solving the problem of the line losses in 10-kV distribution lines. This paper aims at achieving the optimal management of the line-transformer relationship in 10-kV distribution networks by applying an intelligent identification method for distribution network line-transformer relationship based on Generative Adversarial Networks (GAN) processing unbalanced data. The three steps of the proposed methods are as follows: (1) the collection and pre-processing of the data on the daily input power of the distribution lines and the daily power consumption of the connected transformer; (2) the feature extraction of the power data set from four parameters (Pearson coefficient, relative coefficient of variation, fluctuation coefficient and slope coefficient ratio); and (3) building of a GAN-based model for generating abnormal line-transformer relationship samples. The application of the designed methodology to 18 10-kV distribution lines and their connected 449 distribution transformers in an area in China led to a recall rate of more than 92% for the three types of line-change relationship (line hanging error, multiplying error and normal). These classification results were far better compared to the results from the traditional Synthetic Minority Oversampling Technique (SMOTE), which proves the effectiveness and feasibility of the proposed method.”

Ø Comments regarding the "Introduction" section

·       There is a space problem in the article under review:

1)    Authors should put a space between the text and each citation number. For example, on line 54, authors should write “enterprises [2].” Instead of “enterprises[2].”. The same faults should be corrected throughout the text.

2)    Authors should a space before each units. For example, in line 61, authors should write “35 kV” instead of “35kV”, and “70 %” instead of “70%” on line 73. The same faults should be corrected throughout the text.

3)    Authors should also write “(1) Pearson coefficient:” instead of “(1)Pearson coefficient:” on line 182. The similar faults should be corrected on lines 195, 206, 217 and in the Conclusions section

4)    A space should be inserted between after each section,  subsection or sub-subsection numeration number. For example, authors should write “4. Experimental results & analysis” instead of “4.Experimental results & analysis”.

·       In a scientific article, an important role of the “Introduction” section is to offer authors the opportunity to analyze in detail the current state of knowledge related to the manuscript’s topic, namely the most relevant scientific works in the field in order to be able to contextualize their study and familiarize the readers with what has been done in the literature and what advancement their study aims to bring in addition to the existing body of knowledge. Unfortunately, the authors of the current paper failed to review the current state of the research field and cite key publications.

·       I consider that the authors have not reached the main purpose of the literature survey: to highlight exactly, for each of the involved referenced papers the main contribution that the authors of the referenced papers have brought to the current state of knowledge, the method used by the authors of the referenced papers, a brief presentation of the main obtained results. The authors should also highlight some limitations of the referenced article and state the need for their work, by presenting it as an opposition between what the scientific community currently has and what it needs or wants.  Then, the authors should indicate what they have done in their conducted study in order to address the existing need, namely the task that they set out to solve.

·       Finally, they should preview the remainder of the paper in order to prepare the readers for the subsequent structuring of the manuscript. As a suggestion, the authors can use this sentence at the end of the introduction to preview the remainder of the paper: “The reminder of this article is organized as follows: Section 2 details the materials and method adopted to carry out the study. The experimental results obtained and their analysis are presented in Section 3. The conclusions end the paper in Section 4 .”

Ø Comments regarding the "Technical route" and “Intelligent identification of the line-transformer relationship in distribution networks based on GAN processing unbalanced data” sections

·        These two sections should be combined in one section : “2. Materials and Methods” or “2. Methodology” section, which two main subsection: “2.1. Technical route” and “2.2. Intelligent identification of the line-transformer relationship in distribution networks based on GAN processing unbalanced data”

·       In order to bring a benefit to the manuscript, the authors should mention early in the "Materials and Methods" section, preferably in the first sentence, the choices they have made in their experimental study. The authors should state what has justified using the given method, what is special, unexpected, or different in their approach. If the authors make use of a standard or usual procedure, this aspect should also be mentioned upfront, from the very beginning. I consider that the manuscript under review will benefit if the authors make all of these aspects as clear as possible to the readers starting from the first sentence of the paragraph in order to give them a clear idea of what the entire paragraph is about.

·       In the "Materials and Methods" section, the new developed methods should be described in detail while well-established methods (and information) can be briefly described and appropriately cited.

·       In the introductory paragraph, it will benefit the paper if the authors provide more details regarding the hardware (CPU, DRAM, GPU etc.) and software configurations (Operating System Version etc.) of the platform used to obtain the results in order to assure the reproducibility of the conducted study.

Ø Comments concerning the "Experimental Results and analysis" section:

·       The results presented into this section should provide a concise and precise description of the experimental results, their interpretation as well as the experimental conclusions that can be drawn.

·        The authors must assume more clearly their own results and their own original contributions to the current state of knowledge.

·       After having analyzed the results, the authors should move forward to the analysis within which the authors must extend the comparison between their developed strategy from the manuscript and other strategies that have been designed and used in the literature for this purpose.

·       There are a lot of valuable studies in the scientific literature related to the subject of the manuscript to which the authors can compare, and this comparison will highlight even more the novel aspects that their paper brought in contrast to the existing studies. Consequently, to validate the usefulness of their research, within the analysis part of this section, the authors should compare their method from the manuscript and other ones that have been developed and used in the literature for the same purpose.

·       I consider that the manuscript will be considerably improved if the authors state clearly within the manuscript who are the potential beneficiaries of the devised approach (proving once again the usefulness of the conducted study) and how will these potential beneficiaries be able to make use of the devised approach in their everyday activities.

Ø Comments concerning the "Conclusions" section:

·       The authors should avoid simply summarizing the aspects that they have already stated in the body of the manuscript. Instead, they should interpret their findings at a higher level of abstraction than in the Discussion section. The authors should highlight whether, or to what extent they have managed to address the necessity identified within the Introduction section. The authors should avoid restating everything they did once again, but instead they should emphasize what their findings actually mean to the readers, therefore making the Conclusions section interesting and memorable to them.

·        The authors should write a short Conclusions section, in fact they should conclude in just a few sentences given the rich discussion section that they will have devised in the body of the paper. I strongly recommend the authors to overcome the temptation to repeat material from the Introduction or from the rest of the paper only to make the Conclusions section longer under the false belief that a longer Conclusions section will seem more impressive.

·       Authors should be aware they should “Conclusions” instead of “Conclusion” as they did.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Review of sustainability-1753445. This paper proposes to establish a mapping between  distribution network power data and line-transformer relationship from the perspective of the power of distribution network by means of support vector machines, so as to achieve optimal management of the line-transformer relationship in 10kV distribution networks. So the article content is interesting and actual. Research in this area are desirable. It suites to journal scope.

Recommendations to improve paper

-> abstract is too long. Please make it shorter and more comprehensive. 

-> please add 4 literature positions to reach 30 in total. Please assure that those positions will be from 2022 year

-> in introduction section please add the separate paragraph with clear indication what is novelty of this paper.

-> please justify in text why Generative Adversarial Networks (GAN) is suitable method to solve the research problem of this paper.

-> for fig 3 please dealate board line

->please add the source for parameters defined in equs 13-15.

-> in conclusions please add a paragraph that shows future research dirrections.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

After having assessed the suitability for publication of the revised version of  Manuscript ID: Sustainability-1753445, having the title "Intelligent identification of the line-transformer relationship in distribution networks based on GAN processing unbalanced data", I can conclude that the authors have addressed the most important signaled issues, therefore improving the manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Paper can be accepted after the revision.