Application of Comprehensive Evaluation of Line Loss Lean Management Based on Big-Data-Driven Paradigm

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1.       In abstract, author claimed the effectiveness of the proposed comprehensive evaluation method for the actual line loss index data of 61 local and municipal power grids. But authors failed to explain well in section 5, as efficacy of the strategy depends on it. If data is confidential then at least provide its location on map in section 5.

2.       English is comprehensible but needs minor correction of grammatical errors and style.

3.       The keywords should contain terms which can help to express the essence of novelty of the article and making it more discoverable. Also include “random forest algorithm”.

4.       Minor formatting issues, for example, Figure 3 is not placed at correct place.

5.       In table 1 there isn’t any percentage of MAE and MAPE 379 ?.  “As shown in Table 1, the MAE and MAPE 379 of the test set are 1.81 % and 2.38 % , indicating high random forest model test accuracy”.

6.       Proper flow chart of Random Forest Algorithm is also required.

7.       Use Comparison diagram 6 of predicted value and comprehensive evaluation with higher resolutions.

8.       455 sets of new sample datasets for 2016 is not sufficient to justify the robustness of proposed comprehensive evaluation method, please incorporate more latest datasets.

9.       The axis in some figures is not marked clearly.

10.   Some variables are not defined well in equations.

11.   Use different labeled arrows or markers or style for better understanding of simulation results Figures 6 to 11.

12.   Use same caption in the Figures as well as in the text (Figure 1 or Fig. 1) throughout the article.

13.   Add some future scope in conclusion.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

English is comprehensible but needs minor correction of grammatical errors and style.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors

The paper presents an application of comprehensive evaluation of line loss lean management based on a big data-driven paradigm. However, much work must be done to present the idea. The comments are:

1.     The abstract is weak. " An abstract is a concise summary of the research paper ".

2.     The novelty and contributions are not clear.

3.     A paragraph that describes the manuscript distribution must be added at the end of the introduction section.

4.     The introduction section is not sufficient, and the literature review requires enrichment.

5.     Nearly all titles and subtitles need rewording. For example, "4.3.2 Important impact parameters" "4.4 Evaluation results test" "5. Example Analysis"…..

6.     In Figures 6,7,8,9,10,11 what are the axes titles and units. What are the meanings of these abbreviations PV and CEV?!

7.     Improve the quality of Figures 9 and 10.

8.     The conclusions section needs improvements.

 

9.     Many language errors are presented. 

 Extensive editing is required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

No comment

Minor

Author Response

Dear Reviewer：

We would like to thank you for your time spent reviewing the manuscript and for your constructive criticism. We apologize for any issues with the English language usage in our paper. We have carefully edited and reviewed our text to ensure proper grammar, syntax, and clarity. Thank you for bringing this to our attention, and we kindly invite you to refer to the revised manuscript for a detailed review of these updated contents.