Risk Decision for a Port Shore Power Supply System Based on Cumulative Prospect Theory and an Improved Gray Target
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
To ensure the safe and stable operation of a port grid system, author proposes a risk decision method for a transmission system in a market environment based on interval number and cumulative prospect theory
A risk decision model based on cumulative prospect theory and an improved gray target risk model has developed and case study analyzed
The work is appreciated; please, consider the suggestions here included in order making the manuscript more clear and accessible to broader audiences.
ü Author is required to highlight the research gaps and contribution of the proposed work by comparing the state-of-the-art methods and recent works in this area.
ü Section 3.1.2, not clear, verify it.
ü Gray entropy method ---not explained properly,
ü Elaborate the case study part clearly
ü The manuscript requires careful proofreading as I believe there are some grammatical errors and typo errors that is required to be corrected
The manuscript requires careful proofreading as I believe there are some grammatical errors and typo errors that is required to be corrected
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comment 1: Keywords should be written in alphabetical order.
Comment 2: The paper motivation and contribution must be clearly written.
Comment 3: Discussion of the state-of-the-art is absent (advantages and limitations).
Comment 4: Other methodologies that can be used to achieve your objective in relation with this work must be added and commented.
Comment 5: Figure 1 must be improved. In addition, more clarifications are needed for this figure.
Comment 6: Section 2 contains only 4 lines. It cannot be an independent section.
Comment 7: Variables and notations in all equations must be described, such as f- , f+, pi- and pi+, in Equation (3) .
Comment 8: The authors have discussed the advantages of their method compared to the traditional one, in the last paragraph of Section 5. However, a paragraph discussing the study limitations is need.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The article has many issues need to be fixed before moving forward:
1. The literature review should be written in a criticized way. It is not only x proposed y. You need to show what is missing.
2. You need to use different techniques and talk more about that. Hybrid techniques are important these days.
3. Some statistical analysis are needed in this paper.
4. More explanations are needed everywhere in the paper. Comments about the results, why you got that; explain.
5. I couldn't see the novelty of the proposed work.
6. More clarification is needed in the paper. The paper is not written in a proper way to be understood.
7. Validation of the proposed work is very important.
8. More tables of comparison are needed between what has been done in the literature and what you are proposing.
Proof reading is needed.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
1. Abstract didn’t specifically discuss the challenges. For example, “The development of ultrahigh voltage and other advanced transmission technologies has made port shore power supply systems increasingly complex, and their operation faces many risks and challenges.” The authors say that there are many risks and challenges, however, not specified.
2. New terms are introduced. For example: the port grid system. How does the port grid is different from the normal grid? All new terms should be clearly defined.
3. Some sentences need more clarification. For example: “The transmission and distribution system for port shore power is an important component of grid transmission technology, which promotes the construction of modern grid systems.”
4. Long sentences are creating readability issues. For examples:
· “In the process of grid transmission system development, ultrahigh voltage and other advanced transmission technology has made the grid transmission system increasingly complex, and its operation faces many risks and challenges.”
· In 1979, Kahneman and Tversky[26] proposed prospect theory (PT), which argues that decision-makers have individual perceptual biases of "overestimating low-probability events and underestimating high-probability events" and converts event probabilities into nonprobability weighting functions to rationalize the different psychological characteristics of risk preferences when decision-makers face risks that lead to completely different decision outcomes.
5. Grid term itself refers to the transmission network.
6. Presented literature review is not exactly related to the proposed research. The motivation for the proposed research should be derived from the literature.
7. How do the risk analysis of normal transmission networks and port shore transmission networks differ?
8. Authors name four risks in the port power system network (introduction). However, each risk needs more explanation to understand the actual risk.
9. List the unique contributions/novelty
10. Figure quality should be improved.
11. Modeling part lacks a sufficient number of references.
12. Same set of sentences is repeated in the abstract, introduction, and conclusions.
13. Results part needs more discussions and validation.
14. Real system analysis is missing.
English comments have also been added above.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
This paper proposes a risk decision method for a transmission system. An improved Gray target risk model are constructed considering the uncertainty and ambiguity of the index attributes and weight information as well as the risk attitude. The paper starts with the evaluation index system for the risk decision assessment, proposes the method, presents the generated results, discusses the results, and gives some conclusions.
For further paper enhancements, the following comments and suggestions may be considered in revising the paper:
1. It is mentioned in the paper that the development of ultrahigh voltage and other advanced transmission technologies has made port shore power supply system increasingly complex, and their operation faces many risks and challenges. It is suggested that the complexity of system due to these reasons is briefly discussed.
2. This paper presents the problem of shore port electrical system starting with problem identification, proposed solution, result and discussion. At the section of result and discussion the Authors are suggested to flash back to the problems as in Fig. 1 to assure that the problems are sufficiently handled, and they are answered accordingly. The Authors must also come up with the solutions for the identified problems,
3. The Authors are suggested to give a real power case (including some data) to be firstly measured its state according to the index in Fig. 1, and how it is solved using the proposed methods.
4. The paper has highlighted some importance but “disregarded” ideas as the Authors claim. However, using more elegance way to express this statement is more appreciated.
5. The way to refer the literatures seems to be uncommon. It is suggested to put the reference after presenting the substance(s) of the referred paper. Writing the Paper Authors (including reference number) followed by what they did, seems to be uncommon. The way to refer in line 170 is also not the same with those happen in other places in the paper.
6. The literature review in the section of Introduction seems to be the compilation of paper contents. In this way the flow and integration of idea may not be sequentially presented. It is suggested that the Authors construct the discussion using what they read and learned from the papers, composed the paragraph with their own sentences, and supported with reference(s). It is also suggested that the reference is only used to support the expression/discussion that is new, novel, or particular where the statement may be questionable if the reference is absent. Placing some references in supporting common and understandable ideas is discouraged.
7. The paper dominantly presents theory and includes many equations to describe the problem and method for solving the problem. Besides causing difficulty to understand the paper, these may lead the paper to be unattractive. Reconstructing the paper to give more explanation then supported with concepts and equations is more preferable.
8. In the section of Decision-Making Steps, a flowchart may be necessary to make the steps to be easily understood.
9. The conclusion of the paper must not present some elementary ideas but should demonstrate some main and important results from the previous sections of the paper.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have responded to all my comments.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I don’t have any comments
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
1. No improvement can be found in the abstract. Previous question: Abstract didn’t specifically discuss the challenges. For example, “The development of ultrahigh voltage and other advanced transmission technologies has made port shore power supply systems increasingly complex, and their operation faces many risks and challenges.” The authors say that there are many risks and challenges, however, not specified.
2. Novelty/contributions of work can be added as bullet points
NA
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
The Authors have made some revisions on the paper and after reviewing the revised version the review may present some comments:
In the opinion of the reviewer, it seems that the comments and suggestions are not fully addressed. This includes the real case to be studied with the results that solve the problem. What the Authors did is presenting different methods for the problems that are not closely related with the main issue of the paper. Presenting real problem to be solved using the proposed methods are preferred. Comparing different approaches (methods) in term if their performance is an extra that may credit the paper.
Some of additional revised contents seem to be non-technical and not closely related with the main issue of the paper.
The way of referencing has not fully been improved, for example: Innes and Monios[7] identified …”, “….Some scholars have analysed…”, “…. scholars[12-14] have focused on…” and some more.
The Authors are suggested to explain what they have done more specifically. Expressing that revisions have been carried out without specifically saying what that been done is discouraged.
A thorough check and proof is necessary for the paper to get improved.
The English is good and understandable.However, some checks are still necessary.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 5 Report
The Author have seriouly made some improvements in the paper. The revised paper is now much better.
The English qualty of the paper is good.
Author Response
First of all, thank you reviewers for valuable comments and hard work. Based on the suggestions made by experts, we have made serious revisions. The specific modifications are as follows:
- We improve the assignment of indicators. f2, f4, f6 and f10 indicators are estimated by actual values, while other indicators are scored by experts. See lines 384-405 for details.
This paper takes as an example the construction of a port shore power project in a container port area of a hub port along the coast of China, where the power grid company within the port's territorial jurisdiction intends to evaluate the port's investment in the construction of a power supply grid project. Among them, there are three power supply systems with construction option set , each with a negligible difference in investment cost, and the main consideration is the impact of their risk factors. In recent years, power systems have been increasingly affected by the external operating environment and the market environment. Therefore, to comprehensively consider the risks to the transmission system caused by different operating environments and according to the research needs, this paper evaluates a port shore power supply system by hiring an expert group with reference to the evaluation index in Figure 1. Among them, the risk of insufficient port power supply equipment (f2) is expressed by the number of insufficient power supply equipment (unit: sets). The port grid main network structure risk (f4) is expressed by the insufficient floor space of the port power supply equipment (unit: m2). The risk of inadequate power supply (f6) is expressed in the quantity of insufficient power supply capacity (unit: kVa). The risk of peak regulation capacity of electricity consumption (f10) is expressed as the percentage of electricity generation from renewable sources (unit: %). Other indicator risk values are scored by experts. The expert group determined a scenario with the least risk to the transmission system of a power supply system in three external operating environments, good, medium and poor. Among them, the score given is the interval gray number, ranging from 0 to 1. The obtained gray assessment data are shown in Table 1. As can be seen from Table 1, in a good external environment, the risk of each indicator of the scheme is relatively lower than that of other external environments.
Table 1. Decision matrix of the three external operation environment states of the port shore power supply system
|
Indicator |
Good external environment [0.2,0.4] |
Medium external environment [0.5,0.8] |
Poor external environment [0.3,0.7] |
|||||||
|
A1 |
A2 |
A3 |
A1 |
A2 |
A3 |
A1 |
A2 |
A3 |
||
|
f1 |
[0.1,0.2] |
[0.1,0.3] |
[0.1,0.2] |
[0.3,0.4] |
[0.4,0.5] |
[0.3,0.4] |
[0.4,0.6] |
[0.4,0.7] |
[0.3,0.5] |
|
|
f2 |
[2,4] |
[1,2] |
[1,2] |
[3,4] |
[3,5] |
[2,4] |
[3,6] |
[4,6] |
[5,6] |
|
|
f3 |
[0.1,0.3] |
[0.2,0.4] |
[0.2,0.3] |
[0.3,0.5] |
[0.3,0.6] |
[0.4,0.5] |
[0.3,0.5] |
[0.4,0.6] |
[0.3,0.6] |
|
|
f4 |
[300,600] |
[600,900] |
[600,1200] |
[900,1200] |
[1200,1500] |
[600,1200] |
[900,1500] |
[1200,1800] |
[1200,1500] |
|
|
f5 |
[0.2,0.3] |
[0.1,0.2] |
[0.1,0.3] |
[0.2,0.4] |
[0.3,0.5] |
[0.3,0.5] |
[0.3,0.6] |
[0.4,0.5] |
[0.3,0.5] |
|
|
f6 |
[40,80] |
[40,60] |
[40,80] |
[60,100] |
[80,120] |
[100,140] |
[80,120] |
[60,100] |
[80,100] |
|
|
f7 |
[0.2,0.4] |
[0.1,0.3] |
[0.3,0.4] |
[0.3,0.5] |
[0.5,0.7] |
[0.4,0.6] |
[0.3,0.5] |
[0.4,0.5] |
[0.5,0.6] |
|
|
f8 |
[0.2,0.3] |
[0.1,0.2] |
[0.2,0.3] |
[0.4,0.6] |
[0.3,0.5] |
[0.4,0.7] |
[0.4,0.6] |
[0.4,0.5] |
[0.3,0.5] |
|
|
f9 |
[0.1,0.3] |
[0,0.1] |
[0.1,0.2] |
[0.5,0.7] |
[0.4,0.6] |
[0.3,0.6] |
[0.4,0.7] |
[0.3,0.6] |
[0.3,0.5] |
|
|
f10 |
[12,16] |
[4,8] |
[8,12] |
[20,28] |
[16,28] |
[12,20] |
[16,24] |
[12,24] |
[16,20] |
|
In order to eliminate the influence of the index dimension on the decision results, the following formula can be used to convert the decision matrix X into the matrix Z.
(18)
(19)
Where, if and are actual values, and take the values obtained by formula 18, otherwise take the values obtained by formula 19.
- We proofread and revise articles carefully.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
