RAID: Robust and Interpretable Daily Peak Load Forecasting via Multiple Deep Neural Networks and Shapley Values
and Jihoon Moon 1,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors need to update abstract to include quantative improvement of their model respect to the others.
Author Response
We would like to extend our sincerest gratitude to Reviewer 1 for your insightful and detailed review. Your comments have been invaluable in improving our work, and we sincerely appreciate the time and effort you have put in to evaluate our submission. Please find the corrected file and our response attached, and thank you again for your support.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
RAID: Robust and Interpretable Daily Peak Load Forecasting 2 via Multiple Deep Neural Networks and Shapley Values
Overall the paper is very written. However, I have the following comments that needs to be incorporated.
· The actual problem is not mentioned in the abstract. Why this work is conducted. Also results are not discussed.
· Related work should be written again as so much of copied contents available. Please rewrite it fully.
· Data preprocessing should be a subsection of Dataset. Section 3 should discuss and give details about dataset then 3.2 Data Preprocessing. Give statistics of dataset used number of files.
· Discussion section should be included in the paper.
· Comparative analysis section is also missing.
Author Response
We would like to extend our sincerest gratitude to Reviewer 2 for your insightful and detailed review. Your comments have been invaluable in improving our work, and we sincerely appreciate the time and effort you have put in to evaluate our submission. Please find the corrected file and our response attached, and thank you again for your support.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
1. The literature review regulations are not clear enough
2. Is (209) data too old and lack of reference value?
3. How is the setting of equations (1)-(6) considered?
4. (271) How is the partial autocorrelation calculated
5. (437) How is 42 derived?
Author Response
We would like to extend our sincerest gratitude to Reviewer 3 for your insightful and detailed review. Your comments have been invaluable in improving our work, and we sincerely appreciate the time and effort you have put in to evaluate our submission. Please find the corrected file and our response attached, and thank you again for your support.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The literature review discussion and original contributions are significant and suitable for publication. Overall, it provides a sound basis for establishing research gaps. The insights based on the RAID model application are considered as novel features of this research. The methodology used is sufficient. In conclusion, highlight importatnt limitations and future recommendations of this research work.
Author Response
We would like to extend our sincerest gratitude to Reviewer 4 for your insightful and detailed review. Your comments have been invaluable in improving our work, and we sincerely appreciate the time and effort you have put in to evaluate our submission. Please find the corrected file and our response attached, and thank you again for your support.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
This work is clear and well-written, I was not able to find any relevant issue, only some minor suggestions below you could consider, but nothing really relevant.
You could consider replacing Figure 1 and 2 with raincloud plots instead.
A Cross-Validation strategy, especially the one that best fits the time series field, could better express the expected performance of the proposed model.
Author Response
We would like to extend our sincerest gratitude to Reviewer 5 for your insightful and detailed review. Your comments have been invaluable in improving our work, and we sincerely appreciate the time and effort you have put in to evaluate our submission. Please find the corrected file and our response attached, and thank you again for your support.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
A Graphical Abstract should be presented in introduction section.
Table 1 should be presented after section 2
Section 3 and subsection 3.1 need some introductory paragraphs.
No references from 2023.
Author Response
We would like to extend our sincerest gratitude to Reviewer 2 for your insightful and detailed review. Your comments have been invaluable in improving our work, and we sincerely appreciate the time and effort you have put in to evaluate our submission. The revised manuscript is attached, with the updated sections highlighted in red and our response to your comments. Thank you again for your support.
Comment 1: A graphical abstract should be presented in the Introduction section.
Response to comment: We thank Reviewer 2 for suggesting the inclusion of a graphical abstract in the Introduction section, which greatly improved the manuscript's clarity and visual appeal. We appreciate the valuable feedback and hope the revised version meets the reviewer's expectations.
Comment 2: Table 1 should be presented after Section 2.
Response to comment: We deeply appreciate Reviewer 2's comment regarding the placement of Table 1 in our manuscript. We have carefully considered your feedback and made the necessary changes by moving Table 1 to after Section 2. Thank you very much for your valuable contribution to our work, and we hope the revised version of our paper meets your expectations.
Comment 3: Section 3 and Subsection 3.1 need some introductory paragraphs.
Response to comment: We would like to express our gratitude for your valuable comment regarding the need for introductory paragraphs in Section 3 and Subsection 3.1. We have considered your suggestion and added appropriate preceding paragraphs to provide a more comprehensive overview of the content and purpose of these sections. Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript and for providing such insightful feedback. We hope that the revised version of our paper meets your expectations and adequately addresses any concerns you may have had.
Comment 4: No references from 2023.
Response to comment: Thank you for your comment regarding the references in our manuscript. We have included our field's most recent and high-quality literature, including 8 SCIE-ranked papers published in 2023. We hope these references provide a robust and up-to-date foundation for our research. Once again, thank you for your valuable feedback.
