Research on Resource Consumption Standards for Highway Electromechanical Equipment Based on Monte Carlo Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The limitations of the traditional methods can be further explained in the background introduction to highlight the innovation and applicability of the methods used in the article.
2. The use of certain technical terms can be further standardized.
3. Formulas and charts can be made more concise.

Author Response

We sincerely thank you for your thoughtful comments and suggestions. A detailed point-by-point response has been provided in the attached file. We have carefully considered all feedback and revised the manuscript accordingly. We truly appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our work.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research is aimed at solving the problem of standardizing resource consumption in the construction of road electromechanical equipment. The authors propose in their work to use probabilistic modeling using the Monte Carlo method to more accurately predict construction costs.  However, in the course of reviewing the study, I had the following questions and comments. 
The scientific novelty of the research lies in modeling based on the standard Monte Carlo method, which has long been used in similar tasks. I would like to update the scientific novelty... The authors use the normal distribution in the study, but do not consider the possibility of other types, which would make it possible to choose the best option.... When verifying the obtained modeling data, the authors obtained an excellent result, which exactly coincides with state norms and standards. Such a coincidence devalues the relevance of the study, confirming the accuracy of the already developed standards and GOST standards ... Often the actual costs do not correspond to the planned ones and it may be worthwhile to compare the data obtained with the actual costs.…

Author Response

We sincerely thank you for your thoughtful comments and suggestions. A detailed point-by-point response has been provided in the attached file. We have carefully considered all feedback and revised the manuscript accordingly. We truly appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our work.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study proposes a probabilistic framework using Monte Carlo simulation to establish resource consumption standards for highway electromechanical equipment. I think this research takes a really unique angle and works as a solid upgrade to the traditional deterministic methods. Authors demonstrate how stochastic modeling captures variability in construction processes, and the results also validate the model’s accuracy and practical relevance.

1. The last sentence in paragraph 4 of the Introduction feels out of place. It could be removed since paragraph 5 directly response to the current research limitations.
2. In paragraph 5 of the Introduction, besides Monte Carlo, other methods like LDA topic modeling also handle probabilistic modeling. Authors should add a brief discussion and explain their pros/cons and why Monte Carlo was chosen instead. A quick comparison would strengthen the rationale.
3. All figures in the PDF are hard to see. They need to be replaced with higher-resolution versions for better clarity.
4. In Table 7, the deviation for the 3t electric cart (6.79%) exceeds the 5% threshold seen in other items. The authors should address this outlier explicitly.
5. If I understand correctly, the author's original sample only has 40 sets? Monte Carlo simulation requires the same feature distribution as the original data. Is 40 sets of samples too small? The author may need to acknowledge the drawbacks of the small sample size (40 datasets) on the model's robustness in the limitations.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English expression is generally clear and appropriate.

Author Response

We sincerely thank you for your thoughtful comments and suggestions. A detailed point-by-point response has been provided in the attached file. We have carefully considered all feedback and revised the manuscript accordingly. We truly appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our work.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors tried to answer many of the comments, but I did not see an answer to the question about the adequacy of the probability distribution model for predicting the necessary resources with actual costs. In your study, you use national standards. Please specify which specific national building standards were used for comparison. I will add comments to the abstract: the information should be structured more clearly. I recommend highlighting the purpose of the study, the methods, the results and conclusions. Clearly state which problem your research specifically solves and what its practical implications are.

Author Response

We sincerely thank you for your thoughtful comments and suggestions. A detailed point-by-point response has been provided in the attached file. We have carefully considered all feedback and revised the manuscript accordingly. We truly appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our work.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx