Interval Uncertainty Optimization Method for Electromagnetic Orbital Launcher
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Congratulations on an interesting paper. However, a few points are still unclear.
1. Some sentences in the text are, in my opinion, redundant. For example, the second sentence (in the introduction):
“Nowadays, the commonly used electrical equipment performance optimization scheme is a combination of proxy model and algorithm to find the best, first based on the existing data to establish the proxy model between design parameters and performance data, and then use genetic algorithm[3], particle swarm optimization (PSO)[4] and differential evolution algorithm[5] based on the proxy model. The optimal solution or better solution set is obtained by using classical optimization algorithms such as genetic algorithm, particle swarm optimization (PSO), and differential evolution algorithm.”
2. The introduction can be significantly improved by citing and describing the results from the references in a meaningful way. The text in the introduction could also be sensibly divided into paragraphs.
3. In row 138, what the AT label stands for?
4. In Equation 5 it is not clear what s.t. means, this needs to be clarified. Also, There is also a mistake in the interpretation of the labels. You have described X twice and instead of describing U.
5. In equation 16, brackets are probably missing.
6. In Chapter 4 you did not explain how you used Deep Belief Networks (DBN) and Deep Neural Networks (DNN) to solve this complex multi-objective optimisation scenario with a dual-layer model. How were DBN and DNN implemented? In which software environment? If you have the programming code, please post it. Or at least describe it.
7. You also mention the Adam Optimiser rebellion. You should also write more about the implementation of this tool. How have you adapted your model to use the Adam Optimiser?
8. The reader will find useful information about the software and hardware environment in which the multi-objective optimisation algorithm was implemented and tested.
There are a few typographical errors in the text. I suggest a careful review by a native speaker.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In the introduction, a better structure should be presented that allows scientists to appreciate from what has been done in the literature what advantages and disadvantages it brings to use the proposed deterministic method.
At the end of the instruction, the structure of the entire article must be shown.
Section 1 is missing an equation that describes the curve or the method by which the data in Figure 2 were obtained.
The example words are attached pasted on line 142 and “inFigure” appears, you should separate the space of equation 6 and equation 7
Electromagnetic thrust is not very well explained in a function, the same happens with the current density.
The research lacks a study or probabilistic explanation of the sources of uncertainty.
The writing quality of the article is good.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
