CDDO–HS: Child Drawing Development Optimization–Harmony Search Algorithm

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper needs to be revised and the following issues must be addressed properly:

1. In the abstract, the research purpose has been stated repeatedly. It should be revised.

2. In the introduction section, some general statements have been written. The authors should provide more details.

- "This algorithm produced significant results and outperformed other metaheuristic algorithms such as PSO, DE, 71 WOA, GSA, and FEP." is too general."

- "It has improved exploitation capability by utilizing an updating mechanism. "

2. In the Introduction it would be better to include a classification of different metaheuristics, and modern methods, such as thermal exchange optimization and water strider algorithm can be introduced to interested readers.

3. In tables, the best results should be written in bold regardless of the algorithm (e.g., Table 1).

4. In Figure 2, the resolution should be enhanced.

5. It would be better to include some convergence curves to show how the algorithm solves different types of problems and discuss the convergence speed of algorithms.

6. Have shifted functions been considered in this study? If not please test the function and present results.

7. The references must be improved and recent studies and books in the field must be included.

8. The paper needs to be proofread and grammar mistakes must be addressed. For example, in conclusion: "In practically all functions, ..." should be revised.

Author Response

Point # 1

The paper needs to be revised and the following issues must be addressed properly:

1. In the abstract, the research purpose has been stated repeatedly. It should be revised.
2. In the introduction section, some general statements have been written. The authors should provide more details.

- "This algorithm produced significant results and outperformed other metaheuristic algorithms such as PSO, DE, 71 WOA, GSA, and FEP." is too general."

- "It has improved exploitation capability by utilizing an updating mechanism. "

Action and response#

Thanks for the valuable comment. The manuscript has been updated. 

 Point # 2

T In the Introduction it would be better to include a classification of different metaheuristics, and modern methods, such as thermal exchange optimization and water strider algorithm can be introduced to interested readers.

Action and response#

Thanks, and we updated the description.

  Point # 3

In tables, the best results should be written in bold regardless of the algorithm (e.g., Table 1).

Action and response#

Thanks and we updated the Tables.

 Point # 4

In Figure 2, the resolution should be enhanced.

Action and response#

Thanks and we enhanced the resolution of Figure 2.

Point # 5

It would be better to include some convergence curves to show how the algorithm solves different types of problems and discuss the convergence speed of algorithms.

Action and response#

Thanks, and we include two convergence curves (see Figures 3 and 4)

 Point # 6

Have shifted functions been considered in this study? If not please test the function and present results.

Action and response#

Thanks, we have certainly used it, as mentioned in the first set of functions in Table 1 and Appendix Table A1. 

Point # 7

The references must be improved and recent studies and books in the field must be included.

Action and response#

Thanks, and we improved, and we used recent studies and books in the field.

Point # 8

The paper needs to be proofread and grammar mistakes must be addressed. For example, in conclusion: "In practically all functions, ..." should be revised.

Action and response#

Thanks for the valuable comment, the manuscript has been updated. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1.In Section 2, before describing the method, it is recommended to formulate the statement of the optimization problem under study, including cost function, LB, UP, etc.

2.The designation on the right side of (3) is given without explanation.

3. It is necessary to explain the used operations rand(j), rand(0,j) in (3) and (5).

4. There is no explanation of the expression on the right side of (4). It is not clear whether the variable j can take on the value 0.

5. It is not clear why the lower dot is used in (6) and (7).

6. The notation Xi, Xi+1 in (6), (7) contradicts that used in (1).

7. The expression on line 228 contains an open square bracket.

8. The designation of the left side in (9) and (10) contradicts (8).

9. The value of bw in (10) is not determined.

10. In Section 4, calculation formulas should be given to explain the novelty and contribution of the authors.

Author Response

Point # 1

In Section 2, before describing the method, it is recommended to formulate the statement of the optimization problem under study, including cost function, LB, UP, etc.

Action and response#

Thanks for the valuable comment, the manuscript has been updated. 

Point # 2

The designation on the right side of (3) is given without explanation.

Action and response#

Thanks and we updated the explanation.

Point # 3

It is necessary to explain the used operations rand(j), rand(0,j) in (3) and (5).

Action and response#

Thanks and we updated the manuscript.

Point # 4

There is no explanation of the expression on the right side of (4). It is not clear whether the variable j can take on the value 0.

Action and response#

Thanks and we updated the manuscript.

Point # 5

It is not clear why the lower dot is used in (6) and (7).

Action and response# 

Thanks for the valued comment. The matrices must have a common inner dimension. So, in both equations, we used a set of random vector numbers SR (Skill Rate) and LR (Level Rate), and the equation matrix product may be not equal to the formula element-wise product. Therefore, when multiplication of two vectors in MATLAB, we need to put a lower dot.

Point # 6

The notation Xi, Xi+1 in (6), (7) contradicts that used in (1).

Action and response#

Thanks and we updated the notation.

Point # 7

The expression on line 228 contains an open square bracket.

Action and response#

Thanks and we changed the open square bracket.

Point # 8

The designation of the left side in (9) and (10) contradicts (8).

Action and response# 

Thanks and we updated the designation.

Point # 9

The value of bw in (10) is not determined.

Action and response#

Thanks and we determined The value of bw (0.04).

Point # 10

In Section 4, calculation formulas should be given to explain the novelty and contribution of the authors.

Action and response# 

Thanks and we updated the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is properly revised and can be considered for publication.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

I appreciate the time and effort you have taken to carefully review my manuscript and provide thoughtful feedback. Your comments have not only helped me to improve the quality of my research, but have also served as a valuable learning experience for me.

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Formula (4) is not clear.

2. The designations in (5) do not correspond to those used in (4).

3. Explanations of the use of the lower point in (6), (7) due to the use of Matlab raise objections. Formulas should not depend on any means of computer mathematics.

Author Response

Comment# 1

Formula (4) is not clear.

Action and response# Thanks for the valued comment and the manuscript has been updated. 

Comment# 2

The designations in (5) do not correspond to those used in (4).

Action and response# Thanks and we updated the formula of function No. (4).

Comment# 3

Explanations of the use of the lower point in (6), (7) due to the use of Matlab raise objections. Formulas should not depend on any means of computer mathematics.

Action and response# Thanks for the valued comment. We eliminated and disregarded the lower point in functions No. 6 and 7.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx