Enhancing Building Energy Management: Adaptive Edge Computing for Optimized Efficiency and Inhabitant Comfort^†

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

There is the following standard IEC TR 63097:2017 Smart grid standardization roadmap. This standard regulates all the processes described in the article. Tell me, please, what standards regulate the process of generating electricity?

The conclusions indicate optimization of electricity consumption. The article does not say a word about the nominal value of the voltage of the electrical network. What is the nominal voltage of the electrical network?

Give a real example with data on the consumption of houses and the cross-section of cable lines.

English at a high level.

Author Response

We would like to express our gratitude for your thoughtful comments and inquiries regarding our manuscript. Your input is highly appreciated. We have already added more information to clarify the previous questions.

There is the following standard IEC TR 63097:2017 Smart grid standardization roadmap. This standard regulates all the processes described in the article. Tell me, please, what standards regulate the process of generating electricity?

In response to your query about the standards regulating the process of generating electricity, we have taken your suggestion into account. We have now incorporated the standard IEC TR 63097:2017, the Smart Grid Standardization Roadmap, into our research framework. This standard provides a comprehensive framework for smart grid standardization and aligns with the processes described in our article. We have reviewed and revised our article to ensure that it aligns with the guidelines and recommendations outlined in this standard.

Our research remains primarily focused on optimizing electricity consumption within households through data collection and analysis. However, we now acknowledge and incorporate the suggested standard to enhance the comprehensiveness and robustness of our work.

The conclusions indicate optimization of electricity consumption. The article does not say a word about the nominal value of the voltage of the electrical network. What is the nominal voltage of the electrical network?

Our study spans pilot locations in Spain. In Spain, the standard voltage is 230 V, and the frequency is 50 Hz, which is consistent with most European countries. Therefore, appliances rated for this voltage and frequency can be used in Spain without the need for voltage converters.

We have taken note of your suggestion, and we will include this information in our article to provide a comprehensive overview of the electrical specifications in the pilot location.

Give a real example with data on the consumption of houses and the cross-section of cable lines.

We included the example in the chapter discussion.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks for this intensive and timely manuscript. The research overall is interesting and adds to knowledge. You have adopted thorough literature review and integrated research approach. There are some areas for improvement.

First: you may consider revising the research title to be more readable and attractive for the audience.

Second, please strengthen the significance of the research in the introduction by highlighting the impact of Adaptive and Intelligent Edge Computing on BEMS usage for effectiveness and efficiency outcomes in relation to energy saving …etc

Third, please consider minimizing your key words and focus on the most relevant key words that distinct your research.

Fourth, there is not discussion in your research the discussion section (7) is implications not discussion. Please discuss your findings and compare it with previous research findings.

Fifth, please give directions for future research in the conclusion section.

 Best regards

the English language overall is fine. Minor issues were spotted 

Author Response

We would like to express our gratitude for your thoughtful comments and inquiries regarding our manuscript. Your input is highly appreciated.

Thanks for this intensive and timely manuscript. The research overall is interesting and adds to knowledge. You have adopted thorough literature review and integrated research approach. There are some areas for improvement.

First: you may consider revising the research title to be more readable and attractive for the audience.

We changed the tittle to: Enhancing Building Energy Management: Adaptive Edge Computing for Optimized Efficiency and Inhabitant Comfort

Second, please strengthen the significance of the research in the introduction by highlighting the impact of Adaptive and Intelligent Edge Computing on BEMS usage for effectiveness and efficiency outcomes in relation to energy saving …etc

We have already added more information to clarify the previous sugestion in Introduction and Conclusion.

Third, please consider minimizing your key words and focus on the most relevant key words that distinct your research.

We reduced the keywords.

Fourth, there is not discussion in your research the discussion section (7) is implications not discussion. Please discuss your findings and compare it with previous research findings.

We have modified this section to include the suggestions made

Fifth, please give directions for future research in the conclusion section.

We have included two paragraphs in the Conclusions and Future Work section explaining the future direction of the research.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors revised the manuscript based on the previous review.

Thus, I recommend the manuscript for publication.

Minor comments:

- Detailed titles are required for tables and figures.

- Highlight the research contributions in Introduction.

None.

Author Response

We would like to express our gratitude for your thoughtful comments and inquiries regarding our manuscript. Your input is highly appreciated.

The authors revised the manuscript based on the previous review.

Thus, I recommend the manuscript for publication.

Minor comments:

- Detailed titles are required for tables and figures.

To provide more detail, we have revised all table and figure headings.

- Highlight the research contributions in Introduction.

We have already added more information to attach the previous sugestion in Introduction.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors proposed an edge  computing architecture based on virtual organizations, federated learning and deep reinforcement  learning algorithms for optimized energy use in buildings/homes and demand response.

I have the following comments for improvement:
- The abstract should include more details about the main contribution of the paper.

- The main contributions of the paper should be highlighted clearly at the end of the introduction section as built-form. 

- The state of art section is presented clearly, however, we need to highlight the main research gaps at the end of the state of art section to show how this work fill these research gaps. 

- Figure 6. Pilot testing facility in the University of Salamanca. is not clear. 

- Figure 12. Weather panel. is not clear. 

- More details are required about Figure 7. Final architecture implementation. 

- The conclusion part should be rewritten to highlight clearly the achieved results and the future research direction. 

- There are missing figure number e.g. and an occupancy of 15 people, see Figure ??. 

- The figures should be mentioned in text before presenting them. 

Good luck

The authors proposed an edge  computing architecture based on virtual organizations, federated learning and deep reinforcement  learning algorithms for optimized energy use in buildings/homes and demand response.

I have the following comments for improvement:
- The abstract should include more details about the main contribution of the paper.

- The main contributions of the paper should be highlighted clearly at the end of the introduction section as built-form. 

- The state of art section is presented clearly, however, we need to highlight the main research gaps at the end of the state of art section to show how this work fill these research gaps. 

- Figure 6. Pilot testing facility in the University of Salamanca. is not clear. 

- Figure 12. Weather panel. is not clear. 

- More details are required about Figure 7. Final architecture implementation. 

- The conclusion part should be rewritten to highlight clearly the achieved results and the future research direction. 

- There are missing figure number e.g. and an occupancy of 15 people, see Figure ??. 

- The figures should be mentioned in text before presenting them. 

Good luck

Author Response

We would like to express our gratitude for your thoughtful comments and inquiries regarding our manuscript. Your input is highly appreciated.

The authors proposed an edge  computing architecture based on virtual organizations, federated learning and deep reinforcement  learning algorithms for optimized energy use in buildings/homes and demand response.

I have the following comments for improvement:
- The abstract should include more details about the main contribution of the paper.

We have change this section.

- The main contributions of the paper should be highlighted clearly at the end of the introduction section as built-form. 

We have already added more information in this regard.

- The state of art section is presented clearly, however, we need to highlight the main research gaps at the end of the state of art section to show how this work fill these research gaps. 

We add a last subsection with the research gaps in the state of art

- Figure 6. Pilot testing facility in the University of Salamanca. is not clear. 

The image has been enlarged to make it more visible.

- Figure 12. Weather panel. is not clear. 

The image has been enlarged to make it more visible.

- More details are required about Figure 7. Final architecture implementation. 

This information is in subsection 5.3 Architecture Implementation

- The conclusion part should be rewritten to highlight clearly the achieved results and the future research direction. 

We have rewrote this section and include two paragraphs explaining the future direction of the research.

- There are missing figure number e.g. and an occupancy of 15 people, see Figure ??. 

Repared

- The figures should be mentioned in text before presenting them. 

Revised

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

There are some typos and grammar mistakes.

REVISAR LA SOLUCION DESARROLLADA DE HACE ASI

REHACER AL FINAL INDICANDO ESTRUCTURA FINAL DEL DOCUMENTO

The above text is non-English text that should be removed from the manuscript.

Section 2 and its subsections are extremely long. There is many background information which can be found in many textbooks. The manuscript is already lengthy and you should remove all the unnecessary text.

I also noticed that there are many unncessary explanation in section 3 and its subsections. You should limit the elaboration of the work by focusing on the main key points of the work.

The term DSO has been first introduced in subsection 3.1. without providing the full name. Then, the full name of the term has been given in subsection 3.1.1. You should provide the full meaning of the term in subsection 3.1.

The caption of Table 1 is very short and not informative. You should provide a more descriptive and informative caption for Table 1.

There are many methods for gathering and evaluating the required experimental datasets.

The author didn’t list these methods in the paper. You should name these methods and provide the relevant references.

…..  at the different layers have been defined, Table ??, and are…..

You have to correct the table name in the above sentence

The discussion section should be combined with the result section. It is unnecessary to have a discussion section apart from the result. You can provide the discussion together with the result in one section.

The conclusion section is extremely long and should be shortened. You should write the conclusion in one single paragraph. It is uncommon to have multiple paragraphs in the conclusion section.

The abbreviation section at the end of the manuscript should be removed. This is not a thesis or a textbook that provides a list of abbreviations!

The number of references is also very long. There are up to 131 references listed in the paper. However, this is a large number of references to be listed in a research paper. If this is an SLR paper, then it makes sense to have a large number of references. I would suggest dropping some of the old and less relevant references.

The captions of some figures are very short and non-informative. You need to write a more descriptive and informative caption for the figures. This will help readers to understand the content of the figure.

Also, the number of keywords listed in the paper is very long. You should not add more than 5 keywords to the paper.

The discussion of related works should be listed in chronological order. You should present and examine the related works from oldest to newest. I noticed that the order of the discussion of the related works in section 2 was incorrect. 

The paper requires language editing. There are many grammar mistakes and spelling errors in many sentences.  

Author Response

We would like to express our gratitude for your thoughtful comments and inquiries regarding our manuscript. Your input is highly appreciated.

The above text is non-English text that should be removed from the manuscript.

Already removed

Section 2 and its subsections are extremely long. There is many background information which can be found in many textbooks. The manuscript is already lengthy and you should remove all the unnecessary text.

We reduced text in section 2 remandin the most important information

I also noticed that there are many unncessary explanation in section 3 and its subsections. You should limit the elaboration of the work by focusing on the main key points of the work.

We reduced text in section 3 remandin the most important information

The term DSO has been first introduced in subsection 3.1. without providing the full name. Then, the full name of the term has been given in subsection 3.1.1. You should provide the full meaning of the term in subsection 3.1.

 Included

The caption of Table 1 is very short and not informative. You should provide a more descriptive and informative caption for Table 1.

 Changed

There are many methods for gathering and evaluating the required experimental datasets.

 The author didn’t list these methods in the paper. You should name these methods and provide the relevant references.

 Included

…..  at the different layers have been defined, Table ??, and are…..

You have to correct the table name in the above sentence

   Corrected

The discussion section should be combined with the result section. It is unnecessary to have a discussion section apart from the result. You can provide the discussion together with the result in one section.

 Done

The conclusion section is extremely long and should be shortened. You should write the conclusion in one single paragraph. It is uncommon to have multiple paragraphs in the conclusion section.

 In order to include the comments from the other authors, we have not been able to make this suggestion

The abbreviation section at the end of the manuscript should be removed. This is not a thesis or a textbook that provides a list of abbreviations!

 Done

The number of references is also very long. There are up to 131 references listed in the paper. However, this is a large number of references to be listed in a research paper. If this is an SLR paper, then it makes sense to have a large number of references. I would suggest dropping some of the old and less relevant references.

 Reduced

The captions of some figures are very short and non-informative. You need to write a more descriptive and informative caption for the figures. This will help readers to understand the content of the figure.

 Changed

Also, the number of keywords listed in the paper is very long. You should not add more than 5 keywords to the paper.

 Reduced

The discussion of related works should be listed in chronological order. You should present and examine the related works from oldest to newest. I noticed that the order of the discussion of the related works in section 2 was incorrect. 

 Changed

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments taken into account. The work can be accepted for publication.

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors address my previous comments. 

The authors address my previous comments.