Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper proposes a coordinated optimization approach for multi-timescale scheduling in diversified hospital energy systems. In general, the method is feasible and the results are promising. However, in the current form, there are many difficulties and doubts for understanding the paper. Therefore, some main questions should be concerned by authors.

1. In the introduction, some existing energy systems modeling and methods are suggested to add recently, e.g.:Optimal planning for integrated electricity and heat systems using CNN-BiLSTM-Attention network forecasts. Energy, 309:133042, 2024.
2. In the introduction, the cited references are too little, and it is recommended to add and analysis advantages and disadvantages of existing methods.
3. The main novelty and contributions are suggested to be further enhanced by comparing with existing literatures.
4. In 4.2.4 Case-Based Scheduling Analysis, it would be better if the obtained results of Hammerstein model are compared with other methods.

   5. The parameter values used in the proposed method need to be provided in detail.

Author Response

Response to Reviewers1

We greatly appreciate the constructive comments provided by the reviewers. We have carefully revised the paper according to the comments and provide point-by-point responses as follows:

Comment 1:.In the introduction, some existing energy systems modeling and methods are suggested to add recently, e.g.:Optimal planning for integrated electricity and heat systems using CNN-BiLSTM-Attention network forecasts.  Energy, 309:133042, 2024.

Response1: This reference has been added to the introduction, and the latest research background on energy system modeling has been expanded to highlight the research gaps and motivation of this study.

Comment 2:.In the introduction, the cited references are too little, and it is recommended to add and analysis advantages and disadvantages of existing methods.

Response2: More than 23 recent and classic references have been added to the Literature Review section, with their advantages and disadvantages summarized, clearly identifying research gaps.

Comment 3.The main novelty and contributions are suggested to be further enhanced by comparing with existing literatures.

Response: Enhanced explanations of contribution points have been added to the Introduction and Discussion sections, with comparisons made against existing methods such as the Hammerstein model and single-layer MILP approaches.

Comment 4.In 4.2.4 Case-Based Scheduling Analysis, it would be better if the obtained results of Hammerstein model are compared with other methods.

Response: We have added references and comparisons to Hammerstein model results, explaining the advantages of our method in terms of dynamic response and multi-timescale coordination.

Comment 5. The parameter values used in the proposed method need to be provided in detail.

Response: A complete parameter table has been added to Section 4.1 Simulation Environment and Parameter Configuration, including DRL parameters, MILP parameters, and system parameters, ensuring the reproducibility of the method.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript proposes a coordinated optimization approach for multi-timescale scheduling in diversified hospital energy systems. Please consider the following comments.

1. The manuscript states that DRL-based decision-making is combined with MILP-based scheduling, but does not provide a detailed description of the integration methodology between the two approaches.
2. Detailed descriptions of the DRL network architecture and hyperparameters are required.
3. The sensitivity factors of the proposed management method require thorough discussion.
4. The manuscript mentions the use of typical days and their occurrence probabilities within a month, but does not explain the clustering method for typical days, the sampling period, or the sources and validation of meteorological/load data.
5. The operational boundaries of the microgrid are not sufficiently described.
6. The literature review needs to be strengthened by incorporating both recent and classic studies, such as research on battery management problems across long and short time scales (e.g., 10.1109/TITS.2024.3494734).
7. Other issues include inconsistencies between the author’s name and the corresponding author’s name, discrepancies between terminology used in the abstract and the main text, undefined symbols, and numerous grammatical and formatting errors throughout the manuscript.

Author Response

Response to Reviewers2

We greatly appreciate the constructive comments provided by the reviewers. We have carefully revised the paper according to the comments and provide point-by-point responses as follows:

Comment 1.The manuscript states that DRL-based decision-making is combined with MILP-based scheduling, but does not provide a detailed description of the integration methodology between the two approaches.

Response1: A new subsection has been added to Chapter 3, detailing what DRL outputs, how MILP utilizes it, how the feedback mechanism works, and an interactive flow diagram has been included.

Comment 2.Detailed descriptions of the DRL network architecture and hyperparameters are required.

Response2: A parameter table has been added to Section 4.1, listing the TD3 network structure and all key hyperparameters.

Comment 3.The sensitivity factors of the proposed management method require thorough discussion.

Response3: Four categories of sensitivity analysis have been added to Section 4.2.6 (energy storage capacity, DRL hyperparameters, load forecasting errors, electricity price fluctuations), with additional tables and detailed discussions.

Comment 4.The manuscript mentions the use of typical days and their occurrence probabilities within a month, but does not explain the clustering method for typical days, the sampling period, or the sources and validation of meteorological/load data.

Response4: A new subsection has been added to Section 4.1, explaining the use of K-means clustering, data sources (hospital load and meteorological data), sampling methods, and error validation.

Comment 5.The operational boundaries of the microgrid are not sufficiently described.

Response5: An operational boundary table has been added to Section 3.2, including voltage frequency, energy storage SoC, diesel generator cold start, and photovoltaic harmonic constraints, formulated as mathematical equations.

Comment 6.The literature review needs to be strengthened by incorporating both recent and classic studies, such as research on battery management problems across long and short time scales (e.g., 10.1109/TITS.2024.3494734).

Response6: A new Chapter 2 Literature Review has been created, supplementing classic and latest literature, and incorporating references suggested by the reviewers.

Comment 7.Other issues include inconsistencies between the author’s name and the corresponding author’s name, discrepancies between terminology used in the abstract and the main text, undefined symbols, and numerous grammatical and formatting errors throughout the manuscript.

Response7: Author names and corresponding author information have been unified; terminology consistently uses "study"; a symbol table has been added; and the entire manuscript has undergone language polishing and formatting corrections.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Two vital main sections of the study are missing: Literature Review, Discussion. They have to be developed from the beginning and added to the revised manuscript. In developing the theoretical background of the Literature Review section in a more international scale, the following relevant study can be indicatively considered: DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.046. Moreover, the titles of existing sections 2,3,4, can be renamed, in order the total frame of formal main headings to be logically ordered as: 1.Introduction, 2.Literature Review, 3.Methods and Analysis, 4.Results, 5.Discussion, 6.Conclusions. All other titles of sections to be either renamed or inserted as subheadings beyond the aforementioned main headings.

 

2. Authors nominated their research work in the text five times as “study” (mainly case study), and other five times as “paper”. I would recommend to firmly and consistently follow the term “study” throughout the narrative flow (including Abstract and Tables’ or Figures’ legends/captions), not “paper”.

 

3. All equations of section 3 to be numbered as 1,2,3,……, and their terminology, values range taken in the study, as well as the units measured, to be all presented as a separate Table, or as a nomenclature Table, enabling a better association of theoretical with the analytical and the results parts to be made.

 

4. I agree with authors statement in the Abstract section saying that “The proposed method provides both theoretical and practical guidance for intelligent scheduling and energy management in complex hospital integrated energy systems.”, but in my opinion there is not firm and direct linkage of the study to electronics, but rather matching to mechanical engineering, optimization methods, power supply and designing: energy storage systems in long-term planning. I would recommend authors to determine what are those “electronics” characteristics of their study and to focus on better conveying/presenting them in their revised manuscript.

 

5. Besides to monetary terms of Table 6 “Annual Cost Savings” authors could add the equivalent financial information in either euros, or USD, for a broader international readership perception.

Author Response

Response to Reviewers3

We greatly appreciate the constructive comments provided by the reviewers. We have carefully revised the paper according to the comments and provide point-by-point responses as follows:

Comment 1.Two vital main sections of the study are missing: Literature Review, Discussion. They have to be developed from the beginning and added to the revised manuscript. In developing the theoretical background of the Literature Review section in a more international scale, the following relevant study can be indicatively considered: DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.046. Moreover, the titles of existing sections 2,3,4, can be renamed, in order the total frame of formal main headings to be logically ordered as: 1.Introduction, 2.Literature Review, 3.Methods and Analysis, 4.Results, 5.Discussion, 6.Conclusions. All other titles of sections to be either renamed or inserted as subheadings beyond the aforementioned main headings.

Response1: A new Chapter 2 Literature Review and Chapter 5 Discussion have been added, and the chapters have been reorganized as: 1. Introduction, 2. Literature Review, 3. Methods and Analysis, 4. Results, 5. Discussion, 6. Conclusions; other subsection titles have been adjusted accordingly.

Comment 2.Authors nominated their research work in the text five times as “study” (mainly case study), and other five times as “paper”. I would recommend to firmly and consistently follow the term “study” throughout the narrative flow (including Abstract and Tables’ or Figures’ legends/captions), not “paper”.

Response2: The terminology has been unified to "study" throughout, including the abstract, main text, tables, and figure captions.

Comment 3.All equations of section 3 to be numbered as 1,2,3,……, and their terminology, values range taken in the study, as well as the units measured, to be all presented as a separate Table, or as a nomenclature Table, enabling a better association of theoretical with the analytical and the results parts to be made.

 Response3: Equations have been renumbered (1,2,3...) and a Nomenclature Table has been added, listing symbol definitions, value ranges, and units.

Comment 4.I agree with authors statement in the Abstract section saying that “The proposed method provides both theoretical and practical guidance for intelligent scheduling and energy management in complex hospital integrated energy systems.”, but in my opinion there is not firm and direct linkage of the study to electronics, but rather matching to mechanical engineering, optimization methods, power supply and designing: energy storage systems in long-term planning. I would recommend authors to determine what are those “electronics” characteristics of their study and to focus on better conveying/presenting them in their revised manuscript.

Response4: In the introduction and discussion, the electronics characteristics of the research have been emphasized: reliance on power electronic interfaces (photovoltaic inverters, energy storage converters, UPS), integration of EMS/SCADA control, and applications in electronic intelligent control, thereby highlighting the alignment of the research with Electronics.

Comment 5.Besides to monetary terms of Table 6 “Annual Cost Savings” authors could add the equivalent financial information in either euros, or USD, for a broader international readership perception.

Response5: USD and EUR equivalents have been added to Table 6, based on average exchange rates from July 2025 (1 CNY = 0.14 USD = 0.13 EUR), with a note in the table caption.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The reviewer did not see any point-to-point modifications.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All comments have been revised.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been satisfactorily revised, having the reviewers’ comments addressed in an advanced analytical manner and further developing a systematic argumentation/discussion of results. In this context this revised manuscript can be accepted for publication at the Electronics journal as is.