Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper proposes three hybrid models combining the Coronavirus Herd Immunity Optimizer with Lévy Flight operators to solve the multi-objective appliance scheduling problem in smart IoT homes. The models aim to reduce electricity bills, minimize peak-to-average ratio, and improve user comfort. The best variant is compared with WDO, GWO, and DE across seven scenarios. The paper requires substantial revision to clarify methodological choices, strengthen experimental validation, and improve presentation quality before it can be considered for publication.

1). Section 3, equations (4), (9), and (10): The mathematical formulations of the three hybridization models are nearly identical except for which subpopulation is modified.  The authors should provide a clearer conceptual justification for why each placement of the Lévy operator leads to fundamentally different search behaviors, rather than simply describing the equations.

2). Section 5, Tables 7 to 11: The experimental results are inconsistent across evaluation metrics. For example, CHIOLF-1 outperforms others on EB cost reduction, CHIO performs best on PAR reduction, and CHIOLF-3 excels on WR reduction, yet the authors repeatedly claim CHIOLF-2 is superior overall. This conclusion is not well supported. 

3). Section 5.4: The comparison with WDO, GWO, and DE lacks sufficient experimental detail. It is unclear whether these algorithms were re-implemented with properly tuned parameters or whether the results were taken from previous publications. Please clarify the implementation settings and provide the parameter configurations used for each competitor algorithm.

4). Section 2, the literature review: Several cited references are from 2017-2018, which are relatively old for a fast-moving field. The authors should include and discuss more recent related works published after 2022, particularly those that also hybridize metaheuristics for smart home energy scheduling. This will help position the contribution more accurately.

5). Section 5.2 and Table 6: The parameter tuning process is not described in sufficient detail. The authors state that 30 independent runs were conducted and 1000 iterations were used, but they do not explain how the optimal control parameter values were systematically identified. A grid search or a sensitivity analysis should be added to justify the chosen values.

6). Throughout the manuscript: There are numerous grammatical errors, awkward phrasings, and typographical mistakes that affect readability. For instance, "the the Levy Flight" appears in the conclusion, and many sentences are overly complex. A thorough language revision by a native English speaker or a professional editing service is strongly recommended.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments, and please see the attached file. There is a list of response of the all the comments, point by point.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript with the title "Hybridizing of Multi-objective Coronavirus Herd Immunity Optimizer with Lévy Flight for Time Scheduling of Internet of Things Appliances in Smart Home", for "Mathematical and Computational Applications" international, peer-reviewed, open access journal addresses a particularly contemporary and practically important problem, which arises from the rapid penetration of Internet of Things devices in smart homes and the growing need for efficient energy management. The choice of the Appliance Energy Scheduling Problem in Smart Home ensures high scientific and social relevance, as it is linked to issues of energy efficiency, cost reduction, and improving users' quality of life. Particularly promising is the development of three hybrid architectures that combine the Coronavirus Herd Immunity Optimizer with the Lévy Flight mechanism, enabling the investigation of strategies for integrating the search mechanism into the algorithm's individual subpopulation structures. The work does not simply propose a new algorithm, but systematically compares alternative implementations of the same hybrid scheme, which strengthens its research credibility. Furthermore, the existence of a clear explanatory logic regarding the avoidance of local optima, the improvement of the exploration–exploitation balance, and the enhancement of the solution search process lends technical coherence to the proposed approach. The evaluation through multiple performance indicators and the comparison with established meta-heuristic methods in the literature further strengthen the validity of the results and enhance the practical utilization of the proposed solution in real optimization environments.

   Despite the significant technical contribution of the paper, some points could be further strengthened. First, the study focuses mainly on the development and evaluation of the proposed algorithm, without formulating with sufficient clarity the general theoretical framework that justifies why this particular form of hybridization is expected to improve the search behavior in energy scheduling problems. The argumentation remains mainly algorithmic and less theoretical. Second, the research hypotheses are formulated indirectly and arise mainly from the description of the methodology and the results. Their explicit presentation would facilitate the following of the logic that connects the proposed approach with the expected benefits. Furthermore, the evaluation is carried out on a specific optimization problem, which limits the external validity of the conclusions regarding the general effectiveness of the proposed hybrid schemes. It would be useful to investigate them on additional real-world problems or on established benchmark optimization problems. Finally, despite the performance improvements, the relative contribution of each of the Lévy Flight mechanisms is not analyzed in depth. A more detailed sensitivity and contribution analysis of the individual mechanisms would significantly enhance the work's interpretative and scientific value.  Specific points that would improve the content, structure, and format of the manuscript are the following:

1) Regarding the issue of interdisciplinary collaboration, I would like to note the following: This particular research group exhibits a high degree of inter-institutional collaboration and genuine interdisciplinarity. Each institution contributes distinct expertise (Artificial Intelligence, Metaheuristic Optimization, Cybersecurity, Internet of Things, Information Technology, and Energy Engineering), which is essential for the development, implementation, and evaluation of an advanced optimization system for smart homes. This collaboration is not merely a formal co-authorship but reflects a comprehensive research partnership that covers the entire research lifecycle: from mathematical modeling and algorithm development to its implementation in real IoT energy systems and the evaluation of its security and operational effectiveness. The organizers deserve great praise for putting together such an innovative project. However, I did not see anywhere in the article a section or even a detailed mention not only of the context of this valuable collaboration but also of its interdisciplinary nature. I mention this in good faith and as an example of best practice for all of us as researchers.

2) The extensive use of abbreviations in the title, abstract, and figure captions reduces readability and creates an unnecessary cognitive burden for readers who are not already familiar with the topic. We strongly recommend replacing abbreviations with their full forms in these locations and restricting abbreviation use to the main body of the manuscript.

3) We would suggest that the authors limit themselves to the academic context of scholarly publications. We would suggest that they reconsider the function of the abstract as an introductory text and remove any information or data that can and should be presented later. We believe that the abstract is the quintessential introductory text and should be treated with the appropriate conciseness. What I see as the abstract—aside from the fact that it is not an abstract—turns me off as a reader, as I do not understand why I should read the article. Please rewrite the summary as an introductory text.

4) We would also suggest that they reconsider the structure of the first section, which serves as an introduction and should include 1) the problem context, 2) the purpose, 3) the scientific questions, 4) the research questions, 5) the study’s stated objective, 6) the methodological approach, 7) the design tools, and finally, 8) the main findings, results, and contribution. All of this should be presented in concise, substantive, and focused sentences. Figure 1. "Architecture of a Smart Home Based on IoT Appliances" is an excellent illustration, but it does not explain the intent of the manuscript. The phrase “This research article involved several contributions, such as...” is insufficient, because the contributions cannot simply be “several” (sic!), but must be absolutely concrete and must address all the points we mentioned with the specific intent of solving specific problems.... At the end of the introduction, the authors should list the individual chapters of the article with a precise description, explanation, and justification in relation to the research questions and the rest of the manuscript.

5) As a general guideline, and before moving on to the remaining sections of the manuscript, we would suggest strengthening the theoretical framework of the article to clarify the logic behind the scientific explanation adopted. In particular, the phenomenon that the study seeks to explain should be clearly defined, as well as the theory that is proposed or tested to interpret it. At the same time, it is important to explicitly define the key variables of the research and the relationships between them, so that the internal logic of the research model is understandable. Furthermore, it would be helpful to clearly present the study’s main hypothesis, the explanatory hypotheses that constitute the theoretical argument, and the hypotheses that are subject to empirical testing. Finally, we consider it particularly important to highlight the explanatory mechanism of the research—that is, to explain how and through which intermediate processes or factors the observed result is produced. In this way, the reader can follow not only the study’s findings but also the theoretical rationale linking the phenomenon, the hypotheses, the variables, and the conclusions. Based on this, and before we move on to the mechanisms for comparing the algorithms, it would be helpful to clarify the basic theoretical concept underlying this scientific endeavor.

6) ..."modified such as [24–26], and hybrid approaches as in [27–29] ...": What you’re suggesting is the classic mistake of “bibliographic accumulation”! What’s the point of listing references together? We don’t use references simultaneously without explaining exactly what we’re referring to! References in an article serve as tools for substantiating evidence. The idea is that “every reference is there for a specific reason, and that reason must be evident in the manuscript”! Don’t allow confusion, and don’t let the reader interpret it “freely.” Rewrite and explain!!! Why do the authors cite every reference anywhere in the article? What is the purpose of each citation? Explain why you use every other study in your literature review. Correct this practice throughout the paper! Explain why you are citing any reference!

7) The chapter titled “Related Works” is not a strong “state of the art” review with the extensive comparative data one would expect from such a manuscript, but let’s assume it will remain as is. What is certain is that its brevity and narrow scope do not help. It certainly needs expansion, at least in the specific fields of reference: (a) Artificial Intelligence and Computational Optimization, for the development of the hybrid algorithm “Coronavirus Herd Immunity Optimizer–Lévy Flight”; (b) Internet of Things, for the management and scheduling of smart home devices; c) Energy Systems, so that the algorithm simultaneously minimizes cost, consumption, and peak load; d) Cybersecurity, to ensure that scheduling decisions and communications between IoT devices remain secure against attacks and data tampering. We mention the above suggestion because we realize that this particular article is not just about a new optimization algorithm, but in fact represents the synthesis of four major scientific fields. We consider it an extremely urgent and innovative idea, but how should it be supported in the manuscript? These guidelines (a, b, c, d) should help. 

8) Figure 2. The flowchart of the proposed hybrid CHIOLFs models is a complete and entirely satisfactory figure and fits perfectly with the context. However, we note that in the reading layout, the characters are small and the overall impression is blurry. It needs to be enlarged for the content to be understood. Perhaps changing the orientation to portrait would help, but I cannot comment on editorial matters. The publishers should also consider how Figure 2 can be reproduced. Similar issues exist with “Figure 3. Solution representation of the proposed hybrid CHIOLFs models.”

9) The "Problem Formulation" section and the subsequent steps are written in an exemplary manner. Congratulations. Try to bring the rest of the paper up to this standard as well. 

10) What exactly does the term "User Comfort" mean? Please explain it in the manuscript. 

11) The "Experimental Results" section completely lacks calibration of the measurements. Please provide a reference chart. 

12) To document your research and provide supporting evidence, you should note how the data were collected—using what methods or tools—and how they were organized into tables. The data didn’t just appear—you collected it! Please describe the collection procedures in detail for every table! 

13) Figure 4 and Figure 5: Please explain in detail which tool or software was used to generate the diagrams. If you deem it appropriate, please also include the commands used to create the diagrams in the appendix.

14) The conclusions do not draw sufficient inferences. First, the proportion of the final section is not evenly distributed relative to the rest of the manuscript. We would suggest that the conclusions provide full explanations for the scientific and research questions posed in the introduction. Next, highlight the overall added value of the research, beyond the standard comparison.  Begin the final review and conclusions not with the method or technology, but with the following questions:
What was the phenomenon?
What theory did we follow?
What was the main hypothesis?
What were the variables?
What was the causal mechanism?
How was it tested?
If any of these are missing, then the problem is usually not the statistics, but the “theoretical” framework and the study’s initial orientation. Finally, include the challenges encountered in implementing the various parts of the research, and conclude with suggestions for future research. Only such a comprehensive conclusion will do justice to the quality of your manuscript and the effort you have put into it. 

FINAL REMARKS

The manuscript successfully addresses a well-defined optimization problem and presents a systematic empirical evaluation through benchmarking and multiple performance indicators. The variables and expected outcomes of the proposed approach are well-defined, and the empirical tests consistently support the main findings. However, the paper remains mainly oriented towards the algorithm and its performance, without explicitly formulating the theoretical framework underlying the proposed improvements. Furthermore, the research hypotheses are not presented in a clear and distinct manner, and the explanatory mechanism through which the hybrid architecture leads to improved results is only partially developed. As a result, the manuscript convincingly documents that the proposed approach works effectively, but it is less clear why it works and to what extent the conclusions can be generalized beyond the specific optimization problem.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments, and please see the attached file. There is a list of response of the all the comments, point by point.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has made positive improvements in literature updates, baseline implementation explanations, and some visualizations. I agree to accept this article.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors of the "Hybridizing of Multi-objective Coronavirus Herd Immunity Optimizer with L\'{e}vy Flight for Time Scheduling of IoT Appliances in Smart Home" article worked according to the specifications of a high-impact journal, analytically and gave a real renewal to the content and form of the manuscript. 

         The addition of the CRediT statement has significantly enhanced the transparency of the manuscript regarding the distribution of research roles and more clearly highlights the interdisciplinary nature of the collaboration. This revision fully responded to the initial observation and improves the overall documentation of the research process. Replacing abbreviations with full terms in the title, abstract and figures has improved the readability of the article. This change has reduced the cognitive load of the reader and thus the manuscript has become more accessible to a wider scientific audience. The rewording of the abstract has significantly enhanced its introductory character. The new version now presents the subject, purpose and contribution of the study more clearly, without being burdened by unnecessary technical details. The revision of the introduction has substantially improved the structure and logical organization of the article. The clearer presentation of the research framework, objectives, and overall structure of the manuscript enhanced coherence and made it easier to follow the scientific argumentation.

     The additions made have significantly strengthened the theoretical background of the study and make clearer the mechanism through which the research results are interpreted. The authors' revision essentially responds to the relevant observations and improves the scientific documentation of the article. The revision of the way the bibliography is integrated has significantly improved the quality of the bibliographic documentation. The correlation of each reference with the corresponding scientific argument now makes the function of the bibliography review clearer. The expansion of the section of relevant works has substantially strengthened the position of the study in the contemporary research field. The better coverage of the individual scientific areas has more fully highlighted the interdisciplinary nature of the proposed approach and in this way the innovation of the work is more effectively supported.

    The improvement of the quality and readability of the figures is a significant development of the positive revision. The visual presentation of the proposed methodology is now clearer and significantly facilitates the understanding of the individual steps of the algorithm. This section maintains the high level of quality that was already highlighted during the initial evaluation, while the coherence and clarity of the presentation continue to be one of the strongest points of the manuscript. The strengthening of the description of the concept of User Comfort effectively clarifies the role of this variable in the proposed model. The additional explanations contributed to improving the conceptual clarity and overall understanding of the results. The addition of the calibration of the measurements and the corresponding graphical representation enhanced the reliability of the experimental evaluation. The presentation of the results is now more comprehensive and facilitates the interpretation of the comparative performance of the proposed models. 

    The more detailed description of the data collection and organization process significantly improved the methodological transparency of the study. The documentation of the origin of the data and the way they were used enhanced the reproducibility of the research. In addition, the clarification of the software used to produce the diagrams essentially complemented the technical description of the study. The relevant information enhanced the clarity of the presentation and facilitated the reproduction of the results. The revision of the conclusions section significantly improved the completion of the manuscript. The connection of the conclusions to the research questions, the highlighting of the scientific contribution and the reference to future research directions now make the final section of the article clearly stronger and more in line with the standards of an international scientific journal.

Congratulations!