Evolutionary Game Dynamics between Distributed Energy Resources and Microgrid Operator: Balancing Act for Power Factor Improvement
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors- The simulation part needs more information. On what platform did you implement the simulation? What were the parameters you used?
- Other criteria like computational burden and complexity of the proposed approach should be presented.
- No comparison with existing approaches is provided.
- No experimental results were provided.
- What was the reason you selected IEEE 13-bus distribution system to conduct cases on? - On your case studies, did you consider various types of DERs (like pv, wind, ...)? Or were these DERs just assumed to produce some amount of active power? Considering different DERs might challenge the whole evolutionary game dynamics of interaction among DERs and MGO under various scenarios, in terms of complexity, reliability, resiliency, and so on so forth.
- What was the reason(s) behind selecting the buses to which the DERs are connected? For instance, why DER-2 is connected to 645? Have you tried multiple locations?
Comments on the Quality of English Language
- Language-wise, there are several grammatical and/or typographical errors. Like:
"The main contributions of this study encompasses the following aspects:"
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
1. The authors studied the dynamic relationship between microgrid distributed energy sources and operators and got conclusions, I suggest the authors to optimize Fig. 1 and Fig. 2.
2. The conclusion is too long and should be simplified.
3. The authors have illustrated and compared several evolutionary game models using graphs, the authors should give a more detailed account of the comparison.
4. Can several types of models be simulated or experimentally verified, if possible?
5. It is suggested that a topic map be added to the introduction to arouse the reader's interest.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The English writing of this paper can be appropriately revised.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAuthor introduced an noval method (EGT) to show equilibrium strategy between DERs and MGO in the microgrid. Four different comparative cases were presented as the sensitivity study to show the differences in cooperative and non-cooperative game scenarios. Few points needs to be addressed as shown below:
1. It is better to enhance Section 2.2 with more detatiled introduction of the evolution strategies.
2. Between line 135 and 136, you mentioned that DER does not generate any reactive power which is not rigorous since grid forming inverter based DER could generate active power. If the DER could generated reactive power, can your method deal with it?
3. In Section 3.2 why do you choose 250 cycles, 0.5 mutation rate and 20 population size? Is there any restrictions/limits for this number? If we choose a smaller number or a larger number, do it affect the results that you presnet?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGreat. The authors have successfully addressed the concerns raised by this reviewer.
Author Response
Great. The authors have successfully addressed the concerns raised by this reviewer.
Author Response: Thank you!
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. The revised text provides further improvements to the diagrams. And the revised text has been greatly improved by adding a block diagram of the thesis configuration in the introduction.
2.It is suggested that the authors put the comparison chart back in the same graph for a more visual comparison.
3.Appropriate editing of language.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish expressions may be appropriately modified.
Author Response
1.The revised text provides further improvements to the diagrams. And the revised text has been greatly improved by adding a block diagram of the thesis configuration in the introduction.
Author Response: Thank you.
2.It is suggested that the authors put the comparison chart back in the same graph for a more visual comparison.
Author Response: Thank you for the suggestion. A bar chart (Figure 13) showing the comparison of four cases has been added in the revised manuscript.
3.Appropriate editing of language.
Author Response: The manuscript has been thoroughly reviewed for any grammatical and typographical errors.
