Enhancing Control Room Operator Decision Making

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study proposes an AI-based framework that leverages dynamic influence diagrams and reinforcement learning to construct an effective decision support system. The subject of the article is very interesting. Unfortunately, there are significant omissions in the article. 

1-) What exactly is the contribution of the article to the literature? Also, what research gaps does the article attempt to fill? Research gaps and contributions should be written in detail. 

2-) The Literature Review section is very weak and not convincing. It should be rewritten. 

3-) Equations and formulae should be written in detail. Additionally, they should be explained in detail. 

4-) Discussion section should be extended. 

5-) Conclusion section is too short. Limitations and future research directions should be written. Besides, this section should be extended too. 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you for your insightful comments and constructive suggestions regarding our manuscript. In line with your valuable feedback, we have undertaken several key revisions to enhance the clarity, coherence, and overall quality of the paper.

1. Contribution and Research Gap: The section outlining our contribution has been thoroughly revised. We have now clearly specified the research gap our study addresses, ensuring that our contribution to the literature is distinctly articulated.
2. Literature Review: We have rewritten the literature review to more comprehensively engage with the subject matter. This revision includes the addition of more pertinent references.
3. Equations Detailed: The equations presented in the manuscript have been elaborated on to provide a clearer understanding.
4. Discussion Section: The discussion section of the manuscript has been rewritten and significantly extended. It now includes a comparative analysis with relevant articles and analogous investigations, providing a broader perspective on our findings.
5. Conclusion, Limitations, and Future Research: This part has been rewritten to include a discussion of the limitations of our study and potential avenues for future research. This addition aims to provide a balanced view of our work and its implications.

We believe that these revisions have improved our manuscript and hope that the changes meet your expectations. We are grateful for the opportunity to refine our work based on your feedback and look forward to any further suggestions you might have.

Sincerely,

Joseph Mietkiewicz

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

-When providing references in the "Introduction" section, it is crucial to: 1- Elucidate the significance of the topic, and 2- Elaborate on the specific issue being addressed within the context of the subject matter. 3.-Explain on the approach you employed to address the aforementioned challenge.

-You utilised a limited number of references in Chapter 1. Engage with the subject matter in a purposeful manner.

-The concept of "research gap" is not comprehended. Articulate it with precision. Your contribution to the literature is not noticed. Articulate the information using concise and unambiguous statements.

-Insert a descriptive text in the gap between Figure 2 and Figure 3. Sequentially arranging figures hinders the continuity.

-Figure 4 is very difficult to read. Please clarify.

-Avoid confining your analysis just to your own results in the Discussion or Conclusion sections. Conduct comparative analyses among various articles and analogous investigations. In contemporary times, these parts are generally composed with the inclusion of comparative analysis with reference articles.

-Kindly dedicate more time to the completion of the paper.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

-

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you for your insightful comments and constructive suggestions regarding our manuscript. In line with your valuable feedback, we have undertaken several key revisions to enhance the clarity, coherence, and overall quality of the paper.

1, 2, 3) The Introduction section has been comprehensively rewritten. We have made concerted efforts to ensure that it now provides a clearer context, sets a more precise research tone, and better aligns with the paper's objectives.

4. We have increased the size of Figures 1 and 3. This adjustment has been made to improve the visual representation and make efficient use of the available space.
5. We have reworked the caption and the content of Figure 4 for enhanced clarity.
6. The sections on Discussion and Conclusion have been completely rewritten. This revision was carried out to provide a more robust analysis and a clearer synthesis of the research findings.

We believe that these revisions have improved our manuscript and hope that the changes meet your expectations. We are grateful for the opportunity to refine our work based on your feedback and look forward to any further suggestions you might have.

Sincerely,

Joseph Mietkiewicz

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript proposes an interesting study regarding the implementation of a tool that supports control room operators during critical process disturbances by means of reinforcement learning algorithms.

The manuscript is well-organized and its application to an industrial production process can be of interest to the journal’s target audience.

However, before considering it for publication, some improvements are needed.

First, in the introduction, research motivations should be clearly defined taking into account extant studies on similar topics.

Section 3 appears too brief: additional information on the statistical analyses carried out as well as on their selection is needed.

Another major criticality is related to the discussion of results: the Authors should elaborate more on both the practical findings and the research insights of the current study compared to similar works.

Finally, text proofreading is needed to both correct typos and refine the language (e.g. the term efficient/efficiency is used many times, although from an engineering perspective sometimes the term effective/effectiveness would have been more appropriate).

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Text proofreading is needed to both correct typos and refine the language (e.g. the term efficient/efficiency is used many times, although from an engineering perspective sometimes the term effective/effectiveness would have been more appropriate).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

Thank you for your insightful comments and constructive suggestions regarding our manuscript. In line with your valuable feedback, we have undertaken several key revisions to enhance the clarity, coherence, and overall quality of the paper.

1.  We have revised the Introduction to more clearly define our research motivations. This now includes a better alignment with existing studies on similar topics, providing a stronger context and rationale for our work.
2. We have expanded Section 3 (now section 2.5) to provide additional details on the statistical analyses carried out. This enhancement aims to offer a more comprehensive understanding of our methodology.
3. The Discussion section has been significantly elaborated to provide deeper insights into both the practical findings of our study and how it compares to similar research. This revision aims to highlight the unique contributions and implications of our work more effectively.

We believe that these revisions have improved our manuscript and hope that the changes meet your expectations. We are grateful for the opportunity to refine our work based on your feedback and look forward to any further suggestions you might have.

 

Sincerely,

 

Joseph Mietkiewicz

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Decision support systems are not intended to supplant the critical thinking skills of operators but rather to augment their decision-making capabilities in high-stress or complex situations where human cognitive limitations might hinder optimal outcomes. The deployment of decision support is most beneficial in scenarios where operators acknowledge the

limits of their expertise or when faced with information overload. Additionally, decision support systems can serve as valuable educational tools for novice operators. Why can they act as a virtual mentor, guiding less experienced personnel through the decision-making process in simulated or low-risk environments? 

 

Decision support systems are necessary but must be employed with caution. Their optimal use appears to be in safety-critical scenarios where they can provide crucial guidance to operators overwhelmed by the situation. Overall, decision support systems are invaluable tools that, when used appropriately, can significantly enhance operator performance in complex industrial environments. You could present some concrete examples to illustrate this point. 

 

Physical Value Node with Stripes is a node that represents the physical values from the previous time step. It is linked to the current physical value node to model the influence of past states on the present. Additionally, it is connected to the decision node to represent the operator’s ability to observe past physical values and make informed decisions in future time steps. More explanations are needed.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language of this paper is not good. I recommend professional editing if possible. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 4,

Thank you for your insightful comments and constructive suggestions regarding our manuscript. In line with your valuable feedback, we have undertaken several key revisions to enhance the clarity, coherence, and overall quality of the paper.

1.  Upon reflection and considering your feedback, we have decided to remove the mention of the virtual mentor from the manuscript. This concept was initially included based on expert consultation, but further analysis was not conducted in the scope of this study. We agree that without additional exploration or evidence, its inclusion may not contribute significantly to the paper's core message.
2.  We have entirely rewritten the conclusion part of the manuscript to better reflect the nuances and complexities of employing decision support systems (DSS) in industrial environments.
3.  The description of the Physical Value Node with Stripes has been thoroughly revised for improved clarity. In the revised manuscript, we provide a more detailed explanation of how this node functions by representing physical values from the previous time step and its significance in influencing future decisions.

We believe that these revisions have improved our manuscript and hope that the changes meet your expectations. We are grateful for the opportunity to refine our work based on your feedback and look forward to any further suggestions you might have.

Sincerely,

Joseph Mietkiewicz

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made the necessary edits. The article can therefore be published in this form. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Authors have satisfactorily improved the quality of the manuscript. Hence, it can be considered for publication.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My comments have been addressed. I appreciate the effort of the authors. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are still some grammatical errors and typos. The language needs to be improved.