By Anonymous User
Review Details
Reviewer has chosen to be Anonymous
Overall Impression: Good
Content:
Technical Quality of the paper: Good
Originality of the paper: Yes, but limited
Adequacy of the bibliography: Yes
Presentation:
Adequacy of the abstract: Yes
Introduction: background and motivation: Good
Organization of the paper: Needs improvement
Level of English: Satisfactory
Overall presentation: Good
Detailed Comments:
I thank the reviewers for their revision. I was Reviewer 1, and my third concern (emphasizing new contributions) and points of my first and second concern (notation / mathematical framework) have been solved.
However, the main comment from my first concern remains unanswered:
> [Reviewer 1, first concern] (...) the energy function $E$, symbolic function $g_{sy}$, and potential functions $\psi$ seem to all be different layers of abstraction of the same concept.
Notice that this concern is also shared by Reviewer 2.
> [Reviewer 2, first concern] (...) Section 3 introduces multiple abstraction layers (e.g., E to g_sy to psi) that feel redundant (...)
E and g_sy still denote the same concept. The formal definition of the potential \psi is moved to the Appendix but it also still maps to the same concept (also notice that it remains used without context in Fig 3). It's still not clear to me what purpose the new notations serve.
Simplifying these notations would also solve my concern second concern about the value of some components of the mathematical framework. As per my previous comment:
> [Reviewer 1, second concern] (...) Mapping the systems to the proposed framework essentially reduces them to a single equation for $g_{sy}$. The potential functions do not help clarify the frameworks' internal mechanics. I would simplify and condense much of the definitions of Section 3, focusing on $x_{nn}$, $g_{nn}$, $x_{sy}$, $g_{sy}$ .
The rebuttal answers "We retained the explicit g_nn / g_sy distinction (...)", which is now what I suggested to revise. I suggested to revise the E / g_ sy / psi distinction.
I still agree with Reviewer 2 and believe that collapsing E / g_sy / psi will make the paper easier to understand for future readers.
