Reviewer has chosen not 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: Satisfactory
Level of English: Satisfactory
Overall presentation: Good

Detailed Comments:

The paper has addressed my minor comments and I believe they have attempted to address the other reviewer comments too.

I believe the paper is relevant for the inaugural issue of the journal.

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: Limited
Organization of the paper: Satisfactory
Level of English: Satisfactory
Overall presentation: Good

Detailed Comments:

Thanks the authors for the response and update the presentation of the manuscript. Before acceptance, I believe there are some minor revisions should be made to answer the following questions.

What do you mean by “real-time” and “posthoc”? What's the point of posthoc reasoning if an accident has already occurred?

Section 2.3: The introduction to the knowledge graph here is too general. Could you describe what a knowledge graph in the traffic field should look like?

Section 4.1: In fact, there are many problems to be solved from QA to real-world traffic application. Why stop at QA?

Typo:

The abbreviation of Fig. 2 in the figure caption does not consist with others.

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: Satisfactory
Level of English: Satisfactory
Overall presentation: Good

Detailed Comments:

The revised version of the paper has been considerably improved and the authors have managed to address the reviewers' comments as outlined below:

- The examples added in Sections 2 and 4 help to position the role of the proposed model within real-world scenarios of the traffic domain.

- The updated sections 2, 3, and 4 offer a review of previous research, enhanced by the inclusion of a new Figure 2. This figure schematically shows two main architectural patterns in neuro-symbolic methods for robust reasoning.

- The updated discourse in Section 5 further strengthens the position paper by addressing the limitations and clarifying the drawbacks of NeSy reasoning within the context of traffic scenarios.

In light of the aforementioned updates, I recommend accepting the position paper.