CatBoost–Bayesian Hybrid Model Adaptively Coupled with Modified Theoretical Equations for Estimating the Undrained Shear Strength of Clay
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article is well-written. It has an appropriate structure and fits the profile of the journal. The topic addressed by the authors is of significant practical importance, and the research methods employed are current and highly advanced. The obtained results can be of interest to both practicing engineers and scientists conducting theoretical research. According to the reviewer, before publishing the article, only minor revisions/additions need to be made. Firstly, it is necessary to clearly define the reasons for undertaking the research topic described in the article and emphasize the new elements/new knowledge acquired by the authors as a result of the conducted research. Secondly, the quality of the included figures needs to be improved. The captions on figures 3-8 are too small and therefore unreadable. After implementing the changes mentioned above, the article is suitable for publication.
According to the reviewer, before publishing the article, only minor revisions/additions need to be made. Firstly, it is necessary to clearly define the reasons for undertaking the research topic described in the article and emphasize the new elements/new knowledge acquired by the authors as a result of the conducted research. Secondly, the quality of the included figures needs to be improved. The captions on figures 3-8 are too small and therefore unreadable. After implementing the changes mentioned above, the article is suitable for publication.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, I am writing to thank you for your valuable feedback in reviewing my articles. Thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedule to carefully review and evaluate my submission and for providing many helpful suggestions and comments that have been invaluable to me. I am pleased to inform you that I have made changes to my article according to your request, with the aim of better meeting your and the journal's expectations. I've thought through each of your suggestions and made changes accordingly. I believe these improvements will make my writing more clear, accurate, persuasive and useful. Thanks again for your comments and suggestions. Your expertise and valuable feedback have had a profound impact on my research. I look forward to your reassessment and guidance on my revised article. Yours sincerely Liu Zhikui Q1: First of all, it is necessary to clarify the reasons for carrying out the research topic described in the article, emphasizing the new elements/new knowledge acquired by the author through research. R1. Added content "Unlike the extensive traditional transformation model research based on empirical evidence, data-driven ensemble learning methods combined with traditional empirical models have received limited research attention in geotechnical engineering. Furthermore, Bayesian theory in soil The combined application of parameter uncertainty and probabilistic characterization of algorithmic optimization problems has not been systematically and coherently exploited. To address the above challenges, we conduct the following study", at the beginning of Section 4 (lines 456 - 462) Question 2: Second, the quality of the included figures needs to be improved. The title on Figure 3-8 is too small to read. R2. Figure 3-8 has been replaced or typeset to account for the title being too small (Lines 241, 258, 299, 339, 354, 374) Please view my revised manuscript (Paper 1.docx)
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
Congratulations on this work. The subject is an interesting one and for actuality.
Some necessary corrections:
The following sentences are not clear, please reformulate.
- Lines 30- 32 – In-situ …
- Lines 37- 38 – Or measurements …
- Lines 429 - 435– To further
Figure 1. It is “Wight expansion” or “Weight expansion” ?
Line 344 – Change “ASAOKA” to Asaoka
Lines 607 – 609 – change the letters to “Sentence” not to capital letters.
English is fine, just some sentences need to be reformulate in order to be clear.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I am writing to express my gratitude for the valuable feedback you provided while reviewing my article. Thank you for taking the time to carefully review and evaluate my submission amidst your busy schedule, and for providing many helpful suggestions and comments that are invaluable to me.
I am pleased to inform you that I have made revisions to my article as per your requirements, with the aim of better meeting your and the journal's expectations. I have carefully considered every suggestion you made and made changes accordingly. I believe these improvements will make my article more clear, accurate, persuasive, and useful.
Once again, thank you for your evaluation and suggestions. Your expertise and valuable feedback have a profound impact on my research. I look forward to your reevaluation and guidance on my revised article.
Best regards,
Zhikui Liu
Q1: Lines 30- 32 – In-situ …
R1. Amend the sentence in lines 30 - 32 by replacing the sentence "In situ cross-plate shear test in field test, direct shear test in laboratory test, triaxial compression test, etc. These direct measurement methods are not only time-consuming but also expensive [1]." with "Cross plate shear tests in the field, direct shear tests in the laboratory, triaxial compression tests, and other such direct measurement methods are time-consuming and expensive [1]."
Q2: Lines 37- 38 – Or measurements …
R2. Amend the sentence in lines 37 - 38 by replacing the sentence "Or measurements obtained from the Dilatometer Test (DMT) based on empirical equations [5,6]." with "Indirect methods also include measurements obtained from dilatometer tests (DMT) based on empirical equations [5,6]."
Q3: Lines 429 - 435– To further
R3. Amend the sentence in lines 430 - 435 by replacing the sentence "To further evaluate the performance of the CatBoost-Bayesian hybrid model proposed in this study to adaptively couple and modify the theoretical equation derived from the Cambridge model to estimate the undrained shear strength of clay, compare it with CatBoost-Bayesian and other similar LightGBM-Bayesian, XGBoost-Bayesian mixed model for comparison. Select the same number of iterations (trail=50), and use R2, Evar , RMSE, MAE quantitative evaluation indicators for evaluation (Figure 13, Table 4)." with "As shown in Figure 13, UCI_Su, NCI_Su, and OCI_Su demonstrate the performance of CatBoost-Bayesian hybrid model for estimating the undrained shear strength of clay in different consolidation states of clay, as well as the overall CatBoost-Bayesian hybrid model performance, which is subsequently compared with LightGBM-Bayesian, XGBoost-Bayesian hybrid model for comparison. The training and test set performance evaluations are shown in Table 4."
Q4: Figure 1. It is “Wight expansion” or “Weight expansion” ?
R4. Figure 1 should change "Wight expansion" to "Weight expansion". Weight expansion is a regularization method that can improve the performance of the model. It will make the model pay more attention to those important features by increasing the weight norm of the features.
Q5: Line 344 – Change “ASAOKA” to Asaoka
R5. Change "ASAOKA" to "Asaoka" in Line 343.
Q6: Lines 607 – 609 – change the letters to “Sentence” not to capital letters.
R6. Amend reference in lines 603 - 604 by replacing "JAMIOLKOWSKI, M.; Ladd, C.; Germaine, J.; LANCELLOTTA, R. NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTING OF SOILS. PROCEEDINGS OF THE ELEVENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SOIL MECHANICS AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, SAN FRANCISCO, 12-16 AUGUST 1985." with "Jamiolkowski, M.; Ladd, C.C.; Germaine, J.T.; Lancellotta, R. New developments in field and laboratory testing of soils. In: Proc of XI the International Conference on Soil Mechanics & Foundation Engineering, San Francisco, 12-16 August 1985."
Please check my revised manuscript (Paper2.docx)
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
