All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
All reviewers suggest acceptance. Thanks for your contributions.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Arkaitz Zubiaga, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The authors have addressed all the comments
The authors have addressed all the comments
The authors have addressed all the comments
One reviewer still has some minor comments regarding related works, conclusions, and the abstract. So please revise the manuscript carefully and resubmit it for further evaluation.
no comment
no comment
no comment
no comment
The authors addressed my comment accordingly. However some minor comments should be considered
Please see details comments
Please see details comments
1. In lines 93-98, the author only discussed few related works. I highly suggest adding more.
2. The indication of future work is too simple. Please give more suggestions.
3. The abstract should be written in the past tense.
Both reviewers found your research to be of some interest and the paper to be reasonably well structured. However, they each gave some constructive comments. For example：
1. The contribution of this study should be highlighted at the end of the Introduction section.
2. In the Related work section, it is better to cite more references and discuss to motivate this study.
3. Please give the direction of subsequent research in the summary section.
Based on the reviewers' comments, I suggest a major revision.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
no comment
no comment
no comment
The authors proposed a human-computer interaction model based on a knowledge graph ripple network. The model simulates the natural human communication process to realize a more natural and intelligent human-computer interaction system. Overall, this is a well-organized study. Please consider the following comments which may improve the quality of the manuscript.
1. At the end of the Introduction section, it is better to indicate the organization of the study.
2. The contribution of this study should be highlighted at the end of the Introduction section.
3. In the Related work section, it is better to cite more references and discuss to motivate this study.
4. Regarding line 251-257, please re-organize them.
5. It is better to update "in this paper" as "in this study".
6. In line 303, "equation (15)" should be "equ.(15)".
7. In line 285, "The" should be "the".
8. It is better to ask a fluent English speaker to polish the language.
The authors proposed a Human-Computer interaction system based on background knowledge and emotion certainty. The proposed model simulates the natural human communication process to realize a more natural and intelligent human-computer interaction system. The experimental results show that, compared with the comparison model, the emotional friendliness and coherence of robots with background knowledge and emotional measurement can be effectively improved during human-computer interaction.
The experiments are designed from 4 aspects, i.e., Settings, Evaluation metrics, Experimental results and Experimental discussion, which seems reasonable.
This model achieves better results in both MAP and MRR objective ratings compared to the comparison models, as it takes into account both emotion and content friendliness, which can effectively improve the response accuracy.
The proposed model simulates the natural human communication process to realize a more natural and intelligent human-computer interaction system. The experimental results show that, compared with the comparison model, the emotional friendliness and coherence of robots with background knowledge and emotional measurement can be effectively improved during human-computer interaction. I have some major comments.
Abstract:
1. Please highlight the contributions and motivations. Currently, it is hard to catch them.
2. “The experimental results show that, compared with the comparison model, the emotional friendliness and coherence of robots with background knowledge and emotional measurement can be effectively improved during human-computer interaction.” It is best to give a quantitative description of the experimental results. For example, compared with the comparison model, how much the performance of the algorithm we proposed is improved specifically.
Introduction:
. Seem good. But it is best to give the specific contributions of this study and the differences from previous studies in the introduction section.
Related Work
4. “In [17], the authors proposed an emotion generation framework…”. I think this statement is not very good. If possible, please change it to “Rodríguez et al. proposed….”. Please check all sections.
Proposed method
5. In the section of Emotional friendliness, it is best to state the reason of “To ensure that the equation is meaningful, specifically h_l is not defined as 0. (Line 56-57)”
Experimental Studies
6. In the experimental setting part, the description of the comparison algorithm is best given in the form of a table. This makes the structure of the manuscript more compact. (Line 51-58)
Conclusions
7. “Human learning, living and working experiences are stored in the brain as memories in an associative manner, which can be regarded as personal background knowledge, and the process of human-human communication is the process of evoking locally associated background knowledge under the influence of emotional factors.” Please remove the background description in the conclusion section.
8. Please give the direction of subsequent research in the summary section.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.