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.
I am happy that the authors have revised the manuscript according to the reviewers' and my comments. I think it is ready to accept the manuscript.
No comment
No comment
No comment
I thank the authors for the improvements to their initial manuscript.
No comment
No comment
No comment
The paper contains significant information adequat to justify its publication
Based on the reviewers’ comments and my own evaluation, the authors are requested to submit a revised version of the manuscript by especially focusing on the following issues (in addition to the individual comments of the reviewers).
(1) Please check the spelling and grammar issues.
(2) Please check the availability of the used software.
(3) Please give more detailed insights into the advantages and possible shortcomings of SANgo.
[# 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 editorial.support@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
Numbered points are in order of precedence, bullets signify points to be
addressed in no order of precedence.
Minor Spelling and Grammar issues (indicative, non-exhaustive):
- 22: Replicated effects should be clarified
- 62: "method of hybrid simulation" -> "The hybrid simulation technique"
- 101: Replace (Fishman) with the reference
- 107: "attributed metric information" -> "extra metadata describing attributes"
- 133: Reference missing (can be found in ?)
1. The data required for the illustrative example needs to be provided, along with details of how the data was obtained.
Numbered points are in order of precedence, bullets signify points to be
addressed in no order of precedence.
1. 145: The Arrhenius model is not justified in this context. The reference
is not of a journal either, and also does not account for the variation in
the chemicals and junctions used in computer circuits.
2. 155: Similar concerns exist, however modeling these effects with an
exponential is more reasonable due to the very limited variation of these
factors in production.
The authors are directed to the following:
- https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/62568
- https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/275221
- https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/4292056
- https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9780387257624
Furthermore, there are several concerns with modeling temperature in this
manner. The nature of the Arrhenius equation, as well as the operating
temperature loads of most IC devices do not correlate well. For the Arrhenius to
be justified, the correlation between the activation energies of the
semiconductor chips used in the datacenter model correspond to the operating
temperatures.
The software URL (https://gitlab.com/lambda-hse/sango) is not publicly
accessible. This makes the software more complicated to test (via the codeocean
capsule). This needs to be rectified, especially since the codeocean capsule
lists the software under the permissive GNU-GPL_v3. Furthermore, the gitlab URL being inaccessible has the unintended effect of invalidating the installation
instructions. Though not necessary for this publication (nor has it factored in
my recommendation), a good API documentation should be ideally present. The
`bib` file should have been sanitized before usage, possibly by filtering via
Zotero, Mendeley, Jabref or others. More details of the data used is required.
The specific usage of OpenAI models should also be clarified.
The code is well written, and the work presented is worthy of inclusion.
However, given the severe misgivings regarding the modeling of environmental
effects, in its current form this is not ready for publication.
The authors should demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources.
The paper contains significant information adequate to justify publication.
no comment
no comment
The authors should check again the paper. For example, on page 8 the number of the table that shows the full flag list is not mentioned. The conclusion should be checked too.
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.