Comments on abstract, title, references

• The abstract is completely showing the goal of the study. what study found is mentioned generally in such a way that this method is more robust. but the way they obtained the results si clearly addressed.
• They also showed their goal in the title.
• References also are relevant to the whole study. they referenced correctly but not in a defined style.

Comments on introduction/background

• Based on my knowledge about this topic and reading references, they all are used correctly.
• they answered the research questions, but it could be more narrow than what it is. it explained something that really no need to explain.
• the acronyms used in the right way

Comments on methodology

• The methodology section is not started with the standard framework. but each section has a clear subject.
• the explanation of each variable could be more clear, for example, based on my knowledge in this field the explanation of "background state variable, Xb" is not proper and needs better definition. All other methodology parts were explained well.

Comments on data and results

they did not explain well that how they got the data, what is the initial condition, boundary condition. how they made snapshots. what are the variables they want to estimate or as the input of the model. so I think the results section needs to provide more details.

Comments on discussion and conclusions

the conclusion section addressed all questions regarding discussing from multiple angles, answer the aims of the study, limitations of the study. But they did not provide an explanation for future work.