Authors made lots of effort for the research works on “Kinetic and Thermodynamic Modeling of Thermal Decomposition of Bitumen under high Pressure enhanced with Simulated Annealing and Artificial Intelligence”. This topic is interesting as a machine learning application to the predictive model analysis of kinetic and thermodynamic parameters. Unfortunately, the reviewer is not satisfied (including research methodology) with the current manuscript to accept it. Authors should be adopted the following comments to ensure the required information for the readers and improve the quality of the manuscript.

1. INTRODUCTION:
   • Authors must include the most recent research works to find the knowledge gaps related to the subject matters, and to depict the comprehensive importance of the current study.

2. METHODOLOGY:
   2.2.3 Development of ANN predictive model:
   • Authors just mentioned some references related to the ANN model optimization. For the readers, as it is an independent study, so the authors should clearly define the model optimization process including data sources, pre-processing, stratification, training/transfer functions, algorithm-based tunning parameters. For instance, authors need to be shown the flow chart, how it works to construct the predictive model?
   • Additionally, why authors used ANN with Levenberg-Marquardt rather than other algorithms such as Bayesian regularization, Gradient descent, Conjugate gradient etc.?
   • Related to the ANN model development, Is it a home-made programming environment, or is it adopted the in-built programming through Mathlab tool/?
   • Maybe the reviewer missed finding the SA-based optimization process to obtain the predictive output? Authors need to include the major steps, how SA optimized/implemented in the study?
   • Authors need to be addressed between both algorithms pros and cons using the same space for the predictive models in the study.
   2.2.4 Thermodynamic analysis
   • The name of abbreviation/nomenclature should be given as it is firstly adopted in the text including A for Equation 11.
   2.2.5 Statistical error analysis
   • Nomenclature must be mentioned for the equations 13-14 when it appeared at first.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:
   • Authors need to be addressed more explanation about Figures 7 through 11 to show the describe the analysis including physical significance.

4. CONCLUSIONS
   • Authors need to revise the conclusions by adding the main research findings to full fill the objectives properly as well as to include future research studies to overcome the current research limitations.
   Additionally, authors need to revise the relevant sections to change the complex sentences into simple for readers as well as to improve the manuscript by English editing.

The authors adopted most of the comments on the revised version. This manuscript can be published if the authors comply the rest of the things.