Response to reviewers:Reviewer-1:The authors have not explained the main concepts of the paper clearly and it has several grammar issues as well as some unusual words. For example, 'outage load' is not correct. It should be 'interrupted load'. The methodology is not clear, specifically the two heuristics shown in (9) and (10) are not clear. Although heuristics are based on judgment, they should have some physical meaning. Figures are hard to read with very small size and fonts. Figure 4 is not necessary. The results are not explained properly. The authors have tried to focus more on the computational efficiency, but have not explained implementation of the algorithm properly. It would be useful for the readers if they can explain restoration results with an example using the 69-bus system. I think in Figure 5 and 6, large scale and small scale mean 269 and 69 bus system. The statements on page 5 bottom, second column are not true. Figure 9 doesn't support these claim. Overall, the paper needs better explanation of the methodology and the results.
Response:(1) In most literatures about distribution power system restoration, outage load is more frequently used term than interrupted loadTo make the methods for improving computation efficiency more comprehensive, new figures and mathematical terms are used. Meanwhile, the illustration to the two methodologies is refined. But the two methods are not both heuristic. The first one is strict in mathematics and the second one is heuristic. (3) The figure of the expanded 269-node system has been removed now. Meanwhile, all the other figures have been improved for better reading by enlarging their sizes and fonts. (4) In the numerical tests part for computation efficiency, Figure 6 of the original manuscript has been removed. Within the last several months, the computation efficiency improvement algorithms have been further developed, so the computing time fluctuation issue is solved and the computing time is further decreased. (5) Figure 8 and Figure 9 of the original manuscript (Figure 7 and 8 in the revised manuscript) should be compared and the conclusion could be made that: the real system used in this paper is more secure than the single-feeder 69-node system, because it has link-branches between feeders to pick up outage loads in severe contingencies. analysis and control, especially the EMS advanced applications in EPCC. He has published more than 300 scientific papers and implemented more than 60 EMS/DTS systems in China. He is a steering member of CIGRE China State Committee and Int. Workshop of EPCC. He won the second rank award of Chinese national science and technology progress in 1992 and the second rank prize of Chinese national technology innovation in 2008.