Manuscript Number: JKSUCIS-D-21-01476

Response to Reviewers

Dear Nasser-Eddine Rikli,

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of the manuscript “High utility
and strongly correlated item-sets recommendation in e-commerce applications using EGUI-tree
over data stream” for publication in the Journal of King Saud University - Computer and
Information Sciences. We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers dedicated
to providing feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for the insightful comments on and
valuable improvements to our paper. We have incorporated most of the suggestions made by
the reviewers in the revised manuscript. Please see below, for a point-by-point response to the
reviewers’

Reviewer #1: The authors tried to figure out the association and recommend item sets in E-
commerce domain. However, following improvements are recommended:
1. The abstract should give the clear picture of the work

Author response: As suggested by the reviewer, we have added few lines in abstract to give the clear
picture of the work.
2. Background study is not sufficient

Author response: As suggested by the reviewer, we have modified the background study, and as per the
reviewer 2, comment no.7, background study and introduction sections merged.
3. Fig 1. need proper citation

Author response: As suggested by the reviewer, given the citation for Fig 1.

4. The contents in the Table 3 are misleading; please keep only those notation that you have
used, also include the meaning of each notation.

Author response: As suggested by the reviewer, made the changes in Table 3.

5. Some figures and tables like Fig.9 and table 1 and 2 are not well described, All the figures
and tables should be well described

Author response: As suggested by the reviewer , the Figs and Tables described
6. Problem statement needed rewriting and may be placed after related work. In general, a
problem statement will outline the negative points of the current situation and explain why this
matters.

Author response: As suggested by the reviewer , Problem statement rewritten and placed after related
work

7. This very recent article ("High Utility Item-set Mining from retail market data stream with
various discount strategies using EGUI-tree", 2021) may be included in both literature and result
comparison

Author response: As suggested by the reviewer , the paper is included in the literature, as the paper
work is in different domain not used for result comparison.

8. A methodology section is recommended where you may describe the datasets too which is
seems to be missing

Author response: As suggested by the reviewer , datasets are described.

9. Table's captions are usually placed at the top.

Author response: As suggested by the reviewer , Table captions are placed at the top.

10. It is recommended not to include any standard algorithms in the article if is not changed
totally or partially

Author response: As suggested by the reviewer , The algorithm in this paper is new one and not contain
total or partial content of any standard algorithm.

11. Insufficient results and their descriptions

Author response: As suggested by the reviewer , results section improved.

12. The conclusion section may be rewritten, it must tell the reader how and why it is that what's
been presented is significant for practice, policy or further research

Author response: As suggested by the reviewer , conclusion section improved.

13. The references should be written in journals preferable format

Author response: As suggested by the reviewer , reference section modified.

Reviewer #2: The authors propose a product recommendation algorithm based on utility and
correlation. Generally, the topic is interesting and the paper is easy to follow. However, a few
suggestions/comments that can improve this manuscript are as follows.
1. The manuscript presents some bad English constructions, grammar mistakes, and misuse of
articles: a professional language editing service is strongly recommended to sufficiently improve
the paper's presentation and quality.

Author response: As suggested by the reviewer , corrected the grammar mistakes

2. The introduction lacks proper references.

Author response: As suggested by the reviewer , given proper references

3. The paper contribution is not very clear. What is the relationship between the proposed
algorithm and other existing algorithms? What is unique about the proposed algorithm? State
this clearly in the Introduction.

Author response: As suggested by the reviewer , made the changes in introduction.

4. Object names (tables, figures,…) need to be capitalized in the text. For example, Table 1
instead of table 1.

Author response: As suggested by the reviewer , made the corresponding changes.

6. It is unusual to start the Background with an example. This example needs to be moved to
the Introduction (where the concept was introduced). Also, the table caption should list all those
abbreviations and provide an explanation for each.

Author response: As suggested by the reviewer , made the corresponding changes.

7. think there is no need for a separate Background section. The concepts are introduced in a
short manner so it is possible to merge them with the Introduction.

Author response: As suggested by the reviewer , the background and introduction sections merged.

8. Add reference to flipkart.

Author response: As suggested by the reviewer , added reference.

9. Subsection "notations" needs to be in a separate section named Preliminaries. The table
should not include examples. Explain the examples in the text.

Author response: As suggested by the reviewer , removed examples in the tale and explained in text.

10. Table 4 has never been cited in the text.

Author response: As suggested by the reviewer , Table 4 cited.

11. Since the paper contains so many abbreviations, use full name at least at the beginning of
each section.

Author response: As suggested by the reviewer , used full names at the beginning of each section.

12. Explain how to compute TWU in Section 3.1.1 (an example is not enouph).

Author response: As suggested by the reviewer , explained the computation of TWU in 3.1.2. previously
it is in section 3.1.1. Now it is moved 3.1.2.