Thank you for time for reviewing our article and for your comments. 

Thank you for your time reviewing our article and for your feedback that we appreciate.

Comment 1 concerning the learning method we used:

This is part of our IP and we would prefer not to mention it in the article. Is it an issue for you to accept the article if we keep it like this ? Thank you for your understanding.

Comment 2 about the length of section 4:

We will split section 4 in 2 parts “discussion” and “conclusion” as you suggest. It will be updated in the next revision of the article.

Comment 3:

We acknowledge your comments that few sentences can be improved (i.e. line 42 and 50). Please see thereafter the modifications we propose to you:

Line 42 :

• The original sentence“ In modern wind turbines that allow adjustments to both speed and blade pitch, the efficiency depends on two main factors: the ratio of the rotor tip speed to the wind speed, and the angle at which the blades are pitched” 
  
  To be changed to  “ In variable speed and variable pitch wind turbines, the power production efficiency depends on 2 factors: tip speed ratio (TSR) and the pitch angle.”

Line 50: 

• The original sentence  “To address these challenges, in literature can be find the Extremum Seeking Control (Creaby et al., 2009) and more recently the Log-Power Proportional-Integral Extremum Seeking (Kumar et al., 2022).”
  
  To be changed to  “To address these challenges, there are existing methods which can be found in the literature like the Extremum Seeking Control (Creaby et al., 2009) and more recently the Log-Power Proportional-Integral Extremum Seeking (Kumar et al., 2022).”

Thank you for your future response,

Best regards,