2. Given that the focus of the paper is to provide a better solution on a well known problem with several well studied approaches. It is essential for the author to provide extensive comparison studies with those approaches. In Section 4 the paper provides some experiments with very limited scope (solving one simple problem and comparing with one well known problems). This seems not enough. Another way is to provide a qualitative comparison against other proposed approaches and explain why the proposed approach is better. But this is also not found.
`----
+tentative de réponse : In fact, the machine we have used, almost one year ago, is not accessible anymore, it is been reformed. In this paper, we show that, for a very well known problem, the 3D Poisson problem that is used in many simulations, our method is more efficient than the GMRES method which is a very well known method.
+
,----
3. It is better if the paper can provide a quantitative study on the speed-up achieved by the proposed algorithm so that the reader can get insights on how much is the performance improvement in theory.
`----
+With all numerical methods, the converge is a very difficult problem. In this study, we show that a very simple method can provide faster result than the GMRES method. Of course, many theoretical works need to be added, but it take a very long time and this is out of the scope of this paper.
+
,----
4. In Section 3. it is better if the paper can explain the intuition of multi-splitting. Currently it is more like "Here is what I did" presentation but "why do we do this" is left for the reader to guess.
`----
The main principle of the multisplitting methods is defined in Section 2. Section 3 presenting our two-stage algorithm is little modified to show our motivations to mix between the multisplitting methods and Krylov iterative methods.
+RAPH : on peut modifier des trucs pour répondre dans le papier? ca serait bien :-)
+
****************************************************
* Reviewer #3 *
