The reviewers are in agreement with the scientific soundness of the present study; however, all the reviewers have raised serious concerns such as improper presentation of hypothesis, methodology and results section, which makes it difficult to follow. Authors may revise the manuscript, taking into consideration these comments. In addition, after going through the manuscript myself, I have a few more comments.
(i) The title of the manuscript highlights the usage of machine learning algorithms, in general, for the reconstruction of time series. While, I agree that not all ML algorithms can be considered/compared in one study, authors may dilute the claim made, since the present study focusses on only three ML algorithms. Also, the selection of these three algorithms may be justified, while revising the manuscript – why possibly these three among the vast variety of M algorithms available?
(ii) It is interesting to read about the applicability of CCM, in determining the independent and reconstructed variables. Authors may explain a bit more about the statistics behind that. Is there a suggested cutoff value of CCM, for the reconstruction in any direction to be considered or neglected?
(iii) BP is known for its ability to capture nonlinear relationships? Give some insights on why it possibly failed while dealing with the 2nd case?
(iv) Finally, it turned out that RC is more sensitive to CCM index, while LSTM is not. What could be the possible reason behind this? Does it indicate that all these conclusions depend on the type of ML used?
Please respond to all the comments and revise your manuscript.

The authors have addressed most of the comments raised by the reviewers. However, there are a few serious concerns left, as is pointed by the reviewers. Authors are requested to carefully go through those and address it satisfactorily. Also, the reviewers are not satisfied with the presentation of the manuscript and advised a relook into this. Please address the English language errors and thoroughly examine the manuscript for any grammatical/sentence formulation mistakes.

Authors have considered the reviewer's comments and have modified the manuscript accordingly. The manuscript is now fit to be accepted in its final form.