Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Lacking in comparision of other security models and also the gap and the uniqiuenes of this model proposed.

Empirical validation in real life simulation will enhance the paper.

How does it scale for dynamic ecommerce systems

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review Report

Recommendation:  Minor Revision

Title of Manuscript: Formal Analysis of Rational Exchange Protocols Based on the 2 Improved Buttyan Model

 

Authors: Meihua Xiao, Lina Chen, Ke Yang and Zehuan Li

 

The manuscript introduces a novel and theoretically grounded approach to analyzing rational exchange protocols. It extends the well-known Buttyan model through Bayesian game theory. This enhancement incorporates participant types, belief systems, and potential attack messages. This offers a richer and more nuanced analysis of protocol security in adversarial and uncertain environments. The application to electronic contract signing is particularly insightful, demonstrating the model’s practical relevance. Notable strengths include its formal treatment of a pertinent problem in rational cryptographic protocols. It also handles uncertainty and attacker behavior, the sound application of Bayesian game theory, and the inclusion of utility analysis alongside an illustrative protocol. However, the manuscript is hindered by issues related to clarity, organization, and the insufficient elaboration of several critical assumptions and analytical outcomes. There are several other improvements that need to be made as follows:

• Can you correct grammatical mistakes and awkward phrasing in the manuscript?
• End each questionnaire with a comma or a point at a suitable location in the text.
• A native English speaker's review might improve clarity and fluency.
• Where do symbols and notations first appear (e.g., in Sections 3.2.1 and 4.2)?
• Can you include a comprehensive notation table early in your manuscript?
• What assumptions are made in the model, such as participant B's honesty?
• Would it be more appropriate to frame some assumptions as model limitations?
• What are the implications of the mathematical formulations (e.g., expected payoffs, probabilities, penalty functions)?
• What are the practical design decisions for implementing these formulations?
• Can you clarify, organize, and adequately talk about the figures (especially game trees)?
• For a better understanding, do Tables 2–4 include descriptive labels and interpretations?
• Can you please clarify the captions of all figures and equations and ensure that they are numbered consistently?
• What are the abbreviations used throughout the manuscript, and is there a comprehensive list of them?
• It would be helpful if the introduction could be condensed by merging discussion of prior work that overlaps or repeats?
• Can the flowchart in Figure 4 be improved visually?
• Do you consider a case study or simulation as support for your theory?
• Under real-world conditions, how does the model perform?
• Have you ensured that all sections of the manuscript are logically organized and provide sufficient depth of discussion?

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments and Suggestions for Authors:

1. Theoretical Contributions:

• Excellent extension of the Buttyan model using Bayesian game theory
• Innovative introduction of "attack messages" concept adds significant value

2. Methodological Strengths:

• Clear framework for analyzing rational exchange protocols
• Robust approach to modeling participant uncertainties

3. Potential Improvements:

• Consider empirical validation of the improved model
• Explore experimental implementations across different protocol types

4. Future Research Directions:

• Expand analysis to multi-party exchange protocols
• Develop more comprehensive metrics for detecting potential protocol vulnerabilities

5. Practical Implications:

• Provide concrete guidelines for protocol designers on implementing the proposed approach
• Develop practical tools for assessing protocol security using this framework

6. Recommendation:

• Consider creating a software prototype demonstrating the model's analytical capabilities
• Explore interdisciplinary collaborations to test the model's broader applicability

7. Minor Technical Suggestions:

• Clarify computational complexity of the proposed approach
• Add more concrete examples of attack message scenarios
• Consider sensitivity analysis of key parameters

8. Publication Value:

• Significant contribution to understanding rational exchange protocol security
• Provides a nuanced approach to modeling strategic interactions

Suggestions:

1. Comparative Analysis Weakness

• Insufficient critical comparison with existing protocol analysis frameworks
• Require a more aggressive deconstruction of alternative approaches

2. Technical Precision Challenges

• Mathematical formulations need more granular explanation
• Some notational representations potentially lack clarity
• Demand more transparent computational complexity analysis

3.  Methodological Scrutiny

• Rigorously evaluate the generalizability of the proposed model
• Demand clear demonstration of how this approach significantly advances existing game-theoretic protocol analysis

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Comments on English Language Quality:

1. Overall Language Quality: Very Good

• Professional academic writing style
• Clear and precise technical language

2. Technical Terminology Usage: Excellent Example: "Bayesian games are games of incomplete information" (Page 5, Line 51)

• Precise definition
• Demonstrates clear understanding of technical concepts

3. Sentence Complexity: Well-Structured Example: "The Buttyan model has built a game-theoretic mathematical framework for the analysis of rational exchange protocols. However, it has certain limitations in dealing with uncertainties and false messages in rational exchanges." (Page 4, Lines 67-71)

• Balanced sentence structure
• Clear logical progression

4. Grammatical Accuracy: High Example: "Currently, research on game theory-based cryptography mainly focuses on three areas: rational exchange protocols, rational secret sharing, and rational secure multi-party computation." (Page 1, Lines 29-32)

• Grammatically correct
• Complex idea expressed clearly

5. Academic Tone Consistency: Strong Example: "To address these shortcomings, this paper proposes a formal analysis method based on Bayesian games." (Page 1, Lines 11-13)

• Maintains objective scholarly tone
• Avoids colloquial language

6. Precision in Scientific Communication: Impressive Example: "Nature N, as an abstract entity, is responsible for assigning a type to each participant." (Page 6, Lines 214-216)

• Precise technical description
• Conceptually clear language

7. Paragraph Coherence: Well-Developed Example: The entire section discussing participant types and beliefs (Page 6)

• Logical flow of ideas
• Smooth transition between concepts

Suggestion: While the language is of high quality, occasional simplification of extremely complex sentences could enhance readability for a broader audience.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

NA

Author Response

Thank you for your constructive suggestions, which have helped us address some key issues in our research and significantly improved the quality of our manuscript. We truly appreciate your careful guidance once again.