Hierarchical Population Game Models of Coevolution in Multi-Criteria Optimization Problems under Uncertainty

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper focuses on hierarchical population game models of coevolution algorithms for solving the problem of multi-criteria optimization under uncertainty. The paper could be published, but first a set of improvements need to be added:

- Abstract - maybe replace "the principles of vector minimax and vector minimax risk" with "vector minimax and its risk" ?
- Introduction line 21-22 - "We are talking about" needs replaced to be more formal
- Please avoid huge containers of references like " In [2-9]," in line 26. Please split it into max 2 positions at a time and explain the topics of each.
- The discussion is extremely short.
- Conclusions are missing.
- I am missing some empirical example.

Author Response

Options to upload a new version of your manuscript will be available once all the reviewer comments have been replied to.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The introduction is well-structured, notions are explained, the literature review is correct and suitable for the selected topic. The research gap is mentioned. The existing methods and the new approaches are well-presented. The structure is very logic. And the topic is significant – there is a need to develop new algorithms for multi-criteria optimization under uncertainty. However, in order to improve the quality of the paper I would like to present some guidelines.

• Perhaps it would be possible to divide the second sentence of the abstract into shorter sentences.
• Im not sure whether the references may be given in a non-alphabetical order.
• Introduction, second paragraph. The second sentence is tool long. It would be more comprehensible if particular elements were bulleted. Currently there is a redudant dot before the word „and”
• line 40, the sentence „These features of problem statements …” is also too long. It is very difficult to follow. Before the second „make it” I recommend starting a new sentence.
• page 2, second paragraph. There are some reduntant brackets. Please check it à SGCC), parameter); 
• line 85, the abbreviation MES is used. Please add an explanation – what does it mean?
• Page 3, paragraph 1, I think that symbols r, k, m should be explained as well.
• Line 147 – the comma should be after the formula, not before „which”
• Line 211, the subsection 3.2 should start in the next page. In the current version the title seems to be an element of the theorem
• Line 224, with rule à with rules
• Some algorithms contain stages and the last one – contains steps. Maybe it would be desirable to use only one word in each case
• Line 259 – step 4 is not bold
• Would it be possible to analyze in the paper a short illustrative example in order to demonstrate how the novel algorithms (or at least one of them) work?
• The discussion is too short. It should contain more conclusions. Do the new approaches have any drawbacks? What areas can be improved in the future. Could you briefly compare the suggested procedures with existing ones?

Author Response

You replied to the comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

My concerns have been addressed.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.