Analysis of a Human Meta-Strategy for Agents with Active and Passive Strategies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper built an interesting strategy for cooperative behavior between humans and robots. However, there is some issue need to be fixed first.

1. I found similar research published by the author in 2021, entitled "Adaptation to Other Agent's Behavior Using Meta-Strategy Learning by Collision Avoidance Simulation".
2. Abstract, introduction, and method written in a similar way

Some suggestions are presented for clarifying some points in each section that are summarized as follows:

1. I found similarities in the abstract such as background and method, with previous publications from the author, and they should be clearly described so it does not become double publications.
2. This article lacks references and needs more citations for the introduction, background, and model (lines 17-18, 40-43, 74-75, etc.)
3. The author needs to enhance the urgency of this research, the gap, contribution, and implication of this research.
4. Why this study only considers two strategies for the agent? How about the other strategies? (line 86-87)
5. More describe the references used to develop the situation in each scenario!
6. The authors must explain how they developed an algorithm to solve the scenario!
7. What is the consideration used by authors to determine the reward and punishment for the agent?
8. Why were only five subjects evaluated in this study?
9. How did the authors deal with subjects' characteristics? (Each subject have own perceptions, and it will impact the strategy that they will choose)
10. The emotion layer for agent behavior is not clearly described in the model framework.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

As a structure, the document is well written however the english written needs improvement.  As content, the contribution must be highlighted. More comparison with previous recent work should be provided.  I suggest to rewrite the summary and the conclusion to highlight the added value.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear,

Some questions have already been answered, and some parts have improved as per advice. However, there are still several questions for improvement. Please consider several points below:

1. Point 3, I still cannot see the objective part of the manuscript.
2. Response for points 5 and 6 should explain in section 3
3. Point 7, the authors should support it with previous research or literature, not subjective scoring. 
4. Point 8, The authors should explain using five or seven participants can provide an adequate number of samples to answer the objective.
5. Point 9, The authors should provide statistical analysis while concluding the data with significant and no significant difference. How about the difference between subject 5 with the others? (table 2)
6. The conclusion section should explain about what your evaluation of your result. Did your result answer the objective? Then only explain the objective of the research
7. In the discussion section, should add the comparison with another research result and the implication of the result.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf