Reviewer: 1
Originality : Strong Accept Quality : Weak Reject Relevance : Accept Presentation : Neutral Recommendation : Weak Reject
Summary: Spatial mobiliy as exploited e.g. in (mult~-player and mixed reality) games is an important issue. In this paper a new model for games on grids with agents in the grids allowed to move in space, i.e. leaving a grid and entering others. Spatial mobility is modeled and simulated in a number of different situations and under a number of varied strategies.
Details: What is the `lua ` language (Section 4)? All figures (especiallz Fig. 6), and there esp. the lines drawn in the figures, are not sufficientlz visible and separated (at least in a black/white print out). In Section 5 there was mentioned to show three experiments concerning how characteristics of the space may impact the results of the game simulations. I cannot see how the money in 5.1, the gain in 5.2 and the eleven strategies in 5.3 could help in this? The 6 diagrams in Fig. 5 do need more explanations. Please, make clear that in the final version of the paper answers to the following questions will get clear to the reader: - what should be enhanced? - what is the goal to achieve?
Candidate for the best paper award? : No
Reviewer: 2
Originality : Accept Quality : Accept Relevance : Strong Accept Presentation : Accept Recommendation : Accept
Summary: The authors describe what they claim is a new model for games on grids, where each cell contains agents that compete for it, and, instead of changing their strategies, the agents may move in the space.
Details: This short (?) paper is fairly easy to read and contains interesting ideas.
The authors should include some justification for basing their model on the chicken game. They should also warn the reader, in section 2, that Section 5 will discuss variations of the initial parameters.
Candidate for the best paper award? : No Candidate for the best paper award? : No
Reviewer: 3
Originality : Accept Quality : Reject Relevance : Weak Accept Presentation : Reject Recommendation : Weak Reject
Summary: The paper presents a study on mobility based on game theory.
Details: Maybe because of the numerous defficiencies in writing, I could not really understand the point of this paper. It proposes experiments using game theory, in which a set of rules is set. It seems to me (and that is why I set my expertise as “Low” in this subject) that a different set of rules could produce a totally different result. The trick, IMHO, lies in setting rules that actually relate to something in the physical world, so that the results can be translatable to reality in some practical way. The experiments conducted and described in the paper seem to be in line with the authors' intention of showing how the whole game theory idea works, and how does it perform in comparison with itself when some conditions are changed.
At the end, in the conclusions section, I ended up with the feeling that the meaning of “spatial” in the context of the game is not the same as our field is used to discuss.
In my opinion, the paper would benefit greatly from the inclusion of a real-world situation that could be approximated by the game, and by explanations as to how to interpret the results in light of the example situation.
The paper deserves a complete English grammar review. Some figures contain lines that cannot be easily distinguished from each other in a black-and-white printout.
Candidate for the best paper award? : No Candidate for the best paper award? : No Candidate for the best paper award? : No
Reviewer: 4
Originality : Accept Quality : Weak Reject Relevance : Neutral Presentation : Reject Recommendation : Weak Reject
Summary: Present a new model of non-cooperative games within the framework of Game Theory based on conflicting agents with moving capabilities. The authors use a well-known example of Game Theory and evaluate some experiences with different topologies and behaviours.
Details: What are the motivations for these model? In what type of experiences do you think it will serve better as an explanation or prediction tool? I think there is a mix, in the current paper, between the model itself (a possible original and useful idea) and the test case (which states a relation between the results and Nash equilibrium, but I don't understand the relevance of the result). This difference should be stated more sharply.
In this sense, what are we gaining with all those variants of the initial chicken game?
If the results are indeed relevant, you should discuss them a bit more in section 4. You could talk more about why are the results as they are. What are your ideas/arguments for the dynamics of these values thru time?
I'm not sure if you present enough data to assert the 2nd paragraph of the conclusions.
There is a serious problem relating the graphics and its labels, they do not match. Some use colors and others use dashes and solid lines. You should drop colors, unless the printing paper will also be printed in color. In my case, everything was black and white, so I couldn't spot the differences.
Some side notes:
perhaps label Table 1 as 'Payoff Function', since you use the term in the beginning of section 2
in page 2, by 'colons' I suppose you mean 'colonists'
Candidate for the best paper award? : No Candidate for the best paper award? : No Candidate for the best paper award? : No Candidate for the best paper award? : No