Two-Pomeron Interaction
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper on Two Pomerons Interaction by Carlos Contreras Hidalgo and Luis Cancino Arancibia is devoted to a study of strong interactions in the framework of the Reggeon Field Theory, initiated in Leningrad (now St. Petersburg) by V.N. Gribov in the past century and persuaded by his school and followers. Theorists produced sophisticated constructions but little or no experimentally measurable and useful applications. The present authors continue the work in this direction. Their results are an original as an interesting exercize, however lacking practical applications.
The paper can be published but the authors should mention the prospect of any practical use of their theoretical construction.
No comment
Author Response
Dear Referee,
Thank you very much for your careful reading of the manuscript. We revised our paper answering all your questions and introduced all your suggestions.
We have introduced some comments about the practical use in the last section: See new lines 307-312.
Finally, our results can be apply in other physics topics, for example: Given the equivalence among RFT and directed percolation models, our analysis could be used to study the critical property in multifield extensions of those statistical models. In addition, considering our results about the superposition of the finite set of discrete BFKL Pomerons, another natural application could be to fit the small-$x$ and low-$Q^2$ experimental HERA data
We have introduced all your suggestions and hope, that you will find the manuscript in its revised form, suitable for publication.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper presents novel results based on Regge theory and have the potential to become important for developments of understanding strong interaction in regions where conventional pertubative QCD theory is not applicable. Therefore, I recommend the paper to be published after the authors have considered the following.
The paper is quite technical in terms of Reggeon field theory. Adding some more explanations/discussions, e.g. of a conceptual nature, would make it more understandable and interesting for readers not being real experts on RFT and FRG. Also some quantities and symbols are not defined or explained, e.g. omega and omega-cut.
The figure captions should contain proper descriptions of the axes, exactly which quantity and the unit for the scale, and what exactly each colored curve represent.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageAcceptable quality of English language, but there are some minor errors/typos (eg. on lines 58 (abbreviation FRG not defined), 153, 227). I suggest a careful reading/check to correct such things.
Author Response
Dear Referee,
Thank you very much for your careful reading of the manuscript. We revised our paper answering all your questions and introduced all your suggestions.
The paper is quite technical in terms of Reggeon field theory. Adding some more explanations/discussions, e.g. of a conceptual nature, would make more understandable and interesting for readers not being real experts on RFT and FRG.
We agree with the referee, and we add in the version new explains in the new lines: 12-16:
The Regge limit of high energy QCD remains a topic of high interest. At small transverse distances, where perturbation theory can be applied, QCD predicts the BFKL Pomeron \cite{BFKL1, BFKL2, BFKL3}, which is characterized by an intercept $\mu_P$ and slope $\alpha'_P$. In this kinematic region (where the energy is bigger to the transferred momenta), the scattering process is described through the exchange of Pomeron.
Also some quantities and symbols are not defined or explained, e.g. omega and omega-cut.
- We agree and introduce the following paragraph in New line 28-30: In the Regge theory, the Pomeron appears like singularities (i.e., cuts and poles) in the angular momentum $\omega$-complex plane. Then, we should not find Reggeons between $\omega=0$ and the $\omega$-cut.
The figure captions should contain proper descriptions of the axes, exactly which quantity and the unit for the scale, and what exactly each colored curve represent.
- We thank the referee about this point and we have introduced the proper description in all figure captions 1 to 4.
- We have introduce a paragraph to describe the colors in the graphs (see new line 246-249)
Comments on the Quality of English Language: Acceptable quality of English language, but there are some minor errors/typos (eg. on
- minor errors/typos lines 58 (abbreviation FRG not defined)
We thank the referee and introduce the definition: in the new line 47 functional renormalization group (FRG)
- minor errors/typos it is defined in line 153 and 227
We fixed these minor errors/typos in line 153 and 227
We have introduced all your suggestions and hope, that you will find the manuscript in its revised form, suitable for publication.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReferee report on the manuscript # universe-2827325
by L. Cancino and C. Contreras
entitled
"Two Pomerons Interaction"
The authors study the interaction between two discrete Pomeron fields in Reggeon Field Theory within the framework of the functional renormalization group analysis. The main result of the study is three different solutions corresponding to
(i) two uncoupled Pomerons, (ii) Pomeron/Odderon interaction, and (iii) two Pomeron interaction with full interaction potential.
The obtained result is interesting and worthy of publication.
However, I have few questions and remarks.
- Present the explicit definition of the Pomeron in this
approach
- I did not understand the definition of \tau as "the rapidity
(with units of time)" on page 3. Is it space-time rapidity?
Please, show the explicit expression for \tau, otherwise it can be mixed up with the rapidity in momentum space which is common for high energy physicists.
- In all three solutions shown on pp.6 and 7 the intercepts of
both Pomerons are larger than 0.13. Is it hard or soft Pomeron
in your scheme?
- (minor remark) In Ref.1, improve the author's name from
"Lipatov, N." to "Lipatov, L.N."
After clarification of these issues, I recommend publication
of the manuscript in Universe.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language is required.
Author Response
Dear Referee,
Thank you very much for your careful reading of the manuscript. We revised our paper answering all your questions and introduced all your suggestions.
However, I have few questions and remarks:
- Present the explicit definition of the Pomeron in this approach:
We thank to the referee and we clarify this point with the Definition of the pomeron introduced in new line 12-16 and 102-104.
- I did not understand the definition of \tau as "the rapidity (with units of time)" on page 3. Is it space-time rapidity? Please, show the explicit expression for \tau, otherwise it can be mixed up with the rapidity in momentum space which is common for high energy physicists.
We thank the referee for indicated us our error in the redaction of the paper. We clarify this point with the new paragraph: introduced in the new lines 105-106
..” where $\tau$ is the time (rapidity); $D=2$ is the dimension of transverse space (both variables are conjugate to reggeon energy $ω$ and transverse momenta $k$)”..
- In all three solutions shown on pp. 6 and 7 the intercepts of both Pomerons are larger than 0.13. Is it hard or soft Pomeron in your scheme?
We thank the referee for this observation. The intercept of this Pomeron is effective larger to 0.13 but that is at the fixed point. What we need to discuss in a future research is tray to find the Physical renormalization trajectory. This trajectory should describe the running behavior of the Pomeron parameter (intercept), but we will need experimental information. If we find this physical trajectory and the scale of experimental data, we can reasonably conclude if it is a hard of soft Pomeron.
- (minor remark) In Ref.1, we improved the author's name from "Lipatov, N." to "Lipatov, L.N."
We thank the referee and we are introduced this observation in the references
We have introduced all your suggestions and hope, that you will find the manuscript in its revised form, suitable for publication.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors studied the interaction of two discrete Pomeron fields, considering mass mixing and a general structure of the interaction potential for Pomerons, within the framework of the functional renormalization group analysis of Reggeon Field Theory. This work is good, but I have one comment:
What is your conclusion? Please add a section for your main conclusion.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish is good.
Author Response
Dear Referee,
Thank you very much for your careful reading of the manuscript. We revised our paper answering all your questions and introduced all your suggestions.
We have rewritten the last section with our main conclusions and comment practical use of our research. See section 4: Conclusion
We have introduced all your suggestions and hope, that you will find the manuscript in its revised form, suitable for publication.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
