Identifying the Λb(6146)0 and Λb(6152)0 as D-Wave Bottom Baryons
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The topic is interesting and also the results can be interesting but the authors have to take care of the following points and implement all the changes asked by the referee in order that the article can be published. Moreover, a polishing of the English is necessary since some sentences are not completely clear.
1) rewrite the abstract.
"two \lambda-mode excitations" has to be changed into " two units of orbital excitation in the \lambda internal coordinate".
2) The write in the abstract "We predict masses of their strangeness partners to be mXb(3/2+) = 6.26ˆ+0.11_0.14 GeV and mXb(5/2+) = 6.26ˆ+0.11_0.14 GeV with the mass splitting DM = 4.5ˆ+1.9_1.5 MeV,
and propose to search for them in future LHCb and CMS experiments."
This point is not discussed in the present article and moreover what does it mean"the mass splitting DM = 4.5ˆ1.9_1.5 MeV,", which mass splitting? they have not defined any mass splitting in the abstract!!! please rewrite completely the abstract and do not use symbols in the abstract.
2) In the caption of Table 1, they have not defined all the columns and the symbols they used. Please rewrite it and explain the content of each column.
3) Moreover, a table has to be discussed also in the text of the article. Please add a discussion of table 1 in the text of the article.
4) eq. 38
\Deltam[Lb(¯3 F),1,1,rl] = -1.5ˆ0.6 _-0.5 MeV,
This mass difference is smaller (negative) than the LHCb measurement [7]. Hence, our results
do not favor the interpretation of the Lb(6146)0 and Lb(6152)0 as D-wave bottom baryons of JP
206 = 1/2+ and 3/2+ belonging to the [3¯ F, 1, 1, rl] multiplet.
The authors do not have defined the meaning of \Deltam[Lb(¯3 F),1,1,rl]
( please define)
and so it does not mean any sense to not consider this possible assignment only because of a difference of what? of the masses of two states? that is reversed with respect to the LHC_b finding...?
I think that this possible assignment has to be discussed more and enhanced or emphasized a little more since it can give the right decays..and moreover it is the only original finding with respect to the previous literature...On the contrary, the assignment to states with two units of lambda orbital excitations has been already proposed by LHC_b and other authors have already discussed this assignment faces a serious problem, which has already been discussed in Refs. [79–81] that then their decays are just opposite to the Lb(6146)0 and Lb(6152)0 observed by LHCb [7].
5) check that all the symbols have been defined.
In conclusion, it is clear from the previous points that the article needs revision. If the authors implement all the changes asked by the referee, the article can be reconsidered for publication.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript reports on a theoretical study aiming to identify the Lambda_b(6146)^0 and Lambda_b(6152)^0 as D-wave bottom baryons using recent LHCb data. This is an interesting and timely investigation that may, potentially, be considered for publication in High Energy Nuclear and Particle Physics Section if the authors succeed to address the following issues:
The principal issue is English. The authors have to improve it. Then the authors have to add EIC to LHCb and CMS experiments for future studies. Meanwhile, there is a PDG2020 edition which the authors have to cite instead of PDG2018.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
What concerns the publication, it is written in the common good style, and I strongly support publication. I hope the autors can improve their manuscript by incorporating these. In general, I agree with the final option of the authors that it is difficult to decide from the mass spectrum which of the particle dubletts can be identified with the ones measured by LHCb and CMS. From the penomenological point of view, I see the stronger criterion to be the one of the decay channels. In the following I list a couple of suggestions in chronological order which vary from mantatory to optional.
l. 15: At that time, they are -> At that time, these were
l. 33: Actually -> Much earlier
l. 86/87: except some -> except for some
l. 96: the symbols D_\mu^t for the transverse kovariant derivative are different in Eqs. (6) and (7) from those in the text. Is it possible to unify these notations by either skip or add the calligraphic style?
l. 137: eight dimension -> eighth dimension or dimension eight
Caption Figure 2:
using the -> shown as
. The current ... is used here -> , for ... .
l. 147: which constraint determines the upper limit of the Borel window? The authors refer to [51,52]. However, can this constraint be described in a few words?
Figure 3: I do not see the left diagram which should display the variation of \bar\Lambda. I guess some technical issue has kept it from beng displayed.
Caption Figures 4, 5 and 6: changing T inside Borel windows -> varying T within the Borel window
l. 168: what determines the width of the window for \omega_c (in a few words)?
l. 178: there is considerable -> there is a considerable
ll. 189-193 can be skipped, as this is repeated in ll. 219-222. The same holds for ll. 197-202 which is repeated in ll. 223-231. Maybe the previous can be merged to the later ones.
l. 334: For reference 65, Korner -> K\"orner as in Ref. 48.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
