On the η1(1855), π1(1400) and π1(1600) as Dynamically Generated States and Their SU(3) Partners
, Jorgivan M. Dias 1, Adolfo Guevara 1, Feng-Kun Guo 1,2,3,* and Bing-Song Zou 1,2,4
Raquel Molina
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors explore the assignment of the eta_1(1855) as a dynamically generated state from the KK(1400) threshold with exotic quantum numbers 1-+. The appearance of states due to two body interactions is gaining attention in the Hadron Physics community, and has been shown to be extremely useful to understand states with difficult assignment (and in some cases explicit exotic states, as in this paper). In this sense, the paper is timely and interesting.
The paper is well written and organized. The description of the theoretical background and data analysis is detailed and complete, and I did not find any concern regarding their conclusions. I think the paper is suitable to be published in Universe journal in its present form.
Author Response
We would like to thank the referees for the very positive assessments of our paper. Since the first and third referees suggest accepting our manuscript for publication directly, here we only reply to the comments from the second referee.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have presented a study of the interaction between axial vector mesons and pseudoscalars, which leads to the interpretation of the new state eta(1855) discovered by BESIII and the pi1(1400), pi1(1600) as dynamically generated. They also have predictions for new states. The article is novel and this research is timely. The calculation seems reasonable and the presentation is very good. I think the article deserves for publication. I just have few comments:
1. It is argued that when the width of the axial mesons are included, then the poles obtained can not be interpreted as masses and widths of resonances because the analytical properties are lost. However, one can always go to the real axis and extract from the squared of the T matrix the mass and the width. I think the numbers obtained should also be included in Tables X and XI, because those will be much closer to the observed ones, I think.
2. By constructing the interaction with the Lagrangian of Eq. (15), and considering thus dominance of the vector-meson exchange terms, one is neglecting other terms were also there is vector meson exchange, like those when you exchange the pseudoscalar and vector meson in the final state allowing the decay of the axial into a vector meson and a psedoscalar, and then the vector meson interacting with the initial pseudoscalar ( u channel). Moreover, in these diagrams the vector meson can be onshell so in principle I think there is no argument to neglect them. I think that some discussion on this should be included stating at least that this would be an improvement of the calculation.
Finally, I think below eq. (27) when z(theta) is written one does not need the "i" in zp+"i"re^itheta.
Author Response
We would like to thank the referees for the very positive assessments of our paper. Since the first and third referees suggest accepting our manuscript for publication directly, here we only reply to the comments from the second referee.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Editor,
the manuscript is ready for publication. Congratulation to the authors.
Author Response
We would like to thank the referees for the very positive assessments of our paper. Since the first and third referees suggest accepting our manuscript for publication directly, here we only reply to the comments from the second referee.
