һƪÂÛÎÄÔÚPRAÉÏÍÏÁË°ëÄê¶à£¬À´À´»Ø»ØÐÞ¸å¼Ó·´²µ£¬ÕæÊÇÕÛÌÚ»µÁË£¬Èý¸öÉó¸åÈË£¬Á½¸öͬÒ⣬һ¸ö¼á³Ö¾Ü¸å¡£ÓÚÊÇתͶÁËNJP¡£
Ïêϸд³öͶ¸å¼Í¼£¬Ï£ÍûÄÜΪ³æÓÐ×ö¸ö²Î¿¼¡£
Ͷ¸åʱ¼ä£º2020Äê8ÔÂ15ÈÕ
ËÍÉóʱ¼ä£º2020Äê8ÔÂ18ÈÕ
Ò»Éó·µ»Øʱ¼ä£º2020Äê10ÔÂ26ÈÕ
Ð޸ĸåͶ¸åʱ¼ä£º2020Äê11ÔÂ15ÈÕ
½ÓÊÕʱ¼ä£º2020Äê12ÔÂ2ÈÕ
NJPÒ»¹²3¸öÉó¸åÈË£¬Ò»Éó¸øÁËMajor Revision¡£µÚ1ÈËÇ¿ÁÒ½¨Òé·¢±í£¬²¢ÈøÄÕýÅÅ°æ¸ñʽÓï·¨ÒÔ¼°Ï¸½ÚµÄÎÊÌâ¡£µÚ2È˲»Öÿɷñ£¬¸øÁË2¸ö½¨Òé¡£µÚ3ÈË˵¿É·¢±í£¬µ«Òª»Ø´ðËûµÄÎÊÌâ¡£
Ð޸ĸåͶ³öÈ¥ºó£¬ÓÖ·µ»Øµ½Éó¸åÈËÊÖÖжþÉó¡£ÂÛÎĽÓÊÕºó·¢ÏÖûÓÐË͵½µÚ2¸öÉó¸åÈËÊÖÖС£
¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª
µÚÒ»´Î·µ»ØÒâ¼û
¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª
REFEREE REPORT(S):
Referee: 1
COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR(S)
Manuscript NJP-XXXX provides theoretical and numerical analysis of the effect resonances of the diabatic potential on observables like the elastic cross section, especially in the avoided crossing regime. In particular, the use of a parameter introduced by Nakamura and others to quantify the importance of diabatic resonances is tested against a specific model that has application to molecular systems.
Full disclosure, while I was familiar with the adiabatic presentation of the B-O approximation, I was unfamiliar with the diabatic representation before this article. As a result, I found the article to be interesting and stimulating beyond its individual merits because of this personal novelty. More generally though, I thought this article did an admirable job of synthesizing several conceptual and theoretical frameworks to present a compellingly complete picture of the relevant physics. I also appreciate the idea that the "Zhu-Nakamura" parameter can be used as a tool to decide which theoretical frameworks for analyzing the role of resonances is likely to be most successful. I often feel too many articles do not engage in this kind of meta-theorizing, and I found it refreshing.
So on the whole, I am very supportive of publishing this article in NJP. I do have some suggestions for improvements. These should be understood as coming from the perspective of making the article understandable and relevant to a broader audience. Some of them are about the presentation and should probably be addressed before publication.
xxxxxxxx
Referee: 2
COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR(S)
In the current manuscript, the authors study particle scattering resonances near the avoided crossing region theoretically. The problem itself is relatively old, and there are plenty of methods and approaches developed. Nevertheless, the authors revise it and apply some particular cases. I did not find a new theoretical perspective here; it is mostly following the methods in the cited references. They do apply them to some cases, though, shown potentially interesting results. The presentation is quite good, with a nice historical background. The authors did mention the relation to so-called Fano resonances and will be useful if they can fit the results in Fig.4 by using Fano formulae. The avoided crossing region is also related to the geometrical phase effect. If the authors can introduce 2D parameter space they should be able to encircle the Dirac cone (crossing point) and demonstrate eigenstates deformation and phase accumulation, revealing some topological aspects of the problem.
Referee: 3
COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR(S)
The authors studied scattering (both shape and Feshbach) resonances in model systems, analyzing the importance of non-adiabatic coupling's strength and presence of resonances in the avoided crossing region. They used already know methods to study already instigated systems. Nevertheless, their detailed and didactic analysis of the adiabatic and diabatic pictures and benchmarking the a^2 parameter to quantify the nature of scattering resonances in the avoided crossing region may be potentially useful in studying different physical system and phenomena. The manuscript is well written and additionally has a didactic value.
I will recommend the manuscript for publication provided the authors to address the following questions and suggestion:
xxxxxxxx
¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª
µÚ¶þ´Î·µ»ØÒâ¼û
¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª
REFEREE REPORT(S):
Referee: 1
COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR(S)
The paper is much improved by the responses to all the referees. I strongly support it for publication.
Referee: 3
COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR(S)
The authors addressed my comments adequately, therefore I can recommend publication.
My only suggestion is that the black-dotted lines in Fig. 3 should be plotted on the left side of the barrier rather than on the barrier. |