Next Article in Journal
Upper Bound of Barrow Entropy Index from Black Hole Fragmentation
Previous Article in Journal
Statistical Study on the Q Parameter Based on Parkes Data
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Revisiting a Realistic Intersecting D6-Brane with Modified Soft SUSY Terms

Universe 2024, 10(4), 176; https://doi.org/10.3390/universe10040176
by Imtiaz Khan 1,2, Waqas Ahmed 3,*, Tianjun Li 1,2 and Shabbar Raza 4
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Universe 2024, 10(4), 176; https://doi.org/10.3390/universe10040176
Submission received: 26 February 2024 / Revised: 28 March 2024 / Accepted: 3 April 2024 / Published: 11 April 2024

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors I read the manuscript titled "Revisiting a realistic intersecting D6-brane with modified soft SUSY terms" by Imtiaz Khan, Waqas Ahmed, Tianjun Li, and Shabbar Raza. The authors present a parameter scan for a three-family Pati-Salam model based on intersecting D6-branes in Type IIA string theory. While the results seem sound, it is not clear to me the amount of new results compared to previous papers by some of the authors (e.g. Refs 26 and 27). The authors write (several times) "Because there are a few typos in the supersymmetry breaking sfermion masses and trilinear soft term, the purpose of this study is to highlight the differences in parameter space associated 58with the soft SUSY-breaking terms in our previous work [26] and recalculated in [27] with mu >0": it is not clear to me if they are fixing errors from previous publications and repeating the analysis (in which case, the manuscript is just an erratum) or if there is something more. In my opinion the authors should clearly state what is new and what is not with respect to the literature. If the manuscript fixes errors in other publications, an erratum would be preferable. I think that the authors should address the remarks above before I can express any opinion on the manuscript. Besides that, the authors should read through the manuscript very carefully as there are many typos and some mistakes (like the Higgs mass on line 21).      

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor typos detected

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this paper the interaction of D6-branes is studied under the presence of soft supersymmetric terms. In particular a three-family Pati-Salam model in Type IIA string theory is discussed. If the following points are investigated then the revised manuscript could be re-considered for publication.

1.Related past similar works on the interaction of D6-branes including the ones on the Pati-Salam model by the authors themselves are found in the literature. The differences of this work from the past similar and related ones should explicitly be explained so that the significance to describe this article can be clarified.

2.It is recognized that this study is a phenomenology to find the viable parameter space through the supersymmetry survey with LHC and dark matter candidates with the recent Planck data. What are the positive motivations to examine the specific type of the interaction of D6-branes in the Pati-Salam model with three families through the specialized soft SUSY breaking terms from the fundamental physics point of view?

3.The mass ranges of gluino, squarks, sleptons are analyzed and the relic density of the cold dark matter is studied through the A-funnel and coannihilation channels. From these analyses what properties of the candidates for the cold dark matter can be obtained?

4.It is argued that the results are consistent with the cross sections of the nucleon-neutralino scattering except for several ones. What physical mechanisms in the present scenario proposed can lead to this consequence?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors addressed  the points raised in the previous report clarifying, in particular,  the relation between the manuscript and the existing literature. In my opinion, the revised version of the manuscript deserves publication on Universe.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors' answers and revision are appreciated. The points in the review report have been considered. The revised manuscript could be suitable for publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Back to TopTop