Added new responses.

1 files changed, 21 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/referee_respose_2.txt b/referee_respose_2.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..4ddc8e3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/referee_respose_2.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+The latest reviews had nothing to say about the scientific content of our
+paper, only about its relevance to Physical Review Letters. For resubmission to
+Physical Review Research, we have therefore changed nothing except to expand on
+our reasoning regarding the relevance of this work to the broader physics
+community, and indeed across disciplines. The end of the fourth paragraph now
+reads:
+
+> [...] In order to do this correctly, features of the action's landscape in
+> complex space---such as the relative position of saddles and the existence of
+> Stokes lines joining them---must be understood.  This is typically done for
+> simple actions with few saddles, or for a target phenomenology with
+> symmetries that restrict the set of saddles to few candidates. Given the
+> recent proliferation of `glassiness' in condensed matter and high energy
+> physics, it is inevitable that someone will want to apply these methods to a
+> system with a complex landscape, and will find they cannot use approaches
+> that rely on such assumptions. Their landscape may not be random: here we
+> follow the standard strategy of computer science by understanding the generic
+> features of random instances of a simple case, expecting that this sheds
+> light on practical, nonrandom problems. While in this paper we do not yet
+> address analytic continuation of integrals, understanding the distribution
+> and spectra of critical points is an essential first step.