diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'response.tex')
| -rw-r--r-- | response.tex | 37 |
1 files changed, 17 insertions, 20 deletions
diff --git a/response.tex b/response.tex index 4addddf..69a5531 100644 --- a/response.tex +++ b/response.tex @@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ in the direction of highlighting the importance of having a full solution. In p we have emphasized that going to the full replica treatment uncovers a phase-space structure that needs to be taken into account, and that is absent in the annealed treatment. -We have thus added the paragraph: +Among other changes, we have added the paragraph: \begin{quote} Having a full, exact (`quenched') solution of the generic problem is not @@ -60,25 +60,28 @@ barrier crossing (which barriers?) \footfullcite{Ros_2019_Complexity, Ros_2021_D (which end in what kind of target states?). \end{quote} + Both referees find that our paper is clearly written but technical, and that its topic of ``the different RSB schemes'' are not suitable for a broad audience. This is surprising to the authors, since a quick search on Google Scholar reveals several recent PRLs with heavy use of -RSB schemes. +RSB schemes. -We would also like to submit to the referees that it is somewhat incongruous +It is perhaps +true that the final solution of an open problem may often be more technical +than the previous ones. +But we would like to submit to the referees that it is somewhat incongruous that the solution to a problem that had remained open for 42 years -- during which it was always present in articles in PRL \footfullcite{Fyodorov_2004_Complexity, Bray_2007_Statistics, Fyodorov_2012_Critical, Wainrib_2013_Topological, Dennis_2020_Jamming}-- is rejected because it demands of the readers a slightly longer attention span. These previous works were often limited by the fact that general landscapes -(for which an annealed solution is not exact) were inaccessible. It is perhaps -true that the final solution of an open problem may often be more technical -than the previous ones. +(for which an annealed solution is not exact) were inaccessible. Below, we respond to the referees' comments. +A comprehensive accounting of the changes to our manuscript can be found appended to this letter. \begin{quote} \begin{center} @@ -115,8 +118,7 @@ Below, we respond to the referees' comments. Referee A correctly points out that one new feature of the solutions outlined in our manuscript is that RSB must occur in parts of the -phase diagram for these models. However, they neglect another feature: -that they are the solutions of the \textit{quenched} complexity, which has +phase diagram for these models they are indeed the solutions of the \textit{quenched} complexity, which has not been correctly calculated until now. We agree with the referee that ``the complexity of the mixed p-spin glass models'' is not a major breakthrough in and of itself, we just @@ -163,25 +165,20 @@ The novelty of the paper is most definitely not the fact of treating a zero temperature case. We have added the following phrase, that should clarify the situation: +\begin{quote} For simplicity we have concentrated here on the energy, rather than {\em free-energy} landscape, although the latter is sometimes more appropriate. From the technical point of view, this makes no fundamental difference, it suffices to apply the same computation to the Thouless-Andreson-Palmer (TAP) free energy, \footfullcite{Crisanti_1995_Thouless-Anderson-Palmer} instead of the energy. We do not expect new features or technical complications arise. +\end{quote} We agree with Referee B's assessment of ``essential open problems in -the field,'' and agree that our work does not deliver answers. However, -delivering answers for all essential open problems is not the acceptance -criterion of PRL. These are - -\begin{itemize} - \item Open a new research area, or a new avenue within an established area. - \item Solve, or make essential steps towards solving, a critical problem. - \item Introduce techniques or methods with significant impact. - \item Be of unusual intrinsic interest to PRL's broad audience. -\end{itemize} - -We believe our manuscript makes essential steps toward solving the +the field,'' and agree that our work does not deliver all answers. However, +delivering all answers for all essential open problems is not the acceptance +criterion of PRL. + +Our manuscript makes essential steps toward solving the critical problem of connecting analysis of the static landscape to dynamics. We believe that its essential step is through the introduction of a new technique, calculation of the quenched |