{"id":"3c816090-28f9-4d6f-a5f3-1adb0d016632","arxiv_id":"2505.14915","paper_version":2,"verdict":"CONDITIONAL","confidence":"MODERATE","novelty_score":4.0,"correctness_risk":"medium","formal_verification":"none","parameter_count":3,"one_line_summary":"A quadratically coupled accelerated Unruh-DeWitt detector shows transition rates and quantum-information degradation enhanced by a factor (1+a^2)/12π^2 relative to linear coupling, under an equal-dimensionless-constant comparison.","lead":"Physicists compare how quantum detectors that couple to a field linearly versus quadratically lose quantum information when accelerated. They find the quadratically coupled detector appears to lose coherence and wave-particle information faster at high acceleration, though the comparison depends on how the coupling strengths are chosen.","discovery_kind":"extension","skeptic_critique":{"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","headline":"The finite-time derivative expansion in Eq. (25) is applied in Eq. (33) at the edge of its validity; the resulting T^{-2} corrections are not justified in the high-acceleration regime plotted in the figures, and the acceleration-dependent enhancement could be an artifact of the expansion.","rationale":"The strongest_claim is the identity Eq. (32) and its consequences. That identity is directly derivable from the exact Wightman function and is the least suspect part of the paper. The reader's weakest_assumption correctly identifies that comparing λ and Λ is normalization-dependent, but this is a limitation on the headline claim's interpretation, not a flaw in the internal derivation. My stress test focuses on an internal, load-bearing step: the finite-time derivative expansion. Because the paper's quantitative claims (Eqs. (59), (65), (66), (83), (88), (90), (95), (98)) all rely on Eq. (33) and the same pattern in Eq. (34), and because the T^{-2} corrections enter with denominators like (e^{2π/a}-1) whose small-a behavior diverges, the expansion is applied at the edge of its validity. A direct numerical check is feasible and would settle the issue. Regardless of the outcome, the exact infinite-time result Eq. (32) is confirmed independently by the derivation, so the paper has a solid core. I therefore keep the verdict at CONDITIONAL, consistent with the reader, rather than moving to REJECT.","tokens_in":25366,"tokens_out":2046,"duration_ms":16629,"concrete_test":"Compute the exact finite-time response function for the Gaussian switch χ(τ)=e^{-τ²/2T²} by numerically integrating R_{φ²}(T)=∫dΔτ χ(Δτ;T) e^{-iΩΔτ} W_{φ²}(Δτ) directly, and compare it with the approximate Eq. (33) and with the leading-order result (a²+Ω²)/24π³ Ω/(e^{βΩ}-1) for parameters used in Fig. 1 (a=0.1...100, Ω=1, σ=10). If the T^{-2} correction in Eq. (33) is larger than 10% of the zeroth-order term or differs from the numerical integral by more than 10%, then the coherence formulas Eqs. (59), (65), and (66) are not established for the claimed regime, and the normalization-based comparison in Fig. 1(e) should be redone using the exact rates.","verdict_should_be":"CONDITIONAL","load_bearing_attack":"The reader's normalization objection is real but not the most load-bearing weakness. A more severe and internal problem is that Eq. (33), which underpins the single-qubit coherence Eq. (59) and the probability Eqs. (65)-(66), is obtained by applying the asymptotic finite-time correction Eq. (25) beyond its derivation. Eq. (25) follows from Eq. (20)-(22) by expanding the switching function around τ=0 and keeping the χ''(0) term, with all neglected terms scaled by T^{-4}. That expansion is valid only when the integration kernel e^{-iΩΔτ}W(Δτ) is concentrated exponentially near Δτ=0, i.e., roughly for ΩT > 1 or for very small aT. In Eq. (33), the authors then substitute the long-time expressions R±(∞)=(Ω/24π³)(a²+Ω²)/(e^{2πΩ/a}-1) into the T^{-2} correction term, evaluating ∂²R±/∂Ω² at long times. This produces explicit terms containing factors like e^{2π/a}/(e^{2π/a}-1)², whose size is controlled by a/Ω, the same parameter that invalidates the derivative expansion. Concretely, in the highly accelerated limit a ≫ Ω, the second-order term in the square brackets of Eq. (33) can be as large as O((Ω/a)² T^{-2}) times the zeroth-order term, while the expansion itself was justified only for aT ≫ 1. Thus, for exactly the regime plotted in Figs. 1-3, the correction is unreliable. The authors never provide the exact finite-time response function, so the claimed 'quadratic acceleration dependence' of the coherence loss and the enhancement factor (1+a²)/12π² could be an artifact of the truncated expansion rather than a physical prediction. Independent support: The central identity Eq. (32) R±_{φ²}(∞)=((a²+Ω²)/12π²)R±_φ(∞) follows directly from the exact infinite-time response function, so a targeted check can separate the physics from the expansion artifact.","agreement_with_reader":"partial"},"referee_report":{"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","summary":"The paper studies a Unruh-DeWitt detector quadratically coupled to a massless scalar field, derives the vacuum Wightman function and finite-time transition rates for uniformly accelerated motion, and then applies the results to three information-theoretic setups: an accelerated single qubit, a quantum interferometric circuit, and a which-path distinguishability circuit. The central technical result is Eq. (30) for the infinite-time excitation rate and the factorization Eq. (32), R^{±}_{φ²}(∞)=((a²+Ω²)/12π²)R^{±}_{φ}(∞), which links the quadratic and linear detector responses. The paper reports closed-form expressions for l1-norm coherence, internal-state probabilities, interferometric visibility, which-path distinguishability, and the complementarity relation, and concludes that quadratic coupling amplifies the Unruh effect and degrades quantum information faster than linear coupling.","tokens_in":25734,"tokens_out":35795,"duration_ms":312389,"significance":"The paper addresses a timely question in relativistic quantum information: whether the structure of the detector-field coupling changes Unruh-induced decoherence and information loss. If the central formulas are correct, the factorization in Eq. (32) is a useful organizing result, and the explicit expressions for coherence, visibility, distinguishability, and complementarity provide concrete predictions that could be compared with other detector models. The paper also deserves credit for emphasizing the different mass dimensions of the linear and quadratic coupling constants and for attempting to handle the corresponding normalization issue. The main weaknesses are that the derivation of the central rate contains an invalid contour step, the which-path distinguishability has an internal factor-of-two inconsistency, the headline 'amplification' claim depends on an arbitrary coupling normalization, and the finite-time correction formulas are not derived consistently.","major_comments":[{"comment":"The derivation of the central rate Eq. (30) is not valid as written. The text states that the contour choice subtracts the contributions k∈[-∞,0), leaving the sum over k=0∞ of exp(2πΩk/a); for Ω>0 this is a divergent geometric series, and the manipulation 1/(1-e^{2πΩ/a}) is only formal. Closing the contour in the correct half-plane for e^{-iΩΔτ} selects k<0, giving Σ_{k=-∞}^{-1} e^{2πΩk/a} = 1/(e^{2πΩ/a}-1). The final expression Eq. (30) is consistent with known quadratic-detector results, but the derivation should be replaced by the convergent k<0 sum.","section":"II C, Eqs. (26)-(30)"},{"comment":"There is an internal inconsistency in the tracelessness conditions. Eq. (76) states F^{∓}_{φ²}-2Re(G^{±}_{φ²})=0, which makes the λ² diagonal corrections in Eq. (75) vanish individually; this contradicts Eq. (78), ReG^-=¼(F^-+F^+), which is the correct trace condition and is used in deriving Eqs. (83)-(84). Applying Eq. (78) to Eq. (75) gives w_A=1/2+λ²/4(F^- - F^+) and w_B=1/2+λ²/4(F^+ - F^-), hence D_{φ²}=λ²/2|F^- - F^+|. In the long-time quadratic limit this is (1+a²)σΛ²/(48π³), i.e. half of Eq. (95), after using Eq. (32). Eq. (95) and any discussion depending on its numerical coefficient need correction; Eq. (98) is unchanged at O(Λ²) since D² is O(Λ⁴).","section":"III B, Eqs. (75)-(78), (93)-(95)"},{"comment":"The headline claim that quadratic coupling degrades information more quickly is not invariant under the chosen coupling normalization. Because λ (linear) is dimensionless while λ_{φ²} (quadratic) has mass dimension -1, the statement λ=Λ (with Ω=1) in the figures is a choice of units, not a physical equivalence. The ratio of the quadratic to linear degradation coefficients in Eq. (59) versus Eq. (60) is (Λ²/λ²)(1+a²)/12π²; changing the normalization of Λ, e.g. Λ=λ/10, changes or reverses the comparison. The authors should either justify a physical convention for fixing the relative strength of the two couplings or present the comparison as conditional on that convention.","section":"III A 4, Figs. 1-3 and 6; Conclusion"},{"comment":"The finite-time expansion is not derived consistently. For the stated Gaussian χ(τ)=exp(-τ²/(2T²)), χ''(0)=-1/T², and Eq. (22) gives a coefficient +1/T² for ∂²R/∂Ω², not +1/(2T²) as in Eq. (25); a direct evaluation of the double Gaussian integral gives yet another coefficient. Moreover, Eq. (25) is an asymptotic expansion around Δτ=0, and substituting the long-time Planckian rates into the correction term as done in Eq. (33) is not controlled for a≫Ω, where the second-order correction can be comparable to the leading term. Since the σ≫1 results such as Eq. (59) drop these corrections, this does not invalidate the main long-time formulas, but Eqs. (33)-(34) should be re-derived and their validity regime stated.","section":"II C, Eqs. (22), (25), (33)-(34)"}],"minor_comments":[{"comment":"The appendix contains several sign and factor errors: Eq. (C2) disagrees with Eq. (18) in the overall sign and in the sign of the a² term; Eq. (C8) uses e^{+ξ²} in the Fourier representation, which is divergent and should be e^{-ξ²}; and the u-integral in Eq. (C5) evaluates to 2T√π, not √π. The final result Eq. (C20) appears correct after cancellations, but the derivation should be rewritten.","section":"Appendix C, Eqs. (C2)-(C8)"},{"comment":"After defining dimensionless rates R̄^{±}_{φ²}=R^{±}_{φ²}/Ω, the notation R^{±}_{φ²}/Ω² in Eq. (58) is ambiguous; the bars should be used consistently to avoid dimensionally confusing expressions.","section":"III A 2, Eq. (58)"},{"comment":"The notation with 2a^{-1} in the denominators is hard to read; writing aΔτ/2 explicitly would improve clarity.","section":"II B, Eqs. (14)-(15)"},{"comment":"The captions do not state whether the plotted curves use the leading long-time expressions Eqs. (59)/(60) or the finite-time expressions from Section II C; please clarify, since the finite-time corrections are dropped in the text.","section":"Figures 1-3, 6"}],"recommendation":"major_revision","confidential_remarks":"The paper is likely salvageable. The central response function Eq. (30) is correct and consistent with known quadratic-detector results, and the application formulas are mostly straightforward once the response function is accepted. The most serious technical problems are the factor-of-two error in the which-path distinguishability derivation and the invalid contour step in Eq. (29); both should be corrected before acceptance. The normalization issue in the linear-versus-quadratic comparison is the deepest conceptual point and should be addressed head-on by the authors, either by adopting a physical convention or by softening the 'amplification' claim. The paper's self-citation pattern is not excessive, and refs. [31] and [34] are directly relevant."},"author_rebuttal":null,"desk_editor":{"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","letter":"The quadratic response function at the center of this paper is not new—Takagi and Hummer et al. already derived it—but the application to l1 coherence, interferometric visibility, and which-path distinguishability is. The most interesting new result is Eq. (95): for quadratic coupling, which-path distinguishability grows as (1+a²)σΛ², while the linear case is acceleration-independent. That is a clean, checkable RQI statement and the real contribution of the paper.\n\nThe paper does several things well. It cites the right literature, including the papers with the known response function and the dimensional-analysis point from Gray and Mann. The central identity Eq. (32) relating the quadratic and linear infinite-time rates is correct in form, and the information-theoretic formulas follow from it by standard perturbative tracing. The qualitative claim that quadratic coupling opens two-quanta excitation channels is physically sound.\n\nThe soft spots are mostly about presentation and rigor, not the core physics. The biggest caveat is the comparison that produces the \"amplification\" conclusion. Setting λ=Λ with Ω=1 is an arbitrary normalization: λ is dimensionless in 4D while λ_φ2 has mass dimension −1, and Λ=λ_φ2Ω only fixes one scale. With a different relative normalization the quadratic degradation can be smaller or even reversed. The paper should state this clearly in the abstract and conclusions rather than presenting the amplification as a parameter-free fact.\n\nThe derivation of Eq. (30) has a real defect: the sum over k≥0 of e^{2πΩk/a} diverges, and the geometric series is being used by analytic continuation. The final answer is known to be correct from the literature, but the derivation as written is not rigorous. Appendix C contains sign and factor errors—the u-integral is missing a factor 2T, and the sign of the a²/6 term in the Wightman function is wrong. These do not affect the long-time results because C± is exponentially suppressed in σ, but they should be fixed. Eq. (76) looks like a typo; the relation actually used later is Eq. (78).\n\nThe stress-test worry about the finite-time expansion in Eq. (33) being applied out of its validity regime is, on reading the paper, less severe than it seems: the final information formulas (59), (65), (83) etc. are all obtained in the σ≫1 limit using only the infinite-time rates, with the T^{-2} corrections dropped. So the expansion is not load-bearing for the main claims.\n\nWho this is for: people working on Unruh/DeWitt detectors and relativistic quantum information. The paper deserves a serious referee. The referee should ask for a cleaner derivation of the response function (or a direct citation to the exact result), a prominent statement of the normalization convention, and removal of the unnecessary finite-time expansion. The central physics is plausible and the new applications are worth publishing after substantial revision.","headline":"A plausible new application of a known quadratic UDW response function; the main formulas are likely right, but the 'amplification' headline depends on an arbitrary coupling normalization and the derivations are sloppy.","tokens_in":26362,"tokens_out":18300,"would_cite":false,"duration_ms":147837,"reading_group":"maybe","serious_thinker":"yes","would_accept_peer_review":true},"rs_alignment":null,"lean_confirmation":null,"pith_extraction":{"msc":[],"pacs":[],"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","headline":"The paper claims that quadratic detector-field coupling multiplies the Unruh response by $(a^2+\\Omega^2)/(12\\pi^2)$, so accelerated quantum systems lose coherence and wave-particle information faster.","keywords":["Unruh effect","quadratic coupling","Unruh-DeWitt detector","quantum coherence","which-path distinguishability","wave-particle duality","relativistic quantum information","massless scalar field"],"falsifier":"Numerically evaluate the exact Fourier integral (24) using the quadratic Wightman function (18) along a Rindler trajectory and compare with the closed form (30) and the ratio (32); any discrepancy beyond numerical precision would falsify the derivation. An experimental analogue would be a two-level system quadratically coupled to a phonon or electromagnetic bath at Unruh temperature $T=a/2\\pi$, checking whether the excitation rate follows $(a^2+\\Omega^2)/(e^{2\\pi\\Omega/a}-1)$ rather than $\\Omega/(e^{2\\pi\\Omega/a}-1)$.","tokens_in":25139,"feed_emoji":"⚛️","tokens_out":8690,"duration_ms":76637,"temperature":0.7,"pith_summary":"This paper sets out to show that the way an accelerated detector couples to a quantum field controls how quickly the Unruh effect destroys quantum information. Working perturbatively with an Unruh–DeWitt detector quadratically coupled to a massless scalar field, it derives a transition rate that is exactly the linear rate multiplied by $(a^2+\\Omega^2)/(12\\pi^2)$. It then carries this factor through calculations of single-qubit coherence, internal-state probabilities, interferometric visibility, and which-path distinguishability, finding that all degrade faster than in the linear case. The proposed reason is that quadratic coupling lets the detector absorb two field quanta at once, opening excitation channels the linear coupling lacks. If the derivation holds, the coupling structure becomes a practical dial for how much acceleration-induced noise an information-storing qubit experiences.","feed_headline":"Quadratic coupling amplifies the Unruh effect","feed_subtitle":"A quadratically coupled accelerated detector loses quantum information faster by a factor of (a²+Ω²)/12π².","key_machinery":"The load-bearing object is the detector response function per unit time, $R^\\pm(\\infty)$, the Fourier transform of the quadratic Wightman function along the Rindler trajectory. The Wightman function is built from the linear one by $W_{\\phi^2}=2W_\\phi^2$ with normal ordering to control divergences; its KMS-periodic series form, Eq. (18), is Fourier-transformed term by term and summed as a geometric series, yielding Eq. (30) and then the ratio identity (32). The same $F^\\pm$, $G^\\pm$, $C^\\pm$ integrals feed all subsequent information-theoretic quantities, so the single ratio propagates unchanged into coherence, visibility, distinguishability, and complementarity.","core_discovery":"The central claim is Eq. (32): for uniform acceleration $a$ and detector gap $\\Omega$, the infinite-time excitation and de-excitation rates of the quadratic detector satisfy $R^\\pm_{\\phi^2}(\\infty)=\\frac{a^2+\\Omega^2}{12\\pi^2}R^\\pm_\\phi(\\infty)$, with $R^\\pm_\\phi$ the standard linear rates. From this, the paper obtains closed forms for finite-time Gaussian switching, and then for the $\\ell^1$-norm coherence of an accelerated qubit, Eq. (59), where the degradation term carries $(1+a^2)$ in units of $\\Omega$; for the interferometric visibility (88); for which-path distinguishability (95), which becomes acceleration-dependent; and for the complementarity relation (98). In every quantity the difference from the linear case is only the coupling constant and the factor $(1+a^2)/12\\pi^2$. The physical mechanism identified in the paper is the structure of the vacuum correlation function: $W_{\\phi^2}(\\Delta\\tau)\\propto W_\\phi(\\Delta\\tau)^2$, which encodes simultaneous absorption of pairs of quanta.","pith_inferences":["The comparison's normalization dependence means the headline 'amplification' is partly a convention; an operational calibration, such as matching excitation probabilities at a reference acceleration, could make the linear-versus-quadratic comparison invariant. (Editorial inference.)","If the ratio (32) is correct, it behaves like an effective rescaling of the Unruh temperature or detector gap; mapping the factor to a temperature shift could give analogue experiments a direct falsifiable target. (Editorial inference.)","For massive fields or other spacetime dimensions, the square structure $W_{\\phi^2}\\propto W_\\phi^2$ suggests the extra factor generalizes to mass- and dimension-dependent functions, which may change or offset the protective effect that mass gives to linear detectors. (Editorial inference.)","Quadratic coupling's stronger response may also boost entanglement harvesting between accelerated detector pairs, although the known divergences of quadratic detectors would make that conclusion delicate. (Editorial inference.)"],"forward_implications":["At high acceleration ($a\\gg\\Omega$), the quadratic transition rate exceeds the linear rate by a factor growing like $a^2/(12\\pi^2)$, so the Unruh-thermal effect is increasingly amplified in the relativistic regime.","Single-qubit coherence under quadratic coupling degrades quadratically with acceleration, Eq. (59), meaning qubits in high-acceleration environments lose superpositions far more quickly than linear-coupling predictions suggest.","Which-path distinguishability becomes acceleration-dependent for quadratic coupling, Eq. (95), while it is acceleration-independent for linear coupling, so the Unruh effect can itself generate which-path information.","The complementarity relation $V^2+D^2\\le 1$ decreases faster under quadratic coupling, so both wave-like and particle-like information are lost more quickly; the paper notes that matching the quadratic degradation with linear coupling requires a roughly ten times larger coupling constant."],"supporting_citations":[{"why":"Defines the Unruh–DeWitt detector and establishes the acceleration-thermal response that the paper extends to quadratic coupling.","marker":"[3]"},{"why":"Shows that quadratic detectors respond differently from linear detectors, providing the motivation for the comparison.","marker":"[44]"},{"why":"Supplies the normal-ordering and renormalization prescription that yields $W_{\\phi^2}=2W^2$ for scalar fields.","marker":"[45]"},{"why":"Treats quadratic UDW detector pairs and the associated divergences, a direct predecessor for the quadratic Wightman function used here.","marker":"[46]"},{"why":"Gives the mass-dimensionality analysis of the quadratic coupling constant, leading to the dimensionless $\\Lambda=\\lambda_{\\phi^2}\\Omega$ used in all formulas.","marker":"[47]"},{"why":"Provides the linear-coupling wave–particle duality and coherence results against which the quadratic results are compared.","marker":"[31]"},{"why":"Supplies the massive linear-coupling coherence and probability formulas whose massless limit yields the linear-case baselines (60), (67)–(68), (85)–(86), (89), (91), (96), (99).","marker":"[34]"},{"why":"Provides the response-function identity and asymptotic finite-time switching method used to derive Eqs. (20)–(25).","marker":"[54]"},{"why":"Gives the Rindler coordinate transformations used to evaluate the Wightman function along the uniformly accelerated trajectory.","marker":"[57]"},{"why":"Defines the Wightman correlation function that is the starting object for the detector response.","marker":"[52]"}],"fun_headline_variants":["Quadratic coupling amplifies Unruh effect","Unruh effect grows with quadratic coupling","Qubit coherence fades faster under quadratic coupling","Quadratic coupling speeds quantum info loss","Quadratic coupling enhances Unruh effect"],"cache_read_input_tokens":3200,"weakest_assumption_plain":"The comparison assumes that setting the linear and quadratic coupling strengths equal (after fixing the scale by $\\Omega=1$) is the physically meaningful way to compare the two detectors; a different choice of units can shrink or even reverse the claimed acceleration amplification.","fun_headline_variants_meta":{"raw":{"variants":["Quadratic coupling amplifies Unruh effect","Unruh effect grows with quadratic coupling","Qubit coherence fades faster under quadratic coupling","Quadratic coupling speeds quantum info loss","Quadratic coupling enhances Unruh effect"]},"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","effort":"low","cost_usd":0.000896,"raw_usage":{"total_tokens":3869,"prompt_tokens":960,"completion_tokens":2909,"prompt_tokens_details":{"cached_tokens":384},"prompt_cache_hit_tokens":384,"prompt_cache_miss_tokens":576,"completion_tokens_details":{"reasoning_tokens":2841}},"tokens_in":576,"tokens_out":2909,"duration_ms":38509,"temperature":1.0,"reasoning_tokens":2841,"cache_read_input_tokens":384,"cache_creation_input_tokens":0},"cache_creation_input_tokens":0},"created_at":"2026-08-07T15:29:56.170867+00:00","model_set":{"reader":"deepseek-v4-flash"},"falsifier":"Numerically evaluate the exact Fourier integral (24) using the quadratic Wightman function (18) along a Rindler trajectory and compare with the closed form (30) and the ratio (32); any discrepancy beyond numerical precision would falsify the derivation. An experimental analogue would be a two-level system quadratically coupled to a phonon or electromagnetic bath at Unruh temperature $T=a/2\\pi$, checking whether the excitation rate follows $(a^2+\\Omega^2)/(e^{2\\pi\\Omega/a}-1)$ rather than $\\Omega/(e^{2\\pi\\Omega/a}-1)$.","supporting_citations":[{"cited_title":null,"cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Shows that quadratic detectors respond differently from linear detectors, providing the motivation for the comparison."},{"cited_title":null,"cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Supplies the normal-ordering and renormalization prescription that yields $W_{\\phi^2}=2W^2$ for scalar fields."},{"cited_title":"Gooding, S","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Treats quadratic UDW detector pairs and the associated divergences, a direct predecessor for the quadratic Wightman function used here."},{"cited_title":null,"cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Gives the mass-dimensionality analysis of the quadratic coupling constant, leading to the dimensionless $\\Lambda=\\lambda_{\\phi^2}\\Omega$ used in all formulas."},{"cited_title":"Lapponi, D","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Provides the linear-coupling wave–particle duality and coherence results against which the quadratic results are compared."},{"cited_title":null,"cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Supplies the massive linear-coupling coherence and probability formulas whose massless limit yields the linear-case baselines (60), (67)–(68), (85)–(86), (89), (91), (96), (99)."},{"cited_title":null,"cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Provides the response-function identity and asymptotic finite-time switching method used to derive Eqs. (20)–(25)."},{"cited_title":"Gray and R","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Gives the Rindler coordinate transformations used to evaluate the Wightman function along the uniformly accelerated trajectory."},{"cited_title":null,"cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Defines the Wightman correlation function that is the starting object for the detector response."}],"review_version":1}