Related papers: Comments on Backreaction

This is a Reply to the Comment [arXiv:0807.0699] on our paper [PRL 100:232002 (2008)].

This thesis is a review of backreaction, which is a possible alternative to dark energy and modified gravity. We describe in detail the 3+1 covariant formalism and Frobenius' theorem. We present the averaging procedure developed by Buchert,…

The present article is the reply to the discussion of our earlier "Not only defended but also applied" (arXiv:1006.5366, to appear in The American Statistician) that arose from our memory of a particularly intemperate anti-Bayesian…

Some misleading statements in a recent paper in PRE are corrected.

Reply to arXiv:1903.09201.

We comment on incorrect citing and wrong statements made in the recent e-print hep-th/0405121.

We provide a reply to a comment by I. Goychuk arXiv:1708.04155, version v2 from 27 Aug 2017 (not under active consideration with Phys. Rev. Lett.), on our Letter E. Aghion, D. A. Kessler and E. Barkai, Phys. Rev. Lett., 118, 260601 (2017).

Comment on cond-mat/0205390; PRL 90, 026805 (2003)

We wouldn't like to bring up discrimination, but the tone of the commentary, which does not contain any science-based criticism or any alternative suggestions, does make one think of an unduly disrespectful attitude both towards the Russian…

This paper is a set of notes that we wrote concerning the first version of Emergent Gravity [gr-qc/0602022]. It is our version of an exercise that we proposed to some of our students. The idea was to find mathematical errors and…

A short Reply to the Comment of Prokof'ev and Svistunov, cond-mat/0504008, is given.

We respond to `Comments on the U(2) ADHM two-instanton' [Y. Tian, Phys. Lett. B 566 (2003) 183].

This is a Reply to the Comment by Vaidman in arXiv:2306.16756 on the paper: R. B. Griffiths, Phys. Rev. A 107, 062219 (2023)

We respond to comments on our paper, titled "Instrumental variable estimation of the causal hazard ratio."

A brief comment on A variational Bayesian approach for inverse problems with skew-t error distributions (Guha et al., Journal of Computational Physics 301 (2015) 377-393) is given in this letter.

We respond to a critique 2512.23460[hep-ph] of our paper 2505.05634[hep-ph]

This is a reply to the comment by Gilbert and Sanders [arXiv:1111.6271 (2011)]. We point out that their comment is a follow-up of a previous discussion which we briefly summarize before we refute their new criticism.

This is a comment on J. Schmittbuhl, A. Hansen, and G. G. Batrouni, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 045505 (2003). They offer a reply, in turn.

Reply to Ikeda (arXiv:0712.3341).

It is shown that the recent criticism of Brevik et al. (hep-th/0004041) is in error.