Related papers: Rezayi and Read Reply

The authors of preprint arXiv:2009.00286 and paper Appl. Phys. Lett. 117, 130501 (2020), Y. Sivan and Y. Dubi, made several wrong and inconsistent comments on our papers [J. Phys. Chem. C 117, 16616-16631 (2013), ACS Photonics 4 (11),…

Comment on X.-L. Wang et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 253602 (2010).

No abstract available, since this is a Comment on a published article (cf. title)

We reply to the comment cond-mat/9902073 by Ben-Naim and Krapivsky on our paper cond-mat/9901130. We show that their arguments are incorrect, and present more numerical results to back our earlier conclusions.

Comment on: L.F. Cugliandolo and J.L. Iguain; Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 85} 3448 (2000)

This is a reply to the comment by Singh and Rajesh (arXiv 1212.0946; to appear in PRL) on our paper Olejarz et al., PRL, 108, 016102 (2012) [arxiv 1109.1253]

We make several comments on "Note on the Analytical Solution of the Rabi Model" (arXiv:1210.4946).

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.

We compare the results of our two papers with the results of the paper Aratyn H., Gomes J.F., Zimerman A.H., Higher order Painlev\'e equations and their symmetries via reductions of a class of integrable models, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor., V.…

This is a reply to the Comment on 'Spin Decoherence in Superconducting Atom Chips' [arXiv:quant-ph/0610095 (2006)].

A recent e-print (cond-mat/0604532) presented a proposed Comment to Applied Physics Letters on our publication Appl. Phys. Lett. 88, 162503 (2006), cond-mat/0603260. Here is our Response. As the proposed Comment has now been rejected by…

This is a comment on Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 180403 (2007) [arXiv:0704.2162].

We comment on the recent paper "Magnetic Percolation and the Phase Diagram of the disordered RKKY model." D.J. Priour and S. Das Sarma, Phys Rev. Lett.{\bf 97}, 127201 (2006); cond-mat/0606532)

We make some comments about the results we obtained in Phys. Rev. Lett. 86,3392(2001), and in Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 177206 (2001), and show that the conclusion of a recent paper [cond-mat/0409495] leveling some criticism on our results is, in…

The comment is intended to answer the criticism presented on `Steady-state fluctuations of a genetic feedback loop: an exact solution' [J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 137}, 035104 (2012).] and provides the missing component for the complete analytic…

A reply on the comment of Bertin, Chate, Ginelli, Gregoire, Leonard and Peshkov, arxiv:1404.3950v1, in this special issue.

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

This is a reply to the comment to a letter by D. Mandal, K. Klymko and M. R. DeWeese published as Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 258001 (2017).

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).

The results of a recent paper by D.J.Hinde et al., PRL 101, 092701 (2008) are discussed.