Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:1805.01986

Reply to "Comment on 'Modified quantum-speed-limit bounds for open quantum dynamics in quantum channels'"

Xin Liu, Wei Wu, Chao Wang

Published May 5, 2018• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

The authors of the comment[Phys. Rev. A 97, 046101 (2018)] raise that the inconsistency in calculating some common quantum-speed-limit (QSL) bounds, which is presented in our paper [Phys. Rev. A 95, 052118 (2017)], does not exist in their paper [Phys. Rev. A 94, 052125 (2016)]. Therefore they insist that their criticism to some QSL bounds is still valid. We demonstrate all the QSL bounds mentioned in the comment are similar in essence. We also show the inconsistency which is presented in their original paper can not be used to support their criticism. Furthermore, we exhibit although the inconsistency presented in our paper is not a same one to which is presented by the authors of the comment, it exists and be unavoidable in their example. Accordingly, we believe the result in our paper is usable in numerical calculations.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1805.01986

Related papers

Comment on “Modified quantum-speed-limit bounds for open quantum dynamics in quantum channels”

Nicolás Mirkin, Fabricio Toscano, Diego A. Wisniacki

In a recent paper [Phys. Rev. A 95, 052118 (2017)], the authors claim that our criticism, in Phys. Rev. A 94, 052125 (2016), to some quantum speed limit bounds for open quantum dynamics that appeared recently in literature are invalid. According to the authors, the problem with our analysis would be generated by an artifact of the finite-precision numerical calculations. We analytically show here that it is not possible to have any inconsistency associated with the numerical precision of calculations. Therefore, our criticism of the quantum speed limit bounds continues to be valid.

Physical Review A•Apr 6, 2018•2 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Coherent-state path integrals in the continuum’”

G. Kordas, S. I. Mistakidis, A. I. Karanikas

In this Reply we briefly clarify the main points of our method to construct coherent-state path integrals in the continuum and we reply to the critique raised by in the preceding Comment by Kochetov [Phys. Rev. A 99, 026101 (2019)]. By using definite examples, we prove that our approach is capable of resolving the inconsistencies accompanying the standard coherent-state path-integral representation of interacting systems.

Physical Review A•Feb 13, 2019•3 citations

Reply to "Comment on 'Modifying the variational principle in the action-integral-functional derivation of time-dependent density functional theory'"

J. Schirmer

In a recent paper [Phys. Rev. A 77, 062511 (2008)], it was advocated to modify the variational principle for the action-integral functional in the Runge-Gross foundation of time-dependent density-functional theory. This was criticised in a subsequent paper [Phys. Rev. A 62, 052510 (2010)] by the present author. In a Comment [Phys. Rev. A 83, 046501 (2011)], it is argued that the criticism is unfounded. This is a response as given to the four specific points raised in the Comment, clarifying and confirming the essence of the original criticism.

arXiv:1105.2718•May 13, 2011•0 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘One-state vector formalism for the evolution of a quantum state through nested Mach-Zehnder interferometers’ ”

Karol Bartkiewicz, Antonín Černoch, Dalibor Javůrek +3 more

In our recent paper [Phys. Rev. A 91, 012103 (2015)] we have provided an alternative description of a highly debated experiment by Danan et al. [Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 240402 (2013)]. The former paper has been recently commented on by Vaidman [Phys. Rev. A 93, 036103 (2016)]. In this Reply we demonstrate that the comments are either invalid or, where valid, do not affect the results of our original paper.

Physical Review A•Mar 31, 2016•7 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Fermionic entanglement ambiguity in noninertial frames’ ”

Miguel Montero, Eduardo Martín-Martínez

We show that, contrary to the claims of the preceding Comment [Br\'adler and J\'auregui, Phys. Rev. A 85, 016301 (2012)], our original work [Phys. Rev. A 83, 062323 (2011)] is devoid of flaws or mistakes. We show that the criticism comes from a misunderstanding of part of our work.

arXiv:1108.6074•Physical Review A•Jan 17, 2012•24 citations

Modified quantum-speed-limit bounds for open quantum dynamics in quantum channels

Xin Liu, Wei Wu, Chao Wang

The minimal evolution time between two distinguishable states is of fundamental interest in quantum physics. Very recently Mirkin et al. [Phys. Rev. A 94, 052125 (2016)] argued that some of the most common quantum-speed-limit (QSL) bounds which depend on the actual evolution time do not cleave to the essence of the QSL theory as they grow indefinitely but the final state is reached at a finite time in a damped Jaynes-Cummings model. In this paper, we thoroughly study this puzzling phenomenon. We find the inconsistent estimates will happen if and only if the limit of resolution of a calculation program is achieved, through which we propose that the nature of the inconsistency is not a violation of the essence of the QSL theory but an illusion caused by the finite precision in numerical simulations. We also present a generic method to overcome the inconsistent estimates and confirm its effectiveness in both amplitude-damping and phase-damping channels. Additionally, we show special cases which may restrict the QSL bound defined by ``quantumness''.

arXiv:1702.06748•Physical Review A•May 22, 2017•5 citations
The authors of the comment[Phys. Rev. A 97, 046101 (2018)] raise that the inconsistency in calculating some common quantum-speed-limit (QSL) bounds, which is presented in our paper [Phys. Rev. A 95, 052118 (2017)], does not exist in their paper [Phys. Rev. A 94, 052125 (2016)]. Therefore they insist that their criticism to some QSL bounds is still valid. We demonstrate all the QSL bounds mentioned in the comment are similar in essence. We also show the inconsistency which is presented in their original paper can not be used to support their criticism. Furthermore, we exhibit although the inconsistency presented in our paper is not a same one to which is presented by the authors of the comment, it exists and be unavoidable in their example. Accordingly, we believe the result in our paper is usable in numerical calculations.
In a recent paper [Phys. Rev. A 95, 052118 (2017)], the authors claim that our criticism, in Phys. Rev. A 94, 052125 (2016), to some quantum speed limit bounds for open quantum dynamics that appeared recently in literature are invalid. According to the authors, the problem with our analysis would be generated by an artifact of the finite-precision numerical calculations. We analytically show here that it is not possible to have any inconsistency associated with the numerical precision of calculations. Therefore, our criticism of the quantum speed limit bounds continues to be valid.
In a recent paper [Phys. Rev. A 77, 062511 (2008)], it was advocated to modify the variational principle for the action-integral functional in the Runge-Gross foundation of time-dependent density-functional theory. This was criticised in a subsequent paper [Phys. Rev. A 62, 052510 (2010)] by the present author. In a Comment [Phys. Rev. A 83, 046501 (2011)], it is argued that the criticism is unfounded. This is a response as given to the four specific points raised in the Comment, clarifying and confirming the essence of the original criticism.
The minimal evolution time between two distinguishable states is of fundamental interest in quantum physics. Very recently Mirkin et al. [Phys. Rev. A 94, 052125 (2016)] argued that some of the most common quantum-speed-limit (QSL) bounds which depend on the actual evolution time do not cleave to the essence of the QSL theory as they grow indefinitely but the final state is reached at a finite time in a damped Jaynes-Cummings model. In this paper, we thoroughly study this puzzling phenomenon. We find the inconsistent estimates will happen if and only if the limit of resolution of a calculation program is achieved, through which we propose that the nature of the inconsistency is not a violation of the essence of the QSL theory but an illusion caused by the finite precision in numerical simulations. We also present a generic method to overcome the inconsistent estimates and confirm its effectiveness in both amplitude-damping and phase-damping channels. Additionally, we show special cases which may restrict the QSL bound defined by ``quantumness''.