© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

Terms Privacy Legal Notice

arXiv:1903.07580

Reply to "Comment on `Winding around non-Hermitian singularities' by Zhong et al., Nat. Commun. 9, 4808 (2018)"

Qi Zhong, Mercedeh Khajavikhan, Demetrios N. Christodoulides, Ramy El‐Ganainy

Published Mar 18, 2019• 0 citations

Abstract

A comment has been recently posted on the arXiv (arXiv:1902.07504) that discuss our recent work on encircling multiple exceptional points in Nat. Commun. 9, 4808 (2018). In that comment, the authors claim that our approach is prone to errors. In discussing their findings, they also indicate that a method presented by their team in Phys. Rev. A 98, 023818 (2018) (presumed to give correct results in all situations) was published prior to our work. First, we would like to note that both their work and ours were posted on the arXiv within a week from each other. Second and more importantly, as we will show below, their analysis and conclusion concerning the validity of our approach as presented in the comment article (arXiv:1902.07504) are not correct. As we will demonstrate, a proper application of our method does indeed provide the correct results.

DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.1903.07580

Related papers

Comment on 'Winding around non-Hermitian singularities' by Zhong et al., Nat. Commun. 9, 4808 (2018)

Eric J. Pap, Daniël Boer, Holger Waalkens

In a recent paper entitled "Winding around non-Hermitian singularities" by Zhong et al., published in Nat. Commun. 9, 4808 (2018), a formalism is proposed for calculating the permutations of eigenstates that arise upon encircling (multiple) exceptional points (EPs) in the complex parameter plane of an analytic non-Hermitian Hamiltonian. The authors suggest that upon encircling EPs one should track the eigenvalue branch cuts that are traversed, and multiply the associated permutation matrices accordingly. In this comment we point out a serious shortcoming of this approach, illustrated by an explicit example that yields the wrong result for a specific loop. A more general method that has been published earlier by us and that does not suffer from this problem, is based on using fundamental loops. We briefly explain the method and list its various advantages. In addition, we argue that this method can be verified in a three wave-guide system, which then also unambiguously establishes the noncommutativity associated with encircling multiple EPs.

arXiv:1902.07504•Feb 20, 2019•0 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Semiquantum-key distribution using less than four quantum states’ ”

Xiangfu Zou, Daowen Qiu

In the preceding Comment [Phys. Rev. A 83, 046301 (2011)], Boyer and Mor pointed out that the first conclusion of Lemma 1 in our paper [X. Zou, D. Qiu, L. Li, L. Wu, and L. Li, Phys. Rev. A 79, 052312 (2009)] is not correct, and therefore, the proof of Theorem 5 based on Lemma 1 is wrong. Furthermore, they gave a direct proof for Theorem 5 and affirmed the conclusions in our original paper. In this Reply, we admit the first conclusion of Lemma 1 is not correct, but we need to point out that the second conclusion of Lemma 1 is correct. Accordingly, all the proofs for Lemma 2, Lemma 3, and Theorems 3--6 are based only on the second conclusion of Lemma 1 and therefore are correct.

arXiv:1010.4233•Physical Review A•Apr 11, 2011•23 citations

Comment on "Eigenstate clustering around exceptional points"

Francisco Marcelo Fernández

We show that the author of a recent paper [arXiv:2008.04929] put forward some false statements about the eigenstates of Hermitian and non-Hermitian systems. We conjecture that one of the non-Hermitian Hamiltonians for a one-dimensional lattice is similar to an Hermitian one and, consequently, exhibits real eigenvalues. Present theoretical analysis of the eigenvalue equation suggests that one of the sets of numerical results in the criticized paper may not be correct.

arXiv:2107.10674•Jul 21, 2021•0 citations

Reply to "Comment on 'Strong Measurements Give a Better Direct Measurement of the Quantum Wave Function' "

Giuseppe Vallone, Daniele Dequal

This is the reply to [arXiv:1711.00764], in which the authors claim that there is crucial normalization error in PRL 116, 040502 (2016) and that some quantities appearing in the method of PRL 116, 040502 (2016) are not experimentally measurable. We show that the claim of [arXiv:1711.00764] is not correct and that the quantities appearing in PRL 116, 040502 (2016) can be measured.

arXiv:1711.02055•Nov 6, 2017•0 citations

Reply to Comment on ``Time-dependent quasi-Hermitian Hamiltonians and the unitary quantum evolution''

Miloslav Znojil

In his fresh "Comment" (arXiv:0711.0137v1), A. Mostafazadeh reacts on my very recent letter (arXiv:0710.5653v1) where I tried to clarify certain misunderstandings which occurred in A. M., Phys. Lett. B \textbf{650}, 208 (2007) [arXiv:0706.1872v2, "Paper"]. As long as the "Comment" offers a new support of the original assertions made in the "Paper", I feel obliged to re-clarify the matter by extending my argumentation. I insist that it is possible to escape the main conclusion of the "Paper", indeed. In particular, I point out a gap in the new calculations in "Comment", add a few remarks on the notation and reconfirm that the unitarity of the time-evolution DOES NOT require the time-independence of the metric operator.

arXiv:0711.0514•Nov 5, 2007•6 citations

Reply to 'Comment on "Relativistic shape invariant potentials"'

Abdulaziz D Alhaidari

The points raised in the Comment are addressed and except for one error, which will be corrected, the conclusion is that all of our findings are accurate.

arXiv:hep-ph/0204362•Apr 30, 2002•0 citations

A comment has been recently posted on the arXiv (arXiv:1902.07504) that discuss our recent work on encircling multiple exceptional points in Nat. Commun. 9, 4808 (2018). In that comment, the authors claim that our approach is prone to errors. In discussing their findings, they also indicate that a method presented by their team in Phys. Rev. A 98, 023818 (2018) (presumed to give correct results in all situations) was published prior to our work. First, we would like to note that both their work and ours were posted on the arXiv within a week from each other. Second and more importantly, as we will show below, their analysis and conclusion concerning the validity of our approach as presented in the comment article (arXiv:1902.07504) are not correct. As we will demonstrate, a proper application of our method does indeed provide the correct results.

In a recent paper entitled "Winding around non-Hermitian singularities" by Zhong et al., published in Nat. Commun. 9, 4808 (2018), a formalism is proposed for calculating the permutations of eigenstates that arise upon encircling (multiple) exceptional points (EPs) in the complex parameter plane of an analytic non-Hermitian Hamiltonian. The authors suggest that upon encircling EPs one should track the eigenvalue branch cuts that are traversed, and multiply the associated permutation matrices accordingly. In this comment we point out a serious shortcoming of this approach, illustrated by an explicit example that yields the wrong result for a specific loop. A more general method that has been published earlier by us and that does not suffer from this problem, is based on using fundamental loops. We briefly explain the method and list its various advantages. In addition, we argue that this method can be verified in a three wave-guide system, which then also unambiguously establishes the noncommutativity associated with encircling multiple EPs.

In the preceding Comment [Phys. Rev. A 83, 046301 (2011)], Boyer and Mor pointed out that the first conclusion of Lemma 1 in our paper [X. Zou, D. Qiu, L. Li, L. Wu, and L. Li, Phys. Rev. A 79, 052312 (2009)] is not correct, and therefore, the proof of Theorem 5 based on Lemma 1 is wrong. Furthermore, they gave a direct proof for Theorem 5 and affirmed the conclusions in our original paper. In this Reply, we admit the first conclusion of Lemma 1 is not correct, but we need to point out that the second conclusion of Lemma 1 is correct. Accordingly, all the proofs for Lemma 2, Lemma 3, and Theorems 3--6 are based only on the second conclusion of Lemma 1 and therefore are correct.

In his fresh "Comment" (arXiv:0711.0137v1), A. Mostafazadeh reacts on my very recent letter (arXiv:0710.5653v1) where I tried to clarify certain misunderstandings which occurred in A. M., Phys. Lett. B \textbf{650}, 208 (2007) [arXiv:0706.1872v2, "Paper"]. As long as the "Comment" offers a new support of the original assertions made in the "Paper", I feel obliged to re-clarify the matter by extending my argumentation. I insist that it is possible to escape the main conclusion of the "Paper", indeed. In particular, I point out a gap in the new calculations in "Comment", add a few remarks on the notation and reconfirm that the unitarity of the time-evolution DOES NOT require the time-independence of the metric operator.