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

Physical Review A

Reply to “Comment on ‘Protecting bipartite entanglement by quantum interferences' ”

Sumanta Das, G. S. Agarwal

Published Mar 15, 2018• 1 citation
Publisher

Abstract

In a recent Comment Nair and Arun, Phys. Rev. A 97, 036301 (2018), it was concluded that the two-qubit entanglement protection reported in our work [Das and Agarwal, Phys. Rev. A 81, 052341 (2010)] is erroneous. While we acknowledge the error in analytical results on concurrence when dipole matrix elements were unequal, the essential conclusions on entanglement protection are not affected.

DOI
10.1103/physreva.97.036302

Related papers

Comment on “Protecting bipartite entanglement by quantum interferences”

Anjali N. Nair, R. Arun

In an interesting article [Phys. Rev. A 81, 052341 (2010)], Das and Agarwal have discussed the preservation of bipartite entanglement in three-level atoms employing the coherences induced by spontaneous emission. The authors considered various initially entangled qubits prepared from two $\mathsf{V}$-type three-level atoms and showed that more than $50%$ of the initial (bipartite) entanglement can be preserved in steady state due to vacuum-induced coherence. In this Comment, we point out that their analytical formulas for the entanglement measure contain errors affecting all the numerical results of that article. We substantiate our claim by giving correct analytical results for the time evolution of the two-atom system.

Physical Review A•Mar 15, 2018•4 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Entangled entanglement’ ”

Günther Krenn, Anton Zeilinger

Expounding an argument that we have stated in Sec. IV of our paper [Phys. Rev. A 54, 1793 (1996)], we demonstrate that according to our understanding Schafir's conclusion [preceding Comment, Phys. Rev. A 56, 4335 (1997)] is based upon a premise that is not tenable.

Physical Review A•Nov 1, 1997•3 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Device-independent entanglement-based Bennett 1992 protocol’ ”

Giuseppe Vallone, Giovanni Di Giuseppe, Paolo Mataloni +2 more

Our paper [Phys. Rev. A 86, 032325 (2012)], setting forth a previously unknown connection between the Bennett 1992 protocol and a Bell inequality, has recently received a Comment [Phys. Rev. A 93, 066303 (2016)] about a possible flaw in its potential device-independent (DI) implementation. We point the authors of the Comment to prior works showing that what they assume to be specific to our protocol's DI implementation is actually a standard assumption in DI quantum key distribution. Therefore there is no need to revise any of the conclusions drawn in Lucamarini et al. [Phys. Rev. A 86, 032325 (2012)].

Physical Review A•Jun 27, 2016•0 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Witnessed entanglement and the geometric measure of quantum discord’ ”

Tiago Debarba, Thiago O. Maciel, Reinaldo O. Vianna

We show that the mistakes pointed out by Rana and Parashar [Phys. Rev. A 87, 016301 (2013)] do not invalidate the main conclusion of our work [Phys. Rev. A 86, 024302 (2012)]. We show that the errors affected only a particular application of our general results, and present the correction.

arXiv:1304.3864•Physical Review A•Apr 9, 2013•6 citations

Comment on “Biphoton double-slit experiment”

Xavier Oriols

In a recent paper [Phys. Rev. A 68, 033803 (2003)] experimental results on a double-slit configuration with two entangled bosons are presented. The authors argue that their data contradicts the de Broglie--Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics. In this Comment we show that this conclusion is incorrect.

Physical Review A•Jan 31, 2005•10 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Quantum key distribution without alternative measurements’ ” [Phys. Rev. A63, 036301 (2001)]

Adán Cabello

Recently, Zhang, Li, and Guo have proposed a particular eavesdropping attack [Phys. Rev. A {\bf 63}, 036301 (2001), quant-ph/0009042] which shows that my quantum key distribution protocol based on entanglement swapping [Phys. Rev. A {\bf 61}, 052312 (2000), quant-ph/9911025] is insecure. However, security against this attack can be attained with a simple modification. In addition, a simpler version of the protocol using four qubits is introduced.

arXiv:quant-ph/0009051•Physical Review A•Feb 13, 2001•32 citations
In a recent Comment Nair and Arun, Phys. Rev. A 97, 036301 (2018), it was concluded that the two-qubit entanglement protection reported in our work [Das and Agarwal, Phys. Rev. A 81, 052341 (2010)] is erroneous. While we acknowledge the error in analytical results on concurrence when dipole matrix elements were unequal, the essential conclusions on entanglement protection are not affected.
In an interesting article [Phys. Rev. A 81, 052341 (2010)], Das and Agarwal have discussed the preservation of bipartite entanglement in three-level atoms employing the coherences induced by spontaneous emission. The authors considered various initially entangled qubits prepared from two V\mathsf{V}V-type three-level atoms and showed that more than 5050%50 of the initial (bipartite) entanglement can be preserved in steady state due to vacuum-induced coherence. In this Comment, we point out that their analytical formulas for the entanglement measure contain errors affecting all the numerical results of that article. We substantiate our claim by giving correct analytical results for the time evolution of the two-atom system.
Our paper [Phys. Rev. A 86, 032325 (2012)], setting forth a previously unknown connection between the Bennett 1992 protocol and a Bell inequality, has recently received a Comment [Phys. Rev. A 93, 066303 (2016)] about a possible flaw in its potential device-independent (DI) implementation. We point the authors of the Comment to prior works showing that what they assume to be specific to our protocol's DI implementation is actually a standard assumption in DI quantum key distribution. Therefore there is no need to revise any of the conclusions drawn in Lucamarini et al. [Phys. Rev. A 86, 032325 (2012)].