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:cond-mat/0604084 · Physical Review Letters

Feldbacher, Held, and Assad Reply:

M. Feldbacher, Karsten Held, Fakher F. Assaad

Published Apr 4, 2006• 8 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

In our reply, we show that the objections put forward in cond-mat/0508763 concerning our paper, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 136405 (2004), are not valid: (i) There is no orthogonality catastrophe (OC) for our calculations, and it is also generally not ``unpractical'' to avoid it. (ii) The OC does not affect our results.
DOI
10.1103/physrevlett.96.139702

Related papers

Palassini and Young Reply:

Matteo Palassini, A. P. Young

We reply to the comment of Marinari and Parisi [cond-mat/0002457 v2] on our paper [Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 5126 (1999) and cond-mat/9906323]. We show that the data in the comment are affected by strong finite-size corrections. Therefore the original conclusion of our paper still stands.

arXiv:cond-mat/0004485•Physical Review Letters•Oct 9, 2000•4 citations

Jönsson, Yoshino, and Nordblad Reply:

Petra E. Jönsson, Hajime Yoshino, П. Нордблад

Reply to the Comment by L. Berthier and J.-P. Bouchaud, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 059701 (2003), also cond-mat/0209165, on our paper Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 097201 (2002), also cond-mat/0203444

arXiv:cond-mat/0209385•Physical Review Letters•Feb 6, 2003•16 citations

Stace and Barrett Reply:

Thomas M. Stace, S. D. Barrett

We reply to a comment by Averin and Korotkov http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0404549 on Stace and Barrett, PRL 92, 136802 (2004) http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v92/e136802, showing that their specific criticisms are unfounded, and clarifying some of our results.

arXiv:cond-mat/0406751•Physical Review Letters•Feb 16, 2005•7 citations

Some clarifications on cond-mat/0508763 by M. I. Katsnelson

M. Feldbacher, Ryotaro Arita, Karsten Held +1 more

Katsnelson submitted his Comment on our paper "Projective Quantum Monte Carlo Method for the Anderson Impurity Model and its Application to Dynamical Mean Field Theory" to Phys. Rev. Lett. in May 2005. We proved in our report that this comment was incorrect since there is no orthogonality catastrophe for our calculation in Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 136405 (2004) which is for half-filling. Now in cond-mat/0508763, Katsnelson incorporates our proof of the invalidity of his original Comment, based on Friedel's sum rule. Instead, he now claims that the projective quantum Monte Carlo method is "unpractical" off half-filling, overlooking that our calculations off half-filling (R. Arita and K. Held, LT24 conference proceedings and cond-mat/0508639) employ in practice a noninteracting trial Hamiltonian with the same electron density as the interacting Hamiltonian so that there is again no orthogonality catastrophe. Note added. In the revised version of his comment, Katsnelson gives proper credit to our proof. In our reply, we will present the original proof based on the Friedel sum rule. Moreover, we show that the orthogonality catastrophe does not affect our results. Katsnelson's objection is not valid.

arXiv:cond-mat/0509443•Sep 16, 2005•0 citations

Camposet al.Reply:

Paulo R. A. Campos, Viviane Moraes de Oliveira, Ronaldo Giro +1 more

A Reply to the Comment by M. Markus, O. Schulz, and E. Goles.Received 16 August 2005DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.229802©2005 American Physical Society

Physical Review Letters•Nov 21, 2005•0 citations

Reply to “Comment on: ‘Questions concerning the generalized Hartman effect’ [Phys. Lett. A 375 (2011) 3259]”

Shoju Kudaka, Shuichi Matsumoto

Physics Letters A•Mar 1, 2012•9 citations
Katsnelson submitted his Comment on our paper "Projective Quantum Monte Carlo Method for the Anderson Impurity Model and its Application to Dynamical Mean Field Theory" to Phys. Rev. Lett. in May 2005. We proved in our report that this comment was incorrect since there is no orthogonality catastrophe for our calculation in Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 136405 (2004) which is for half-filling. Now in cond-mat/0508763, Katsnelson incorporates our proof of the invalidity of his original Comment, based on Friedel's sum rule. Instead, he now claims that the projective quantum Monte Carlo method is "unpractical" off half-filling, overlooking that our calculations off half-filling (R. Arita and K. Held, LT24 conference proceedings and cond-mat/0508639) employ in practice a noninteracting trial Hamiltonian with the same electron density as the interacting Hamiltonian so that there is again no orthogonality catastrophe. Note added. In the revised version of his comment, Katsnelson gives proper credit to our proof. In our reply, we will present the original proof based on the Friedel sum rule. Moreover, we show that the orthogonality catastrophe does not affect our results. Katsnelson's objection is not valid.