It is pointed out that the ``exact'' solutions given in the recent Comment by A. Rabhi on the paper [N. Dinh Dang ``Energies of the ground state and first excited $0^{+}$ state in an exactly solvable pairing model'', Eur. Phys. Jour. A 16 (2003) 18] do not correspond to the standard exact solution of the well-known two-level pairing model. Other issues raised in the Comment reiterate the discussions already published in the original paper by N. Dinh Dang.It is pointed out that the ``exact'' solutions given in the recent Comment by A. Rabhi on the paper [N. Dinh Dang ``Energies of the ground state and first excited $0^{+}$ state in an exactly solvable pairing model'', Eur. Phys. Jour. A 16 (2003) 18] do not correspond to the standard exact solution of the well-known two-level pairing model. Other issues raised in the Comment reiterate the discussions already published in the original paper by N. Dinh Dang.

arXiv:nucl-th/0307077Jul 18, 20030 citations

Energies of the ground state and first excited 0+ state in an exactly solvable pairing model

Nguyen Dinh Dang

arXiv:nucl-th/0210016The European Physical Journal AFeb 1, 20038 citations

Pair transfer as a function of pairing strength in an exactly solvable model

А. К. Власников, Artem Lunev, V. M. Mikhajlov

Pair transfer matrix elements between the ground and excited states of a two-level system with monopole pairing interaction as a function of the pairing strength are calculated. The exact energies of excited states are compared with predictions of the quasiparticle random phase approximation. It is shown that at relatively low values of the pairing strength, two-particle transfer to the first and possibly second excited states must be taken into account for a more accurate description of pairing properties.Pair transfer matrix elements between the ground and excited states of a two-level system with monopole pairing interaction as a function of the pairing strength are calculated. The exact energies of excited states are compared with predictions of the quasiparticle random phase approximation. It is shown that at relatively low values of the pairing strength, two-particle transfer to the first and possibly second excited states must be taken into account for a more accurate description of pairing properties.

Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences PhysicsJul 1, 20133 citations

Comment on “Quantum bound states with zero binding energy”

Sergio A. Hojman, Darío Núñez

arXiv:gr-qc/9510035Physics Letters ADec 1, 19953 citations

Algebraic Spin Liquid in an Exactly Solvable Spin Model

Hong Yao, Shoucheng Zhang, Steven Allan Kivelson

We have proposed an exactly solvable quantum spin-3/2 model on a square lattice. Its ground state is a quantum spin liquid with a half-integer spin per unit cell. The fermionic excitations, dubbed as "spinons", are gapless with a linear dispersion, while the topological "vison" excitations are gapped. Moreover, these massless fermionic spinon excitations are topologically stable. Thus, this model is, to the best of our knowledge, the first exactly solvable model of half-integer spins whose ground state is an "algebraic spin liquid."We have proposed an exactly solvable quantum spin-3/2 model on a square lattice. Its ground state is a quantum spin liquid with a half-integer spin per unit cell. The fermionic excitations, dubbed as "spinons", are gapless with a linear dispersion, while the topological "vison" excitations are gapped. Moreover, these massless fermionic spinon excitations are topologically stable. Thus, this model is, to the best of our knowledge, the first exactly solvable model of half-integer spins whose ground state is an "algebraic spin liquid."

arXiv:0810.5347Physical Review LettersMay 29, 2009121 citations

It is pointed out that the ``exact'' solutions given in the recent Comment by A. Rabhi on the paper [N. Dinh Dang ``Energies of the ground state and first excited

0^{+}

state in an exactly solvable pairing model'', Eur. Phys. Jour. A 16 (2003) 18] do not correspond to the standard exact solution of the well-known two-level pairing model. Other issues raised in the Comment reiterate the discussions already published in the original paper by N. Dinh Dang.