pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.23853 · v1 · pith:FMD4VATWnew · submitted 2026-05-22 · 🧮 math-ph · math.MP· physics.optics· quant-ph

Exact versus tight-binding models in longitudinally modulated mathcal{PT}-symmetric coupled waveguides

Alonso Contreras-Astorga , Jos\'e Israel Galindo-Rodr\'iguez This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 02:32 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math-ph math.MPphysics.opticsquant-ph
keywords tight-binding approximationPT-symmetric waveguidessupersymmetric transformationslongitudinal modulationnon-Hermitian opticscoupled waveguidesintensity distributionsphase dynamics
0
0 comments X

The pith

Tight-binding models match intensity distributions but miss phase oscillations in modulated PT-symmetric waveguides.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper compares exact continuous solutions, obtained via z-dependent supersymmetric transformations, to discrete tight-binding approximations in a model of two longitudinally modulated PT-symmetric coupled waveguides. It establishes that the approximation succeeds for spatial intensity patterns yet falls short on the complex oscillatory phase dynamics that arise in this non-Hermitian setting. A reader would care because tight-binding remains a standard tool for waveguide-array simulations, so mapping its validity range under strong modulation directly informs when the simpler model can be trusted. The work uses the exact SUSY benchmark to delineate where the discrete description remains reliable and where it does not.

Core claim

The tight-binding approximation is proficient in reproducing spatial intensity distributions but limited in accurately capturing the complex oscillatory phase dynamics inherent to this non-Hermitian evolution.

What carries the argument

Direct comparison of exact solutions from z-dependent supersymmetric transformations against discrete tight-binding approximations for the longitudinally modulated PT-symmetric two-waveguide system.

If this is right

  • Intensity-based measurements or simulations in these systems can rely on the tight-binding model.
  • Phase-sensitive quantities such as interference or non-Hermitian dynamics require the full continuous description.
  • The validity range of tight-binding narrows under strong longitudinal modulation combined with gain-loss balance.
  • The SUSY benchmark supplies a concrete test case for assessing discrete approximations in other non-Hermitian waveguide settings.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Hybrid numerical schemes could use tight-binding for intensity while retaining exact or higher-order methods only for phase tracking.
  • The identified phase discrepancy may appear in discrete models of other non-Hermitian lattices beyond optics.
  • Varying the modulation amplitude in future comparisons would map the boundary between the two regimes more precisely.

Load-bearing premise

The z-dependent supersymmetric transformations furnish an exact analytical benchmark for the continuous model that can be directly compared to the discrete tight-binding approximation without additional uncontrolled approximations.

What would settle it

A numerical solution of the continuous paraxial wave equation for the modulated PT waveguides that produces phase dynamics matching the tight-binding prediction would falsify the claimed limitation on phase accuracy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.23853 by Alonso Contreras-Astorga, Jos\'e Israel Galindo-Rodr\'iguez.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Real and imaginary parts of the propagation-distance-dependent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Evolution of the observables for the guided mode [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Dynamical evolution of the guided mode [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Analysis of the expectation value of the Hamiltonian for the exact (blue solid line) and approximated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Dynamical evolution of the guided mode [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Dynamical evolution of the system’s energetics evaluated using the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The tight-binding (TB) model is a widely adopted approximation scheme for describing light propagation in waveguide arrays. Despite its success, its validity in $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric systems characterized by strong longitudinal modulation has not been rigorously benchmarked against exact analytical solutions. In this work, we address this gap by performing a comparative analysis between exact continuous solutions derived from $z$-dependent supersymmetric (SUSY) transformations and their corresponding discrete TB approximations. To achieve this, we develop a theoretical model for two PT-symmetric coupled waveguides subject to longitudinal modulation. We then evaluate the performance of the TB framework against the exact SUSY benchmark. Our results delineate the specific validity range of the TB approximation, demonstrating its proficiency in reproducing spatial intensity distributions. However, we also identify its limitations in accurately capturing the complex oscillatory phase dynamics inherent to this non-Hermitian evolution.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a continuous model of two longitudinally modulated PT-symmetric coupled waveguides and derives exact solutions via z-dependent supersymmetric transformations. It then compares these to the corresponding discrete tight-binding approximations, concluding that the TB model reproduces spatial intensity distributions proficiently but is limited in capturing the complex oscillatory phase dynamics of the non-Hermitian evolution.

Significance. If the z-dependent SUSY construction supplies a fully exact, approximation-free benchmark, the work supplies a concrete validity test for the TB approximation in strongly modulated non-Hermitian waveguide arrays. The analytical character of the comparison is a strength that allows delineation of intensity versus phase performance without reliance on purely numerical references.

major comments (2)
  1. [SUSY transformation construction (methods)] The central claim that TB is limited on phase dynamics rests on the SUSY-derived continuous solutions being an exact benchmark. The manuscript must explicitly verify that the z-dependent superpotential and transformation introduce no uncontrolled approximations (e.g., slow-modulation assumptions or neglected higher-order z-derivatives) when the longitudinal profiles are arbitrary; otherwise the reported validity range becomes conditional rather than a clean test.
  2. [Results and discussion] Results section: the comparison between exact and TB solutions is presented without quantitative error metrics (e.g., integrated L2 differences for intensity and phase profiles across modulation strengths). Qualitative statements alone are insufficient to delineate the specific validity range claimed in the abstract.
minor comments (2)
  1. All numerical parameter values (modulation amplitude, gain/loss contrast, propagation distance range) used in the TB versus exact comparisons should be tabulated for reproducibility.
  2. Notation for the complex propagation constant and the phase extraction procedure should be defined once in a dedicated subsection to avoid ambiguity when comparing intensity and phase figures.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments. We provide point-by-point responses to the major comments below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [SUSY transformation construction (methods)] The central claim that TB is limited on phase dynamics rests on the SUSY-derived continuous solutions being an exact benchmark. The manuscript must explicitly verify that the z-dependent superpotential and transformation introduce no uncontrolled approximations (e.g., slow-modulation assumptions or neglected higher-order z-derivatives) when the longitudinal profiles are arbitrary; otherwise the reported validity range becomes conditional rather than a clean test.

    Authors: The z-dependent SUSY transformation is constructed exactly for the continuous model. The superpotential is defined directly from the arbitrary longitudinal modulation profile, and the transformation is applied without slow-modulation assumptions or truncation of z-derivatives; the resulting solutions satisfy the original equation by construction. We will add an explicit statement in the methods section confirming the absence of such approximations. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Results and discussion] Results section: the comparison between exact and TB solutions is presented without quantitative error metrics (e.g., integrated L2 differences for intensity and phase profiles across modulation strengths). Qualitative statements alone are insufficient to delineate the specific validity range claimed in the abstract.

    Authors: We agree that quantitative metrics strengthen the analysis. In the revised manuscript we will include integrated L2 error norms for intensity and phase profiles as functions of modulation strength to provide a quantitative delineation of the TB validity range. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: SUSY benchmark and TB model are structurally independent

full rationale

The paper constructs exact continuous solutions for the longitudinally modulated PT-symmetric waveguides via z-dependent supersymmetric transformations, then directly compares intensity and phase behavior against the discrete tight-binding approximation. These two frameworks are mathematically distinct (continuous PDE vs. discrete coupled-mode equations), with no quoted step in which a fitted parameter from one is renamed as a prediction of the other, no self-citation chain that bears the central claim, and no ansatz smuggled in that reduces the benchmark to the TB result by construction. The reported validity range of TB therefore rests on an external analytical benchmark rather than an internal redefinition of the input data.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract provides no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the SUSY transformation is presented as a solution method rather than a new postulate.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5691 in / 1033 out tokens · 23518 ms · 2026-05-25T02:32:58.351659+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The imaginary unit introduced in the odd terms ensures the PT -symmetry of the transformation function

    We construct these functions as a linear superposition of N even and M odd stationary solutions, defined as: ui(x, z) = NX n=1 An cosh(knx)e ik2 nz +i MX m=1 Bm sinh(kmx)e ik2 mz,(18) where An and Bm are real constants. The imaginary unit introduced in the odd terms ensures the PT -symmetry of the transformation function. Second, the transformation functi...

    work page

  2. [2]

    coshk1x W(v 1, v2) , ψ e(x) = k1(k2 2 −k 2

    work page

  3. [3]

    The ground state ψg is symmetric ( Pψ g(x) = ψg(x)), while the excited state ψe is antisymmetric (Pψ e(x) = −ψe(x)), where the parity operator is defined as Pf (x) ≡f (−x)

    sinhk2x W(v 1, v2) .(23) 6 Here, ψg and ψe are eigenstates satisfying the stationary equations ( H2 −E g)ψg = 0 and (H2 −E e)ψe = 0, where H2 = −∂2 x + VS, while Eg = −k2 2 and Ee = −k2 1 denote the corresponding energy eigenvalues. The ground state ψg is symmetric ( Pψ g(x) = ψg(x)), while the excited state ψe is antisymmetric (Pψ e(x) = −ψe(x)), where t...

    work page

  4. [4]

    On the other hand, when z = T /2, the initial state ψl (or ψr) transforms into ψr (orψ l), up to an overall phase factor exp (iπk2 1)/(k2 2 −k 2 1) . B. Propagation-distance-independentPT-symmetric waveguides We construct twoPT-symmetric coupled waveguides by choosing the transformation functions v1(x) = coshk 1x+iαsinhk 1x, v 2(x) =isinhk 2x,(25) where k...

    work page

  5. [5]

    and spatial beat frequency k2 2 −k 2

    work page

  6. [6]

    The non-Hermitian character of the present potential, however, introduces qualitatively distinct features in the energy flow, as we analyze later. C. Propagation-distance-dependentPT-symmetric coupled waveguides To obtain two propagation-distance-dependent PT -symmetric coupled waveguides, we start by choosing the transformation functions: u1(x, z) = cosh...

    work page

  7. [7]

    For the localized modes ψl,r to return to their initial configuration, both phase factors must reduce to unity simultaneously

    and ∆θ2 = 2πk2 1/(k2 1 −k 2 3). For the localized modes ψl,r to return to their initial configuration, both phase factors must reduce to unity simultaneously. This requires the existence of integersnandmsuch that k2 2 k2 1 −k 2 3 = n q , k2 1 k2 1 −k 2 3 = m q ,(36) 9 for a common integer q. When this rationality condition holds, the full repetition perio...

    work page

  8. [8]

    We define the cost function as the sum of the absolute energy differences

    and the corresponding eigenvalues of the tight-binding Hamiltonian (E 1 andE 2), which depend on the parameterskandx 0. We define the cost function as the sum of the absolute energy differences. The optimization problem can be formulated as finding the parameters that satisfy: min k,x0 {|Eg −E 1(k, x0)|+|E e −E 2(k, x0)|},(53) subject to the search interv...

    work page

  9. [9]

    by optimizing the tight-binding eigenvalues ˜E1 and ˜E2, which are functions of the variational parameters. The optimization problem is defined as minimizing the absolute deviation between the exact and approximate energy eigenvalues: min x0,k,˜α n |Eg − ˜E1(x0, k,˜α)|+|E e − ˜E2(x0, k,˜α)| o ,(58) 14 subject to the search intervals x0 ∈ (xd −l, x d + l),...

    work page 2020

  10. [10]

    coshk3xsinhk 1xsinh 2 k2x,(A6) h6(x) = [4k4 2 −4k 2 1k2 3 sinh2 k2x+k 2 2(k2 1 +k 2 3)(cosh 2k2x−3)] coshk 1xsinhk 3x,(A7) h7(x) =k 2(k2 1 −k 2 3)(k3 coshk 1xcoshk 3x−k 1 sinhk 1xsinhk 3x) sinh 2k2x,(A8) h8(x) =h 5(x) +h 6(x) +h 7(x).(A9) To ensure the potential is regular, the Wronskian W (u1, u2) must be nodeless. Normalizing by the phase factore i(k2 1...

    work page

  11. [11]

    coshk1x+iαe ik2 3z(k2 2 −k 2

    work page

  12. [12]

    sinhk3x i ,(B1) ψ2(x, z) = N2ei(k2 1+k2 2+k2 3)z W(u 1, u2) h ei(k2 1−k2 3)zk1(k2 1 −k 2

    work page

  13. [13]

    sinhk2x+α 2k3(k2 3 −k 2

    work page

  14. [14]

    sinhk2x−iαK i ,(B2) where the auxiliary functionK(x) is defined as: K(x) =k 2(k2 1 −k 2

    work page

  15. [15]

    coshk2xcosh[(k 1 −k 3)x] + (k1 +k 3)(k1k3 −k 2

    work page

  16. [16]

    sinhk2xsinh[(k 1 −k 3)x].(B3)

    work page

  17. [17]

    Gloge and D

    D. Gloge and D. Marcuse, Formal quantum theory of light rays, J. Opt. Soc. Am.59, 1629 (1969)

    work page 1969

  18. [18]

    M. Lax, W. H. Louisell, and W. B. McKnight, From Maxwell to paraxial wave optics, Phys. Rev. A11, 1365 (1975)

    work page 1975

  19. [19]

    Cruz y Cruz and Z

    S. Cruz y Cruz and Z. Gress, Group approach to the paraxial propagation of Hermite–Gaussian modes in a parabolic medium, Ann. Phys.383, 257 (2017)

    work page 2017

  20. [20]

    K. G. Makris, R. El-Ganainy, D. N. Christodoulides, and Z. H. Musslimani, PT-symmetric optical lattices, Phys. Rev. A81, 063807 (2010)

    work page 2010

  21. [21]

    M.-A. Miri, M. Heinrich, R. El-Ganainy, and D. N. Christodoulides, Supersymmetric optical structures, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 233902 (2013)

    work page 2013

  22. [22]

    C. M. Bender and S. Boettcher, Real spectra in non-Hermitian Hamiltonians having PT symmetry, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 5243 (1998)

    work page 1998

  23. [23]

    Znojil, Should PT symmetric quantum mechanics be interpreted as nonlinear?, J

    M. Znojil, Should PT symmetric quantum mechanics be interpreted as nonlinear?, J. Nonlinear Math. Phys. 9, 122 (2002)

    work page 2002

  24. [24]

    Mostafazadeh, Pseudo-Hermiticity versus PT symmetry: The necessary condition for the reality of the spectrum of a non-Hermitian Hamiltonian, J

    A. Mostafazadeh, Pseudo-Hermiticity versus PT symmetry: The necessary condition for the reality of the spectrum of a non-Hermitian Hamiltonian, J. Math. Phys.43, 205 (2002)

    work page 2002

  25. [25]

    Mostafazadeh, Exact PT-symmetry is equivalent to Hermiticity, J

    A. Mostafazadeh, Exact PT-symmetry is equivalent to Hermiticity, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.36, 7081 (2003)

    work page 2003

  26. [26]

    C. E. R¨ uter, K. G. Makris, R. El-Ganainy, D. N. Christodoulides, M. Segev, and D. Kip, Observation of parity–time symmetry in optics, Nat. Phys.6, 192 (2010)

    work page 2010

  27. [27]

    P. D. Mannheim, Appropriate inner product for PT-symmetric Hamiltonians, Phys. Rev. D97, 045001 (2018)

    work page 2018

  28. [28]

    Longhi, Quantum-optical analogies using photonic structures, Laser Photonics Rev.3, 243 (2009)

    S. Longhi, Quantum-optical analogies using photonic structures, Laser Photonics Rev.3, 243 (2009)

    work page 2009

  29. [29]

    Heinrich, M.-A

    M. Heinrich, M.-A. Miri, S. St¨ utzer, R. El-Ganainy, S. Nolte, A. Szameit, and D. N. Christodoulides, Supersymmetric mode converters, Nat. Commun.5, 3698 (2014)

    work page 2014

  30. [30]

    Correa, V

    F. Correa, V. Jakubsk´ y, and M. S. Plyushchay, PT-symmetric invisible defects and confluent Darboux-Crum transformations, Phys. Rev. A92, 023839 (2015)

    work page 2015

  31. [31]

    Queralt´ o, V

    G. Queralt´ o, V. Ahufinger, and J. Mompart, Mode-division (de)multiplexing using adiabatic passage and supersymmetric waveguides, Opt. Express25, 27396 (2017)

    work page 2017

  32. [32]

    Longhi and K

    S. Longhi and K. Staliunas, Self-collimation and self-imaging effects in modulated waveguide arrays, Opt. Commun.281, 4343 (2008)

    work page 2008

  33. [33]

    Della Valle and S

    G. Della Valle and S. Longhi, Spectral and transport properties of time-periodic PT-symmetric tight-binding lattices, Phys. Rev. A87, 022119 (2013)

    work page 2013

  34. [34]

    Ma, Y.-S

    C. Ma, Y.-S. Wang, and J.-H. An, Floquet engineering of localized propagation of light in a waveguide array, Phys. Rev. A97, 023808 (2018)

    work page 2018

  35. [35]

    S. V. Raja, A. Govindarajan, A. Mahalingam, and M. Lakshmanan, Phase-shifted PT-symmetric periodic structures, Phys. Rev. A102, 013515 (2020)

    work page 2020

  36. [36]

    X. Liu, Z. Lin, W. Song, J. Sun, C. Huang, S. Wu, X. Xiao, H. Xin, S. Zhu, and T. Li, Perfect excitation of topological states by supersymmetric waveguides, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 016601 (2024)

    work page 2024

  37. [37]

    V. B. Matveev and M. A. Salle,Darboux Transformations and Solitons(Springer, 1991)

    work page 1991

  38. [38]

    Cooper, A

    F. Cooper, A. Khare, and U. Sukhatme, Supersymmetry and quantum mechanics, Phys. Rep.251, 267 (1995). 22

    work page 1995

  39. [39]

    Junker,Supersymmetric Methods in Quantum and Statistical Physics(Springer, 1996)

    G. Junker,Supersymmetric Methods in Quantum and Statistical Physics(Springer, 1996)

    work page 1996

  40. [40]

    D. J. Fern´ andez C., Higher-order supersymmetric quantum mechanics, inAIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 744 (AIP, 2004) pp. 236–273

    work page 2004

  41. [41]

    M.-A. Miri, M. Heinrich, and D. N. Christodoulides, Supersymmetry-generated complex optical potentials with real spectra, Phys. Rev. A87, 043819 (2013)

    work page 2013

  42. [42]

    V. G. Bagrov, B. F. Samsonov, and L. A. Shekoyan, Darboux transformation for the nonsteady Schr¨ odinger equation, Russ. Phys. J.38, 706 (1995)

    work page 1995

  43. [43]

    V. G. Bagrov and B. F. Samsonov, Supersymmetry of a nonstationary Schr¨ odinger equation, Phys. Lett. A 210, 60 (1996)

    work page 1996

  44. [44]

    Contreras-Astorga, A time-dependent anharmonic oscillator, J

    A. Contreras-Astorga, A time-dependent anharmonic oscillator, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser.839, 012019 (2017)

    work page 2017

  45. [45]

    J. Cen, A. Fring, and T. Frith, Time-dependent Darboux (supersymmetric) transformations for non-Hermitian quantum systems, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.52, 115302 (2019)

    work page 2019

  46. [46]

    Contreras-Astorga and V

    A. Contreras-Astorga and V. Jakubsk´ y, Photonic systems with two-dimensional landscapes of complex refractive index via time-dependent supersymmetry, Phys. Rev. A99, 053812 (2019)

    work page 2019

  47. [47]

    Contreras-Astorga and V

    A. Contreras-Astorga and V. Jakubsk´ y, Multimode two-dimensional PT-symmetric waveguides, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser.1540, 012018 (2020)

    work page 2020

  48. [48]

    Cruz y Cruz, R

    S. Cruz y Cruz, R. Razo, O. Rosas-Ortiz, and K. Zelaya, Coherent states for exactly solvable time-dependent oscillators generated by Darboux transformations, Phys. Scr.95, 044009 (2020)

    work page 2020

  49. [49]

    Dittrich, P

    T. Dittrich, P. H¨ anggi, G.-L. Ingold, B. Kramer, G. Sch¨ on, and W. Zwerger,Quantum Transport and Dissipation(Wiley-VCH, 1998)

    work page 1998

  50. [50]

    P. K. Amiri, M. Ranjbaran, K. Mehrany, B. Rashidian, and S. Fathololoumi, Tight-binding analysis of coupled dielectric waveguide structures, Fiber Integr. Opt.25, 11 (2006)

    work page 2006

  51. [51]

    Mu˜ noz-Vega, E

    R. Mu˜ noz-Vega, E. L´ opez-Ch´ avez, E. Salinas-Hern´ andez, J. J. Flores-Godoy, and G. Fern´ andez-Anaya, An exactly soluble model of a shallow double well, Phys. Lett. A378, 2070 (2014)

    work page 2070

  52. [52]

    Principe, G

    M. Principe, G. Castaldi, M. Consales, A. Cusano, and V. Galdi, Supersymmetry-inspired non-Hermitian optical couplers, Sci. Rep.5, 8568 (2015)

    work page 2015

  53. [53]

    Kittel and P

    C. Kittel and P. McEuen,Introduction to Solid State Physics(Wiley, 2018)

    work page 2018

  54. [54]

    Y. Chen, X. Chen, X. Ren, M. Gong, and G.-C. Guo, Tight-binding model in optical waveguides: Design principle and transferability for simulation of complex photonics networks, Phys. Rev. A104, 023501 (2021)

    work page 2021