Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 31 references

Subskin modes in a nonlinear non-Hermitian system

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Kerr nonlinearity lifts the coupling restrictions that make subskin modes rare in linear non-Hermitian lattices.

desk verdict Subskin modes are a real, checkable addition to the nonlinear non-Hermitian toolbox, but the 'regardless of couplings' claim is overbroad and fails in an exactly solvable case; referee it with a demand to narrow the claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.09502 v1 pith:MKJNYI56 submitted 2025-05-14 physics.optics nlin.PSquant-ph

C. Yuce This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.opticsnlin.PSquant-ph PACS 42.65.-k
keywords subskinmodesnon-HermitianskineffectnonlinearKerrnonlinearityasymmetriclong-rangecouplingsopenboundaryconditionsshootingmethodtopologicalfunneling
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Subskin modes are waves confined just below the edge of a lattice rather than at the edge itself, and in linear non-Hermitian systems they appear only under a special relation between coupling strengths and lattice size. This paper argues that adding a Kerr-type nonlinearity removes that restriction for the shallowest modes, those with $\psi_1=0$, so that $d=1$ subskin modes can form under open boundary conditions for generic couplings. It also shows that deeper subskin modes, with $\psi_1=\cdots=\psi_d=0$ for $d>1$, still require fine-tuned couplings. If the claim holds, subskin modes become experimentally accessible, and nonlinearity acts as a stabilizer against the topological funneling that otherwise drags wave packets to the edge.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the discrete nonlinear eigenvalue equation with asymmetric long-range couplings and the Kerr term $g|\psi_n|^2\psi_n$. Its role is to provide an extra degree of freedom: at fixed energy $E$, the amplitude at the first nonzero site (such as $\psi_2$) can be tuned so that the $s$ open-boundary conditions at the right edge vanish simultaneously. The shooting method is the numerical workhorse: it turns the boundary-value problem into an initial-value problem by iterating Eq. (2) forward from guessed left-edge amplitudes and adjusting them until the right-edge residuals reach zero, or in the $s>2$ case are smaller than $10^{-20}$.

What would settle it

Take the exact $s=2$, $N=4$ example, fix $J_1=J_2=1$, and scan positive $J_{-1}$ and $g$ while numerically solving the two right-edge constraint equations for real $E$ and real $\psi_2$. Any open region of couplings with no real solution pair would show that $d=1$ subskin modes do not actually appear regardless of couplings.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper studies a one-dimensional non-Hermitian lattice with asymmetric long-range couplings and Kerr nonlinearity, governed by $\sum_{m=1}^s J_m \psi_{n+m}+J_{-1}\psi_{n-1}+g|\psi_n|^2\psi_n=E\psi_n$ with open boundary conditions. In the linear case, an OBC subskin mode of depth one exists only when a specific coupling relation holds, such as $J_1=0$ in an $s=3$, $J_2=0$ toy model. The central claim is that for $g\neq 0$ the cubic term supplies an extra adjustable parameter, so the right-edge conditions $\psi_{N+1}=\cdots=\psi_{N+s}=0$ can be solved for the energy and the first nonzero amplitude, giving a $d=1$ subskin mode for arbitrary couplings. Exact small-system solutions and a graphical shooting solution for $N=60$ support this, while deeper modes retain coupling restrictions and $s>2$ modes are quasi-stationary with right-edge amplitudes around $10^{-20}$. Time evolution keeps such a mode stationary up to $z\approx 80$.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that shallow nonlinear subskin modes appear for arbitrary couplings rests on the assumption that the nonlinear boundary constraints have real finite solutions for generic parameter values, whereas the paper demonstrates such solutions for a few parameter sets and uses approximate right-edge conditions for $s>2$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A $d=1$ subskin mode in an $s=2$ nonlinear lattice exists for generic positive couplings, so small coupling perturbations no longer force it to move to the edge as in the linear topological funneling case.
  • In a 60-site lattice the nonlinear subskin mode remains stationary for propagation distances up to about $z=80$, while the same initial packet without nonlinearity would rapidly localize at the left edge.
  • For $s>2$, quasi-stationary subskin modes survive long enough to be physically meaningful even though the right-edge boundary conditions are only approximately satisfied.
  • Deeper subskin modes with $d>1$ still require specific relations among the couplings, so the lifting power of nonlinearity is specific to modes whose first nonzero site is adjacent to the edge.
  • Superpositions of subskin modes propagate beneath the edge without reaching it up to long distances, with power oscillations caused by the non-orthogonality of the modes.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A counting argument suggests why the nonlinear lifting works only for $d=1$: each additional zero site removes one free amplitude, while nonlinearity supplies at most one adjustable amplitude, so satisfying all right-edge constraints without coupling tuning becomes overdetermined for $d>1$.
  • The robustness of shallow subskin modes points toward a practical way to guide light one site below the surface of a photonic lattice without sample-size-dependent coupling engineering, which is a consequence the paper leaves implicit.
  • A direct testable extension is to map the full positive-coupling parameter space for $s=2$, $N=4$ and count real $(E,\psi_2)$ solutions; doing so would show how generic the 'regardless of couplings' statement really is.
  • One might expect $d=1$ nonlinear subskin modes to resist onsite disorder better than their linear counterparts because the amplitude-adjustment mechanism is local, though the paper does not treat disorder.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies subskin modes—eigenstates localized strictly below the edge—in a one-dimensional non-Hermitian lattice with asymmetric long-range couplings and Kerr nonlinearity. After reviewing the linear case, where open-boundary subskin modes require size-dependent coupling relations, the author presents exact analytical solutions for small lattices (s=2, N=4 and s=3, N=6) and numerical shooting results for larger lattices. The central claim is that the nonlinearity lifts the coupling restrictions for depth-1 (d=1) subskin modes, so that they appear 'regardless of the specific values of the couplings' and 'regardless of lattice size,' whereas deeper modes still require fine-tuning. The paper also discusses subskin wave propagation and power oscillations.

Significance. The paper contains useful exact constructions: the s=2, N=4 and s=3, N=6 solutions are derived directly from the eigenvalue equation and boundary conditions, with no parameter fitting, and the shooting method is a reasonable numerical strategy. If the universal lifting claim were correct, the result would be significant for nonlinear non-Hermitian lattices. However, the central claim is not supported by the evidence: the exact s=2, N=4 constraints already admit a counterexample with positive couplings where no real solution exists, and the s>2 numerical results rely on relaxed boundary conditions. The paper's value is therefore in the examples and the method, not in the stated universality.

major comments (3)
  1. [II.B and Conclusion] The conclusion claims that d=1 subskin modes appear 'regardless of the specific values of the couplings.' This is contradicted by the exact s=2, N=4 constraints in Section II.B. For parameters J2=1, J1=0.1, J-1=0.1, g=1, the constraint ψ5=0 gives q≡ψ2^2=(2J1E+J1^3+J-1)/(J1(1+gJ1^2)); substituting into ψ6=0 yields an equation H(E)=0 for which a direct substitution shows H(E)>0 for all real E on the domain q≥0. Hence no real (E,ψ2) exists for this set of positive couplings, so the nonlinearity does not lift the coupling restriction universally. The paper should either characterize the parameter domain where real solutions exist or restrict the claim accordingly. Additionally, the exact ansatz is derived under the assumption J2≫J1, |E−gψ2^2|, so any universal statement must also address validity outside that regime.
  2. [II.B, numerical shooting paragraph] For s>2, the shooting method relaxes the right-edge boundary conditions to values of order 10^-20, so the computed modes are quasi-stationary rather than exact open-boundary eigenstates. Consequently, the conclusion that subskin modes appear 'regardless of lattice size' is not established: the numerical evidence covers specific parameter sets (e.g., J2=2.3, J1=1, J-1=0.1, g=1, N=60) and gives no argument that the relaxed boundary conditions do not spoil the existence statement for other sizes or couplings.
  3. [II.B, s=3, N=6 example] The s=3, N=6 example explicitly shows that the deeper subskin mode ψ(2) requires the relation J1^2=J-1 J3, while the d=1 mode ψ(1) is constructed without such a restriction for that example. This is a single parameter set, not a general proof. Since the central claim is universal, the manuscript needs either a constructive existence proof for general s and couplings or a precise characterization of the admissible coupling region. Without that, the generalization from small-lattice examples to 'regardless of the specific values of the couplings' is unjustified.
minor comments (4)
  1. [II.A] In the text after the skin-mode solution, 'where J=4j+1' should be 'N=4j+1' since the variable J is not defined in that context.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] The initial condition is written as 'Ψn(z=0) = ψ(1)n(E=1) + c ψ(2)n(E=-1) / sqrt(1+c^2)'; the parentheses are missing and the expression should be (ψ(1)n(E=1)+cψ(2)n(E=-1))/√(1+c^2).
  3. [Author line] The affiliation line contains a garbled character in 'Eski¸ sehir'; the standard spelling is 'Eskişehir'.
  4. [II.B, s=2 constraints] The second constraint in the s=2, N=4 case is presented in a way that makes it difficult to parse; using displayed equations with clearly grouped terms, especially for the terms multiplying gψ2^2, would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: subskin modes are constructed by solving the nonlinear boundary-value problem, not by fitting the claimed result into the inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The nonlinear subskin modes are constructed by imposing ψ1=0 (the defining feature of a d=1 subskin mode) and then solving Eq. (2) with the OBC: for s=2,N=4 the right-edge conditions are two algebraic constraints that are solved for E and ψ2, and for larger lattices the shooting method solves the same boundary-value problem by scanning ψ2 for simultaneous zeros of ψN+1 and ψN+2. These are genuine solves, not fits to a target observable. The subsequent time-evolution plots verify stationarity rather than define it. The only self-citation of note, Ref. [21], supplies the shooting method, but the method is restated and applied within the paper, so the central claim does not reduce to an unverified prior result. The 'regardless of couplings' heading claim is broader than what is proven—existence is demonstrated for selected parameter sets and the s>2 cases relax boundary conditions to ~10^-20—but that is a correctness/justification gap, not circularity. No equation in the paper is equivalent to its input by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim does not rely on fitted numbers. It rests on the definition of subskin modes, the form of the boundary conditions, the root-counting condition for SIBC modes, and the use of quasi-stationary solutions when exact OBC solutions are not found.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The open boundary conditions (OBC) with psi_0 = psi_{N+1} = ... = psi_{N+s} = 0 define the finite system.
    Standard boundary conditions for a finite lattice; the central result depends on the OBC spectrum.
  • ad hoc to paper A subskin mode is defined by zero amplitudes at the first d sites (psi_1 = ... = psi_d = 0).
    This is a new definition introduced by the paper; it is the object of study.
  • domain assumption For SIBC, the existence of at least three distinct nonzero roots beta with |beta| < 1 of the recurrence polynomial is taken as the condition for subskin modes.
    Derived from the recurrence and the requirement psi_0=psi_infinity=0, but the specific 'three roots' condition is stated without a rigorous derivation.
  • domain assumption The shooting method with relaxed right-boundary conditions (psi_{N+1}... approximately 10^-20) yields quasi-stationary modes that are treated as valid subskin modes.
    The paper uses this to extend results to s>2; the modes are not exact eigenstates.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Subskin modes in a nonlinear non-Hermitian system." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MKJNYI56

@misc{pith2026250509502,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Subskin modes in a nonlinear non-Hermitian system},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MKJNYI56}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.09502}
}
read the original abstract

Subskin modes are distinct from conventional skin modes as they localize not at the system's edge but rather below the edge. Unlike skin modes, where a substantial number of them can accumulate at the boundaries of a system due to the non-Hermitian skin effect, subskin modes are typically limited to one or a few and emerge only when the size of the system and the couplings are related in a very specific way. The nonlinear interaction can lift the restrictions on the couplings for the formation of these modes. The findings reveal the potential of subskin modes for practical applications and new research in non-Hermitian systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.09502 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The densities of the SIBC skin and subskin modes for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The density plots, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The densities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [21]

    Zhang, J

    Z.-X. Zhang, J. Cao, J.-Q. Li, Y. Zhang, S. Liu, S. Zhang, H.-F. Wang, Topological skin modes and intensity ampli- fication in a nonlinear non-Hermitian lattice, Phys. Rev. B108, 125402 (2023)

    work page 2023

  2. [1]

    Bath, Introduction to Seismology, Birkhauser Verlag, Basel (1979)

    M. Bath, Introduction to Seismology, Birkhauser Verlag, Basel (1979)

    work page 1979

  3. [2]

    However, the nonlinear interaction lifts this restriction on the couplings, allowing the sub- skin modeψ (1) n to appear over a wide range of couplings

    From these constraints, it follows that E= (1− √ 5)J 2 1 2J2 andJ−1 = ( √ 5−2)J 3 1 J 2 2 wheng= 0, which re- stricts the values of one of the couplings for the appear- ance of that mode. However, the nonlinear interaction lifts this restriction on the couplings, allowing the sub- skin modeψ (1) n to appear over a wide range of couplings. This can be demo...

    work page

  4. [3]

    Gerkema, J

    T. Gerkema, J. Zimmerman, An introduction to internal waves, Lecture Notes, Roy. NIOZ Texel (2008)

    work page 2008

  5. [4]

    R. Lin, T. Tai, L. Li, et al., Topological non-Hermitian skin effect, Front. Phys.18, 53605 (2023)

    work page 2023

  6. [5]

    Zhang, T

    X. Zhang, T. Zhang, M. H. Lu, Y. F. Chen, A review on non-Hermitian skin effect, Advances in Physics: X, 7 (2022)

    work page 2022

  7. [6]

    Weidemann, M

    S. Weidemann, M. Kremer, T. Helbig, T. Hofmann, A. Stegmaier, M. Greiter, R. Thomale, A. Szameit, Topo- logical funneling of light, Science6488, 311 (2020)

    work page 2020

  8. [7]

    Turker and C

    Z. Turker and C. Yuce, The funneling effect in a non-Hermitian Anderson Model, Phys. Scr.99, 075028 (2024)

    work page 2024

Show all 31 references
  1. [8]

    Yuce, Nonlinear non-Hermitian skin effect, Phys

    C. Yuce, Nonlinear non-Hermitian skin effect, Phys. Lett. A408, 127484 (2021)

    2021

  2. [9]

    Tombuloglu, C

    S. Tombuloglu, C. Yuce, Nonlinear waves in an anti- Hermitian lattice with cubic nonlinearity, Commun. Non- linear Sci. Numer. Simulat.83, 105106 (2020)

    2020

  3. [10]

    Motohiko Ezawa, Dynamical nonlinear higher-order non- Hermitian skin effects and topological trap-skin phase, Phys. Rev. B105, 125421 (2022)

    2022

  4. [11]

    Hui Jiang, Enhong Cheng, Ziyu Zhou and Li-Jun Lang, Nonlinear perturbation of a high-order exceptional point: Skin discrete breathers and the hierarchical power-law scaling, Chin. Phys. B32, 084203 (2023)

    2023

  5. [12]

    Kevrekidis, and Vassos Achilleos, Skin modes in a nonlinear Hatano-Nelson model , Phys

    Bertin Many Manda, Ricardo Carretero-Gonzalez, Panayotis G. Kevrekidis, and Vassos Achilleos, Skin modes in a nonlinear Hatano-Nelson model , Phys. Rev. B109, 094308 (2024)

    2024

  6. [13]

    Bertin Many Manda, Vassos Achilleos, Insensitive edge solitons in non-Hermitian topological lattices, Phys. Rev. B110, L180302 (2024)

    2024

  7. [14]

    Pedro Fittipaldi de Castro, Wladimir Alejandro Be- nalcazar, Solitons with Self-induced Topological Nonre- ciprocity, arXiv:2405.14919

    arXiv

  8. [15]

    Smirnova, Maxim A

    Vlad Simonian, Daria A. Smirnova, Maxim A. Gorlach, Non-Hermitian excitations in nonlinear topological lat- tice, Appl. Phys. Lett.125, 131701 (2024)

    2024

  9. [16]

    Komis, Z

    I. Komis, Z. H. Musslimani, and K. G. Makris, Skin soli- tons, Opt. Lett.48, 6525 (2023)

    2023

  10. [17]

    Ghaemi-Dizicheh, A class of stable nonlinear non- Hermitian skin modes, Phys

    H. Ghaemi-Dizicheh, A class of stable nonlinear non- Hermitian skin modes, Phys. Scripta99, 125411 (2024)

    2024

  11. [18]

    Kunst, Exceptional Points and Stability in Nonlinear Models of Population Dynam- ics having PT symmetry, Phys

    Alexander Felski, Flore K. Kunst, Exceptional Points and Stability in Nonlinear Models of Population Dynam- ics having PT symmetry, Phys. Rev. Research7, 013326 (2025)

    2025

  12. [19]

    Commun.16, 422 (2025)

    Kazuki Sone, Motohiko Ezawa, Zongping Gong, Taro Sawada, Nobuyuki Yoshioka, Takahiro Sagawa, Tran- sition from topological to chaos in the nonlinear Su- Schrieffer-Heeger model, Nat. Commun.16, 422 (2025)

    2025

  13. [20]

    Physics Res

    Stefano Longhi,Modulational Instability and Dynami- cal Growth Blockade in the Nonlinear Hatano–Nelson Model, Adv. Physics Res. 2400154 (2025)

    2025

  14. [22]

    Yuce, Nonlinear skin modes and fixed-points, Phys

    C. Yuce, Nonlinear skin modes and fixed-points, Phys. Rev. B111, 054201 (2025)

    2025

  15. [23]

    al., Nonlinear Non-Hermitian Skin Ef- fect and Skin Solitons in Temporal Photonic Feedback Lattices, arXiv:2409.19693

    Shulin Wang, et. al., Nonlinear Non-Hermitian Skin Ef- fect and Skin Solitons in Temporal Photonic Feedback Lattices, arXiv:2409.19693

    arXiv

  16. [24]

    al., Anomalous Single-Mode Lasing In- duced by Nonlinearity and the Non-Hermitian Skin Ef- fect, Phys

    Bofeng Zhu, et. al., Anomalous Single-Mode Lasing In- duced by Nonlinearity and the Non-Hermitian Skin Ef- fect, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 013903 (2022)

    2022

  17. [25]

    Hsuan Lo, You Wang, Rimi Banerjee, Baile Zhang, Y. D. Chong, Switchable Non-Hermitian Skin Effect in Bo- goliubov Modes, arXiv:2411.13841

    arXiv

  18. [26]

    H Wang, J Zhong, S Fan, Non-Hermitian photonic band winding and skin effects: a tutorial, Advances in Optics and Photonics16, 659 (2024)

    2024

  19. [27]

    Nobuyuki Okuma, Kohei Kawabata, Ken Shiozaki, and Masatoshi Sato, Topological Origin of Non-Hermitian Skin Effects, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 086801(2020)

    2020

  20. [28]

    Kai Zhang, Zhesen Yang, and Chen Fang, Correspon- dence between Winding Numbers and Skin Modes in Non-Hermitian Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 126402 7 (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    K. Wang, A. Dutt, K. Y. Yang, C. C. Wojcik, J. Vuck- ovic, S. Fan, Generating arbitrary topological windings of a non-Hermitian band, Science 371:1240 (2021)

    2021

  22. [30]

    Borgnia, Alex Jura Kruchkov, and Robert-Jan Slager,Non-Hermitian Boundary Modes and Topology, Phys

    Dan S. Borgnia, Alex Jura Kruchkov, and Robert-Jan Slager,Non-Hermitian Boundary Modes and Topology, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 056802 (2020)

    2020

  23. [31]

    Ashidaa, Z

    Y. Ashidaa, Z. Gonga, and M. Ueda, Non-Hermitian physics, Advances in Physics69, 249 (2020)

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.