pith. sign in

arxiv: 2512.24437 · v2 · submitted 2025-12-30 · 🪐 quant-ph

Uncertainty inequalities in a non-Hermitian scenario

Yanet Alvarez , Mariela Portesi , Romina Ramirez , Marta Reboiro This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 18:35 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords non-Hermitian quantum mechanicsuncertainty relationsPT symmetrymetric operatorsKrein spaceHeisenberg-Robertson inequalityexceptional pointsspin models
0
0 comments X

The pith

A generalized Heisenberg-Robertson uncertainty inequality holds for non-Hermitian systems in unbroken, broken, and exceptional-point regimes.

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

The paper establishes a consistent framework for defining expectation values, variances, and uncertainty relations when quantum observables evolve under non-Hermitian Hamiltonians. It does so by constructing metric operators specific to each dynamical regime—unbroken symmetry, spontaneously broken symmetry, and exceptional points—inside a Krein-space structure. This yields a single generalized inequality that remains valid across all spectral regimes, with direct consequences for how time-dependent uncertainty behaves in PT-symmetric models. The approach also produces steady-state agreement with Lindblad master equations, showing that metric-adjusted variances settle to minimum-uncertainty values outside the unbroken phase.

Core claim

By constructing appropriate metrics in the unbroken-symmetry phase, the spontaneously broken-symmetry phase, and at exceptional points, we provide a consistent definition of expectation values, variances, and time evolution within a Krein-space framework. Within this approach, we derive a generalized Heisenberg-Robertson uncertainty inequality which is valid across all spectral regimes.

What carries the argument

Metric operators constructed separately for each dynamical regime inside the Krein-space framework, which enforce physically consistent expectation values and variances for non-Hermitian observables.

If this is right

  • Uncertainty exhibits persistent oscillations only in the unbroken phase and settles to a minimum-uncertainty steady state once symmetry is broken or at exceptional points.
  • The metric-based variances agree with those obtained from a Lindblad master-equation description precisely in the steady state.
  • Physically meaningful predictions for time-dependent uncertainties become available for any non-Hermitian Hamiltonian once the appropriate metric is identified.
  • The generalized inequality supplies a uniform bound on the product of variances that does not require Hermitian conjugation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same metric construction could be tested on non-PT-symmetric non-Hermitian models to check whether the generalized inequality remains useful.
  • If the metric can be engineered in an experiment, the predicted steady-state minimum uncertainty would set a practical limit on simultaneous measurements in open quantum systems.
  • The oscillatory-to-steady transition offers a diagnostic for the location of exceptional points without direct eigenvalue computation.

Load-bearing premise

That suitable metric operators can always be built for unbroken, broken, and exceptional-point regimes so that the resulting expectation values and variances remain physically meaningful.

What would settle it

A concrete PT-symmetric spin model in which the metric-adjusted uncertainty measure fails to satisfy the generalized inequality or does not reach the predicted minimum-uncertainty steady state in the broken-symmetry phase.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.24437 by Mariela Portesi, Marta Reboiro, Romina Ramirez, Yanet Alvarez.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Dynamical phases of the model of Eq. (17) in terms of the values of d = (s/r) 2 −sin2 θ in the plane (θ, s/r). The region for which d > 0 corresponds to the PT -symmetry phase of the model, while the region with d < 0 corresponds to the broken symmetry phase. The white border between both regions corresponds to the localisation of the EPs, where d = 0. Let us analyze the time evolution of an initial state … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Contour plots of UR(σx, σy), Eq. (32), in the (ϕ, p)-plane at t = 0 for different values of η within the PT -symmetry region (η 2 < 1). now computed as: UR(σx, σy) = ∆2 SK σx ∆2 SK σy − |⟨σz⟩SK | 2 ≥ 0. (38) In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Contour plots of UR(σx, σy), Eq. (38), in the (ϕ, p)-plane at t = 0 for different values of η within the broken symmetry region (η 2 > 1) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Overlap |⟨+|−⟩S| between the states with energies E+ and E−, as a function of η, Eq. (41). C. Exceptional points At the exceptional points, the Hamiltonian is no longer diagonalizable and must instead be expressed in its Jor￾dan form. The algebraic structure of the system at the EP can be constructed through its Jordan decomposition, as detailed above in Sec. II A 3. According to Eq. (10), in the basis of … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Contour plots of UR(σx, σy), Eq. (47), in the (ϕ, p)- plane at t = 0 at the exceptional points (η = ±1). The survival probability at time t at the exceptional points, SPEP = |⟨φ0|φ(t)⟩SJ | 2 , reads SPEP = N (0)2N (t) 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Panel (a) shows the angle θS and panel (b) shows the angle φS, both defined in Eq. (52), as a function of time. The blue curves correspond to the PT -symmetry phase, ob￾tained for η = 1/2, s = 1. The green curves depict the non￾PT symmetry phase results, taking η = √ 2, s = 1. The yel￾low curves show the results obtained for one of the EPs, with η = 1, s = 1. The initial state has been fixed to (ϕ, p) = (π… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: UR(σx, σy) as a function of time. Panel (a) shows the results obtained for η = 1/2, s = 1 in the PT -symmetry phase. In panel (b), the results depicted correspond to √ η = 2, s = 1, in the non-PT -symmetry phase. In panel (c), we show the results obtained for one of the EPs, with η = 1, s = 1. The initial state has been fixed to (ϕ, p) = (π, 1). of the components of ⃗σ: θs = arccos (⟨σz⟩S), φs = arctan  ⟨… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Stationary value of the survival probability at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Survival probability at the exceptional point, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Behavior of the mean values of the components [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We investigate uncertainty relations for quantum observables evolving under non-Hermitian Hamiltonians, with particular emphasis on the role of metric operators. By constructing appropriate metrics in each dynamical regime, namely the unbroken-symmetry phase, the spontaneously broken-symmetry phase, and at exceptional points, we provide a consistent definition of expectation values, variances, and time evolution within a Krein-space framework. Within this approach, we derive a generalized Heisenberg-Robertson uncertainty inequality which is valid across all spectral regimes. As an application, we analyze a spin model with parity-time reversal symmetry and show that, while the uncertainty measure exhibits oscillatory behavior in the unbroken phase, it evolves towards a minimum-uncertainty steady state in the spontaneously broken-symmetry phase and at exceptional points. We further compare our metric-based description with a Lindblad master-equation approach and show their agreement in the steady state. Our results highlight the necessity of incorporating appropriate metric structures to extract physically meaningful predictions from non-Hermitian quantum dynamics.

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

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript investigates uncertainty relations for observables evolving under non-Hermitian Hamiltonians, emphasizing metric operators in a Krein-space framework. It constructs metrics separately for the unbroken PT-symmetry phase, the spontaneously broken-symmetry phase, and exceptional points to define consistent expectation values, variances, and time evolution. A generalized Heisenberg-Robertson uncertainty inequality is derived that is claimed to hold across all spectral regimes. The approach is applied to a PT-symmetric spin model, where the uncertainty measure shows oscillatory behavior in the unbroken phase but evolves to a minimum-uncertainty steady state in the broken phase and at exceptional points; results are compared to a Lindblad master-equation description in the steady state.

Significance. If the metric constructions and derivations prove correct, the work would supply a unified treatment of uncertainty relations in non-Hermitian dynamics that remains physically consistent across unbroken, broken, and exceptional-point regimes. This addresses a recognized gap in PT-symmetric quantum mechanics and could inform comparisons between non-Hermitian and open-system descriptions. The abstract alone supplies no equations, proofs, or error analysis, so the actual significance cannot yet be evaluated.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The central claim—that a generalized Heisenberg-Robertson inequality holds across all regimes—rests on the construction of appropriate metric operators yielding positive variances in each dynamical regime. No explicit metric definitions, derivation steps, or verification that the resulting variances remain non-negative appear in the provided text, rendering the claim unverifiable.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and for identifying the need for greater clarity regarding the abstract. We address the major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] The central claim—that a generalized Heisenberg-Robertson inequality holds across all regimes—rests on the construction of appropriate metric operators yielding positive variances in each dynamical regime. No explicit metric definitions, derivation steps, or verification that the resulting variances remain non-negative appear in the provided text, rendering the claim unverifiable.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract is a concise summary and therefore omits the explicit metric definitions, derivation steps, and variance verifications. The full manuscript constructs the metric operators separately for the unbroken PT-symmetry phase, the spontaneously broken phase, and exceptional points within the Krein-space framework, ensuring a positive-definite inner product. The generalized Heisenberg-Robertson inequality is then derived from these metrics, with explicit steps confirming that the variances remain non-negative in each regime. These constructions and the subsequent application to the PT-symmetric spin model are detailed in the body of the paper. We are prepared to revise the abstract by adding a brief clause referencing the metric construction if the referee considers this necessary for improved verifiability. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation rests on metric construction

full rationale

Only the abstract is available, which states that appropriate metrics are constructed in unbroken, broken, and exceptional-point regimes to define expectation values, variances, and time evolution in the Krein-space framework, from which a generalized Heisenberg-Robertson inequality is then derived. No equations, parameter fits, or self-citations are exhibited that would reduce the claimed inequality to its inputs by construction. The central step is the metric construction itself, presented as an independent modeling choice rather than a renaming or self-referential fit, so the derivation chain remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review limits visibility into parameters and axioms; metric operators and Krein-space definitions are invoked but not detailed.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Krein-space framework with suitable metric operators yields consistent expectation values and variances for non-Hermitian Hamiltonians
    Invoked to define physical quantities across unbroken, broken, and exceptional-point regimes.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5442 in / 1144 out tokens · 26049 ms · 2026-05-16T18:35:14.559722+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

49 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    [21], we take as metric the operatorS given by S= X α |ψα⟩ ⟨ψα|.(4) SinceSis Hermitian and positive definite, it can be writ- ten in the formS= Υ †Υ

    Symmetry phase Following Ref. [21], we take as metric the operatorS given by S= X α |ψα⟩ ⟨ψα|.(4) SinceSis Hermitian and positive definite, it can be writ- ten in the formS= Υ †Υ. We construct the Hilbert space by introducing a new inner product induced by the met- ric operatorS,⟨.|.⟩ S =⟨S.|.⟩. It should be noticed thatSis a similarity operator, H †S=SH....

    work page

  2. [2]

    So defined, it is easy to prove thatH †S=SH

    Broken symmetry phase In the broken symmetry phase, one can take as a sim- ilarity operator betweenHandH †, the operator S= NX α≤β δ(Eβ − eE∗ α) ζβ |ψβ⟩ ⟨ψα|+ζ ∗ β |ψα⟩ ⟨ψβ| ,(6) withζ∈CandIm(ζ)̸= 0 beingNthe dimension of the Hilbert space. So defined, it is easy to prove thatH †S=SH. How- ever,Sin Eq. (6) is in general non-positive definite. Thus,Sinduce...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Let us com- pute the Jordan form ofH †,H † = P JP −1

    Exceptional points At the EPs, finite-dimensional systems are no longer diagonalizable, and to form a basis of the vector space, generalized eigenvalues should be included. Let us com- pute the Jordan form ofH †,H † = P JP −1 . Let| ψk⟩be thek-th column of P, and| νj⟩thej-th column of P −1 . The operator defined by S= NX α≤β δ(Eβ − eE∗ α) ζβ |ψβ⟩ ⟨να|+ζ ∗...

    work page

  4. [4]

    of the components of⃗ σ: θs = arccos (⟨σ z⟩S), φs = arctan ⟨σy⟩S ⟨σx⟩S .(52) In Figure 7 we plot the anglesθ S andφ S as a function of time, for different sets of parameters

    The initial state has been fixed to (ϕ, p) = (π,1). of the components of⃗ σ: θs = arccos (⟨σ z⟩S), φs = arctan ⟨σy⟩S ⟨σx⟩S .(52) In Figure 7 we plot the anglesθ S andφ S as a function of time, for different sets of parameters. After some algebra it can be proved that, in the system given by directions (x ′, y′, z′), the uncertainty relation has the minimu...

    work page

  5. [5]

    It can be observed that the survival probability takes its maximum valueSP∼P T = 1 when (ϕ, p) =±(π/2, √ 2−1); for these values of the pa- rameters, the initial state is preserved under the time evolution induced by the Hamiltonian of Eq. (17). The behavior of SP ∼P T, Eq. (39), in terms ofpandt is depicted in Figure 9, takingη= √ 2,ϕ=−π/2, and s= 1. In F...

    work page

  6. [6]

    C. M. Bender and S. Boettcher, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 5243 (1998)

    work page 1998

  7. [7]

    C. M. Bender, D. C. Brody, and H. F. Jones, Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 270401 (2002)

    work page 2002

  8. [8]

    El-Ganainy, K

    R. El-Ganainy, K. G. Makris, M. Khajavikhan, Z. H. Musslimani, S. Rotter, and D. N. Christodoulides, Na- ture Phys.14, 11 (2018)

    work page 2018

  9. [9]

    Ashida, Z

    Y. Ashida, Z. Gong, and M. Ueda, Adv. Phys.69, 249 (2020)

    work page 2020

  10. [10]

    C. M. Bender and D. W. Hook, Rev. Mod. Phys.96, 045002 (2024)

    work page 2024

  11. [11]

    G. A. ´Alvarez, E. P. Danieli, P. R. Levstein, and H. M. Pastawski, J. Chem. Phys.124, 194507 (2006)

    work page 2006

  12. [12]

    Ram´ ırez, M

    R. Ram´ ırez, M. Reboiro, and D. Tielas, Eur. Phys. J. D 74, 193 (2020)

    work page 2020

  13. [13]

    Fern´ andez, R

    V. Fern´ andez, R. Ram´ ırez, and M. Reboiro, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.55, 015303 (2021)

    work page 2021

  14. [14]

    E. J. Bergholtz, J. C. Budich, and F. K. Kunst, Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 015005 (2021)

    work page 2021

  15. [15]

    H. Gao, K. Wang, L. Xiao, M. Nakagawa, N. Matsumoto, D. Qu, H. Lin, M. Ueda, and P. Xue, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 176601 (2024)

    work page 2024

  16. [16]

    Scholtz, H

    F. Scholtz, H. Geyer, and F. Hahne, Ann. Phys.(N.Y.) 213, 74 (1992)

    work page 1992

  17. [17]

    F. H. M. Faisal and J. V. Moloney, J. Phys. B: Atom. Mol. Phys.14, 3603 (1981)

    work page 1981

  18. [18]

    D. C. Brody, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.47, 035305 (2013)

    work page 2013

  19. [19]

    Mostafazadeh, J

    A. Mostafazadeh, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen39, 10171 (2006)

    work page 2006

  20. [20]

    Mostafazadeh, Phys

    A. Mostafazadeh, Phys. Lett. B650, 208 (2007)

    work page 2007

  21. [21]

    Znojil, Phys

    M. Znojil, Phys. Rev. D78, 085003 (2008)

    work page 2008

  22. [22]

    Znojil, Phys

    M. Znojil, Phys. Lett. A523, 129782 (2024)

    work page 2024

  23. [23]

    Bagarello, J.-P

    F. Bagarello, J.-P. Gazeau, F. H. Szafraniec, and M. Zno- jil, eds.,Non-Selfadjoint Operators in Quantum Physics: Mathematical Aspects(Wiley, 2015)

    work page 2015

  24. [24]

    Mostafazadeh, Int

    A. Mostafazadeh, Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys07, 1191 (2010)

    work page 2010

  25. [25]

    Fring and T

    A. Fring and T. Frith, Mod. Phys. Lett. A.35, 2050041 (2020)

    work page 2020

  26. [26]

    Ram´ ırez and M

    R. Ram´ ırez and M. Reboiro, J. Math. Phys.60, 012106 (2019)

    work page 2019

  27. [27]

    Shukla, R

    N. Shukla, R. Modak, and B. P. Mandal, Phys. Rev. A 107, 042201 (2023)

    work page 2023

  28. [28]

    Bagarello, J

    F. Bagarello, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.56, 425201 (2023)

    work page 2023

  29. [29]

    Znojil, Symmetry17(2025), 10.3390/sym17050708

    M. Znojil, Symmetry17(2025), 10.3390/sym17050708

    work page doi:10.3390/sym17050708 2025

  30. [30]

    Mostafazadeh, J

    A. Mostafazadeh, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.41, 244017 (2008)

    work page 2008

  31. [31]

    Heisenberg, Z

    W. Heisenberg, Z. Physik43, 172 (1927)

    work page 1927

  32. [32]

    H. P. Robertson, Phys. Rev.34, 163 (1929)

    work page 1929

  33. [33]

    Zozor, M

    S. Zozor, M. Portesi, and C. Vignat, Physica A Stat. Mech. Appl.387, 4800 (2008)

    work page 2008

  34. [34]

    Zozor, M

    S. Zozor, M. Portesi, P. Sanchez-Moreno, and J. S. De- hesa, Phys. Rev. A83, 052107 (2011)

    work page 2011

  35. [35]

    G. M. Bosyk, T. M. Os´ an, P. W. Lamberti, and M. Portesi, Phys. Rev. A89, 034101 (2014)

    work page 2014

  36. [36]

    Dey and A

    S. Dey and A. Fring, Phys. Rev. D86, 064038 (2012)

    work page 2012

  37. [37]

    Zhao and C

    X. Zhao and C. Zhang, Front. Phys.10, 862868 (2022)

    work page 2022

  38. [38]

    Gohberg and M

    I. Gohberg and M. Krein,Introduction to the Theory of Linear Nonselfadjoint Operators, Vol. 18 (American Mathematical Society, Providence, 1969)

    work page 1969

  39. [39]

    Albeverio and S

    S. Albeverio and S. Kushel, Lett. Math. Phys67, 223 (2004)

    work page 2004

  40. [40]

    Lindblad, Commun

    G. Lindblad, Commun. Math. Phys.48, 119 (1976)

    work page 1976

  41. [41]

    Minganti, A

    F. Minganti, A. Miranowicz, R. W. Chhajlany, I. I. Arkhipov, and F. Nori, Phys. Rev. A101, 062112 (2020)

    work page 2020

  42. [42]

    Nathan and M

    F. Nathan and M. S. Rudner, Phys. Rev. B102, 115109 (2020)

    work page 2020

  43. [43]

    Naghiloo, M

    M. Naghiloo, M. Abbasi, Y. N. Joglekar, and K. W. Murch, Nat. Phys.15, 1232 (2019)

    work page 2019

  44. [44]

    Bagchi and A

    B. Bagchi and A. Fring, Phys. Lett. A373, 4307 (2009)

    work page 2009

  45. [45]

    C. M. Bender, D. C. Brody, H. F. Jones, and B. K. Meister, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 040403 (2007)

    work page 2007

  46. [46]

    P. E. G. Assis and A. Fring, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 41, 244002 (2008)

    work page 2008

  47. [47]

    W.-C. Gao, C. Zheng, L. Liu, T.-J. Wang, and C. Wang, Opt. Express29, 517 (2020)

    work page 2020

  48. [48]

    Mayosky, A

    M. Mayosky, A. Veiga, C. G. Canal, and H. Fanchiotti, Int. J. Circ. Theor. Appl.51, 4997 (2023)

    work page 2023

  49. [49]

    Kitagawa and M

    M. Kitagawa and M. Ueda, Phys. Rev. A47, 5138 (1993)

    work page 1993