Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 57 references

Theory of anomalous Landau-Zener tunneling induced by nonlinear coupling

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For β < −1, adiabatic Landau-Zener tunneling probability is exactly p_ad = −α/β, independent of sweep rate and initial state.

desk verdict New model, plausible mechanism, but the exact formula p_ad=-α/β rests on an unproven universal-convergence conjecture; send to referees but demand proof or exhaustive numerics. read the letter →

arxiv 2603.01523 v1 pith:3IW6S3PE submitted 2026-03-02 quant-ph

Wen-Yuan Wang , Hong-Juan Meng This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords Landau-Zenertunnelingnonlinearcouplingadiabaticitybreakingblack-hole-likefixedpointtwisted-knottedstructurephase-spaceattractortwo-levelsystem
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

This paper studies a two-level system whose inter-level coupling depends on the amplitude of one level, a form of nonlinear coupling distinct from the usual on-site nonlinearity. It claims that when the nonlinear coupling parameter β drops below −1, the standard exponential Landau-Zener formula breaks down completely: in the adiabatic limit the tunneling probability becomes exactly p_ad = −α/β, where α is the linear coupling, and the result no longer depends on the sweep rate. The mechanism is a 'black-hole-like' fixed point at s_hole = 1 + 2α/β in the equivalent classical phase-space description, which attracts every trajectory passing through the four-energy-level region and erases all memory of the initial state. If correct, this yields a parameter-free, rate-independent prediction that can be tested directly in driven two-mode systems, and it provides a new mechanism for irreversible state transfer. The key caveat is that the universal convergence to the fixed point is introduced as a conjecture supported by two numerically tested initial conditions rather than an analytic proof.

What carries the argument

The central object is the black-hole-like fixed point s_hole = 1 + 2α/β, a continuous line of fixed points that appears in the phase-space description of the nonlinear two-level system only for β < −1. It acts as a universal attractor: trajectories from both the upper and lower adiabatic branches are captured by it after traversing the region where four real energy levels coexist, irreversibly erasing initial-state information. From its coordinates alone, the adiabatic tunneling probability follows as p_ad = −α/β without needing the full time evolution. Accompanying machinery includes the classical Hamiltonian with a non-canonical Poisson bracket, closed-form boundaries f(β), g1(β), g2(β) fo

What would settle it

Evolve Eq. (1) for β < −1 with a slow sweep, starting from an initial state not among the two tested branches (for instance s = 0.3, θ = 0 at large negative γ); if the asymptotic population difference after passing through the four-level region is not s_hole = 1 + 2α/β, or equivalently if the tunneling probability deviates from −α/β, the universal-attractor claim and the exact formula are falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that nonlinear coupling reshapes the adiabatic energy landscape into a twisted-knotted structure beyond β = −1, and the dynamics is governed by a black-hole-like fixed point that acts as a universal attractor. In the adiabatic limit, every trajectory that enters the four-level window, regardless of its initial adiabatic branch, converges to the fixed point s_hole = 1 + 2α/β. Projecting this asymptotic state onto the instantaneous eigenbasis yields the exact adiabatic tunneling probability p_ad = −α/β for all β < −1, verified numerically in Fig. 3(d). This replaces the exponential LZ formula with a power-law ratio and implies that the final state is independent of both th

Load-bearing premise

The entire prediction rests on the bold conjecture that the black-hole-like fixed point attracts every trajectory entering the four-level window; the paper checks only two initial conditions numerically and gives no analytic proof of global convergence.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, every driven two-mode system with amplitude-dependent coupling and β < −1 exhibits the same rate-independent tunneling probability p_ad = −α/β, making the effect universal across platforms.
  • The black-hole-like fixed point provides a concrete mechanism for irreversible state reset: after passage through the four-level region, the system lands on a state determined only by α and β, independent of its preparation.
  • Adiabatic passage through the twisted-knotted structure does not yield perfect state transfer; the residual tunneling probability decreases as |β| grows, contradicting the naive expectation of complete transfer at the knot.
  • The analytically mapped phase diagram (two vs four real levels) lets one choose parameters to either preserve exponential LZ dynamics (Type-I) or enter the anomalous supercritical regime (Type-III/IV).

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct extension: the fixed-point argument suggests p_ad = −α/β should survive time-dependent sweep rates v(t) as long as the adiabatic limit is taken, since the prediction is rate-independent; this could be tested by simulations with sinusoidal or non-monotonic sweeps.
  • The universal-attractor conjecture implies an information-theoretic reading: the fixed point acts as a dynamical horizon with an associated entropy of erased initial conditions; quantifying the erased phase-space volume might connect to Landauer-type principles, though the paper does not pursue this.
  • If the conjecture fails for some initial conditions, the exact formula would hold only within a finite basin of attraction; mapping that basin for arbitrary initial s, θ would be a natural numerical follow-up that the paper's data do not yet provide.
  • The mechanism might be exploited for threshold switches in analog simulators: operating below β = −1 yields a rate-independent, deterministic output, while above it the output follows the familiar exponential law, enabling a tunable response.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies Landau-Zener tunneling in a two-level system whose coupling depends nonlinearly on the population of one level, H(γ) = [[γ, α+β|a|^2],[α+β|a|^2, −γ]]. The authors classify the adiabatic spectrum into four regimes (conventional avoided crossing, swallowtail, and two twisted-knotted structures), derive the phase boundaries analytically via a fixed-point analysis, and identify a "black-hole-like" fixed point s_hole = 1+2α/β for β<−1. They conjecture that after traversing the critical region all trajectories converge to this fixed point, and from this derive the central result, Eq. (11): the adiabatic tunneling probability is exactly p_ad = −α/β, independent of sweep rate. Numerical simulations of the Schrödinger equation are presented for various β and sweep rates, showing good agreement with Eq. (11) at v = 0.001.

Significance. The paper addresses a novel and potentially important regime: nonlinear coupling rather than on-site nonlinearity in a Landau-Zener problem. The identification of a fixed-point line that acts as an attractor, leading to a simple power-law tunneling probability instead of the exponential Landau-Zener formula, is a striking claim with implications for state control in nonlinear two-mode systems. The derivations of the phase boundaries and the fixed-point structure are careful, and the numerical verification of Eq. (11) is a concrete, falsifiable prediction. However, the central mechanism relies on an explicitly labeled "bold conjecture" whose justification is only numerical and very limited in the space of initial conditions. If the conjecture holds, the result is significant; the current manuscript does not yet provide sufficient evidence to elevate the claim from conjecture to established theory.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. V.B, Eq. (11)] The derivation of p_ad = −α/β rests entirely on the assumption that, after passing the four-level window, the trajectory becomes pinned to s_hole. This is introduced as a "bold conjecture" and supported only by two trajectories (s=−1 and s=1) in Fig. 6 at a single sweep rate. A local stability analysis around s_hole using Eq. (4a) gives δ̇ ≈ β sinθ sqrt(1−s_hole²) δ for δ=s−s_hole, i.e., attraction only for sinθ>0 and repulsion for sinθ<0. The paper does not show that the physical initial condition (lower adiabatic branch, γ→−∞) enters with the attracting sign for all β<−1, nor does it provide a basin-of-attraction analysis. Without this, the word "exact" for Eq. (11) is not justified. I recommend either proving the convergence for the relevant initial conditions or explicitly presenting Eq. (11) as a numerically supported conjecture.
  2. [Abstract, Sec. IV.B, Sec. VI] The claim that the black-hole-like fixed point acts as a "universal attractor" and that "all quantum trajectories converge" to it is substantially stronger than what is demonstrated. Figure 6 tests only two initial population imbalances (s=−1 and s=1) and their associated fidelities; no grid over initial phases θ or intermediate s values is shown. The phase dependence of the linearized flow (see above) makes the universality claim non-obvious. If the intended claim concerns only the specific tunneling protocol (starting from the lower branch), the wording should be narrowed accordingly. The current abstract and conclusion assert a memory-erasing mechanism that is not established by the presented evidence.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. VI] Conclusion states "p_ad = α/β (β<−1)" but Eq. (11) and all other occurrences have p_ad = −α/β. The sign is missing.
  2. [Sec. III, Eq. (8) and text] The text says γ_c has a maximum of ≈0.1843 at β=−1, but Eq. (8) with α=1 gives f(−1) ≈ 0.1443. Please verify the formula or the stated value.
  3. [Sec. II] After Eq. (1), "amplitude-dependent sign-reversible coupling coupling" contains a duplicated word; similarly "coupling coupling" appears later in the same paragraph.
  4. [Sec. III, after Eq. (2)] "When δ=0, the above equation reduces to that of [12, 38]" — likely δ should be β=0, since β is the nonlinear coupling parameter.
  5. [Sec. V] The section is titled "Nonlinear quantum adiabatic theorem" but no theorem is stated. At present it is a conjecture with numerical support. Either state a precise theorem with conditions or rename the section (e.g., "Conjecture and numerical evidence").

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No by-construction circularity: Eq. (11) is algebra from s_hole; the universal-attractor premise is an unproved conjecture supported by same-model numerics, giving a validation gap, not a definitional circularity.

full rationale

The derivation of Eq. (11) is a direct algebraic consequence of the fixed-point coordinate s_hole=1+2α/β: using s=|b|^2−|a|^2 and normalization gives p=(1−s)/2=−α/β. This coordinate is obtained from the canonical equations (4) at γ=0, not from the tunneling probability, and no parameter is fitted to reproduce Fig. 3(d). The load-bearing step is the 'bold conjecture' that s_hole is a universal attractor; the paper supports it with two numerical trajectories and the fidelity F_hole (Fig. 6). That is an omitted proof and a self-referential numerical validation, but it is not a case where Eq. (11) is equivalent to its inputs by construction, nor is it forced by a self-citation. The self-citations [38,39] occur in contextual discussions of prior nonlinear-LZ and non-Hermitian work and do not carry the central argument. Analytical phase boundaries are independently derived from fixed-point conditions and merely compared with numerical root-counting. The core 'prediction' therefore does not reduce to a fitted parameter or to a self-citation; the main risk is the unproved universality of the attractor, which is a correctness/rigor concern rather than circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The model assumes a mean-field nonlinear Schrödinger equation with amplitude-dependent coupling and relies on probability conservation. The central prediction depends on the numerically supported but unproven conjecture of universal convergence to the black-hole-like fixed point. The Type-II phase boundary uses asymptotic expansions with approximate coefficients.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The two-level nonlinear Schrödinger equation (1) governs the dynamics
    The model is introduced in Sec. II and motivated by experiments on acoustic and circuit systems; it assumes a mean-field, amplitude-dependent coupling.
  • standard math Probability conservation |a|²+|b|²=1
    Used to derive the canonical equations (4) and to express the tunneling probability from s_hole.
  • domain assumption Adiabatic behavior can be inferred from the dynamical energy comparison (Sec. IV.B)
    The paper uses persistent deviation of ε_dyn from adiabatic levels as a signal of adiabatic breakdown, following Ref. [12].
  • ad hoc to paper Universal convergence to the black-hole-like fixed point s_hole (bold conjecture)
    The central result p_ad = -α/β depends on this unproven but numerically supported conjecture, acknowledged in Sec. IV.B.
  • domain assumption Perturbative expansion around β=-1 is valid for the Type-II boundary
    Appendix A.2 derives γ_c1 and γ_c2 as asymptotic expansions for η=β+1 small; the coefficients κ1-κ3 are approximate.
invented entities (1)
  • black-hole-like fixed point (s_hole = 1 + 2α/β)
    purpose: Universal attractor in phase space that erases initial-state memory and determines the adiabatic tunneling probability
    A continuous curve of fixed points at γ=0 for β<−1; its attractor nature is demonstrated numerically (Fig. 6) but not proven, and no direct experimental signature is proposed beyond the model dynamics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Theory of anomalous Landau-Zener tunneling induced by nonlinear coupling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3IW6S3PE

@misc{pith2026260301523,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Theory of anomalous Landau-Zener tunneling induced by nonlinear coupling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3IW6S3PE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.01523}
}
read the original abstract

We develop a general theory of Landau-Zener (LZ) tunneling in a two-level system with amplitude-dependent, sign-reversible nonlinear coupling, distinguishing it fundamentally from conventional on-site nonlinearity. Through a combination of analytical and phase-space analysis, we show that beyond a critical interaction strength, the nonlinear coupling fundamentally reshapes the adiabatic energy landscape, introducing a topological twisted and knotted structure. This structure leads to a complete breakdown of the standard exponential LZ formula, even in the adiabatic limit. Central to this anomalous behavior is the emergence of a black-hole-like fixed point, which acts as a universal attractor: upon traversing the critical region, all quantum trajectories converge to this fixed point, irreversibly erasing any memory of the initial state. From this fixed-point picture, we derive an exact analytical expression for the adiabatic tunneling probability, revealing a characteristic power-law dependence on both linear and nonlinear coupling strength. Our work establishes a paradigmatic framework for nonlinear-coupling-induced anomalous adiabaticity breaking and offers a universal mechanism for state control in driven quantum and wave systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.01523 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (color online) Adiabatic energy levels [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (color online) Phase diagram in the (β [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (color online) Landau-Zener tunneling probability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (color online) Nonlinear coupling induced adiabatic follow [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: details how the structure and number of fixed points evolve with the bias γ for different values of the non￾linear coupling strength β. In the regime β > −0.9575 [Figs. 5(a) and 5(b)], only two fixed points exist throughout the en￾tire range of γ. When −1 < β < −0.9575…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The critical role of the black-hole-like fixed point in adia [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    In the following, we carry out a detailed analysis of the fixed-point equation (7) to derive the exact con- ditions for these transitions as shown in Fig

    This correspondence reflects the deep connection between the fixed-point topology and the real-solution structure of the adiabatic spectrum. In the following, we carry out a detailed analysis of the fixed-point equation (7) to derive the exact con- ditions for these transitions as shown in Fig. 2. The fixed-point equation (7) yields four distinct real roo...

  2. [2]

    These thresholds correspond to the appearance of a double root (tangency) in the intervals∈(−1,0), given by the system  βs2−(β+2)s=2|γ| √ 1−s 2, 2βs−(β+2)=− 2|γ|s√ 1−s 2

    Boundary for the regime(−1<β<−0.9575) Forβ∈(−1,−0.9575) the number of real roots of (7) is governed by two critical valuesγ c1(β) andγ c2(β) with 0< γc1 <γ c2. These thresholds correspond to the appearance of a double root (tangency) in the intervals∈(−1,0), given by the system  βs2−(β+2)s=2|γ| √ 1−s 2, 2βs−(β+2)=− 2|γ|s√ 1−s 2 . Eliminating|γ|...

  3. [3]

    1(a), since a larger gap suppresses LZ transitions for a given sweep rate, a trend consistent with the physical picture underlying the standard LZ formula

    This reduction is directly correlated with the widening of the avoided-crossing gap shown in Fig. 1(a), since a larger gap suppresses LZ transitions for a given sweep rate, a trend consistent with the physical picture underlying the standard LZ formula. When the quantum-state evolution takes place in the regime of a swallowtail structure (Type-II,−1< β≲−0...

  4. [4]

    Defineg(s)=βs 2−(β+2)s

    Boundary for the regime(β<−1) After settingα=1, the fixed-point equation (7) reduces to 2|γ| √ 1−s 2 = s βs−(β+2) ,s∈[−1,1]. Defineg(s)=βs 2−(β+2)s. The equation then describes the intersection of the curveL(s)=2|γ| √ 1−s 2 with|g(s)|. 8 By analysing the shapes of these two functions on the interval [−1,1] we obtain the condition for the number of real ro...

  5. [5]

    L. D. Landau, Phys. Z. Sowjetunion2, 46 (1932)

    1932

  6. [6]

    Zener, Proc

    C. Zener, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A137, 696 (1932)

    1932

  7. [7]

    Sillanp ¨a¨a, T

    M. Sillanp ¨a¨a, T. Lehtinen, A. Paila, Y . Makhlin, and P. Hako- nen, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 187002 (2006)

    2006

  8. [8]

    Ashhab, J

    S. Ashhab, J. R. Johansson, and F. Nori, Phys. Rev. A74, 052330 (2006)

    2006

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    D. M. Berns, M. S. Rudner, S. O. Valenzuela, K. K. Berggren, W. D. Oliver, L. S. Levitov, and T. P. Orlando, Nature455, 51 (2008)

    2008

  2. [10]

    O. V . Ivakhnenko, S. N. Shevchenko, and F. Nori, Physics Re- ports995, 1 (2023), nonadiabatic Landau-Zener-St¨¹ckelberg- Majorana transitions, dynamics, and interference

    2023

  3. [11]

    G. D. Fuchs, V . V . Dobrovitski, D. M. Toyli, F. J. Heremans, and D. D. Awschalom, Science326, 1520 (2009)

    2009

  4. [12]

    Ribeiro and G

    H. Ribeiro and G. Burkard, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 216802 (2009)

    2009

  5. [13]

    J. R. Petta, H. Lu, and A. C. Gossard, Science327, 669 (2010)

    2010

  6. [14]

    Khomeriki and S

    R. Khomeriki and S. Ruffo, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 113904 (2005)

    2005

  7. [15]

    Z.-G. Chen, W. Tang, R.-Y . Zhang, Z. Chen, and G. Ma, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 054301 (2021)

    2021

  8. [16]

    Wu and Q

    B. Wu and Q. Niu, Phys. Rev. A61, 023402 (2000)

    2000

  9. [17]

    Zobay and B

    O. Zobay and B. M. Garraway, Phys. Rev. A61, 033603 (2000)

    2000

  10. [18]

    J. Liu, L. Fu, B.-Y . Ou, S.-G. Chen, D.-I. Choi, B. Wu, and Q. Niu, Phys. Rev. A66, 023404 (2002)

    2002

  11. [19]

    E. J. Mueller, Phys. Rev. A66, 063603 (2002)

    2002

  12. [20]

    Morsch, J

    O. Morsch, J. H. M ¨uller, M. Cristiani, D. Ciampini, and E. Ari- mondo, Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 140402 (2001)

    2001

  13. [21]

    Cristiani, O

    M. Cristiani, O. Morsch, J. H. M¨uller, D. Ciampini, and E. Ari- mondo, Phys. Rev. A65, 063612 (2002)

    2002

  14. [22]

    J. Liu, B. Wu, and Q. Niu, Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 170404 (2003)

    2003

  15. [23]

    Jona-Lasinio, O

    M. Jona-Lasinio, O. Morsch, M. Cristiani, N. Malossi, J. H. M¨uller, E. Courtade, M. Anderlini, and E. Arimondo, Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 230406 (2003)

    2003

  16. [24]

    Witthaut, E

    D. Witthaut, E. M. Graefe, and H. J. Korsch, Phys. Rev. A73, 063609 (2006)

    2006

  17. [25]

    Wu and J

    B. Wu and J. Liu, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 020405 (2006)

    2006

  18. [26]

    Smith-Mannschott, M

    K. Smith-Mannschott, M. Chuchem, M. Hiller, T. Kottos, and D. Cohen, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 230401 (2009)

    2009

  19. [27]

    Zenesini, C

    A. Zenesini, C. Sias, H. Lignier, Y . Singh, D. Ciampini, O. Morsch, R. Mannella, E. Arimondo, A. Tomadin, and S. Wimberger, New J. Phys.10, 053038 (2008)

    2008

  20. [28]

    Zenesini, H

    A. Zenesini, H. Lignier, G. Tayebirad, J. Radogostowicz, D. Ciampini, R. Mannella, S. Wimberger, O. Morsch, and E. Arimondo, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 090403 (2009)

    2009

  21. [29]

    Y .-A. Chen, S. D. Huber, S. Trotzky, I. Bloch, and E. Altman, Phys. Rev. Lett.7, 61 (2011). 9

    2011

  22. [30]

    Kasztelan, S

    C. Kasztelan, S. Trotzky, Y .-A. Chen, I. Bloch, I. P. McCul- loch, U. Schollw¨ock, and G. Orso, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 155302 (2011)

    2011

  23. [31]

    F. A. An, E. J. Meier, J. Ang’ong’a, and B. Gadway, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 040407 (2018)

    2018

  24. [32]

    Zhang, Z

    Y . Zhang, Z. Gui, and Y . Chen, Phys. Rev. A99, 023616 (2019)

    2019

  25. [33]

    Q. Guan, M. K. H. Ome, T. M. Bersano, S. Mossman, P. Engels, and D. Blume, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 213401 (2020)

    2020

  26. [34]

    Ashhab, O

    S. Ashhab, O. A. Ilinskaya, and S. N. Shevchenko, Phys. Rev. A106, 062613 (2022)

    2022

  27. [35]

    Cao and T

    Y . Cao and T. F. Xu, Phys. Rev. A107, 032420 (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    Z. Gui, J. Su, H. Lyu, and Y . Zhang, Phys. Rev. A110, 043314 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    Gefen, E

    Y . Gefen, E. Ben-Jacob, and A. O. Caldeira, Phys. Rev. B36, 2770 (1987)

    1987

  30. [38]

    V . M. Akulin and W. P. Schleich, Phys. Rev. A46, 4110 (1992)

    1992

  31. [39]

    Avishai and Y

    Y . Avishai and Y . B. Band, Phys. Rev. A90, 032116 (2014)

    2014

  32. [40]

    He and R

    C. He and R. R. Jones, Phys. Rev. A104, 013111 (2021)

    2021

  33. [41]

    Cao and T

    Y . Cao and T. F. Xu, Phys. Rev. A109, 012622 (2024)

    2024

  34. [42]

    W.-Y . Wang, B. Sun, and J. Liu, Phys. Rev. A106, 063708 (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    Dong, X.-L

    J. Dong, X.-L. Li, F.-Q. Dou, and W.-Y . Wang, Phys. Rev. A 108, 063506 (2023)

    2023

  36. [44]

    R. K. Malla, J. Cen, W. J. M. Kort-Kamp, and A. Saxena, Phys. Rev. A108, 062217 (2023)

    2023

  37. [45]

    Eckel, J

    S. Eckel, J. G. Lee, F. Jendrzejewski, N. Murray, C. W. Clark, C. J. Lobb, W. D. Phillips, M. Edwards, and G. K. Campbell, Nature506, 200 (2014)

    2014

  38. [46]

    Hadad, A

    Y . Hadad, A. B. Khanikaev, and A. Al `u, Phys. Rev. B93, 155112 (2016)

    2016

  39. [47]

    Zangeneh-Nejad and R

    F. Zangeneh-Nejad and R. Fleury, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 053902 (2019)

    2019

  40. [48]

    Hadad, J

    Y . Hadad, J. C. Soric, A. B. Khanikaev, and A. Al `u, Nature Electronics1, 178 (2018)

    2018

  41. [49]

    L. J. Maczewsky, M. Heinrich, M. Kremer, S. K. Ivanov, M. Ehrhardt, F. Martinez, Y . V . Kartashov, V . V . Konotop, L. Torner, D. Bauer, and A. Szameit, Science370, 701 (2020)

    2020

  42. [50]

    D. Zhou, D. Z. Rocklin, M. Leamy, and Y . Yao, Nature Com- munications13, 3379 (2022)

    2022

  43. [51]

    K. Sone, M. Ezawa, Y . Ashida, N. Yoshioka, and T. Sagawa, Nature Physics20, 1164 (2024)

    2024

  44. [52]

    K. Sone, M. Ezawa, Z. Gong, T. Sawada, N. Yoshioka, and T. Sagawa, Nature Communications16, 422 (2025)

    2025

  45. [53]

    Observation of localization reversal and harmonic generation in nonlinear non-hermitian skin ef- fect,

    J. Wu, R.-C. Shen, L. Zhang, F. Chen, B. Wang, H. Chen, Y . Yang, and H. Xue, “Observation of localization reversal and harmonic generation in nonlinear non-hermitian skin ef- fect,” (2025), arXiv:2505.09179

    2025 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Z.-X. Chen, Y . Ru, G.-C. He, M.-H. Lu, Y .-F. Chen, Y .-Q. Lu, and Z.-G. Chen, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 037202 (2026)

    2026

  47. [55]

    P. W. Anderson, inFifth International Spring School of Physics, edited by E. R. Caianello (Academic, New York, 1964)

    1964

  48. [56]

    Shimshoni, Y

    E. Shimshoni, Y . Gefen, and S. Fishman, Phys. Rev. B40, 2158 (1989)

    1989

  49. [57]

    Smerzi, S

    A. Smerzi, S. Fantoni, S. Giovanazzi, and S. R. Shenoy, Phys. Rev. Lett.79, 4950 (1997)

    1997

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.