Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 52 references

Chiral Entangled-State Generation through Dissipative Quantum Dynamics

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A slow closed loop in parameter space turns dissipation into a directional switch that chooses which entangled state is prepared, with the direction of travel selecting the Bell state.

desk verdict Chiral dissipative entanglement generation is real and well demonstrated in two qubits; the main gap is an unquantified steady-state overlap at the loop corners, not a broken mechanism. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.17302 v1 pith:6NM4CAPC submitted 2026-07-19 quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hall

Huixia Gao , Konghao Sun , Yiwen Han , Lei Xiao , Dengke Qu , Kunkun Wang , Xiang Zhan , Wei Yi
show 1 more author
Peng Xue
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.mes-hall
keywords chiraldynamicsdissipativeentanglementgenerationBellstatesGHZLiouvillianadiabaticpassagequantumLangevinequationreservoirengineering
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

The paper seeks to establish that dissipation, normally an enemy of entanglement, can be engineered so that the direction in which system parameters are slowly varied around a closed loop decides which entangled state is produced. The central demonstration is a two-qubit photon system where clockwise loops prepare one Bell state and counterclockwise loops prepare the orthogonal one, with measured fidelities around 0.93. The same construction is shown to work for three-qubit GHZ states, with fidelities above 0.91, and to tolerate dephasing and random perturbations. The significance is that the final state is selected geometrically by the loop's chirality rather than by the initial state or by post-selection, offering a scalable route to controllable multipartite entanglement.

What carries the argument

The engine is a designed non-unitary dynamics described by a Lindblad master equation whose Liouvillian (the generator of the dissipative evolution) has a dark state |10⟩ at large detuning and whose Hermitian sector has Bell states as eigenstates when the detuning vanishes. Traversing a slow closed loop in the (γ, δ) plane combines dissipative relaxation on the legs where the Liouvillian gap is large with adiabatic following on the leg where dynamics is Hermitian, so the state is deterministically transferred from one instantaneous steady state to another. The experiment implements the equivalent quantum Langevin equation stroboscopically on photon polarizations, allowing a general non-unita

What would settle it

Run the loop at increasing speed or with a smaller detuning excursion: if the adiabatic-following premise fails, the final fidelity should drop and the two loop directions should no longer yield orthogonal Bell states; the crossover speed or the critical detuning range would be a direct, observable signature.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Starting from a maximally mixed state, encircling a closed rectangle in the (γ, δ) parameter plane one way drives a two-qubit system to the Bell state |Ψ+2⟩, while encircling it the opposite way drives it to the orthogonal Bell state |Ψ−2⟩. The measured final fidelities are 0.9336 and 0.9253, with concurrence near 0.86. The same loop protocol, applied to a three-qubit Hamiltonian, prepares the GHZ-type states |Ψ+3⟩ and |Ψ−3⟩ with fidelities above 0.91. The mechanism combines dissipative steady-state engineering – a large Liouvillian gap on the dissipative segments forces the system toward a dark state – with adiabatic passage on the Hermitian segment, so the system is handed from one instant

Load-bearing premise

The plan works only if the parameters are varied slowly enough for the system to keep up with the instantaneous steady state on the dissipative parts of the loop and the instantaneous eigenstate on the Hermitian part, and if the steady state at large detuning really is close to the dark state |10⟩.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A slow closed loop in parameter space prepares different Bell states depending solely on the loop's orientation, starting from a maximally mixed state and without post-selection.
  • The same loop design, with a different Hamiltonian and jump operators, prepares three-qubit GHZ-type states with fidelities above 0.91.
  • The prepared entanglement tolerates moderate dephasing and random Hamiltonian perturbations, with only slight reductions in fidelity and concurrence.
  • The chiral effect does not depend on exceptional-point encircling; it persists across the whole hybrid-Liouvillian family from full Liouvillian dynamics to the no-click non-Hermitian limit.
  • The scheme is explicitly extendable to multipartite entanglement, making it a candidate tool for scalable state preparation in open quantum systems.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension is to probe whether loops with different winding numbers or non-rectangular shapes select other states in the same manifold; the paper's overlap conditions suggest that only specially designed loops will work, which is a testable prediction.
  • Because the final state is determined by loop direction rather than by the initial state or by post-selection, the protocol could serve as a passive directional state-preparation primitive in larger quantum information tasks, such as a reset operation that prepares a known entangled resource.
  • The mechanism's resilience to dephasing hints that this dissipative geometry could also be used to stabilize entanglement against slow parameter drifts, perhaps by repeating the loop or by using the loop orientation as a feedback variable.
  • A straightforward scaling test would apply the same loop design to four or more qubits; if the three-qubit generalization is representative, high fidelity should persist, though the required parameter ranges and Liouvillian gaps may need rebalancing.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports an experimental and numerical study of chirality-dependent entangled-state preparation in a dissipative two-qubit photonic system. The protocol combines steady-state engineering via a Lindblad jump operator with adiabatic passage along a closed loop in the (γ, δ) parameter space. The authors claim that the final Bell state (|Ψ+2⟩ or |Ψ−2⟩) is determined solely by the encircling direction, with experimental fidelities of 0.9336 and 0.9253, and that the scheme extends to three-qubit GHZ states. The dynamics are implemented experimentally using a quantum Langevin equation and a photonic platform that simulates the Liouvillian through general non-unitary evolutions.

Significance. If substantiated, the work would be a valuable contribution to dissipative state preparation and chiral quantum dynamics, demonstrating that path-dependent steady-state selection can produce entangled states with high fidelity. The photonic implementation of the full Liouvillian without post-selection is an experimental strength, and the extension to multipartite GHZ states is a useful step. However, the theoretical explanation of the mechanism contains a sign/overlap inconsistency that directly affects the central claim, and the quantitative verification of the key overlap assumption is missing. These issues are correctable but require careful revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [General mechanism, paragraph after Fig. 1(b)] The text states that at point E (δ = −Δδ for the CW path, per Appendix A) the steady state is very close to |10⟩, and that |10⟩ is also close to the eigenstate of H0 adiabatically connected to |Ψ+2⟩. This is inconsistent with Eq. (1). For the experimental parameters (Δδ = 0.04, g = 0.01), at δ = −0.04 the H0 eigenstate connected to |Ψ+2⟩ at δ = 0 is predominantly |01⟩, with |⟨10|v+⟩|² ≈ 0.05; the eigenstate with large |10⟩ overlap is the lower branch, which connects to |Ψ−2⟩ at δ = 0. Thus, if the steady state were close to |10⟩, CW encircling would produce |Ψ−2⟩, not |Ψ+2⟩. The authors must correct this sign/overlap inconsistency and confirm which eigenstate is actually populated at the corners.
  2. [Appendix A and the mechanism paragraph] The claim 'For sufficiently large Δδ, the steady state is very close to |10⟩' is not quantified. With Δδ = 0.04 and g = 0.01, δ/g = 4, which only modestly satisfies the large-detuning condition. Since H0|10⟩ = ξ|10⟩ + g|01⟩, the steady state of L in Eq. (2) necessarily contains an admixture of |01⟩, and the final Bell-state fidelity cannot exceed the fidelity of the state at the start of the Hermitian segment with the corresponding H0 eigenstate. The paper does not report this overlap. The authors should provide the numerically computed overlap of the steady state with |10⟩ (and with the relevant eigenstate) at the corners, as a function of Δδ/g, and show that the working point lies in the high-overlap regime. Without this, the observed fidelities ~0.93 cannot be attributed to the proposed mechanism.
  3. [Eq. (5) and Fig. 2] The final density matrices are obtained by averaging over n = 10 independent noise realizations of the quantum Langevin equation. The quoted error bars (e.g., F₂⁺ = 0.9336 ± 0.0005) are statistical deviations from Monte Carlo photon-counting statistics and do not include the spread over the 10 trajectories. With only 10 realizations, the sampling error of the ensemble average can be substantial. The manuscript should report the mean and standard deviation across the trajectories (or use bootstrap resampling), or increase n, before claiming high precision for the reported fidelities and concurrences.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 1(b) inset] The red and blue curves in the upper inset are referenced in the text but are not explicitly labeled in the figure caption. Please add labels or a full caption describing which eigenstate branch corresponds to |Ψ+2⟩ and |Ψ−2⟩.
  2. [Appendix D and Conclusion] The Conclusion states that the scheme 'does not involve post selection', but Appendix D discusses a post-selection strength α. The distinction between the full Liouvillian dynamics (α = 1, used in the main experiment) and the no-click limit (α = 0) should be clarified to avoid confusion.
  3. [Adiabatic condition] The protocol relies on adiabatic following along the Hermitian sector, but no adiabaticity criterion or estimate of non-adiabatic transitions is given. A brief analysis of the Landau-Zener-type probability for the E→A and B→A segments with T = 1500 would strengthen the mechanism discussion.
  4. [Robustness analysis] The dephasing strength (0.01) is small compared to γ = 0.18, so the robustness claim is rather weak. Showing the fidelity as a function of dephasing rate would make the claim more convincing.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the target Bell states are designed eigenstates of H0, and the chiral outcome is an independently measured dynamical result, not a fitted or self-referential prediction.

full rationale

The derivation is not circular. The target states |Ψ±2⟩ are chosen because Eq. (1) makes them eigenstates of H0 at δ=0, and the jump operator Γ in Eq. (2) is designed so that |10⟩ is a dark state; the chiral outcome then follows from the ordering of dissipative and Hermitian segments around the parameter loop and is verified by tomographic reconstruction (fidelities ~0.93). No parameter is fitted to force the output states: γ0=0, Δδ=0.04, Δγ=0.18, T=1500, N=200 are fixed simulation/experimental parameters. The statements that the steady state at sufficiently large |δ| is close to |10⟩ and that adiabatic following holds are assumptions stated in the text but not quantitatively verified; that is a validation gap, not a circular reduction, because the final fidelity is a measured result rather than an algebraic consequence of those assumptions. The self-citations [42,43,51] are used for dephasing robustness and for comparison with exceptional-point chiral transfer, not as the load-bearing proof of the central mechanism; the paper explicitly distinguishes its mechanism from EP chiral transfer in the no-click limit (Appendix D). Thus the central claim has independent experimental content and is not equivalent to its inputs by construction.

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

The central mechanism rests on standard quantum optics tools (Lindblad/Langevin equivalence) and on the assumed adiabatic following of the instantaneous steady state/eigenstate. No new physical entities are introduced. The protocol parameters are engineering choices, not fitted to data.

free parameters (4)
  • detuning modulation amplitude Δδ = 0.04
    Chosen to be large relative to g to ensure the steady state is close to |10⟩ at the loop corners. Not fitted to data.
  • gain/loss modulation amplitude Δγ = 0.18
    Chosen to make the Liouvillian gap sufficiently large on dissipative segments within the evolution time T. Not fitted.
  • coupling strength g = 0.01
    Small coupling setting the energy gap in the Hermitian sector; chosen to satisfy adiabaticity with T=1500. Not fitted.
  • ratio ε = 1.2
    Ratio of loss rate on qubit 2 to gain rate on qubit 1; chosen to realize the dark-state design. Not fitted.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math The quantum Langevin equation with complex white noise reproduces the Lindblad master equation after ensemble averaging
    Standard unravelling of the Lindblad equation; used throughout the experimental simulation.
  • domain assumption Adiabatic theorem for open systems: slow parameter variation keeps the system in the instantaneous steady state when the Liouvillian gap is nonzero
    Load-bearing for the claim that the system reaches the steady state on dissipative segments and follows the eigenstate on the Hermitian sector.
  • domain assumption For sufficiently large |δ|, the steady state of the dissipative dynamics is close to the dark state |10⟩
    Stated in the text: 'For sufficiently large ∆δ, the steady state is very close to the product state |10⟩'. This is a key assumption for the chirality mechanism.
  • domain assumption The system initialized in the maximally mixed state relaxes to the steady state within the time spent on the dissipative segments
    Requires the Liouvillian gap to be large enough; the authors design the path to ensure this.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Chiral Entangled-State Generation through Dissipative Quantum Dynamics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6NM4CAPC

@misc{pith2026260717302,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Chiral Entangled-State Generation through Dissipative Quantum Dynamics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6NM4CAPC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.17302}
}
read the original abstract

Dissipation, though often detrimental to quantum entanglement, can be manipulated for the preparation of entangled states, wherein ingeniously designed quantum jump processes drive the system toward the desired steady state. Here we venture beyond this paradigm, and demonstrate a new type of entanglement generation in dissipative quantum dynamics. Combining driven-dissipative steady-state engineering and adiabatic passage, we propose a general protocol where the final entangled state depends on the chirality of the evolution path in the parameter space, a scheme that is further extendable to multipartite entanglement. By simulating the Liouvillian dynamics through the quantum Langevin equation for a pair of photons, we experimentally confirm the noise-resistant chiral preparation of various entangled states with high fidelity and concurrence. Our work establishes parametric chiral dynamics as a scalable and robust tool for controllable entanglement generation, paving the way for its applications in quantum information.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.17302 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Chiral Bell-state generation on a programmable photonic platform. (a) Conceptual illustration of our protocol. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Chiral Bell-state generation. (a), (b) Time evolution of the fidelities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Chiral preparation of multi-qubit entanglement. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Chiral generation of GHZ states under the hy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    J. F. Poyatos, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Quantum reser- voir engineering with laser cooled trapped ions, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 4728 (1996)

    1996

  2. [2]

    Here, Ψ+ 3 denotes the standard GHZ state, while Ψ− 3 denotes the GHZ state with a relative phase ofπ[46]. 0.0 0.5 0 500 1000 1500 0.5 1.0 Random region Dephasing Random No noise 0 500 1000 1500 0.0 0.5 1.0 1480 1500 0.8 0.9 −0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 0 500 1000 1500 0.5 1.0 0 500 1000 1500 0.5 1.0 A C Random region Dephasing Random No noise B D 0 500 1000 1500...

  3. [3]

    Verstraete, M

    F. Verstraete, M. M. Wolf, and J. I. Cirac, Quantum computation and quantum-state engineering driven by dissipation, Nat. Phys.5, 633 (2009)

    2009

  4. [4]

    Kienzler, H.-Y

    D. Kienzler, H.-Y. Lo, B. Keitch, L. de Clercq, F. Leupold, F. Lindenfelser, M. Marinelli, V. Negnevit- sky, and J. P. Home, Quantum harmonic oscillator state synthesis by reservoir engineering, Science347, 53 (2015)

    2015

  5. [5]

    Ma et al., A dissipatively stabilized Mott insulator of photons, Nature566, 51–57 (2019)

    R. Ma et al., A dissipatively stabilized Mott insulator of photons, Nature566, 51–57 (2019)

    2019

  6. [6]

    J. I. Cirac, A. S. Parkins, R. Blatt, and P. Zoller, “Dark” squeezed states of the motion of a trapped ion, Phys. Rev. Lett.70, 556 (1993)

    1993

  7. [7]

    Schneider and G

    S. Schneider and G. J. Milburn, Entanglement in the steady state of a collective-angular-momentum (Dicke) model, Phys. Rev. A65, 042107 (2002)

    2002

  8. [8]

    Reiter, M

    F. Reiter, M. J. Kastoryano, and A. S. Sørensen, Driv- ing two atoms in an optical cavity into an entangled steady state using engineered decay, New J. Phys.14, 053022 (2012)

    2012

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Kraus et al., Preparation of entangled states by quantum Markov processes, Phys

    B. Kraus et al., Preparation of entangled states by quantum Markov processes, Phys. Rev. A78, 042307 (2008)

    2008

  2. [10]

    Diehl et al., Quantum states and phases in driven open quantum systems with cold atoms, Nat

    S. Diehl et al., Quantum states and phases in driven open quantum systems with cold atoms, Nat. Phys.4, 878 (2008)

    2008

  3. [11]

    M. J. Kastoryano, F. Reiter, and A. S. Sørensen, Dissi- pative preparation of entanglement in optical cavities, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 090502 (2011)

    2011

  4. [12]

    Lin et al., Dissipative production of a maximally entangled steady state of two quantum bits, Nature 504, 415 (2013)

    Y. Lin et al., Dissipative production of a maximally entangled steady state of two quantum bits, Nature 504, 415 (2013)

    2013

  5. [13]

    K. G. H. Vollbrecht, C. A. Muschik, and J. I. Cirac, Entanglement distillation by dissipation and continu- ous quantum repeaters, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 120502 (2011)

    2011

  6. [14]

    T. E. Lee, F. Reiter, and N. Moiseyev, Entanglement and spin squeezing in non-Hermitian phase transitions, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 250401 (2014)

    2014

  7. [15]

    Diehl, E

    S. Diehl, E. Rico, M. A. Baranov, and P. Zoller, Topol- ogy by dissipation in atomic quantum wires, Nat. Phys. 7, 971 (2011)

    2011

  8. [16]

    C. E. Bardyn, M. A. Baranov, C. V. Kraus, E. Rico, A. ˙Imamoˇ glu, P. Zoller, and S. Diehl, Topology by dis- sipation, New J. Phys.15, 085001 (2013)

    2013

  9. [17]

    C. C. Wanjura, M. Brunelli, and A. Nunnenkamp, Topological framework for directional amplification in driven-dissipative cavity arrays, Nat. Commun.11, 3149 (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    Leefmans et al., Topological dissipation in a time- multiplexed photonic resonator network, Nat

    C. Leefmans et al., Topological dissipation in a time- multiplexed photonic resonator network, Nat. Phys. 18, 442 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    Diehl, W

    S. Diehl, W. Yi, A. J. Daley, and P. Zoller, Dissipation- induced d-wave pairing of fermionic atoms in an optical lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 227001 (2010)

    2010

  12. [20]

    W. Yi, S. Diehl, A. J. Daley, and P. Zoller, Driven- dissipative many-body pairing states for cold fermionic atoms in an optical lattice, New J. Phys.14, 055002 (2012)

    2012

  13. [21]

    H. R. Wang, D. Yuan, S. Y. Zhang, Z. Wang, D. L. Deng, and L. M. Duan, Embedding quantum many- body scars into decoherence-free subspaces, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 150401 (2024)

    2024

  14. [22]

    J. L. Ma, Z. Guo, Y. Gao, Z. Papi´ c, and L. Ying, Liou- villian spectral transition in noisy quantum many-body scars, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 180401 (2025)

    2025

  15. [23]

    Schindler et al., Quantum simulation of dynamical maps with trapped ions, Nat

    P. Schindler et al., Quantum simulation of dynamical maps with trapped ions, Nat. Phys.9, 361 (2013)

    2013

  16. [24]

    Restrepo, J

    S. Restrepo, J. Cerrillo, V. M. Bastidas, D. G. Ange- lakis, and T. Brandes, Driven open quantum systems and Floquet stroboscopic dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 250401 (2016)

    2016

  17. [25]

    Schnell, A

    A. Schnell, A. Eckardt, and S. Denisov, Is there a Flo- quet Lindbladian?, Phys. Rev. B101, 100301 (2020)

    2020

  18. [26]

    Cai and T

    Z. Cai and T. Barthel, Algebraic versus exponential de- coherence in dissipative many-particle systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 150403 (2013)

    2013

  19. [27]

    Bonnes, D

    L. Bonnes, D. Charrier, and A. M. L¨ auchli, Dynamical and steady-state properties of a Bose-Hubbard chain with bond dissipation: A study based on matrix prod- uct operators, Phys. Rev. A90, 033612 (2014)

    2014

  20. [28]

    ˇZnidariˇ c, Relaxation times of dissipative many- body quantum systems, Phys

    M. ˇZnidariˇ c, Relaxation times of dissipative many- body quantum systems, Phys. Rev. E92, 042143 (2015)

    2015

  21. [29]

    Aspuru-Guzik, A

    A. Aspuru-Guzik, A. D. Dutoi, P. J. Love, and M. Head-Gordon, Simulated quantum computation of molecular energies, Science309, 1704 (2005)

    2005

  22. [30]

    Veis and J

    L. Veis and J. Pittner, Adiabatic state preparation study of methylene, J. Chem. Phys.140, 214111 (2014)

    2014

  23. [31]

    Farhi, J

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, S. Gutmann, and M. Sipser, Quantum computation by adiabatic evolution, arXiv:quant-ph/0001106 (2000)

    2000 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Yarloo, H

    H. Yarloo, H. C. Zhang, and A. E. Nielsen, Adiabatic time evolution of highly excited states, PRX Quantum 5, 020365 (2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    J. Du, N. Xu, X. Peng, P. Wang, S. Wu, and D. Lu, NMR implementation of a molecular hydrogen quan- tum simulation with adiabatic state preparation, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 030502 (2010)

    2010

  26. [34]

    Breuer and F

    H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione, The Theory of Open Quantum Systems (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2007)

    2007

  27. [35]

    P. P. Hofer et al., Markovian master equations for quantum thermal machines: Local versus global ap- 6 proach, New J. Phys.19, 123037 (2017)

    2017

  28. [36]

    P. P. Potts, A. A. S. Kalaee, and A. Wacker, A ther- modynamically consistent Markovian master equation beyond the secular approximation, New J. Phys.23, 123013 (2021)

    2021

  29. [37]

    N. G. van Kampen, Stochastic Processes in Physics and Chemistry (Elsevier, New York, 1992), Vol. 1

    1992

  30. [38]

    Xiao et al., Non-Hermitian Kibble-Zurek mechanism with tunable complexity in single-photon interferome- try, PRX Quantum2, 020313 (2021)

    L. Xiao et al., Non-Hermitian Kibble-Zurek mechanism with tunable complexity in single-photon interferome- try, PRX Quantum2, 020313 (2021)

    2021

  31. [39]

    Zhan et al., Experimental quantum cloning in a pseudo-unitary system, Phys

    X. Zhan et al., Experimental quantum cloning in a pseudo-unitary system, Phys. Rev. A101, 010302 (2020)

    2020

  32. [40]

    W. K. Wootters, Entanglement of formation of an ar- bitrary state of two qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 2245 (1998)

    1998

  33. [41]

    Prech et al., Entanglement and thermokinetic un- certainty relations in coherent mesoscopic transport, Phys

    K. Prech et al., Entanglement and thermokinetic un- certainty relations in coherent mesoscopic transport, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 023155 (2023)

    2023

  34. [42]

    J. B. Brask, F. Clivaz, G. Haack, and A. Tavakoli, Op- erational nonclassicality in minimal autonomous ther- mal machines, Quantum6, 672 (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    Sun and W

    K. Sun and W. Yi, Chiral state transfer under dephas- ing, Phys. Rev. A108, 013302 (2023)

    2023

  36. [44]

    H. Gao, K. Sun, D. Qu, K. Wang, L. Xiao, W. Yi, and P. Xue, Photonic chiral state transfer near the Liouvillian exceptional point, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 146602 (2025)

    2025

  37. [45]

    P. M. Poggi, N. K. Lysne, K. W. Kuper, I. H. Deutsch, and P. S. Jessen, Quantifying the sensitivity to imper- fections in analog quantum simulation, PRX Quantum 1, 020308 (2020)

    2020

  38. [46]

    M. Eibl, N. Kiesel, M. Bourennane, C. Kurtsiefer, and H. Weinfurter, Experimental realization of a three- qubit entangled W state, Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 077901 (2004)

    2004

  39. [47]

    Nogueira, P

    J. Nogueira, P. A. Oliveira, F. M. Souza, and L. Sanz, Dynamic generation of Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger states with coupled charge qubits, Phys. Rev. A103, 032438 (2021)

    2021

  40. [48]

    Minganti, A

    F. Minganti, A. Miranowicz, R. W. Chhajlany, I. I. Arkhipov, and F. Nori, Hybrid-Liouvillian formalism connecting exceptional points of non-Hermitian Hamil- tonians and Liouvillians via postselection of quantum trajectories, Phys. Rev. A101, 062112 (2020)

    2020

  41. [49]

    Sergi and K

    A. Sergi and K. G. Zloshchastiev, Non-Hermitian quantum dynamics of a two-level system and models of dissipative environments, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B27, 1350163 (2013)

    2013

  42. [50]

    Uzdin, A

    R. Uzdin, A. Mailybaev, and N. Moiseyev, On the ob- servability and asymmetry of adiabatic state flips gen- erated by exceptional points, J. Phys. A44, 435302 (2011)

    2011

  43. [51]

    Y. Choi, C. Hahn, J. W. Yoon, S. H. Song, and P. Berini, Extremely broadband, on-chip optical nonreciprocity enabled by mimicking nonlinear anti- adiabatic quantum jumps near exceptional points, Nat. Commun.8, 14154 (2017)

    2017

  44. [52]

    D. Qu, I. I. Arkhipov, H. Gao, K. Wang, L. Xiao, F. Nori, and P. Xue, Selective chiral multistate switching via the dynamic interplay of diabolic and exceptional points, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 086603 (2026). Appendix A: Encircling path in the parameter space—For the two-qubit ca...

    2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.