Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 74 references

Constructing Non-Hermitian Theories with Tunable Exceptional Points and Controlled State Purification

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Exceptional points engineered block-by-block purify any mixed state

desk verdict Solid EP-engineering framework for quadratic models, but the 'purification of arbitrary mixed states' claim is false as stated and needs a major fix. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.05052 v1 pith:3QL6DT6H submitted 2026-08-05 quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mech

Soumya Kanti Pal , Rupak Majumder , Shamik Gupta This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.stat-mech PACS 03.65.-w03.65.Yz11.30.Er
keywords exceptionalpointsnon-Hermitianquantumsystemsmomentum-spacedeformationPTsymmetrymany-bodyeigenvectorcoalescencestatepurificationLindbladembeddingtransverse-fieldIsingchain
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 proposes momentum-space deformation as a general design principle for quadratic many-body non-Hermitian Hamiltonians: a tunable non-Hermitian term is added to each $2\times2$ momentum block, giving precise control over where exceptional points appear. For a block written as $(a_0-ib_0)I+(\vec a-i\vec b)\cdot\vec\sigma$, an exceptional point occurs exactly when $\vec a\cdot\vec b=0$ and $|\vec a|=|\vec b|$; under $\mathcal{PT}$ symmetry the first condition holds automatically, so every momentum block can be tuned to an exceptional point. A single such block exceptional point forces $2^{L/2-1}$ pairs of many-body eigenvectors to coalesce. The paper further claims that evolution in the symmetry-broken phase purifies any initial mixed state, with a fundamental finite-size parity ceiling: full purity is reachable for even system sizes but not for odd ones. These results matter because they turn exceptional-point engineering from case-by-case discovery into a programmable construction with concrete purification thresholds.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the $2\times2$ momentum-block Hamiltonian in Pauli form, $H_k^{\rm nH}=(a_0-ib_0)I+(\vec a-i\vec b)\cdot\vec\sigma$, with the exceptional-point condition $\vec a\cdot\vec b=0$, $|\vec a|=|\vec b|$. The authors show this is equivalent to $B^2=0$ with $B=H_k^{\rm nH}-\lambda I$, i.e. defectiveness, and that $\mathcal{PT}$ symmetry (with $\vec a_y=0$, $\vec b_{x,z}=0$) makes the orthogonality condition automatic. The critical deformation strength is fixed by the undeformed Bloch data: $\gamma_\alpha^{(c)}=[2F_\alpha(k_c)]^{-1}\sqrt{4|B(k_c)|^2+[A(k_c)-D(k_c)]^2}$, with the exceptional momentum $k_c$ determined by the intrinsic structure alone. The many-body consequence follows from mutual commutativity of the momentum-block operators: a single exceptional block factorizes into $2^{L/2-1}$ pairwise coalescences in the even-parity sector. For purification, the asymptotic dynamics is controlled by the rank-1 limit $\tilde J^{n-1}\rho_0(\tilde J^{n-1})^{\dagger}/{\rm Tr}[\cdots]$, so the late-time density matrix becomes the pure dyad $|u\rangle\langle u|$ for any $\rho_0$.

What would settle it

Compute the full many-body spectrum and eigenvectors of an even-$L$ deformed transverse-field Ising chain with a single momentum block tuned to its exceptional point: if the number of exactly coalescing eigenvector pairs is not $2^{L/2-1}$ in the even-parity sector and $2^{L/2-2}$ in the odd-parity sector, the proliferation claim fails. Separately, simulate the unconditional Lindblad evolution including jumps: if the averaged purity saturates near 1 above $\gamma_c^{(2)}$, the authors' no-click identification would be too conservative; if it does not, the purification claim is confined to post-selected trajectories.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that exceptional-point engineering reduces to a pair of local conditions on each momentum-sector Bloch Hamiltonian. Any $2\times2$ non-Hermitian block $H_k^{\rm nH}=H^{(1)}-iH^{(2)}$ with Hermitian $H^{(1)}=a_0 I+\vec a\cdot\vec\sigma$ and $H^{(2)}=b_0 I+\vec b\cdot\vec\sigma$ hosts an exceptional point precisely when $\vec a\cdot\vec b=0$ and $|\vec a|=|\vec b|$ with $\vec a\neq\vec b$. Because $\mathcal{PT}$ symmetry enforces $\vec a\cdot\vec b=0$, every momentum block of a $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric deformation can be made exceptional by tuning the critical strength $\gamma_\alpha^{(c)}$. The authors prove that one exceptional block makes $2^{L/2-1}$ many-body eigenvector pairs coalesce in the even-parity sector, and $2^{L/2-2}$ in the odd-parity sector, and that trace-normalized non-Hermitian evolution in the broken phase drives any initial mixed state to a pure state. From these block-level facts they derive three global purification regimes and an odd-even dichotomy: for odd $L$ an unpaired momentum mode caps the asymptotic purity at $1/2$, while for even $L$ complete purification is attainable above the upper critical deformation.

Load-bearing premise

The purification mechanism is proved for the trace-normalized evolution $\rho(t)=U\rho_0 U^\dagger/{\rm Tr}(U\rho_0 U^\dagger)$, which the authors identify with the no-click post-selected trajectory of a Lindblad equation; if one averages over quantum jumps instead, the purity argument no longer applies.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single momentum-sector exceptional point produces exponentially many coalescing many-body eigenvector pairs: $2^{L/2-1}$ in the even-parity sector and $2^{L/2-2}$ in the odd-parity sector for even $L$.
  • For a $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric deformation of the transverse-field Ising chain, tuning $\gamma_y$ through the two thresholds $\gamma_c^{(1)}=\min_k \gamma_y^{(c)}(k)$ and $\gamma_c^{(2)}=\max_k \gamma_y^{(c)}(k)$ gives three regimes: persistent purity oscillations, partial purification, and complete purification of every initial mixed state.
  • Complete purification above the upper threshold is possible for even system sizes but not for odd ones, where an unpaired momentum mode caps the asymptotic purity at $1/2$; the thermodynamic limits are therefore inequivalent.
  • Choosing the deformation form factor $F_\alpha(k)$ controls the real-space range: $F(k)=\sin k$ produces short-range couplings, $F(k)=1$ produces $1/r$ long-range couplings, and simultaneous $x,y$ deformations produce nonreciprocal pairing.
  • The explicit Lindblad embedding shows these non-Hermitian Hamiltonians arise as the no-click, post-selected trajectory of an open quantum system, giving a route to experimental realization.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the purification proof applies to the trace-normalized no-click trajectory, so the unconditional Lindblad average over quantum jumps would re-mix the state; an experiment must postselect on null jump outcomes to see the predicted purity.
  • Beyond the paper, the two algebraic exceptional-point conditions are block-size independent, so the same deformation recipe applied to a $D\times D$ Bloch Hamiltonian should produce higher-order exceptional points with a correspondingly larger coalescence cascade; the authors note the $D=4$ staggered-field case but do not work out the general counting.
  • Beyond the paper, the odd-even parity ceiling suggests parity is itself a control knob: measuring asymptotic purity separately in the even- and odd-parity sectors of a small chain would distinguish the mechanism from ordinary dissipation.
  • Beyond the paper, because $\gamma_\alpha^{(c)}$ depends only on the undeformed Bloch functions, the recipe should transfer to any quadratic effective Hamiltonian, including time-periodic Floquet systems, although the paper does not treat that case.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes momentum-space deformation as a general design principle for engineering exceptional points (EPs) in quadratic many-body fermionic Hamiltonians. For a 2x2 Bloch Hamiltonian written as H_k = (a0 - i b0)I + (a - i b)·σ, the authors derive EP conditions a·b=0 and |a|=|b| (Eq. (3)), together with critical deformation strengths (Eq. (5)). They show that for PT-symmetric deformations every momentum block can be tuned to an EP, and that a single block EP produces an exponential number of pairwise many-body eigenvector coalescences. They then study purity dynamics under trace-normalized non-Hermitian evolution, claiming that EPs purify arbitrary mixed states, with three purification regimes and an odd-even system-size dichotomy. They also provide reverse-engineering recipes for short-range, long-range, and nonreciprocal real-space Hamiltonians, and a Lindblad no-click embedding.

Significance. The constructive core of the paper is solid and useful. The EP conditions in Eq. (3) and the critical-strength formula Eq. (5) are derived cleanly from the spectral problem with no fitted parameters, and the single-block-EP proliferation argument is explicit and transparent. The real-space deformation examples give concrete, falsifiable model constructions, and the Lindblad no-click embedding is a practical recipe, although its claimed generality is only sketched. If the purification results are restricted to factorized initial states over the truncated momentum blocks, the paper is a valuable contribution to EP engineering in quadratic fermionic systems. As written, however, the headline claim of purification of arbitrary mixed quantum states is too broad and is actually false for correlated mixtures over degenerate-Ω blocks; this overclaim affects the abstract, introduction, and conclusion.

major comments (2)
  1. ['Dynamical signature of EP and state purification' / Appendix B / Conclusion] The purification proof is restricted to factorized initial states rho(0)=⊗_k rho_k(0) with 2x2 rho_k, as stated in Appendix B, but the abstract and conclusion claim purification of arbitrary mixed quantum states. This is false in general. In the PT-broken phase with two momentum blocks having equal growth rates Ω_k=Ω_l, the product eigenstates |D_k G_l> and |G_k D_l> have zero total imaginary energy and are stationary under trace-normalized non-Hermitian evolution; their equal mixture is therefore stationary with purity 1/2. Such degenerate Ω pairs occur already in the paper's illustrative TFIC for h=0, L=4, and γ_y above the upper threshold (k=π/4 and 3π/4). The universal purification claim must be qualified to the product-state class, or a genuinely new argument covering correlated initial states must be supplied.
  2. [Appendix A, Eq. (16)] The proof of the n×n EP purification lemma divides by <v|rho0|v> at Eq. (16) without treating the case <v|rho0|v>=0, i.e., initial states supported in the kernel of J^{n-1}. In that case the displayed denominator vanishes and the leading-order expression does not, by itself, determine the normalized limit. Since this lemma is invoked to justify the universal purification claim, the proof should either be completed for the vanishing-overlap case (for example, by analyzing the highest-order nonvanishing term of U rho0 U†) or the lemma should be stated with the required non-degeneracy condition and the claims adjusted accordingly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Illustrative example / Fig. 2] The text states that the minimum threshold γ_c^(1) equals J for h≤J and increases linearly with h for h>J. Substituting the displayed formula γ_y^(c)(k)=2(sin k)^{-1}√(h²+J²-2Jh cos k) gives min_k γ_y^(c)=2J for h≤J and 2h for h>J. The numerical subpanels in Fig. 2 are consistent with the corrected value (γ_c^(1)=2.0 at h=0.5, J=1), not with the stated value J. Please reconcile the text and the formula.
  2. [Many-body proliferation of a single-block EP] The claimed number of pairwise coalescences in the odd-parity sector for even L is 2^{L/2-2}. Including the two unpaired modes k=0,π gives an additional factor of 2, so an EP in one paired block should produce 2 × 2^{L/2-2}=2^{L/2-1} coalescences. For L=4, direct enumeration gives 2 pairs in the odd-parity sector, not 1.
  3. [Lindblad embedding] The claim that pair-wise jump operators of the form L=α c_j + β c_m + γ c†_j + δ c†_m are sufficient to realize arbitrary quadratic non-Hermitian deformations is asserted but not demonstrated; only the y-deformation example is carried out. Please provide a constructive general argument or explicitly delimit the class of deformations covered by this recipe.
  4. [Appendix C, Fig. 3 caption] The caption of Fig. 3 says 'Results corresponding to Fig. 1, but for odd L'; it should refer to Fig. 2, since the figure shows the same purity regimes and thresholds as Fig. 2 but for odd system size.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: EP conditions, critical strengths, coalescence counts, and purity formulas are derived from the stated spectral problem, not assumed or fitted.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Eq. (3) is obtained by imposing the algebraic EP characterization B^2=0 on the Pauli decomposition (Supplemental Eq. (S28)), and Eq. (5) follows by solving those conditions for the deformation strength; neither condition is an input disguised as an output. The exponential proliferation count is a direct counting consequence of the commuting block decomposition Ψ†_k H_k Ψ_k, not an imported or fitted result. Purity expressions Eq. (8) and Appendix B are closed-form solutions of the specified trace-normalized evolution for the stated product initial states, and Appendix A proves the purification statement from the Jordan form. No parameter is fitted to data, and no load-bearing self-citation occurs. The reverse-engineering examples select F(k) to realize targeted real-space couplings, which is a construction rather than a self-referential derivation. The possible scope gap between 'arbitrary mixed states' and the product-state or single-block analysis is a correctness concern, not circularity, because the proofs do not assume the conclusion they establish.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on standard free-fermion and matrix-analysis tools plus the post-selected no-click interpretation of non-Hermitian evolution. No new particles, mediators, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced; the deformation strength and profile functions are design choices rather than fitted outputs.

free parameters (3)
  • Deformation strength gamma_y = 0.5 to 8.0 (units of J) in the TFIC purity figures
    Scanned through the three purification regimes; a controllable design knob, not fitted to data.
  • Deformation profile F_y(k) = sin k in the main example, 1 in Appendix D
    Chosen by hand to select short-range versus long-range real-space couplings; the protocol allows arbitrary 2pi-periodic choices.
  • Transverse field h and coupling J = h=0.5J with J=1 in the figures
    Illustrative values for the Ising chain; the central exceptional-point criteria hold more generally, but these values set the plotted critical curves.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Every quadratic fermionic lattice Hamiltonian can be written in BdG form H = Psi-dagger H_BdG Psi (Eq. (1)).
    Used at the start of the Letter; standard rewriting of free-fermion models.
  • domain assumption Translation invariance lets the BdG Hamiltonian block-decompose into independent 2x2 momentum blocks H_k (Eq. (2)).
    The entire single-block exceptional-point analysis and the product-state many-body structure depend on this decomposition.
  • domain assumption The relevant density-matrix evolution is trace-normalized non-Hermitian evolution rho(t)=U rho0 Udagger / Tr(U rho0 Udagger), identified with the no-click quantum trajectory.
    Defines purification; it is not the unconditional GKSL average, where jumps would prevent purity.
  • domain assumption PT symmetry forces the BdG block parameters to the form a=(a_x,0,a_z) and b=(0,b_y,0).
    Derived in the Supplemental Material from fermionic P and T actions; used to claim every momentum block can be tuned to an exceptional point.
  • standard math Jordan canonical form and the rank-1 property of J^{n-1} underpin Appendix A.
    Standard matrix facts used in the purification theorem.
  • domain assumption Momentum modes k=0 and pi are self-conjugate scalars in this representation and cannot host a two-dimensional exceptional point.
    This is the basis for the odd-even system-size dichotomy and the purity caps of 0.25 and 0.5.
  • ad hoc to paper Pair-wise jump operators of the form L=alpha c_j + beta c_m + gamma c-dagger_j + delta c-dagger_m are sufficient to embed arbitrary quadratic non-Hermitian deformations.
    Asserted with only pair-coupled examples; no general proof is given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Constructing Non-Hermitian Theories with Tunable Exceptional Points and Controlled State Purification." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3QL6DT6H

@misc{pith2026260805052,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Constructing Non-Hermitian Theories with Tunable Exceptional Points and Controlled State Purification},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3QL6DT6H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05052}
}
read the original abstract

Exceptional points (EP's) are a hallmark of non-Hermitian quantum systems. We show that momentum-space deformation provides a general design principle for creating and controlling EP's in quadratic many-body Hamiltonians. We identify universal criteria for the momentum sectors to host EP's and the corresponding critical deformation strengths, while revealing that a single momentum-sector EP induces quite remarkably an exponential proliferation of many-body eigenvector coalescences. We further establish EP's as a universal mechanism for purifying arbitrary mixed quantum states, uncovering distinct purification regimes and a fundamental odd-even system-size dichotomy in the thermodynamic limit. Our framework also provides a systematic reverse-engineering protocol for generating short- and long-range, reciprocal and nonreciprocal non-Hermitian quantum matter, together with an explicit Lindblad embedding. These results thus establish momentum-space deformation as a unified route to exceptional-point engineering and controlled design of many-body non-Hermitian quantum systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.05052 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a): Geometric representation of EP conditions ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. For the non-Hermitian Hamiltonian [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. For the non-Hermitian Hamiltonian [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. For the non-Hermitian Hamiltonian [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    1998

  2. [2]

    C. M. Bender, Reports on Progress in Physics70, 947 (2007)

    2007

  3. [3]

    Kato,Perturbation Theory for Linear Operators, 2nd ed., Classics in Mathematics (Springer, Berlin, 1995)

    T. Kato,Perturbation Theory for Linear Operators, 2nd ed., Classics in Mathematics (Springer, Berlin, 1995)

    work page 1995

  4. [4]

    W. D. Heiss, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical45, 444016 (2012)

    2012

  5. [5]

    Dembowski, H.-D

    C. Dembowski, H.-D. Gr¨ af, H. L. Harney, A. Heine, W. D. Heiss, H. Rehfeld, and A. Richter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 787 (2001)

    2001

  6. [6]

    M. V. Berry, Czechoslovak Journal of Physics54, 1039 (2004)

    work page 2004

  7. [7]

    Uzdin, A

    R. Uzdin, A. Mailybaev, and N. Moiseyev, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical44, 435302 (2011)

    work page 2011

  8. [8]

    D´ ora, M

    B. D´ ora, M. Heyl, and R. Moessner, Nature Communi- cations10, 2254 (2019)

    work page 2019

Show all 74 references
  1. [9]

    Zhang and J

    X. Zhang and J. Gong, Phys. Rev. B101, 045415 (2020)

    2020

  2. [10]

    Wu and J.-H

    H. Wu and J.-H. An, Phys. Rev. B102, 041119(R) (2020)

    2020

  3. [11]

    L. Xiao, D. Qu, K. Wang, H.-W. Li, J.-Y. Dai, B. D´ ora, M. Heyl, R. Moessner, W. Yi, and P. Xue, PRX Quantum 2, 020313 (2021)

    2021

  4. [12]

    Gopalakrishnan and M

    S. Gopalakrishnan and M. J. Gullans, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 170503 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    Weidemann, M

    S. Weidemann, M. Kremer, S. Longhi, and A. Szameit, Nature601, 354 (2022)

    2022

  6. [14]

    K. Sim, N. Defenu, P. Molignini, and R. Chitra, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 156501 (2023)

    2023

  7. [15]

    Bai, T.-R

    K. Bai, T.-R. Liu, L. Fang, J.-Z. Li, C. Lin, D. Wan, and M. Xiao, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 073802 (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    Das Agarwal, T

    K. Das Agarwal, T. K. Konar, L. G. C. Lakkaraju, and A. Sen(De), Phys. Rev. A110, 012226 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    K. Sim, N. Defenu, P. Molignini, and R. Chitra, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 013325 (2025)

    2025

  10. [18]

    F. K. Kunst, E. Edvardsson, J. C. Budich, and E. J. Bergholtz, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 026808 (2018)

    2018

  11. [19]

    Kawabata, K

    K. Kawabata, K. Shiozaki, M. Ueda, and M. Sato, Phys. Rev. X9, 041015 (2019)

    2019

  12. [20]

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

    2021

  13. [21]

    K. Ding, C. Fang, and G. Ma, Nature Reviews Physics 4, 745 (2022)

    2022

  14. [22]

    Lefebvre, O

    R. Lefebvre, O. Atabek, M. ˇSindelka, and N. Moiseyev, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 123003 (2009)

    2009

  15. [23]

    M. V. Berry and R. Uzdin, Journal of Physics A: Math- ematical and Theoretical44, 435303 (2011)

    2011

  16. [24]

    Khandelwal, W

    S. Khandelwal, W. Chen, K. W. Murch, and G. Haack, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 070403 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    H. Gao, K. Sun, D. Qu, K. Wang, L. Xiao, W. Yi, and P. Xue, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 146602 (2025)

    2025

  18. [26]

    Wiersig, Phys

    J. Wiersig, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 203901 (2014)

    2014

  19. [27]

    Chen, S ¸

    W. Chen, S ¸. K. ¨Ozdemir, G. Zhao, J. Wiersig, and L. Yang, Nature548, 192 (2017)

    2017

  20. [28]

    M. P. Hokmabadi, A. Schumer, D. N. Christodoulides, and M. Khajavikhan, Nature576, 70 (2019)

    2019

  21. [29]

    S. Yu, Y. Meng, J.-S. Tang, X.-Y. Xu, Y.-T. Wang, P. Yin, Z.-J. Ke, W. Liu, Z.-P. Li, Y.-Z. Yang, G. Chen, Y.-J. Han, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 240506 (2020)

    2020

  22. [30]

    M. Saha, B. K. Agarwalla, M. Kulkarni, and A. Purkayastha, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 187101 (2023)

    2023

  23. [31]

    M. Saha, M. Kulkarni, and B. K. Agarwalla, Phys. Rev. B108, 075406 (2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    M. Saha, B. K. Agarwalla, M. Kulkarni, and A. Purkayastha, Phys. Rev. B111, 125412 (2025)

    2025

  25. [33]

    Hashemi, K

    A. Hashemi, K. Busch, D. N. Christodoulides, and S. Rotter, Nature Communications13, 3281 (2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    K. T. Geier and P. Hauke, PRX Quantum3, 030308 (2022)

    2022

  27. [35]

    Doppler, A

    J. Doppler, A. A. Mailybaev, J. B¨ ohm, U. Kuhl, A. Girschik, F. Libisch, T. J. Milburn, P. Rabl, N. Moi- seyev, and S. Rotter, Nature537, 76 (2016)

    2016

  28. [36]

    H. Xu, D. Mason, L. Jiang, and J. G. E. Harris, Nature 537, 80 (2016)

    2016

  29. [37]

    Hodaei, A

    H. Hodaei, A. U. Hassan, S. Wittek, H. Garcia-Gracia, R. El-Ganainy, D. N. Christodoulides, and M. Kha- javikhan, Nature548, 187 (2017)

    2017

  30. [38]

    Ashida, Z

    Y. Ashida, Z. Gong, and M. Ueda, Advances in Physics 69, 249 (2020)

    2020

  31. [39]

    K. Ding, G. Ma, M. Xiao, Z. Q. Zhang, and C. T. Chan, Phys. Rev. X6, 021007 (2016)

    2016

  32. [40]

    R. L. Thomes, M. I. N. Rosa, and A. Erturk, Applied Physics Letters124, 061702 (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    Zhang, F

    Z. Zhang, F. Zhang, Z. Xu, Y. Hu, H. Bao, and H. Shen, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 133601 (2024)

    2024

  34. [42]

    W. Chen, M. Abbasi, Y. N. Joglekar, and K. W. Murch, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 140504 (2021)

    2021

  35. [43]

    W. Chen, M. Abbasi, B. Ha, S. Erdamar, Y. N. Joglekar, and K. W. Murch, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 110402 (2022)

    2022

  36. [44]

    Y. Wu, D. Zhu, Y. Wang, X. Rong, and J. Du, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 153601 (2025)

    2025

  37. [45]

    Helbig, T

    T. Helbig, T. Hofmann, S. Imhof, M. Abdelghany, T. Kiessling, L. W. Molenkamp, C. H. Lee, M. Greiter, and R. Thomale, Nature Physics16, 747 (2020)

    2020

  38. [46]

    Lin, P.-C

    J.-D. Lin, P.-C. Kuo, N. Lambert, and F. Nori, Nature Communications16, 1289 (2025)

    2025

  39. [47]

    Zhang, P.-R

    H.-L. Zhang, P.-R. Han, F. Wu, W. Ning, Z.-B. Yang, and S.-B. Zheng, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 230203 (2025)

    2025

  40. [48]

    Zhang, J

    J. Zhang, J. Zhang, G. Ding,et al., Nature Communica- tions13, 6225 (2022)

    2022

  41. [49]

    Bu, J.-Q

    J.-T. Bu, J.-Q. Zhang, G.-Y. Ding, J.-C. Li, J.-W. Zhang, B. Wang, W.-Q. Ding, W.-F. Yuan, L. Chen, i. m. c. K. ¨Ozdemir, F. Zhou, H. Jing, and M. Feng, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 110402 (2023)

    2023

  42. [50]

    N. N. Bogoljubov, V. V. Tolmachov, and D. V. Shirkov, Fortschritte der Physik6, 605 (1958)

    1958

  43. [51]

    de Gennes,Superconductivity of Metals and Alloys (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2018)

    P.-G. de Gennes,Superconductivity of Metals and Alloys (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2018)

    2018

  44. [52]

    G. B. Mbeng, A. Russomanno, and G. E. Santoro, Sci- Post Phys. Lect. Notes , 82 (2024)

    2024

  45. [53]

    For instance, the transverse-field Ising model with a staggered transverse field,h P i(−1)iσx i , has a two-site unit cell, resulting in a 4×4 Bloch Hamiltonian Hk

    The dimension of eachH k is determined by the size of 7 the unit cell associated with the underlying translational symmetry. For instance, the transverse-field Ising model with a staggered transverse field,h P i(−1)iσx i , has a two-site unit cell, resulting in a 4×4 Bloch Ham...

  46. [54]

    (3), discussion onPT-symmetric non-Hermitian Hamiltonian, recap of some relevant properties of TFIC, and details on constructing various real-space non-Hermitian theories

    See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/ for derivation of Eq. (3), discussion onPT-symmetric non-Hermitian Hamiltonian, recap of some relevant properties of TFIC, and details on constructing various real-space non-Hermitian theories

  47. [55]

    Condition (i) also givesF α(kc) = 0 which leads to di- vergingγ c, hence discarded

  48. [56]

    Sachdev,Quantum Phase Transitions(Cambridge Press, Cambridge, 2011)

    S. Sachdev,Quantum Phase Transitions(Cambridge Press, Cambridge, 2011)

    2011

  49. [57]

    We have takenLto be even

  50. [58]

    A. M. Childs, H. Fu, D. Leung, Z. Li, M. Ozols, and V. Vyas, Quantum9, 1603 (2025), arXiv:2309.16387 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  51. [59]

    P. W. Shor, Phys. Rev. A52, R2493(R) (1995)

    1995

  52. [60]

    A. M. Steane, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 793 (1996)

    1996

  53. [61]

    C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. A54, 3824 (1996)

    1996

  54. [62]

    L. J. Schulman, T. Mor, and Y. Weinstein, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 120501 (2005)

    2005

  55. [63]

    Ticozzi and L

    F. Ticozzi and L. Viola, Scientific Reports4, 5192 (2014)

    2014

  56. [64]

    C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, S. Popescu, B. Schumacher, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett.76, 722 (1996)

    1996

  57. [65]

    Bravyi and A

    S. Bravyi and A. Kitaev, Phys. Rev. A71, 022316 (2005)

    2005

  58. [66]

    Fang and Z.-W

    K. Fang and Z.-W. Liu, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 060405 (2020)

    2020

  59. [67]

    Breuer and F

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

    2007

  60. [68]

    Indeed, this recovers the desired non-Hermitian Hamil- tonian up to a constant shift, which has no effect on the EP physics

  61. [69]

    Sun and W

    K. Sun and W. Yi, AAPPS Bulletin34, 22 (2024)

    2024

  62. [70]

    Prosen, New Journal of Physics10, 043026 (2008)

    T. Prosen, New Journal of Physics10, 043026 (2008)

    2008

  63. [71]

    P. M. Harrington, E. J. Mueller, and K. W. Murch, Na- ture Reviews Physics4, 660 (2022)

    2022

  64. [72]

    Verstraete, M

    F. Verstraete, M. M. Wolf, and J. I. Cirac, Nature Physics 5, 633 (2009)

    2009

  65. [73]

    M. Shi, G. Bao, J. Guo, and W. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Res. 7, L022034 (2025). 8 End Matter Appendix A: Evolution under an(n×n) non-Hermitian matrix with EP of orderncan purify any arbitrary mixed state Claim:– If ann×nnon-Hermitian matrix ˆHhosts an EP of ordern(whereby the eigenva...

    2025

  66. [74]

    Constructing Non-Hermitian Theories with Tunable Exceptional Points and Controlled State Purification

    This immediately givesω k = √ a2 −b 2, resulting in ωk being either purely real or purely imaginary. In the PT-symmetric phase (a > b),ω k is real, so that the purityP k(t) =⃗ pk(t)·⃗ pk(t)/|p0(t)|2 keeps on oscillating with time. In thePT-symmetry broken phase (b > a), 9 ωk i...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.