Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 181 references

Non-Hermitian Quantum Adiabatic Algorithm

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For a non-Hermitian quantum adiabatic algorithm to be practical, the spectrum must be stable under perturbation—not merely real and gapped.

desk verdict Useful new design principle, but the robustness claim is the load-bearing part that isn't proven. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.15343 v1 pith:2X5EWORE submitted 2026-07-16 quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hall

Zi-Bo Jin , Yi Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.mes-hall
keywords non-Hermitianquantumadiabaticalgorithmpseudospectrumhistory-decoupledconstructionmaximumindependentsetnon-unitarycircuitFeynman-Kitaevcomputationcoupledopticalwaveguides
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

For a non-Hermitian quantum adiabatic algorithm to be practical, the paper argues, a real spectrum and a nonzero energy gap are not enough: a non-Hermitian Hamiltonian can be so sensitive that tiny perturbations destroy the gap and the adiabatic protection. The paper's central requirement is a stable pseudospectrum—a guarantee that eigenvalues do not move far under small perturbation—and it shows that the standard history-state mapping from quantum circuits to Hamiltonians fails this test, because non-Hermitian effects accumulate along the whole circuit. The authors replace it with a history-decoupled construction: the Hamiltonian at each segment involves only the current non-unitary gate, while the accumulated computation lives in the quantum state itself. For a hard family of maximum independent set problems, the resulting path has a constant gap, polynomial evolution time, and high success probability that survives random perturbations, unlike both a Hermitian search-based path (exponentially slow) and the direct non-Hermitian history-state path (exponentially fragile). This matters because non-unitary circuits are easy to design for optimization but were previously hampered by post-selection and noise; the paper shows an adiabatic route that avoids the accumulation.

What carries the argument

The history-decoupled (HD) Hamiltonian path: at segment l it is H_l(s)=Ω(I−P_l(s)), where P_l(s)=Σ_a |r^{(l,a)}(s)⟩⟨ℓ^{(l,a)}(s)|, with |r^{(l,a)}(s)⟩ = cosθ |a⟩⊗|l−1⟩ + sinθ V_l |a⟩⊗|l⟩ and ⟨ℓ^{(l,a)}(s)| the corresponding left vector built from V_l^{-1}. This rank-d_w projection Hamiltonian has spectrum {0,Ω} and adiabatically transfers a state from clock site |l−1⟩ to |l⟩ while applying V_l once. Its key property is that the pseudospectrum decomposes into independent 2×2 blocks, one per singular value σ_j of V_l, so the relevant condition number is κ(S_l)=max{1,‖V_l‖}max{1,‖V_l^{-1}‖}, local to a single gate rather than growing with circuit depth. That locality is what prevents the expone

What would settle it

Run the proposed coupled-waveguide realization with deliberately time-dependent coupling or loss fluctuations at segment boundaries (where the degeneracy is largest) and measure the output intensity distribution across configurations. If, for realistic noise amplitudes, the distribution spreads over the degenerate subspace or peaks at a wrong configuration as n grows, the claimed robustness of HD QAA is refuted even though the pseudospectral-gap analysis itself remains correct.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Central claim: a real, gapped spectrum is not enough for non-Hermitian adiabatic computation; the pseudospectrum must also be stable, meaning eigenvalues stay put under small perturbations. The direct non-Hermitian Feynman-Kitaev mapping has a real, polynomially gapped spectrum but is exponentially unstable, because non-Hermitian effects accumulate along the whole circuit. The history-decoupled construction uses H_l(s)=Ω(I−P_l(s)) in each segment, with a projection built only from the current gate V_l; this Hamiltonian has eigenvalues 0 and Ω and its pseudospectrum is governed by V_l's local singular values, not by the circuit's accumulated history. On a hard MIS benchmark family, this gives

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that noise-induced mixing inside the highly degenerate instantaneous ground-state subspace—where the finite gap Ω provides no protection—is harmless because the non-Hermitian dynamics self-focuses onto the target solution; the paper supports this heuristically and numerically but proves no bound.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The HD path's constant gap Ω replaces the Θ(L^{-2}) gap of the history-state mapping, so adiabatic evolution time scales polynomially while preserving the non-unitary circuit's optimization advantage.
  • On the hard MIS benchmark family, the HD construction achieves success probability near 1 at fixed total time T=10L for n=9,…,45, whereas a Hermitian search-based path decays exponentially over the same time.
  • Under random perturbations of strength up to ε=10^{-1}, HD QAA success probability remains close to the clean case; the direct FK mapping's success degrades substantially, and its perturbation threshold for gap closure shrinks exponentially with rounds and system size.
  • The construction maps onto coupled optical waveguides with an auxiliary lossy channel: for each configuration x the non-Hermitian 2×2 dynamics is realized with propagation length Θ(n^3), producing output intensities whose maximum identifies the MIS.
  • The post-selection overhead is exponential in total complexity, but the scheme converts an exponentially long coherent evolution into exponentially many short, parallelizable, resettable runs with failure flags.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If pseudospectral stability becomes an accepted design criterion, many non-Hermitian optimization proposals that check only real spectra may need re-evaluation; the FK example shows that a perfectly gapped ideal path can be useless under realistic noise.
  • The HD principle generalizes: any non-unitary circuit subroutine can be embedded as a locally applied projection Hamiltonian, so the same 'state carries history, Hamiltonian carries only the current operation' strategy could be applied to other gate families or hybrid algorithms.
  • The paper's robustness for degenerate ground-state mixing is argued heuristically via self-focusing; a clean experimental test in the waveguide platform (adding noise at segment boundaries) could either support or challenge this assumption.
  • Read honestly, the result is a wall-clock-time advantage with exponential overhead in physical resources, so the path to an actual quantum speedup passes through many-body platforms where dissipation is built in and the exponential channel replication is avoided.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript argues that non-Hermitian quantum adiabatic algorithms require three conditions: a real spectrum, a finite spectral gap, and a stable pseudospectrum. It examines two Hamiltonian constructions from non-unitary circuits: a direct Feynman-Kitaev (FK) mapping, which has a real, gapped spectrum but an exponentially unstable pseudospectrum, and a history-decoupled (HD) construction H_l(s)=Ω(I-P_l(s)), whose pseudospectrum is controlled by local gate singular values and whose gap is constant. For maximum independent set on CK graphs, the authors construct O(n^3)-depth diagonal non-unitary circuits, and numerical evolution shows that the HD QAA maintains success probability near 1 while the FK QAA degrades and a Hermitian Grover QAA fails exponentially. Noise simulations show HD robustness for the small G_2 instance. An optical coupled-waveguide implementation is proposed, and the paper explicitly disclaims exponential speedup, describing polynomial wall-clock time accompanied by exponential parallel or post-selection overhead.

Significance. If the robustness claim holds, the paper establishes pseudospectral stability as a design principle for non-Hermitian adiabatic computation and provides a constructive, local Hamiltonian framework. The analytical pseudospectrum formula via singular-value decomposition (Eqs. 35-40), the local condition-number bound (Eqs. 41-42), and the explicit numerical comparison across HM/FK/HD constructions are valuable and internally consistent. The paper is also unusually honest about complexity: Sec. V clearly separates wall-clock time from total computational complexity. The main unresolved point is whether robustness against perturbations survives in the degenerate ground-state manifold, and several supporting derivations are deferred to absent appendices; these issues presently block full acceptance.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. V, Eq. (30), Fig. 7] The robustness claim is not protected by the spectral gap. H_l(s)=Ω(I-P_l(s)) has a d_w-dimensional zero-energy subspace; norm-ε perturbations have matrix elements inside this subspace that cost no energy. The manuscript explicitly acknowledges this in Sec. V ('noise may induce state mixing or even quantum walk within the degenerate subspace — this is not protected by the finite gap Ω') and answers with a self-focusing argument, but no quantitative bound or scaling analysis is given. The numerical evidence in Fig. 7 is only for G_2 (n=5, zero-space dimension 32), far from the CK hardness regime. Since the abstract promises 'remains robust against perturbations' and this is the central advantage over FK, the authors should provide either (i) a bound on intra-degenerate transition rates induced by norm-bounded perturbations over total time T=Θ(n^3), using the local amplification factors p^
  2. [Sec. III, Eq. (30); Sec. V] Ideal adiabatic following inside the degenerate ground subspace needs an explicit justification. The non-Hermitian adiabatic theorem cited (Ref. [162]) is invoked without stating whether it covers a degenerate eigenvalue manifold. The construction relies on the specific parallel-transported vector |r^(l,a)(s)⟩; the claim in Sec. V that 'there is no holonomy or off-diagonal matrix element within the degenerate subspace in the ideal case' is asserted rather than proved. Please provide a short derivation that the biorthogonal left vectors satisfy ⟨ℓ^(l,a)|∂_s r^(l,b)⟩=0 and therefore the initial |ψ_{l-1}⟩ is mapped to V_l|ψ_{l-1}⟩, or cite a degenerate non-Hermitian adiabatic theorem with matching hypotheses.
  3. [Appendices referenced throughout] The submitted text repeatedly defers load-bearing details to appendices that are not present: the pseudospectrum derivation after Eq. (40); the CK-circuit analysis and r=Θ(m) bound in Sec. IV A; the ε_c estimates in Fig. 6; and the 'measure-theoretic analysis of the degeneracy' in Sec. V. These omissions make the manuscript non-self-contained and prevent verification of central claims. A revised version should include the appendices or move the necessary derivations into the main text.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Table I] 'Polynomial-evolution-time' should be qualified as wall-clock time for a single successful branch. Sec. V correctly explains that the total complexity is exponential, but the abstract and Table I may be read as complexity claims.
  2. [Fig. 6] Panels (b) and (c) use asinh-scaled axes, which makes the pseudospectral contours and their exponential growth hard to interpret. A normal-scale inset or labeled contour levels would improve readability.
  3. [Fig. 7 caption] The caption should state the number of rounds and the problem size explicitly; currently one must infer 'G_2' means n=5 and 'settings identical to Fig. 5' includes r=n.
  4. [Eq. (52)] The threshold ε_c is presented as an estimate; state explicitly that Eq. (52) is an approximation and justify why evaluating at x=x_MIS gives the most prominent pseudospectral problem rather than a generic configuration.
  5. [Sec. IV B] The sentence 'we adopt r=n' is abrupt. The relationship between this choice and the theoretical r=Θ(m) from Sec. IV A, and its effect on L and T, should be clarified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: HD QAA derivation is self-contained; the admitted degenerate-subspace limitation is a weakness, not a circular step.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained rather than circular. The real, gapped spectrum of the HD construction follows directly from the algebraic fact that P_l(s) is a projector (Sec. III, Eq. 30), so H_l(s)=Ω(I-P_l(s)) has spectrum {0,Ω}. The pseudospectral-stability claim is derived, not assumed: Eqs. (35)-(40) block-diagonalize H_l(s) by a unitary Q_l and show the pseudospectrum depends only on local singular values σ_j of the current gate V_l, with no accumulation of the cumulative history W_l. This is an explicit inequality/structure proof, not a restatement of the conclusion. The numerical success probabilities (Fig. 5) are obtained by integrating the time-dependent Schrödinger equation with fixed, stated hyperparameters (p=2, q=4, Ω=1, T=10L, r=n) that are not fitted to force the plotted result; the high PMIS for HD QAA is consistent with the non-unitary QC construction, but the adiabatic following itself is verified by simulation. The FK instability comparison is likewise an independent calculation using condition numbers and projectors. The paper explicitly flags a real limitation in Sec. V: 'noise may induce state mixing or even quantum walk within the degenerate subspace — this is not protected by the finite gap Ω', and its robustness response is a heuristic self-focusing argument rather than a proven bound. That weakens the robustness claim, but it is a limitation of the argument, not a circular derivation. Finally, no load-bearing self-citation chain is present: the cited non-Hermitian adiabatic theorem [162] and the non-unitary MIS circuit [132] are external works, and the authors' own prior non-Hermitian band-theory papers are used only for peripheral context and examples. Therefore the paper's derivation does not reduce to its inputs by construction.

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

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or conserved quantities. The auxiliary lossy waveguide is a standard optical element. The main new content is the history-decoupled Hamiltonian construction, which is a mapping, not an entity. The free parameters are simulation choices, not fitted values.

free parameters (5)
  • p = 2
    Vertex-amplification factor in non-unitary MIS gates; chosen for numerics, not fitted to the target result.
  • q = 4
    Edge-constraint amplification factor; any q>p>1 works theoretically.
  • Ω = 1
    Gap parameter in HD Hamiltonian; sets the energy scale and adiabatic time, not fitted.
  • r = n
    Number of rounds in the non-unitary QC; chosen to ensure consistent success probability across problem sizes.
  • T = 10L
    Total evolution time; chosen for fair comparison across QAAs and to satisfy adiabaticity, not tuned to data.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption There exists a rigorous adiabatic theorem for non-Hermitian Hamiltonians with real spectra and nonvanishing gap (Ref [162]).
    Invoked in Sec. II B and used throughout; the precise hypotheses (diagonalizability, smoothness, degeneracy) are not stated.
  • standard math Bauer–Fike bound: eigenvalue perturbations are bounded by κ(S)||δH||; the ε-pseudospectrum equals the union of spectra under perturbations of amplitude ≤ε.
    Standard results used in Sec. II C, Eqs. (13)-(16).
  • domain assumption For the CK graph family, r=Θ(m) rounds of the diagonal non-unitary gates yield a constant success probability for the MIS, giving L=Θ(n^3).
    Stated in Sec. IV A and deferred to the Appendix; built on the non-unitary QC of Ref [132]. The polynomial-complexity claim depends on this.
  • domain assumption The HD Hamiltonian decouples into independent 2×2 blocks in the configuration basis because the MIS gates A_i(p) and B_jk(q) are diagonal.
    Used in Sec. IV C and in the numerical method; true for the chosen gates.
  • domain assumption In the strong-loss limit, the auxiliary waveguide field reaches a steady state (dξ/dz≈0) and can be adiabatically eliminated.
    Standard coupled-mode approximation in Sec. IV C, Eq. (63).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Non-Hermitian Quantum Adiabatic Algorithm." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2X5EWORE

@misc{pith2026260715343,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Non-Hermitian Quantum Adiabatic Algorithm},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2X5EWORE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.15343}
}
read the original abstract

Non-Hermitian systems offer new opportunities for quantum optimization and computation. Here, we show that non-Hermitian quantum adiabatic algorithms require not only a real, gapped spectrum, but also a stable pseudospectrum. We propose a novel framework by mapping non-unitary quantum circuits to local Hamiltonian paths, thereby preserving their optimization advantages and shallow depth. While a direct non-Hermitian extension of the Feynman-Kitaev construction suffers severe pseudospectral instability, our history-decoupled construction yields both a controlled pseudospectrum and a real, gapped spectrum. Using the CK benchmark family of maximum independent set problems, we demonstrate polynomial-evolution-time non-Hermitian adiabatic computation that remains robust against perturbations. We further discuss a feasible optical implementation using coupled waveguides with an auxiliary lossy channel. Our work establishes pseudospectral stability, alongside real, gapped spectra, as key principles and a practical route for non-Hermitian quantum adiabatic computation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.15343 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. A schematic illustration of the mapping from QC to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) A gap with an isolated (merged) pseudospectrum is stable (unstable) under perturbations. (b) The non-Hermitian [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. A schematic illustration of the CK graph ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. A schematic illustration of the non-unitary QC for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The success probability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Pseudospectral and gap stability of the FK QAA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The success probability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Following a simple, shallow QC build through [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

181 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [162]

    Huang and R.-K

    M. Huang and R.-K. Lee, arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.00968 (2026), arXiv:2511.00968 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  2. [1]

    Born and V

    M. Born and V. Fock, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik51, 165 (1928)

    1928

  3. [2]

    Kato, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan5, 435 (1950)

    T. Kato, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan5, 435 (1950)

    1950

  4. [3]

    Simon, Physical Review Letters51, 2167 (1983)

    B. Simon, Physical Review Letters51, 2167 (1983)

    1983

  5. [4]

    Kadowaki and H

    T. Kadowaki and H. Nishimori, Physical Review E58, 5355 (1998), arXiv:cond-mat/9804280

    arXiv 1998

  6. [5]

    Farhi, J

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, S. Gutmann, and M. Sipser, arXiv preprint quant-ph/0001106 (2000), arXiv:quant- ph/0001106 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2000

  7. [6]

    Farhi, J

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, S. Gutmann, J. Lapan, A. Lundgren, and D. Preda, Science292, 472 (2001), arXiv:quant-ph/0104129

    arXiv 2001

  8. [7]

    Albash and D

    T. Albash and D. A. Lidar, Reviews of Modern Physics 90, 015002 (2018), arXiv:1611.04471 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2018

Show all 181 references
  1. [8]

    M. H. S. Amin and V. Choi, Physical Review A80, 062326 (2009), arXiv:0904.1387 [quant-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  2. [9]

    A. P. Young, S. Knysh, and V. N. Smelyanskiy, Physical Review Letters104, 020502 (2010), arXiv:0910.1378

    2010 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Altshuler, H

    B. Altshuler, H. Krovi, and J. Roland, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences107, 12446 (2010), arXiv:0908.2782

    2010 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Choi, arXiv preprint arXiv:1004.2226 (2010), arXiv:1004.2226 [quant-ph]

    V. Choi, arXiv preprint arXiv:1004.2226 (2010), arXiv:1004.2226 [quant-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Pichler, S.-T

    H. Pichler, S.-T. Wang, L. Zhou, S. Choi, and M. D. Lukin, arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.10816 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Ebadi, A

    S. Ebadi, A. Keesling, M. Cain, T. T. Wang, H. Levine, D. Bluvstein, G. Semeghini, A. Omran, J. Liu, R. Sama- jdar, X.-Z. Luo, B. Nash, X. Gao, B. Barak, E. Farhi, S. Sachdev, N. Gemelke, L. Zhou, S. Choi, H. Pichler, S. Wang, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Sci- en...

    2022

  7. [14]

    Nguyen, J.-G

    M.-T. Nguyen, J.-G. Liu, J. Wurtz, M. D. Lukin, S.-T. Wang, and H. Pichler, PRX Quantum4, 010316 (2023), arXiv:2209.03965

    2023 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Bombieri, Z

    L. Bombieri, Z. Zeng, R. Tricarico, R. Lin, S. Notar- nicola, M. Cain, M. D. Lukin, and H. Pichler, PRX Quantum6, 020306 (2025), arXiv:2411.04645. 16

    2025 arXiv

  9. [16]

    R. P. Feynman, Foundations of Physics16, 507 (1986)

    1986

  10. [17]

    A. Y. Kitaev, A. H. Shen, and M. N. Vyalyi,Classical and Quantum Computation, Graduate Studies in Math- ematics, Vol. 47 (American Mathematical Society, Prov- idence, RI, 2002)

    2002

  11. [18]

    Kempe, A

    J. Kempe, A. Kitaev, and O. Regev, SIAM Journal on Computing35, 1070 (2006), arXiv:quant-ph/0406180

    2006 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Aharonov, W

    D. Aharonov, W. van Dam, J. Kempe, Z. Landau, S. Lloyd, and O. Regev, SIAM Journal on Computing 37, 166 (2007), arXiv:quant-ph/0405098 [quant-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  13. [20]

    H. Yu, Y. Huang, and B. Wu, Chinese Physics Letters 35, 110303 (2018), arXiv:1706.07646

    2018 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Dalibard, Y

    J. Dalibard, Y. Castin, and K. Mølmer, Physical Review Letters68, 580 (1992)

    1992

  15. [22]

    Ashida, Z

    Y. Ashida, Z. Gong, and M. Ueda, Advances in Physics 69, 249 (2020), arXiv:2006.01837

    2020 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Minganti, A

    F. Minganti, A. Miranowicz, R. W. Chhajlany, I. I. Arkhipov, and F. Nori, Physical Review A101, 062112 (2020), arXiv:2002.11620

    2020 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Rotter, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and The- oretical42, 153001 (2009)

    I. Rotter, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and The- oretical42, 153001 (2009)

    2009

  18. [25]

    Malzard, C

    S. Malzard, C. Poli, and H. Schomerus, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 200402 (2015)

    2015

  19. [26]

    H. J. Carmichael, Phys. Rev. Lett.70, 2273 (1993)

    1993

  20. [27]

    Guo and D

    C. Guo and D. Poletti, Phys. Rev. A95, 052107 (2017)

    2017

  21. [28]

    Dangel, M

    F. Dangel, M. Wagner, H. Cartarius, J. Main, and G. Wunner, Phys. Rev. A98, 013628 (2018)

    2018

  22. [29]

    F. Song, S. Yao, and Z. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 170401 (2019)

    2019

  23. [30]

    McDonald, R

    A. McDonald, R. Hanai, and A. A. Clerk, Phys. Rev. B 105, 064302 (2022)

    2022

  24. [31]

    Altland, M

    A. Altland, M. Fleischhauer, and S. Diehl, Phys. Rev. X11, 021037 (2021)

    2021

  25. [32]

    Doppler, A

    J. Doppler, A. A. Mailybaev, J. B¨ ohm,et al., Nature 537, 76 (2016)

    2016

  26. [33]

    H. Xu, D. Mason, L. Jiang, and J. G. E. Harris, Nature 537, 80 (2016), arXiv:1602.06881

    2016 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Liang, D

    Q. Liang, D. Xie, Z. Dong, H. Li, H. Li, B. Gadway, W. Yi, and B. Yan, Physical Review Letters129, 070401 (2022), arXiv:2201.09478

    2022 arXiv

  28. [35]

    L. Xiao, K. Wang, X. Zhan, Z. Bian, K. Kawabata, M. Ueda, W. Yi, and P. Xue, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 230401 (2019)

    2019

  29. [36]

    Xiao, W.-T

    L. Xiao, W.-T. Xue, F. Song, Y.-M. Hu, W. Yi, Z. Wang, and P. Xue, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 070801 (2024)

    2024

  30. [37]

    Li, L.-W

    Z. Li, L.-W. Wang, X. Wang, Z.-K. Lin, G. Ma, and J.-H. Jiang, Nature Communications15, 6544 (2024)

    2024

  31. [38]

    Orito and K.-I

    T. Orito and K.-I. Imura, Phys. Rev. B108, 214308 (2023)

    2023

  32. [39]

    C. M. Bender and S. Boettcher, Physical Review Letters 80, 5243 (1998), arXiv:physics/9712001

    1998 arXiv

  33. [40]

    El-Ganainy, K

    R. El-Ganainy, K. G. Makris, M. Khajavikhan, Z. H. Musslimani, S. Rotter, and D. N. Christodoulides, Na- ture Physics14, 11 (2018)

    2018

  34. [41]

    Miri and A

    M.-A. Miri and A. Al` u, Science363, eaar7709 (2019)

    2019

  35. [42]

    Y. Li, C. Liang, C. Wang, C. Lu, and Y.-C. Liu, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 223903 (2022)

    2022

  36. [43]

    S. Lapp, J. Ang’ong’a, F. A. An, and B. Gadway, New Journal of Physics21, 045006 (2019)

    2019

  37. [44]

    Aaronson, Proceedings of the Royal Society A461, 3473 (2005)

    S. Aaronson, Proceedings of the Royal Society A461, 3473 (2005)

    2005

  38. [45]

    X. Zhan, L. Xiao, Z. Bian, K. Wang, X. Qiu, B. C. Sanders, W. Yi, and P. Xue, Physical Review Letters 119, 130501 (2017), arXiv:1709.10287

    2017 arXiv

  39. [46]

    De Tomasi and I

    G. De Tomasi and I. M. Khaymovich, Phys. Rev. B109, 174205 (2024)

    2024

  40. [47]

    Brandenbourger, X

    M. Brandenbourger, X. Locsin, E. Lerner, and C. Coulais, Nature Communications10, 4608 (2019)

    2019

  41. [48]

    Ghatak, M

    A. Ghatak, M. Brandenbourger, J. van Wezel, and C. Coulais, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci- ences117, 29561 (2020)

    2020

  42. [49]

    Y. Chen, X. Li, C. Scheibner, V. Vitelli, and G. Huang, Nature Communications12, 5935 (2021)

    2021

  43. [50]

    W. Wang, X. Wang, and G. Ma, Nature608, 50 (2022)

    2022

  44. [51]

    W. Wang, M. Hu, X. Wang, G. Ma, and K. Ding, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 207201 (2023)

    2023

  45. [52]

    Christensen, M

    J. Christensen, M. Willatzen, V. R. Velasco, and M.-H. Lu, Physical Review Letters116, 207601 (2016)

    2016

  46. [53]

    Zhang, Y

    L. Zhang, Y. Yang, Y. Ge,et al., Nature Communica- tions12, 6297 (2021), arXiv:2104.08844

    2021 arXiv

  47. [54]

    Zhang, Y

    X. Zhang, Y. Tian, J.-H. Jiang, M.-H. Lu, and Y.- F. Chen, Nature Communications12, 5377 (2021), arXiv:2102.09825

    2021 arXiv

  48. [55]

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

    2016

  49. [56]

    Aur´ egan and V

    Y. Aur´ egan and V. Pagneux, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 174301 (2017)

    2017

  50. [57]

    K. Ding, G. Ma, Z. Q. Zhang, and C. T. Chan, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 085702 (2018)

    2018

  51. [58]

    W. Tang, X. Jiang, K. Ding, Y.-X. Xiao, Z.-Q. Zhang, C. T. Chan, and G. Ma, Science370, 1077 (2020), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.abd8872

    2020 doi

  52. [59]

    S. Puri, J. Ferdous, A. Shakeri, A. Basiri, M. Dubois, and H. Ramezani, Phys. Rev. Appl.16, 014012 (2021)

    2021

  53. [60]

    W. Tang, K. Ding, and G. Ma, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 034301 (2021)

    2021

  54. [61]

    W. Tang, K. Ding, and G. Ma, Na- tional Science Review9, nwac010 (2022), https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article- pdf/9/11/nwac010/47838733/nwac010.pdf

    2022

  55. [62]

    Zhang, F

    X. Zhang, F. Zangeneh-Nejad, Z.-G. Chen, M.-H. Lu, and J. Christensen, Nature618, 687 (2023)

    2023

  56. [63]

    Z. Gu, H. Gao, P.-C. Cao, T. Liu, X.-F. Zhu, and J. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Appl.16, 057001 (2021)

    2021

  57. [64]

    X. Wen, X. Zhu, A. Fan, W. Y. Tam, J. Zhu, H. W. Wu, F. Lemoult, M. Fink, and J. Li, Communications Physics5, 18 (2022)

    2022

  58. [65]

    H. Fan, H. Gao, T. Liu, S. An, X. Kong, G. Xu, J. Zhu, C.-W. Qiu, and Z. Su, Phys. Rev. B107, L201108 (2023)

    2023

  59. [66]

    Huang, S

    L. Huang, S. Huang, C. Shen, S. Yves, A. S. Pilipchuk, X. Ni, S. Kim, Y. K. Chiang, D. A. Powell, J. Zhu, Y. Cheng, Y. Li, A. F. Sadreev, A. Al` u, and A. E. Miroshnichenko, Nature Reviews Physics6, 11 (2024)

    2024

  60. [67]

    A. Guo, G. J. Salamo, D. Duchesne, R. Morandotti, M. Volatier-Ravat, V. Aimez, G. A. Siviloglou, and D. N. Christodoulides, Physical Review Letters103, 093902 (2009)

    2009

  61. [68]

    C. E. R¨ uter, K. G. Makris, R. El-Ganainy, D. N. Christodoulides, M. Segev, and D. Kip, Nature Physics 6, 192 (2010)

    2010

  62. [69]

    Regensburger, C

    A. Regensburger, C. Bersch, M.-A. Miri, G. On- ishchukov, D. N. Christodoulides, and U. Peschel, Na- ture488, 167 (2012)

    2012

  63. [70]

    L. Xiao, T. Deng, K. Wang, G. Zhu, Z. Wang, W. Yi, and P. Xue, Nature Physics16, 761 (2020), arXiv:1907.12566. 17

    2020 arXiv

  64. [71]

    L. Xiao, T. Deng, K. Wang, Z. Wang, W. Yi, and P. Xue, Physical Review Letters126, 230402 (2021), arXiv:2009.07288

    2021 arXiv

  65. [72]

    Chen, S ¸

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

    2017

  66. [73]

    Reisenbauer, H

    M. Reisenbauer, H. Rudolph, L. Egyed, K. Hornberger, A. V. Zasedatelev, M. Abuzarli, B. A. Stickler, and U. Deli´ c, Nature Physics20, 1629 (2024)

    2024

  67. [74]

    Helbig, T

    T. Helbig, T. Hofmann, S. Imhof,et al., Nature Physics 16, 747 (2020)

    2020

  68. [75]

    S. Liu, R. Shao, S. Ma, L. Zhang, O. You, H. Wu, Y. J. Xiang, T. J. Cui, and S. Zhang, Research2021, 5608038 (2021)

    2021

  69. [76]

    D. Zou, T. Chen, W. He, J. Bao, C. H. Lee, H. Sun, and X. Zhang, Nature Communications12, 7201 (2021), arXiv:2104.11260

    2021 arXiv

  70. [77]

    Zhu, X.-Q

    P. Zhu, X.-Q. Sun, T. L. Hughes, and G. Bahl, Nature Communications14, 720 (2023)

    2023

  71. [78]

    Ezawa, Phys

    M. Ezawa, Phys. Rev. B99, 121411 (2019)

    2019

  72. [79]

    Ezawa, Phys

    M. Ezawa, Phys. Rev. B100, 081401 (2019)

    2019

  73. [80]

    Hofmann, T

    T. Hofmann, T. Helbig, F. Schindler, N. Salgo, M. Brzezi´ nska, M. Greiter, T. Kiessling, D. Wolf, A. Vollhardt, A. Kabaˇ si, C. H. Lee, A. Biluˇ si´ c, R. Thomale, and T. Neupert, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 023265 (2020)

    2020

  74. [81]

    L. Li, C. H. Lee, and J. Gong, Communications Physics 4, 42 (2021)

    2021

  75. [82]

    Yao and Z

    S. Yao and Z. Wang, Physical Review Letters121, 086803 (2018), arXiv:1803.01876

    2018 arXiv

  76. [83]

    Okuma, K

    N. Okuma, K. Kawabata, K. Shiozaki, and M. Sato, Physical Review Letters124, 086801 (2020)

    2020

  77. [84]

    Zhang, Z

    K. Zhang, Z. Yang, and C. Fang, Physical Review Let- ters125, 126402 (2020), arXiv:1910.01131

    2020 arXiv

  78. [85]

    Z. Yang, K. Zhang, C. Fang, and J. Hu, Physical Review Letters125, 226402 (2020), arXiv:1912.05499

    2020 arXiv

  79. [86]

    Fu and Y

    Y. Fu and Y. Zhang, Physical Review B108, 205423 (2023), arXiv:2307.16632 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2023 arXiv

  80. [87]

    Zhang, T

    X. Zhang, T. Zhang, M.-H. Lu, and Y.-F. Chen, Advances in Physics: X7, 2109431 (2022), arXiv:2205.08037

    2022 arXiv

  81. [88]

    Yokomizo and S

    K. Yokomizo and S. Murakami, Physical Review Letters 123, 066404 (2019), arXiv:1902.10958

    2019 arXiv

  82. [89]

    C. H. Lee, L. Li, and J. Gong, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 016805 (2019)

    2019

  83. [90]

    Okugawa, R

    R. Okugawa, R. Takahashi, and K. Yokomizo, Phys. Rev. B102, 241202 (2020)

    2020

  84. [91]

    Kawabata, M

    K. Kawabata, M. Sato, and K. Shiozaki, Phys. Rev. B 102, 205118 (2020)

    2020

  85. [92]

    Y. Fu, J. Hu, and S. Wan, Phys. Rev. B103, 045420 (2021)

    2021

  86. [93]

    Hu, Non-hermitian band theory in all dimen- sions: uniform spectra and skin effect (2023), arXiv:2306.12022 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    H. Hu, Non-hermitian band theory in all dimen- sions: uniform spectra and skin effect (2023), arXiv:2306.12022 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2023 arXiv

  87. [94]

    Xiong, Z.-Y

    Y. Xiong, Z.-Y. Xing, and H. Hu, Non-hermitian skin ef- fect in arbitrary dimensions: non-bloch band theory and classification (2024), arXiv:2407.01296 [cond-mat.mes- hall]

    2024 arXiv

  88. [95]

    G.-G. Liu, S. Mandal, P. Zhou, X. Xi, R. Banerjee, Y.- H. Hu, M. Wei, M. Wang, Q. Wang, Z. Gao, H. Chen, Y. Yang, Y. Chong, and B. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 113802 (2024)

    2024

  89. [96]

    Z. Gong, Y. Ashida, K. Kawabata, K. Takasan, S. Hi- gashikawa, and M. Ueda, Physical Review X8, 031079 (2018), arXiv:1802.07964

    2018 arXiv

  90. [97]

    Kawabata, K

    K. Kawabata, K. Shiozaki, M. Ueda, and M. Sato, Phys- ical Review X9, 041015 (2019), arXiv:1812.09133

    2019 arXiv

  91. [98]

    E. J. Bergholtz, J. C. Budich, and F. K. Kunst, Reviews of Modern Physics93, 015005 (2021)

    2021

  92. [99]

    K. Wang, A. Dutt, C. C. Wojcik, and S. Fan, Nature 598, 59 (2021)

    2021

  93. [100]

    W. B. Rui, Z. Zheng, C. Wang, and Z. Wang, Physical Review Letters128, 226401 (2022), arXiv:2106.15534

    2022 arXiv

  94. [101]

    H. Shen, B. Zhen, and L. Fu, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 146402 (2018)

    2018

  95. [102]

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

    2018

  96. [103]

    Hu and E

    H. Hu and E. Zhao, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 010401 (2021)

    2021

  97. [104]

    H. Hu, S. Sun, and S. Chen, Phys. Rev. Res.4, L022064 (2022)

    2022

  98. [105]

    Y. Li, X. Ji, Y. Chen, X. Yan, and X. Yang, Phys. Rev. B106, 195425 (2022)

    2022

  99. [106]

    C.-X. Guo, S. Chen, K. Ding, and H. Hu, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 157201 (2023)

    2023

  100. [107]

    Nakamura, T

    D. Nakamura, T. Bessho, and M. Sato, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 136401 (2024)

    2024

  101. [108]

    Verma and M

    S. Verma and M. J. Park, Communications Physics7, 21 (2024)

    2024

  102. [109]

    S. Yao, F. Song, and Z. Wang, Physical Review Letters 121, 136802 (2018)

    2018

  103. [110]

    C. H. Lee and R. Thomale, Physical Review B99, 201103 (2019), arXiv:1809.02125

    2019 arXiv

  104. [111]

    H.-Y. Wang, F. Song, and Z. Wang, Physical Review X 14, 021011 (2024), arXiv:2212.11743

    2024 arXiv

  105. [112]

    Fu and Y

    Y. Fu and Y. Zhang, Physical Review B107, 115412 (2023), arXiv:2212.13753

    2023 arXiv

  106. [113]

    Fu and Y

    Y. Fu and Y. Zhang, Physical Review B110, L121401 (2024), arXiv:2405.11832 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2024 arXiv

  107. [114]

    Chen and Y

    H. Chen and Y. Zhang, Physical Review B111, 165118 (2025), arXiv:2412.14912 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2025 arXiv

  108. [115]

    Yokomizo and S

    K. Yokomizo and S. Murakami, Phys. Rev. B107, 195112 (2023)

    2023

  109. [116]

    L. Li, C. H. Lee, S. Mu, and J. Gong, Nature Commu- nications11, 5491 (2020), arXiv:2003.03039

    2020 arXiv

  110. [117]

    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 Quan- tum2, 020313 (2021), arXiv:2004.05928

    2021 arXiv

  111. [118]

    Longhi, Phys

    S. Longhi, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 237601 (2019)

    2019

  112. [119]

    Longhi, Phys

    S. Longhi, Phys. Rev. B100, 125157 (2019)

    2019

  113. [120]

    Longhi, Phys

    S. Longhi, Phys. Rev. B103, 054203 (2021)

    2021

  114. [121]

    Liu, X.-P

    Y. Liu, X.-P. Jiang, J. Cao, and S. Chen, Phys. Rev. B 101, 174205 (2020)

    2020

  115. [122]

    Y. Liu, Q. Zhou, and S. Chen, Phys. Rev. B104, 024201 (2021)

    2021

  116. [123]

    Orito and K.-I

    T. Orito and K.-I. Imura, Phys. Rev. B105, 024303 (2022)

    2022

  117. [124]

    Y.-P. Wang, C. Fang, and J. Ren, Phys. Rev. B110, 035113 (2024)

    2024

  118. [125]

    Chen and Y

    H. Chen and Y. Zhang, Physical Review B108, 115114 (2023), arXiv:2303.15186 [cond-mat.mtrl-sci]

    2023 arXiv

  119. [126]

    Zhang, Q

    B. Zhang, Q. Li, X. Zhang, and C. H. Lee, Chinese Physics B31, 070308 (2022), arXiv:2201.08841

    2022 arXiv

  120. [127]

    Yang, Y.-K

    G. Yang, Y.-K. Li, Y. Fu, Z. Wang, and Y. Zhang, Phys- ical Review B109, 045110 (2024), arXiv:2303.01525 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2024 arXiv

  121. [128]

    C. M. Bender, Reports on Progress in Physics70, 947 (2007), arXiv:hep-th/0703096

    2007 arXiv

  122. [129]

    Mostafazadeh, Journal of Mathematical Physics43, 18 2814 (2002), arXiv:math-ph/0110016

    A. Mostafazadeh, Journal of Mathematical Physics43, 18 2814 (2002), arXiv:math-ph/0110016

    2002 arXiv

  123. [130]

    Chong, L

    Y. Chong, L. Ge, and A. D. Stone, Physical Review Letters106, 093902 (2011)

    2011

  124. [131]

    F. G. Scholtz, H. B. Geyer, and F. J. W. Hahne, Annals of Physics213, 74 (1992)

    1992

  125. [132]

    Zhang and B

    Q. Zhang and B. Wu, Physical Review A113, 042410 (2026), arXiv:2506.18012 [quant-ph]

    2026

  126. [133]

    R. M. Karp, inComplexity of Computer Computations, edited by R. E. Miller and J. W. Thatcher (Plenum Press, New York, 1972) pp. 85–103

    1972

  127. [134]

    M. R. Garey and D. S. Johnson,Computers and In- tractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness (W. H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1979)

    1979

  128. [135]

    R. E. Tarjan and A. E. Trojanowski, SIAM Journal on Computing6, 537 (1977)

    1977

  129. [136]

    L. K. Grover, inProceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing(1996) pp. 212– 219, arXiv:quant-ph/9605043

    1996 arXiv

  130. [137]

    C. H. Bennett, E. Bernstein, G. Brassard, and U. Vazi- rani, SIAM Journal on Computing26, 1510 (1997), arXiv:quant-ph/9701001

    1997 arXiv

  131. [138]

    Zalka, Physical Review A60, 2746 (1999), arXiv:quant-ph/9711070

    C. Zalka, Physical Review A60, 2746 (1999), arXiv:quant-ph/9711070

    1999 arXiv

  132. [139]

    Bocharov, M

    A. Bocharov, M. Roetteler, and K. M. Svore, Physical Review Letters114, 080502 (2015)

    2015

  133. [140]

    T. L. Silva, M. M. Taddei, S. Carrazza, and L. Aolita, Scientific Reports13, 18258 (2023)

    2023

  134. [141]

    Barch and D

    B. Barch and D. Lidar, Computational complexity and simulability of non-hermitian quantum dynamics (2025), arXiv:2506.03435 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  135. [142]

    M. W. Johnson, M. H. S. Amin, S. Gildert,et al., Nature 473, 194 (2011)

    2011

  136. [143]

    Boixo, T

    S. Boixo, T. F. Rønnow, S. V. Isakov,et al., Nature Physics10, 218 (2014), arXiv:1304.4595

    2014 arXiv

  137. [144]

    K. L. Pudenz, T. Albash, and D. A. Lidar, Nature Com- munications5, 3243 (2014), arXiv:1307.8190

    2014 arXiv

  138. [145]

    Saffman, T

    M. Saffman, T. G. Walker, and K. Mølmer, Reviews of Modern Physics82, 2313 (2010)

    2010

  139. [146]

    Browaeys and T

    A. Browaeys and T. Lahaye, Nature Physics16, 132 (2020)

    2020

  140. [147]

    X. Wu, X. Liang, Y. Tian, F. Yang, C. Chen, Y.-C. Liu, M. K. Tey, and L. You, Chinese Physics B30, 020305 (2021)

    2021

  141. [148]

    X. Zhao, P. Ge, H. Yu, L. You, F. Wilczek, and B. Wu, National Science Review12, nwaf304 (2025)

    2025

  142. [149]

    R. Shen, T. Chen, M. M. Aliyu, F. Qin, Y. Zhong, H. Loh, and C. H. Lee, Physical Review Letters131, 080403 (2023), arXiv:2302.06662

    2023 arXiv

  143. [150]

    X. Wu, Z. Wang, F. Yang, R. Gao, C. Liang, M. K. Tey, X. Li, T. Pohl, and L. You, Nature Physics20, 1389 (2024)

    2024

  144. [151]

    T. Chen, C. Huang, J. P. Covey, and B. Gadway, Phys- ical Review Letters135, 253402 (2025)

    2025

  145. [152]

    Zhang, B

    Y.-W. Zhang, B. Xu, Y. Zhou, D.-S. Xiang, H.-X. Liu, P. Zhou, K. Zhang, R. Liao, T. Pohl, W. Li, and L. Li, Observation of non-hermitian many-body phase transi- tion in a rydberg-atom array (2025), arXiv:2512.02753 [quant-ph]

    2025

  146. [153]

    A. M. Childs, E. Farhi, and J. Preskill, Physical Review A65, 012322 (2001)

    2001

  147. [154]

    S. P. Jordan, E. Farhi, and P. W. Shor, Physical Review A74, 052322 (2006)

    2006

  148. [155]

    D. A. Lidar, Physical Review Letters100, 160506 (2008)

    2008

  149. [156]

    K. C. Young, M. Sarovar, and R. Blume-Kohout, Phys- ical Review X3, 041013 (2013)

    2013

  150. [157]

    A. G. Fowler, M. Mariantoni, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Cleland, Physical Review A86, 032324 (2012)

    2012

  151. [158]

    Bravyi and A

    S. Bravyi and A. Kitaev, Physical Review A71, 022316 (2005)

    2005

  152. [159]

    E. T. Campbell, B. M. Terhal, and C. Vuillot, Nature 549, 172 (2017), arXiv:1612.07330

    2017 arXiv

  153. [160]

    Gidney and A

    C. Gidney and A. G. Fowler, Quantum3, 135 (2019), arXiv:1812.01238

    2019 arXiv

  154. [161]

    Preskill, Quantum2, 79 (2018)

    J. Preskill, Quantum2, 79 (2018)

    2018

  155. [163]

    L. N. Trefethen and M. Embree,Spectra and Pseu- dospectra: The Behavior of Nonnormal Matrices and Operators(Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2005)

    2005

  156. [164]

    Okuma and M

    N. Okuma and M. Sato, Physical Review Letters126, 176601 (2021), arXiv:2009.10304

    2021

  157. [165]

    Longhi, Physical Review B105, 245143 (2022), arXiv:2112.13454

    S. Longhi, Physical Review B105, 245143 (2022), arXiv:2112.13454

    2022 arXiv

  158. [166]

    Longhi, Phys

    S. Longhi, Phys. Rev. B103, 144202 (2021)

    2021

  159. [167]

    Jiang, L.-J

    H. Jiang, L.-J. Lang, C. Yang, S.-L. Zhu, and S. Chen, Phys. Rev. B100, 054301 (2019)

    2019

  160. [168]

    Claes and T

    J. Claes and T. L. Hughes, Phys. Rev. B103, L140201 (2021)

    2021

  161. [169]

    Sarkar, S

    R. Sarkar, S. S. Hegde, and A. Narayan, Phys. Rev. B 106, 014207 (2022)

    2022

  162. [170]

    E. T. Kokkinakis, K. G. Makris, and E. N. Economou, Anderson localization versus hopping asymmetry in a disordered lattice (2024), arXiv:2407.10746 [cond- mat.dis-nn]

    2024 arXiv

  163. [171]

    Hatano and D

    N. Hatano and D. R. Nelson, Physical Review Letters 77, 570 (1996)

    1996

  164. [172]

    Hatano and D

    N. Hatano and D. R. Nelson, Phys. Rev. B58, 8384 (1998)

    1998

  165. [173]

    Maddi, Y

    A. Maddi, Y. Auregan, G. Penelet, V. Pagneux, and V. Achilleos, Phys. Rev. Res.6, L012061 (2024)

    2024

  166. [174]

    S.-X. Hu, Y. Fu, and Y. Zhang, Communications Physics8, 269 (2025), arXiv:2407.15954 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  167. [175]

    Choi, arXiv preprint arXiv:1010.1220 (2011), arXiv:1010.1220 [quant-ph]

    V. Choi, arXiv preprint arXiv:1010.1220 (2011), arXiv:1010.1220 [quant-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  168. [176]

    F. L. Bauer and C. T. Fike, Numerische Mathematik2, 137 (1960)

    1960

  169. [177]

    We can also enforce smoothness (continuous ˙H(t)) at the segment boundaries by choosing an interpolation function that satisfiesθ ′(0) =θ ′(1) = 0

  170. [178]

    Y. Chen, X. Chen, X. Ren, M. Gong, and G.-C. Guo, Physical Review A104, 023501 (2021)

    2021

  171. [179]

    K. Fang, Z. Yu, and S. Fan, Nature Photonics6, 782 (2012)

    2012

  172. [180]

    Wilczek and A

    F. Wilczek and A. Zee, Physical Review Letters52, 2111 (1984)

    1984

  173. [181]

    B´ egoc, G

    B. B´ egoc, G. Cichelli, S. P. Singh, F. Bensch, V. Amico, F. Perciavalle, D. Rossini, L. Amico, and O. Morsch, Physical Review A112, 023312 (2025)

    2025

Pith tools

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