Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 50 references

Theory of response to perturbations in non-Hermitian systems using five-Hilbert-space reformulation of unitary quantum mechanics

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A perturbation theory for closed non-Hermitian systems is consistent once the physical Hilbert-space metric is rebuilt order by order.

desk verdict The paper makes a useful formal point about smallness in crypto-Hermitian perturbation theory, but its central claim is conditional on an unchecked analyticity assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03017 v2 pith:3KJ4R2WN submitted 2019-08-08 quant-ph cs.NAmath-phmath.MPmath.NA

Miloslav Znojil This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcs.NAmath-phmath.MPmath.NA
keywords hiddenHermiticityHilbertspacemetricperturbationtheoryPTsymmetryunitaryquantumevolutionquasi-HermitianHamiltonianexceptionalpointsstability
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 argues that perturbation theory for closed quantum systems described by non-Hermitian but crypto-Hermitian Hamiltonians can be made mathematically consistent, provided one tracks the geometry of the physical Hilbert space alongside the Hamiltonian. The author shows that a perturbed Hamiltonian H+λW must be interpreted in a five-Hilbert-space structure, which then reduces to a three-space scheme in which the physical metric is reconstructed order by order. The central conclusion is that an operationally admissible perturbation is exactly one that is self-adjoint in the perturbed physical Hilbert space, and that this condition cannot be read off from the working-space operator alone. Because the metric itself changes with λ, the difference between how a perturbation looks in the working space and in the textbook space is generically non-perturbative even at small λ. This matters for stability analysis and for any model where non-Hermitian representations of unitary systems are used.

What carries the argument

The central object is the five-Hilbert-space flowchart and its reduction to a three-space scheme through the effective metric Tλ in the fixed working space K. The load-bearing identity is the hidden-Hermiticity equation (H†+λW†)Tλ=Tλ(H+λW), which defines which perturbations admit a unitary interpretation, together with the perturbation expansion of the metric, Tλ=Θ+λT(1)+..., whose first-order term obeys H†T(1)+W0†Θ=ΘW0+T(1)H. These equations convert the problem of 'which perturbations are small' into the problem of reconstructing a positive-definite metric that makes the perturbed Hamiltonian self-adjoint.

What would settle it

In the paper's own two-by-two matrix example, choose a perturbation W for which the spectrum of H0+λW is real and non-degenerate for all small λ, and solve Eq. (26) exactly for Tλ. If a positive-definite solution fails to exist for arbitrarily small λ while the operator remains diagonalizable, the paper's characterization of admissible perturbations is false; if a positive-definite solution always exists in such cases, the characterization is supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery is a constructive reformulation of perturbation theory for unitary non-Hermitian systems. Treating the unperturbed and perturbed systems each within the three-Hilbert-space (3HS) formalism, and identifying the two textbook Hilbert spaces, yields a five-Hilbert-space flowchart; eliminating the λ-dependent working space Kλ through the map Jλ and writing the perturbed map Ωλ=Ω(1+λΔλ)Jλ converts the hidden-Hermiticity condition into the operator equation (H†+λW†)Tλ=Tλ(H+λW), with Tλ=(1+λΔλ†)Θ(1+λΔλ) the effective metric in the fixed working space. The paper derives order-by-order equations for the metric corrections, shows that a real spectrum is necessary for a positive-definite Tλ to exist, and proves that the leading difference between the perturbation Vλ seen from the textbook space and the perturbation Wλ prescribed in the working space is the commutator Δ0H−HΔ0, which need not vanish or be small as λ→0. On this basis the author claims that the operational admissibility of a perturbation is governed by self-adjointness in the perturbed physical Hilbert space, not by Hermiticity in the auxiliary space.

Load-bearing premise

The whole construction assumes the perturbed Hamiltonian and the metric can be expanded as power series in the perturbation strength λ in a whole neighbourhood of λ=0, and that the system never meets a degeneracy of the exceptional-point type inside that neighbourhood; if such a point lies inside the radius of convergence, the scheme collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A non-Hermitian perturbation in the working space can be physically admissible even if it is not Hermitian there, as long as the perturbed metric makes it self-adjoint; the smallness of λ alone does not establish the smallness of the physical effect.
  • Computing observable corrections requires building the metric order by order together with the wavefunctions, so the standard perturbation series is replaced by a coupled system for energy, state, and metric corrections.
  • Stability of a closed crypto-Hermitian system is tied to the existence of a positive-definite solution Tλ, which in turn forces the perturbed spectrum to stay real; exceptional points inside the convergence radius invalidate the scheme.
  • The non-perturbative commutator difference Vλ−Wλ=Δ0H−HΔ0+O(λ) means that conclusions drawn from the working-space perturbation alone can be quantitatively wrong, and the discrepancy is model-dependent.
  • The inherent ambiguity of the metric can be removed by extending the dynamical input to a complete set of observables, exactly as in the unperturbed case, so the formal consistency carries over.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves implicit a practical criterion that is testable numerically: attempt to solve Eq. (26) for a positive-definite Tλ at small λ, and treat failure as an operational sign that the perturbation is inadmissible, even when the spectrum is still real.
  • The appearance of the commutator Δ0H−HΔ0 in Eq. (33) points toward a geometric interpretation: the 'extra' non-perturbative contribution looks like a generator of a unitary rotation of the perturbation, so the formalism may connect to geometric-phase effects in parameter-driven non-Hermitian devices.
  • A natural extension would promote λ to a time-dependent parameter; the order-by-order metric reconstruction then becomes a consistency condition for adiabatic following, a setting not addressed in the paper.
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 paper develops a formalism for treating perturbations of crypto-Hermitian (quasi-Hermitian/PT-symmetric) Hamiltonians in a unitary quantum-mechanical framework. It introduces a five-Hilbert-space structure, merges the perturbed and unperturbed textbook spaces, derives an effective metric Tλ on the unperturbed working space K, and obtains equations connecting the 'upper-case' perturbation Wλ in K with the 'lower-case' Hermitian perturbation vλ in L. The main formal results are the crypto-Hermiticity equation (26), the exact relation (32) between Vλ and Wλ, the leading-order non-perturbative difference formula (33), and an order-by-order reconstruction scheme for the metric in Section 6.3. The paper argues that the only consistent criterion for admissible perturbations is self-adjointness in the perturbed physical Hilbert space, which it acknowledges to be an a posteriori test.

Significance. If the formalism is accepted, it clarifies why standard Rayleigh-Schrödinger intuition about 'small' perturbations fails in the quasi-Hermitian setting: the metric changes with λ, and the difference between Vλ and Wλ acquires a λ-independent commutator term. The paper is commendably explicit about the ambiguities of the metric (Lemma 1) and about the limitations (EP-free analyticity, a posteriori criterion). The algebra in Eqs. (31)-(33) and the order-by-order equations in Section 6.3 are straightforward and appear correct. However, the paper does not provide a test of the analyticity/EP-free condition for any concrete perturbed model, and its central 'constructive' claim remains conditional on this model-dependent hypothesis. The significance is therefore primarily conceptual rather than as a ready-to-use computational method.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.2 and §6.3 (Eqs. (24), (34)-(36))] The entire constructive scheme relies on the factorization Ωλ = Ω(1+λΔλ)Jλ and on convergent Taylor expansions for Wλ, Δλ, and Tλ in a neighborhood of λ=0. The paper only assumes (§4.2, §7.5) that the unperturbed Hamiltonian is 'safely diagonalizable' and that exceptional points stay 'sufficiently remote,' without giving a verifiable criterion in terms of H and W. Because reference [13] itself exhibits a crypto-Hermitian family with λ_max = 0, this hypothesis is not automatic and is exactly what determines whether the proposed perturbation series is valid. Please state the precise analyticity/regularity hypotheses as a theorem, or provide a practical method to bound the EP-distance from H+λW.
  2. [§7.6] The paper's central criterion—that admissible perturbations are those self-adjoint in the perturbed physical Hilbert space—is, as the paper states, an a posteriori self-consistency test: the metric Tλ is obtained from Eq. (26), which involves the perturbed Hamiltonian itself. Consequently, the criterion does not provide an independent way to decide, before solving the theory, whether a given λW is admissible. This limitation should be stated prominently in the abstract and introduction, since the paper describes itself as reopening the problem of the smallness of perturbations.
  3. [§6.1, Lemma 3] The proof of Lemma 3 establishes only that existence of a positive-definite Tλ implies real spectrum. In Sections 6.2 and 7.2 the reality of the spectrum is used as a proxy for admissibility of perturbations; this requires the converse statement (real spectrum implies existence of a positive-definite metric), which is nontrivial and not true for arbitrary unbounded non-Hermitian operators. Please restrict the claim to the setting where the converse holds (e.g., finite-dimensional diagonalizable operators, or bounded operators with a reference), or provide a proof or a citation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title page] The arXiv header contains 'syste ms' with a stray space in 'systems'; please fix this typographical issue.
  2. [Reference [21]] The author name is given as 'Z. Znojil'; it should be 'M. Znojil'.
  3. [§3.2, Eq. (15)] The positivity condition |β| < 1 is stated but not derived; adding a sentence on the determinant 1−β² and the positive trace of Θ(KG)(τ,β) would make the example more self-contained.
  4. [Equations (10), (12), (20), (27)] The flowcharts are set as ASCII text; please consider typesetting them as figures or tables to improve readability.
  5. [§6.3, Eq. (38)] The notation ~W0 is not defined in the text; please define it explicitly as the leading-order approximation of Vλ.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Admissibility criterion is an a posteriori self-consistency tautology, admitted in §7.6; core 5HS algebra is independent.

  1. self definitional [Section 7.6 (Outlook), key message on admissible perturbations; see also Lemma 4 and Eq. (38) in Section 6.]
    "The 'operationally admissible' perturbations λW (λ) are only those which are self-adjoint in the physical Hilbert space. As long as the physical norm (i.e., the metric) necessarily varies with the parameter λ in general, one cannot confirm or disprove the smallness of a given quasi-Hermitian perturbation λW (λ) too easily ... Mostly, only an a posteriori, self-consistent test of the smallness of perturbation remains at our disposal."

    In the 5HS formalism the physical Hilbert-space metric Tλ is not given independently; it is defined as the solution of the crypto-Hermiticity equation (26) for the very same perturbation λW. Thus the criterion that admissible perturbations are those self-adjoint in that physical Hilbert space is equivalent by construction to the existence of a solution of Eq. (26) — the condition it is supposed to test. The perturbation W appears on both sides: it defines the metric via Eq. (26), and the metric then defines whether W is admissible. Eq. (38) makes this explicit: the first-order reconstruction of Δ0 from W0 is exactly the condition that the effective perturbation W0+Δ0H−HΔ0 is Θ-self-adjoint, i.e., the same hidden-Hermiticity equation.

full rationale

The paper's central algebraic derivation is self-contained and not circular: the factorization Ωλ = Ω(1+λΔλ)Jλ (Eq. 24), the relation (31)–(32) between Wλ and Vλ, and the non-perturbative difference formula (33) follow directly from the definitions and do not import fitted parameters or renamed known results. The order-by-order metric reconstruction in §6.3 is a consistent, if conditional, formal scheme. The only significant circularity is the admissibility criterion for perturbations, which is definitionally tied to the very metric it is supposed to determine; the paper explicitly labels it an 'a posteriori, self-consistent test'. Self-citations [13] and [33] are used only as caveats about exceptional-point breakdowns and a λmax=0 example, not as load-bearing justifications for the main derivation. The analyticity and EP-free assumptions are conditions on the model rather than circular steps. Because the paper's headline criterion is a tautology but the underlying 5HS reformulation and Eq. (33) retain independent content, a moderate circularity score of 4 is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim does not rest on any fitted numerical parameter. The only numerical freedom is the illustrative metric ambiguity parameter beta of the 2x2 Klein-Gordon toy model (Eq. 15), whose role is to demonstrate the non-uniqueness problem, not to fit anything. The load-bearing input is a set of formal assumptions about the lambda-family (analyticity, diagonalizability, absence of exceptional points, factorization of the Dyson map, Hermiticity of perturbations in L) together with standard quasi-Hermitian and Kato theorems. No new physical entities are postulated; all invented objects (H_lambda, K_lambda, M_lambda, T_lambda, the five-space flowchart) are formal bookkeeping, not new physics.

free parameters (1)
  • beta (metric ambiguity parameter in the 2x2 Klein-Gordon toy model) = undetermined with |beta| < 1; fixed by Eq. (17) once an extra observable is specified
    Appears in the toy-model metric Theta(KG)(tau, beta), Eq. (15). It is not fitted to data; it illustrates the generic metric ambiguity the 5HS formalism must handle (Section 3.2). If a complete observable set is specified, Eq. (17) fixes beta, as shown in Lemma 1.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The unperturbed Hamiltonian H is quasi-Hermitian with respect to a positive definite metric Theta and has real spectrum.
    Starting point of the 3HS formalism used throughout (Sections 2.2 and 4.1); the paper restricts to closed, unitary systems, excluding open-system interpretations (Section 7.1).
  • domain assumption The unperturbed H is safely diagonalizable and all exceptional points of H_lambda lie outside the lambda-domain of interest.
    Stated in Section 4.2 and Section 7.5; without this the perturbation series has zero radius of convergence, as in the author's own example [13].
  • domain assumption The lambda-dependence of H_lambda, W_lambda, Delta_lambda and T_lambda is analytic in a neighborhood of lambda = 0, justifying the Taylor expansions in Eqs. (34) to (36).
    Section 6.3 uses these series, and Section 7.6 states the analyticity assumption explicitly. Without analyticity the order-by-order recursion is not defined.
  • domain assumption The textbook Hilbert space is lambda-independent, L_lambda = L, and perturbations are Hermitian there, v_lambda = v_lambda-dagger.
    Postulated in Section 4.2 without loss of generality to enable the 5HS merger; Section 5.1 requires v_lambda = v_lambda-dagger to keep the system closed.
  • domain assumption The perturbed Dyson map factorizes as Omega_lambda = Omega(1 + lambda-Delta_lambda)J_lambda with invertible J_lambda (Eq. 24).
    Eq. (24) in Section 5.2 is the central ansatz connecting unperturbed and perturbed descriptions; the effective metric T_lambda and the 5HS reduction exist only if this factorization holds.
  • standard math For the operators considered, hidden Hermiticity with a positive definite metric is equivalent to real spectrum.
    Invoked in Lemma 3 (Section 6.1) and throughout the 3HS review; a standard quasi-Hermitian theorem traced to Scholtz et al. [6] and Mostafazadeh [8], used without proof including the converse direction asserted in Section 6.2.
  • standard math The Rayleigh-Schrodinger series converges in a circle whose radius equals the distance to the nearest exceptional point (Kato).
    Sections 7.5 and 8 rely on this result to justify assuming exceptional points are remote; it also delimits the domain of validity of the whole framework.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Theory of response to perturbations in non-Hermitian systems using five-Hilbert-space reformulation of unitary quantum mechanics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3KJ4R2WN

@misc{pith2026190803017,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Theory of response to perturbations in non-Hermitian systems using five-Hilbert-space reformulation of unitary quantum mechanics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3KJ4R2WN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03017}
}
abstract

In conventional Schr\"{o}dinger representation the unitarity of the evolution of bound states is guaranteed by the Hermiticity of the Hamiltonian. A non-unitary isospectral simplification of the Hamiltonian, $\mathfrak{h} \to H=\Omega\,\mathfrak{h}\,\Omega \neq H^\dagger$ induces the change ${\cal L} \to {\cal K}$ of the Hilbert space of states, reflected by the loss of the Hermiticity of $H\neq H^\dagger$. In such a reformulation of the theory the introduction of an {\it ad hoc} inner-product metric reconverts ${\cal K}$ into the third, correct physical Hilbert space ${\cal H}$, unitarily equivalent to ${\cal L}$. The situation encountered, typically, in ${\cal PT}-$symmetric or relativistic quantum mechanics is shown more complicated after an inclusion of perturbations. The formulation and solution of the problem are presented. Some of the consequences relevant, e.g., in the analysis of stability are discussed.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [13]

    Znojil, Phys

    M. Znojil, Phys. Rev. A 100, 032124 (2019)

    work page 2019

  2. [1]

    Kato, Perturbation Theory for Linear Operators (Springer -Verlag, Berlin, 1966)

    T. Kato, Perturbation Theory for Linear Operators (Springer -Verlag, Berlin, 1966)

    1966

  3. [2]

    Messiah, Quantum Mechanics (North Holland, Amsterdam, 196 1)

    A. Messiah, Quantum Mechanics (North Holland, Amsterdam, 196 1)

    work page

  4. [3]

    M. H. Stone, Ann. Math. 33, 643 (1932)

    work page 1932

  5. [4]

    C. M. Bender and S. Boettcher, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 5243 (19 98)

  6. [5]

    F. J. Dyson, Phys. Rev. 102, 1217 (1956)

    1956

  7. [6]

    F. G. Scholtz, H. B. Geyer and F. J. W. Hahne, Ann. Phys. (NY) 2 13, 74 (1992)

    1992

  8. [7]

    C. M. Bender, Rep. Prog. Phys. 70, 947 (2007)

    2007

Show all 50 references
  1. [8]

    Mostafazadeh, Int

    A. Mostafazadeh, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. 7, 1191 (20 10)

  2. [9]

    Bagarello, J.-P

    F. Bagarello, J.-P. Gazeau, F. Szafraniec and M. Znojil, Eds., Non -Selfadjoint Operators in Quantum Physics: Mathematical Aspects (Wiley, Hoboken, 2015)

    2015

  3. [10]

    R. F. Bishop and M. Znojil, Acta Polytechnica 54, 85 (2014)

    2014

  4. [11]

    A. V. Smilga, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 41, 244026 (2008)

    2008

  5. [12]

    Znojil, Ann

    M. Znojil, Ann. Phys. (NY) 385, 162 (2017)

    2017

  6. [14]

    Znojil, SIGMA 5, 001 (2009), arXiv overlay: 0901.0700; M

    M. Znojil, SIGMA 5, 001 (2009), arXiv overlay: 0901.0700; M. Znojil, Ann. Phys. (NY) 385, 162 (2017)

    2009 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Roch and B

    S. Roch and B. Silberman, J. Operator Theory 35, 241 (1996); D. Krejˇ ciˇ r ´ ık, P. Siegl, M. Tater and J. Viola, J. Math. Phys. 56,103513 (2015)

    1996

  8. [16]

    E. B. Davies, Bull. London Math. Soc. 34, 513 (2002); L. N. Trefethen and M. Embree, Spectra and pseudospectra (Pr inceton University Press, Princeton, 2005)

    2002

  9. [17]

    ˇC ´ ıˇ zek, J

    J. ˇC ´ ıˇ zek, J. Chem. Phys. 45, 4256 (1966)

    1966

  10. [18]

    Janssen, F

    D. Janssen, F. D¨ onau, S. Frauendorf and R. V. Jolos, Nucl. P hys. A 172, 145 (1971)

    1971

  11. [19]

    Dieudonne, Proc

    J. Dieudonne, Proc. Int. Symp. Lin. Spaces (Pergamon, Oxfo rd, 1961), pp 115-122. 26

    1961

  12. [20]

    Antoine and C

    J.-P. Antoine and C. Trapani, Ref. [9], pp. 345 - 402; J.-P. Antoine, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 1194, 012007 (2019)

    2019

  13. [21]

    Znojil, Ref

    Z. Znojil, Ref. [9], pp. 7 - 58

  14. [22]

    J. H. Wilkinson, The Algebraic Eigenvalue Problem (Oxford Univers ity Press, Oxford, 1965)

    1965

  15. [23]

    Znojil, arXiv: math-ph/0104012

    M. Znojil, arXiv: math-ph/0104012

    arXiv

  16. [24]

    Znojil, I

    M. Znojil, I. Semor´ adov´ a, F. R˘ uˇ ziˇ cka, H. Moulla and I. Leghrib, Phys. Rev. A 95, 042122 (2017)

    2017

  17. [25]

    Krejˇ ciˇ r ´ ık, V

    D. Krejˇ ciˇ r ´ ık, V. Lotoreichik and M. Znojil, Proc. Roy. Soc.A: Math., Phys. & Eng. Sci. 474, 20180264 (2018)

    2018

  18. [26]

    Semor´ adov´ a, Acta Polytechnica 57, 462 (2017)

    I. Semor´ adov´ a, Acta Polytechnica 57, 462 (2017)

    2017

  19. [27]

    Znojil, J

    M. Znojil, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 37, 9557 (2004)

    2004

  20. [28]

    Znojil, SIGMA 4, 001 (2008), arXiv overlay 0710.4432v3

    M. Znojil, SIGMA 4, 001 (2008), arXiv overlay 0710.4432v3

    2008 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Znojil and F

    M. Znojil and F. R˚ uˇ ziˇ cka, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1194, 012120 (2019)

    2019

  22. [30]

    C. M. Bender, PT Symmetry in Quantum and Classical Physics (Wo rld Scientific, Singapore, 2018)

    2018

  23. [31]

    Mostafazadeh, J

    A. Mostafazadeh, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 39, 10171 (2006 )

    2006

  24. [32]

    Krejˇ ciˇ r ´ ık, J

    D. Krejˇ ciˇ r ´ ık, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 41, 244012 (2008)

    2008

  25. [33]

    Znojil, Phys

    M. Znojil, Phys. Rev. A 97, 032114 (2018)

    2018

  26. [34]

    Znojil, J

    M. Znojil, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 40, 4863 (2007); M. Znojil, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 40, 13131 (2007)

    2007

  27. [35]

    D. F. Styer, M. S. Balkin, K. M. Becker et al, Am. J. Phys. 70, 28 8 (2002)

    2002

  28. [36]

    Heisenberg, Z

    W. Heisenberg, Z. Phys. 33, 879 (1925)

    1925

  29. [37]

    Schr¨ odinger, Ann

    E. Schr¨ odinger, Ann. d. Phys. 79, 361 (1926)

    1926

  30. [38]

    R. P. Feynman, Rev. Mod. Phys. 20, 367 (1948)

    1948

  31. [39]

    Miri and A

    M.-A. Miri and A. Al´ u, Science 363, eaar7709 (2019). 27

    2019

  32. [40]

    Feshbach, Ann

    H. Feshbach, Ann. Phys. (NY) 5, 357 (1958)

    1958

  33. [41]

    Moiseyev, Non-Hermitian Quantum Mechanics (Cambridge Univ ersity Press, Cambridge, 2011)

    N. Moiseyev, Non-Hermitian Quantum Mechanics (Cambridge Univ ersity Press, Cambridge, 2011)

    2011

  34. [42]

    Znojil, Phys

    M. Znojil, Phys. Lett. A 326 (2004) 70 - 76

    2004

  35. [43]

    C. M. Bender and K. A. Milton, Phys. Rev. D 55, R3255 (1997)

    1997

  36. [44]

    Znojil, Phys

    M. Znojil, Phys. Lett. A 259, 220 (1999); M. Znojil, F. Cannata, B. Bagchi and R. Roychoudhury, Phys. Let t. B 483, 284 (2000)

    1999

  37. [45]

    L´ evai and M

    G. L´ evai and M. Znojil, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 33, 7165 (2000 )

    2000

  38. [46]

    E. M. Graefe, U. G¨ unther, H. J. Korsch and A. E. Niederle, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor 41, 255206 (2008); U. G¨ unther and F. Stefani, arXiv:1901.08526

    2008 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Bagarello, Ref

    F. Bagarello, Ref. [9], pp. 121 - 188

  40. [48]

    Siegl and D

    P. Siegl and D. Krejˇ ciˇ r ´ ık, Phys. Rev. D 86, 121702(R) (2012)

    2012

  41. [49]

    Ib´ a˜ nez, S

    S. Ib´ a˜ nez, S. Mart ´ ınez-Garaot, Xi Chen, E. Toronteguiand J. G. Muga, Phys. Rev. A 84, 023415 (2011)

    2011

  42. [50]

    http://www.nithep.ac.za/2g6.htm; W. D. Heiss, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 45, 444016 (2012). 28

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.