Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 74 references

Controlling the $\mathcal{PT}$ Symmetry Breaking Threshold in Bipartite Lattice Systems with Floquet Topological Edge States

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Periodic driving at low frequency forces the PT-symmetry breaking threshold to zero no matter where a balanced gain-loss pair sits, because the Floquet topological edge state sweeps across those sites during each period.

desk verdict Solid high-frequency mechanism and an interesting low-frequency observation, undercut by a 'universal zero threshold' claim the body itself qualifies. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.18931 v2 pith:FKZPYWFL submitted 2025-08-26 quant-ph

Xinguang Li , Hongzheng Wu , Yangchun Zhao , Jinpeng Xiao , Yu Guo , Lei Li , Yajiang Chen , Xiaobing Luo This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords PTsymmetrybreakingFloquettopologicaledgestatesbipartitelatticeSu-Schrieffer-Heegermodelperiodicdrivinggainandlossdefectswindingnumberlow-frequency
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks what controls the parity-time (PT) symmetry breaking threshold—the minimum gain-and-loss strength at which a balanced system's spectrum turns complex—in a periodically shaken dimerized chain. It claims that Floquet edge states, the boundary-localized modes of the driven lattice, are the deciding actors, and that the answer depends sharply on driving frequency. At high frequency the edge states are effectively frozen in place: they drive the threshold to zero only when the defects happen to sit where the edge state has amplitude; otherwise the threshold is set by defect-induced bound states. At low frequency the same edge states sweep across the lattice during each driving period, so they always overlap the defect sites at some time; the paper argues this makes the threshold identically zero regardless of defect placement. The practical upshot is that driving frequency and defect phase give experimenters two handles to either erase or inflate the threshold in photonic or cold-atom implementations.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the Floquet zero-energy topological edge state and its time-dependent spatial profile, measured by Sigma_P (Eq. (19)): the sum of probabilities on even-indexed sites of the left half and their reflection partners. At high frequency Sigma_P stays zero throughout the period, so the edge state never meets the defect pair; at low frequency Sigma_P oscillates and vanishes only at integer and half-integer periods, giving the overlap that makes the threshold zero. The supporting machinery is the rotating-frame transformation S(t)=exp[-i A/omega cos(omega t) sum_n x_n |n><n|], the Floquet-Magnus high-frequency expansion that renormalizes hoppings to J J0(Aa/omega) and J J0(Ab/

What would settle it

At omega=1, A/omega=2, N=60, place the defect pair at m0=7 and its mirror site N-m0+1=54, and compute gamma_c by the same Gamma_total criterion (Eq. (10)); the paper's universal claim requires gamma_c=0, so any positive onset of imaginary quasienergy falsifies it. A waveguide-array experiment at low bending frequency with gain and loss on any reflection-symmetric pair would provide the same test in the laboratory.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is a frequency-controlled dichotomy. In a shaken bipartite chain with one balanced gain-loss pair, the PT-breaking threshold is set by whether the zero-energy Floquet topological edge state has weight on the defect sites at any time during a period. At high frequency the rotating-frame Hamiltonian is an SSH (dimerized) chain with Bessel-function hoppings; the edge state is frozen with permanent zero weight on one sublattice, so defects on that sublattice give a finite threshold (set by defect-induced bound states), while defects on the other sublattice near the edge give zero threshold. At low frequency chiral symmetry is restored only at t=0 and T/2; between those times th

Load-bearing premise

The universal zero-threshold claim rests on the inferred mechanism that in the low-frequency regime the topological edge state periodically visits the defect sites (quantified by Sigma_P), a mechanism illustrated on selected numerical examples rather than proved for all defect placements and parameters.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In low-frequency shaken waveguide arrays or optical lattices, a reflection-symmetric gain/loss pair near an edge will break PT symmetry at arbitrarily small gain: no pump threshold.
  • At high frequency, shifting a defect pair by a single lattice site can switch the threshold from zero to finite, providing a sublattice-resolved control of PT breaking.
  • Because the high-frequency threshold pattern follows the winding number, measuring gamma_c versus A/omega gives a dynamical signature of the Floquet topological phase transition.
  • Odd-sized lattices always display the alternating threshold pattern because a zero-energy edge state exists for all driving parameters; at coherent-destruction-of-tunneling amplitudes the threshold vanishes for every defect position.
  • Driving the defect pair itself in phase with the lattice (theta=0) makes the zeroth-order effective Hamiltonian Hermitian, so the threshold becomes large and grows with frequency—a route to preserving real spectra under strong gain/loss.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct time-resolved measurement of the edge-state density would test the paper's causal mechanism: at low frequency, population should appear on the defect sublattice between t=0 and T/2, and the quasienergy splitting should track that appearance; at high frequency no such population should appear.
  • The same overlap criterion suggests the low-frequency universal threshold should be robust to weak disorder or small misplacements of the defect pair, because the edge-state sweep covers the whole sublattice rather than a single site; the paper does not study disorder.
  • Extending the argument to two-dimensional Floquet systems, the threshold should vanish whenever the edge-state trajectory crosses the defect line at some time within the period—a design rule for eliminating or restoring PT breaking on demand.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the PT-symmetry breaking threshold in a periodically driven one-dimensional bipartite lattice with a reflection-symmetric gain/loss pair. Using Floquet theory, the authors distinguish high- and low-frequency regimes: in the high-frequency regime the threshold depends on whether the Floquet topological edge state has weight on the defect sites; in the low-frequency regime the paper claims that the topological edge state always participates, leading to a universal zero threshold independent of defect placement. The paper also examines odd-sized lattices, where the high-frequency threshold alternates with defect position, and a double-driving protocol that restores an effectively Hermitian zeroth-order Hamiltonian and raises the threshold. The thresholds are computed directly from the Floquet operator, and the topological characterization uses winding numbers from chiral-symmetric Floquet Hamiltonians.

Significance. The proposed contrast between high- and low-frequency edge-state participation in PT-symmetry breaking would be a useful addition to the non-Hermitian Floquet literature. The model is concrete, the numerical thresholds are computed without fitted parameters, and the waveguide-array implementation in the Appendix gives a clear experimental path. The odd-sized lattice results and the double-driving enhancement are interesting secondary findings. However, the central advertised claim of a universal zero threshold is not supported by the manuscript's own finite-size numerics, and the mechanism is inferred from selected examples rather than demonstrated across the claimed parameter range. If reworked into a quantitative statement about strong suppression inside the edge-state localization length, the paper would be publishable; in its current form the abstract and conclusions overstate the main result.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract, Sec. IV, Fig. 5(c)] The abstract and Sec. I claim that in the low-frequency regime the topological edge state participates unconditionally and independently of defect placement, resulting in a universal zero threshold. This is internally contradicted by Sec. IV, which states that the threshold is essentially zero only when the defect pairs are not sufficiently far from the lattice edges, and by Fig. 5(c), where the near-zero region is enclosed by pink dashed lines and is bounded in m0. For m0 near N/2, the edge-state wavefunction at the defect sites is exponentially small at all times, so the threshold cannot be exactly zero; essentially zero is a finite-size statement. Since this universal claim is the main advertised contrast with the high-frequency regime, it is load-bearing. Please replace the claim with a quantitative statement, such as exponential suppression governed by the edge-state localization le
  2. [Sec. IV, Eq. (19), Fig. 8(b)] The causal mechanism linking the low-frequency edge-state dynamics to a zero threshold is inferred from a single configuration, m0 = 2, A/omega = 2, and quantified by Sigma_P. Eq. (19) sums probabilities over all even sites in the left half and their reflection partners, but a defect pair occupies only one such pair. A nonzero Sigma_P shows that the edge state visits some even sites during the period, but it does not show that it overlaps the specific defect sites for arbitrary m0. Moreover, no argument is given that a nonzero time-averaged overlap implies an exactly zero threshold in a finite system. To support the regardless-of-defect-location conclusion, the authors should compute the time-resolved overlap with the actual defect pair as a function of m0 and connect the integrated overlap to the numerically observed threshold, or else present the Sigma_P mechanism as a heuristic that e
  3. [Sec. V and Sec. VII] The odd-sized lattice section repeats the same overstatement in the low-frequency regime: Fig. 9(b) is described as showing that the threshold remains almost zero irrespective of defect placement, while Sec. VII concludes a universal suppression of the symmetry-breaking threshold. As with the even-sized case, this is not an exact zero for defects near midchain, and no scaling with N is given. The hidden-symmetry explanation of the high-frequency odd-sized pattern is plausible, but the low-frequency universal conclusion again goes beyond the presented numerics. Please qualify the conclusions consistently and state the finite-size nature of the suppression.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II, Eq. (1)] The notation for the gain/loss term omits the explicit time dependence that appears later in Sec. VI; this is not confusing per se, but a sentence noting that H_gamma is static in Sec. II and time-modulated later would help.
  2. [Sec. IV, Eq. (19)] The definition of P_n is implicit. Please state explicitly that P_n(t) is the squared amplitude of the chosen zero-energy Floquet mode at site n, and clarify how the two degenerate edge states are initialized and averaged.
  3. [Sec. VI, Eq. (22)] The transformation is called a non-unitary similarity transformation, which is correct, but the symbol S(t) is the same used for the unitary transformation in Sec. III. A subscript or a brief comment distinguishing the two would improve readability.
  4. [Sec. VII] There is a typographical error in the concluding paragraph: renders the the high-frequency should read renders the high-frequency. Also, the phrase pink dashed circles in the caption of Fig. 5(c) should read pink dashed lines to match the figure.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: thresholds are computed directly from the Floquet operator and edge-state profiles are computed independently; the explanatory link is interpretive, not definitional.

full rationale

The PT-breaking threshold γc is obtained by diagonalizing the exact Floquet operator (Sec. III), and the topological edge states/winding numbers come from independent open- and periodic-boundary calculations. The causal link to edge-state overlap is supported by comparing these independently computed objects (Figs. 3, 4, 7, 8); ΣP in Eq. (19) is a diagnostic computed from the defect-free edge state and is not fitted to the threshold data. No parameter is extracted from the quantity being predicted. The high-frequency effective SSH model is derived via a rotating-frame transformation and Floquet-Magnus expansion, not imported as a fitted ansatz, and thresholds are computed from the full time-dependent Hamiltonian rather than only from the effective model. The only self-citation identifiable is Ref. [60] in a general background list on Floquet engineering; it is not load-bearing. The abstract's phrase 'universal zero threshold' is stronger than the body's qualification that the threshold is 'essentially zero' for defect pairs 'not sufficiently far from the lattice edges' (Sec. IV, Fig. 5(c)); that is a consistency/correctness concern, not circularity, because the numerical computation of γc is not defined in terms of the claimed mechanism. The reported correlation between edge-state spatial dynamics and threshold suppression is an interpretation of independent numerical results, not a derivation that feeds its own conclusion back as an input.

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

The central claims rest on standard Floquet and topological band theory, plus a numerical inference about the temporal overlap of edge states with defects; no free parameters are fitted and no new physical entities are postulated.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Floquet-Magnus expansion truncated at zeroth order is valid for high-frequency driving, so the dynamics is governed by the time-averaged SSH Hamiltonian (Eq. 6).
    Used in Sec. III to interpret threshold behavior in terms of effective SSH hoppings J1, J2.
  • standard math The winding number defined in Eq. (9) predicts the number of zero-energy edge states via bulk-edge correspondence.
    Standard topological band theory, cited from Refs. 13, 14.
  • domain assumption The Floquet Hamiltonian at times tau=0 and T/2 possesses chiral symmetry at all frequencies (numerically verified in Fig. 6), allowing winding numbers nu0 and nu_pi to be defined.
    Sec. IV relies on these special times to define topological invariants in the low-frequency regime.
  • domain assumption The PT symmetry breaking threshold is the smallest gamma for which any quasienergy acquires a nonzero imaginary part.
    Defines the computed observable (Sec. III, Eq. 10).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Controlling the $\mathcal{PT}$ Symmetry Breaking Threshold in Bipartite Lattice Systems with Floquet Topological Edge States." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FKZPYWFL

@misc{pith2026250818931,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Controlling the $\mathcalPT$ Symmetry Breaking Threshold in Bipartite Lattice Systems with Floquet Topological Edge States},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FKZPYWFL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.18931}
}
abstract

We investigate the control of the parity-time ($\mathcal{PT}$)-symmetry breaking threshold in a periodically driven one-dimensional dimerized lattice with spatially symmetric gain and loss defects. We elucidate the contrasting roles played by Floquet topological edge states in determining the $\mathcal{PT}$ symmetry breaking threshold within the high- and low-frequency driving regimes. In the high-frequency regime, the participation of topological edge states in $\mathcal{PT}$ symmetry breaking is contingent upon the position of the $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric defect pairs, whereas in the low-frequency regime, their participation is unconditional and independent of the defect pairs placement, resulting in a universal zero threshold. We establish a direct link between the symmetry-breaking threshold and how the spatial profile of the Floquet topological edge states evolves over one driving period. We further demonstrate that lattices with an odd number of sites exhibit unique threshold patterns, in contrast to even-sized systems. Moreover, applying co-frequency periodic driving to the defect pairs, which preserves time-reversal symmetry, can significantly enhance the $\mathcal{PT}$ symmetry-breaking threshold.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.18931 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: (a) and (b): Schematic of the realization of model ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a), we show the PT symmetry breaking threshold strength γc as a function of the gain location m0 and the driv￾ing parameters A/ω for an N = 60 lattice. Numerically, the quasienergies can be evaluated by diagonalizing the Flo￾quet operator U(τ + T, τ) in the real space, which satisfies the eigenvalue equation: U(τ + T, τ)|ψj(τ)i = e −iεjT |ψj(τ)i, where εj is called quasienergy; and |ψj(τ)i = |uj(τ)ie −iεjτ , with |… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: (a) Real parts of the quasi-energies, sorted in ascen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Top row: inverse participation ratio (IPR) as a funct [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: The expectation value [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: (a) Quasi-energy spectrum for an open chain ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (b). This means that for much of the time (apart from t = 0, T/2), the zero-energy Floquet mode populates even￾numbered sites (from the left edge) and their symmetric re￾flection sites. This finding aligns with the recovery of chiral symmetry only at t = 0 or t = T/2, …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Symmetry breaking threshold versus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: (a) Schematic of an odd-sized ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    In this system, waveguides arranged in alternating upper and lower rows are periodically bent along the longitudinal propagation dire ction (z)

    can also be realized in a photonic waveguide array, such as the one depicted in Figs.1(c)-(d). In this system, waveguides arranged in alternating upper and lower rows are periodically bent along the longitudinal propagation dire ction (z). It is well-established that the propagation of light, spe cif- ically the slowly-varying electric field amplitude ψ(x,...

    work page

  2. [2]

    G. F. Guo, X. X. Bao, and L. Tan, Reentrant Localized Bulk and Localized-Extended Edge in Quasiperiodic Non-Hermiti an Systems, Acta. Phys. Sin. 74, 010301 (2025)

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    W. B. Rui, Y . X. Zhao, and Z. D. Wang, Making Topologically Trivial Non-Hermitian Systems Nontrivial via Gauge Fields , Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 176402 (2023)

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    In Figs. 4(a)-(b), the red circles and dots represent the IPRs of the two topolog i- cally protected edge states, while the blue markers corresp ond to the IPRs of defect-induced localized bound states. When the defect strength γ = 0, the two zero-energy topological edge states are odd and even superpositions of states locali zed exponentially on the left...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Kawabata, K

    K. Kawabata, K. Shiozaki, M. Ueda, and M. Sato, Symme- try and Topology in Non-Hermitian Physics, Phys. Rev. X. 9, 041015 (2019)

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Solnyshkov, C

    D. Solnyshkov, C. Leblanc, L. Bessonart, A. Nalitov, J. H . Ren, Q. Liao, F. Li, and G. Malpuech, Quantum metric and wave packets at exceptional points in non-Hermitian systems, Ph ys. Rev. B. 103, 125302 (2021)

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    W. Y . Tang, K. Ding, and G. C. Ma, Experimental realization of non-Abelian permutations in a three-state non-Hermitian s ys- tem, Natl. Sci. Rev. 9, nwac010 (2022)

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Y . Long, H. R. Xue, and B. L. Zhang, Non-Hermitian topolog i- cal systems with eigenvalues that are always real, Phys. Rev . B 105, L100102 (2022)

    work page 2022

Show all 74 references
  1. [9]

    Z. P . Gong, Y . Ashida, K. Kawabata, K. Takasan, S. Hi- gashikawa, and M. Ueda, Topological Phases of Non-Hermitian Systems, Phys. Rev. X. 8, 031079 (2018)

    2018

  2. [10]

    Z. K. Lin, Q. Wang, Y . Liu, H. R. Xue, B. Zhang, Y . D. Chong, and J. H. Jiang, Topological phenomena at defects in acousti c, photonic and solid-state lattices, Nat. Rev. Phys. 5, 483 (2 023)

  3. [11]

    F. Song, S. Y . Yao, and Z. Wang, Non-Hermitian Topologica l Invariants in Real Space, Phys. Rew. Lett. 123, 246801 (2019 )

    2019

  4. [12]

    Roy and F

    R. Roy and F. Harper, Periodic table for Floquet topolog ical insulators, Phys. Rev. B. 96, 155118 (2017)

    2017

  5. [13]

    S. Y . Yao and Z. Wang, Edge States and Topological Invari - ants of Non-Hermitian Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 086803 (2018)

    2018

  6. [14]

    B. Zhu, Z. Tan, Y . G. Ke, and H. H. Zhong, Dynamic wind- ing number for Floquet topological insulators with arbitra rily driving frequencies, Phys. Rev. B. 109, 224315 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    J. H. Zhang, F. Mei, L. T. Xiao, and S. Jia, Dynamical Dete ction of Topological Spectral Density, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 0366 03 (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    B. Zhu, H. H. Zhong, Y . G. Ke, X. Z. Qin, A. A. Sukhorukov, Y . S. Kivshar, and C. H. Lee, Topological Floquet edge states in periodically curved waveguides, Phys. Rev. A. 98, 013855 (2018)

    2018

  9. [17]

    J. K. Asb´ oth, B. Tarasinski, and P . Delplace, Chiral sy mmetry and bulk-boundary correspondence in periodically driven o ne- dimensional systems, Phys. Rev. B. 90, 125143 (2014)

    2014

  10. [18]

    Kawabata, S

    K. Kawabata, S. Higashikawa, Z. P . Gong, Y . Ashida, and M . Ueda, Topological unification of time-reversal and particle-hole symmetries in non-Hermitian physics, Nat. Commun. 10, 297 (2019)

    2019

  11. [19]

    L. W. Zhou, H. Wang, D. Y . H. Ho, and J. B. Gong, Aspects of Floquet bands and topological phase transitions in a cont in- uously driven superlattice, Eur. Phys. J. B.87 (2014)

    2014

  12. [20]

    L. Wang, N. Liu, S. Chen, and Y . B. Zhang, Quantum walks in the commensurate o ff-diagonal Aubry-Andr´ e-Harper model, Phys. Rev. A. 95, 013619 (2017)

    2017

  13. [21]

    Stegmaier, S

    A. Stegmaier, S. Imhof, T. Helbig, T. Hofmann, C. H. Lee, M. 14 Kremer, A. Fritzsche, T. Feichtner, and S. Klembt, Topologi - cal Defect Engineering and PT Symmetry in Non-Hermitian Electrical Circuits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 215302 (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    C. H. Liang, D. D. Scott, and Y . N. Joglekar, PT restoration via increased loss and gain in the PT-symmetric Aubry-Andr´ e model, Phys. Rev. A. 89, 030102 (2014)

    2014

  15. [23]

    is still non-Hermitian. Given that ω is much larger than all the other energy scales of the problem, the quan- tum evolution of this system can be governed by the time- independent e ffective Hamiltonian, which is derived from a 1/ω expansion and is expressed as ˆHeff = ˆH(0) eff...

  16. [24]

    Y uce and H

    C. Y uce and H. Ramezani, Topological states in a non- Hermitian two-dimensional Su-Schrie ffer-Heeger model, Phys. Rev. A. 100, 032102 (2019)

    2019

  17. [25]

    L. J. Lang, Y . Wang, H. L. Wang, and Y . D. Chong, E ffects of non-Hermiticity on Su-Schrieffer-Heeger defect states, Phys. Rev. B. 98, 094307(2018)

    2018

  18. [26]

    Turker, S

    Z. Turker, S. Tombuloglu, and C. Y uce, PT symmetric Flo- quet topological phase in SSH model, Phys. Lett. A. 382, 2013 (2018)

    2013

  19. [27]

    Q. B. Zeng, S. Chen, and R. L¨ u, Anderson localization in the non-Hermitian Aubry-Andr´ e-Harper model with physical gain and loss, Phys. Rev. A. 95, 062118 (2017)

    2017

  20. [28]

    L. Pan, X. L. Wang, X. Cui, and S. Chen, Interaction- induced dynamical PT -symmetry breaking in dissipative Fermi-Hubbard models, Phys. Rev. A. 102, 023306 (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    L. Wang, Q. Liu, and Y . B. Zhang, Quantum dynamics on a lossy non-Hermitian lattice, Chin. Phys. B. 30, 020506 (202 1)

  22. [30]

    C. M. Bender and S. Boettcher, Real Spectra in Non-Hermi tian Hamiltonians Having PT symmetry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 5243 (1998)

    1998

  23. [31]

    W. P . Su, J. R. Schrie ffer, and A. J. Heeger, Solitons in Poly- acetylene, Phys. Rev. Lett. 42, 1698 (1979)

    1979

  24. [32]

    L. Jin, P . Wang, and Z. Song, Su-Schrie ffer-Heeger chain with one pair of PT -symmetric defects, Sci. Rep. 7, 5903 (2017)

    2017

  25. [33]

    Z. H. Xu, R. Zhang, S. Chen, L. B. Fu, and Y . B. Zhang, Fate of zero modes in a finite Su-Schrie ffer-Heeger model with PT symmetry, Phys. Rev. A. 101, 013635 (2020)

    2020

  26. [34]

    Garmon and K

    S. Garmon and K. Noba, Reservoir-assisted symmetry bre aking and coalesced zero-energy modes in an open PT -symmetric Su-Schrieffer-Heeger model, Phys. Rev. A. 104, 062215 (2021)

    2021

  27. [35]

    Y uces and Z

    C. Y uces and Z. Oztas, PT symmetry protected non-Hermit ian topological systems, Sci. Rep. 8, 17416 (2018)

    2018

  28. [36]

    H. C. Wu, L. Jin, and Z. Song, Topology of an anti-parity- time symmetric nonHermitian Su-Schrie ffer-Heeger model, Phys. Rev. B. 103, 235110 (2021)

    2021

  29. [37]

    B. L. Hu, Z. W. Zhang, Z. C. Y ue, D. W. Liao, Y . M. Liu, H. X. Zhang, Y . Cheng, X. J. Liu, and J. Christensen, Anti-Parit y- Time Symmetry in a Su-Schrie ffer-Heeger Sonic Lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 066601 (2023)

    2023

  30. [38]

    W. J. Geng, Y . J. Wang, Z, X, Zhang, J. Cao, W. X. Cui, H. F. Wang, Separable zero energy topological edge states and nonzero energy gap states in the nonreciprocal Su-Schrie ffer- Heeger model, Phys. Rev. B. 108, 144109 (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    X. Liu, J. F. Wang, R. S. Mao, H. Z. Hu, S. Y . Zhu, X. Q. Xu, H. Cai, D. W. Wang, Zak Phase Induced Topological Nonreciproc- ity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 193602 (2025)

    2025

  32. [40]

    J. Li, B. Gao, C. J. Zhu, J. P . Xu, Y . P . Yang, Nonreciproca l photonic composited Su–Schrie ffer–Heeger chain, Appl. Phys. Lett, 119, 14 (2021)

    2021

  33. [41]

    Weimann, M

    S. Weimann, M. Kremer, Y . Plotnik, Y . Lumer, S. Nolte, K. G. Makris, M. Segev, M. C. Rechtsman, and A. Szameit, Topolog- ically protected bound states in photonic parity-time-symmetric crystals, Nat. Mater. 16, 433 (2017)

    2017

  34. [42]

    Jin, Parity-time-symmetric coupled asymmetric dim ers, Phys

    L. Jin, Parity-time-symmetric coupled asymmetric dim ers, Phys. Rev. A. 97, 012121 (2018)

    2018

  35. [43]

    E. N. Blose, Floquet topological phase in a generalized PT - symmetric lattice, Phys. Rev. B. 102, 104303 (2020)

    2020

  36. [44]

    A. K. Harter, T. E. Lee, and Y . N. Joglekar, PT -breaking threshold and topological states in spatially asymmetric A ubry- Andr´ e and Harper models: Hidden symmetry and topological states, Phys. Rev. A. 93, 062101 (2016)

    2016

  37. [45]

    Cre ffield, Quantum Control and Entanglement using Peri- odic Driving Fields, Phys

    C. Cre ffield, Quantum Control and Entanglement using Peri- odic Driving Fields, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 110501 (2007)

    2007

  38. [46]

    Takasu, T

    Y . Takasu, T. Yagami, Y . Ashida, R. Hamazaki, Y . Kuno, an d Y . Takahashi, PT-symmetric non-Hermitian quantum many- body system using ultracold atoms in an optical lattice with controlled dissipation, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2020, 12A1 10 (2020)

    2020

  39. [47]

    M. C. Rechtsman, J. M. Zeuner, Y . Plotnik, Y . Lumer, D. Podol- sky, F. Dreisow, S. Nolte, M. Segev, and A. Szameit, Photonic Floquet topological insulators, Nature 496, 196 (2013)

    2013

  40. [48]

    Longhi, Bound states in the continuum in PT -symmetric optical lattices, Opt

    S. Longhi, Bound states in the continuum in PT -symmetric optical lattices, Opt. Lett. 39, 1697 (2014)

    2014

  41. [49]

    Kogel, S

    F. Kogel, S. Kotzur, D. Dizdarevic, J. Main, and G. Wunne r, Realization of PT -symmetric and PT -symmetry-broken states in static optical-lattice potentials, Phys. Rev. A. 99, 063 610 (2019)

    2019

  42. [50]

    Sakhdari, N

    M. Sakhdari, N. M. Estakhri, H. Bagci, and P . Y . Chen, Low - Threshold Lasing and Coherent Perfect Absorption in Gener- alized PT -Symmetric Optical Structures, Phys. Rev. Appl. 10, 024030 (2018)

    2018

  43. [51]

    X. Zhu, Y . L. Huang, H. X. He, T. He, and X. B. Y u, All-optical microwave oscillator assisted by parity-time-symmetry br eak- ing, Phys. Rev. A. 110, 023514 (2024)

    2024

  44. [52]

    Z. Dai, Z. R. Wang, and J. P . Yao, Dual-loop parity-time s ym- metric system with a rational loop length ratio, Opt. Lett. 4 8, 143 (2022)

    2022

  45. [53]

    P . C. Liu, Z. W. Xie, D. D. Lin, M. J. Lu, W. Cheng, G. H. Hu, B. F. Y un, and Y . P . Cui, Parity-time symmetric tunable OEO based on dual-wavelength and cascaded PS-FBGs in a single- loop, Opt. Express. 29, 35377 (2021)

    2021

  46. [54]

    Y . Liu, L. Y . Wang, X. Xu, K. Jiang, Y . J. Y ou, W. J. He, X. F. Han, J. X. Hou, and X. J. Chou, Narrow linewidth parity-time symmetric Brillouin fiber laser based on a dual-polarizatio n cavity with a single micro-ring resonator, Opt. Express. 30 , 44545 (2022)

    2022

  47. [55]

    Quijandr´ ıa, U

    F. Quijandr´ ıa, U. Naether, S. K.¨Ozdemir, F. Nori, and D. Zueco, PT -symmetric circuit QED, Phys. Rev. A. 97, 053846 (2018)

    2018

  48. [56]

    Purkayastha, M

    A. Purkayastha, M. Kulkarni, and Y . N. Joglekar, Emergent PT symmetry in a double-quantum-dot circuit QED setup, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 043075 (2020)

    2020

  49. [57]

    Q. B. Zeng, Y . B. Yang, and Y . Xu, Topological phases in no n- Hermitian Aubry-Andr´ e-Harper models, Phys. Rev. B. 101, 020201 (2020)

    2020

  50. [58]

    Y . H. Li, C. Liang, C. Y . Wang, C. C. Lu, and Y . C. Liu, Gain- loss-Induced Hybrid Skin-Topological E ffect, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 223903 (2022)

    2022

  51. [59]

    Kawabata, T

    K. Kawabata, T. Numasawa, and S. Ryu, Entanglement Phas e Transition Induced by the Non-Hermitian Skin E ffect, Phys. Rev. X. 13, 021007 (2023)

    2023

  52. [60]

    Liang, D

    Q. Liang, D. Xie, Z. L. Dong, H. W. Li, H. Li, B. Gadway, W. Yi, and B. Yan, Dynamic Signatures of Non-Hermitian Skin Effect and Topology in Ultracold Atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 070401 (2022)

    2022

  53. [61]

    H. X. Zhang, T. Chen, L. H. Li, C. H. Lee, and X. D. Zhang, Electrical circuit realization of topological switching f or the non-Hermitian skin effect, Phys. Rev. B. 107, 085426 (2023)

    2023

  54. [62]

    L. w. Zhou and D. J. Zhang, Non-Hermitian Floquet Topolo gi- cal Matter - A Review. Entropy, 25, 1401 (2023)

    2023

  55. [63]

    Wu and J

    H. Wu and J. H. An, Floquet topological phases of non- Hermitian systems, Phys. Rev. B 102, 041119(R) (2020)

    2020

  56. [64]

    Eckardt and E

    A. Eckardt and E. Anisimovas, High-frequency approxim ation for periodically driven quantum systems from a Floquet-spa ce perspective, New. J. Phys. 17, 093039 (2015)

    2015

  57. [65]

    L. W. Zhou and J. B. Gong, Recipe for creating an arbitrar y number of Floquet chiral edge states, Phys. Rev. B. 97, 24543 0 (2018)

    2018

  58. [66]

    Kitagawa, E

    T. Kitagawa, E. Berg, M. Rudner, and E. Demler, Topologi cal 15 characterization of periodically driven quantum systems, Phys. Rev. B. 82, 235114 (2010)

    2010

  59. [67]

    Y . E. Kraus, Y . Lahini, Z. Ringel, M. V erbin, and O. Zilbe r- berg, Topological States and Adiabatic Pumping in Quasicry s- tals, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 106402 (2012)

    2012

  60. [68]

    Ozawa, H

    T. Ozawa, H. M. Price, A. Amo, N. Goldman, M. Hafezi, L. Lu , M. C. Rechtsman, D. Schuster, J. Simon, O. Zilberberg, and I. Carusotto, Topological photonics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 0150 06 (2019)

    2019

  61. [69]

    Jotzu, M

    G. Jotzu, M. Messer, R. Desbuquois, M. Lebrat, T. Uehlin ger, D. Greif, and T. Esslinger, Experimental realization of the topo- logical Haldane model with ultracold fermions, Nature. 515 , 237 (2014)

    2014

  62. [70]

    N. H. Lindner, G. Refael, and V . Galitski, Floquet topol ogical insulator in semiconductor quantum wells, Nat. Phys. 7, 490 (2011)

    2011

  63. [71]

    Nathan and M

    F. Nathan and M. S. Rudner, Topological singularities a nd the general classification of Floquet–Bloch systems, New J. Phy s. 17, 125014 (2015)

    2015

  64. [72]

    Peng and G

    Y . Peng and G. Refael, Floquet Second-Order Topologica l In- sulators from Nonsymmorphic Space-Time Symmetries, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 016806 (2019)

    2019

  65. [73]

    Ashida, S

    Y . Ashida, S. Furukawa, and M. Ueda, Parity-time-symme tric quantum critical phenomena, Nat. Commun. 8, 15791 (2017)

    2017

  66. [74]

    I. L. Garanovich, A. A. Sukhorukov, and Y . S. Kivshar, De fect- Free Surface States in Modulated Photonic Lattices, Phys. R ev. Lett. 100, 203904 (2008)

    2008

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.