Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 39 references

From normal Lindbladians to non-normal quantum trajectories

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper establishes that Liouvillian normality is a collective balance between the smooth and stochastic jump generators, and that a normal Lindbladian can never have an exceptional point.

desk verdict Core trajectory-level normality results are correct, but the Monte Carlo efficiency claim in Sec VII uses an unphysical unraveling and should not be cited. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.04775 v1 pith:FSKFO7RN submitted 2026-08-05 quant-ph

Shakib Daryanoosh This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords normalLindbladiansquantumtrajectoriesLiouvilliannon-normalityexceptionalpointsMonteCarlosimulationopensystemsdoubledLiouvillespacejumpunraveling
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 argues that a normal Lindblad generator—one whose eigenoperators are orthogonal—is normal only because a deterministic no-jump part and a stochastic jump part balance each other algebraically; neither piece needs to be normal on its own. It proves a steady-state balance relation between the two contributions and shows that a normal Lindbladian cannot have exceptional points, so its ensemble dynamics splits into independent exponential modes. At the level of single quantum trajectories, however, the same modes remain coupled through the jump nonlinearity, and the coupling disappears only after averaging. The practical consequence is that Monte Carlo sampling of normal open systems should not suffer the transient-amplification cost typical of non-normal generators, provided the trajectory weights stay well behaved.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the decomposition $\mathcal{L}=S+J$ into the no-jump generator $S(\rho)=-i(H_{\rm eff}\rho-\rho H_{\rm eff}^\dagger)$ and the jump superoperator $J(\rho)=\sum_k L_k\rho L_k^\dagger$, together with the operator identity $[\mathcal{L},\mathcal{L}^\dagger]=D_S+D_J+D_{SJ}=0$. This identity turns a global spectral property into a local balance: the mixed superoperator $D_{SJ}=[S,J^\dagger]+[J,S^\dagger]$ supplies the cancellation that normality requires, and Proposition 1 evaluates that cancellation on the steady state. The second-moment analysis uses the doubled generator $\widetilde{\mathcal{L}}^{(2)}=\mathcal{L}\otimes I+I\otimes \mathcal{L}+W$ with $W=\sum_k (J_k-I)\otimes(J_k-I)$; the uncoupled part is normal and contractive when $\mathcal{L}$ is normal, so all potential variance growth is attributed to the stochastic correlation term.

What would settle it

Simulate the driven thermal qubit of Section VIII with the Appendix B unnormalized jump rule (unit-rate Poisson increments) and compare the reweighted ensemble average with the exact master-equation solution; any disagreement for a normal Liouvillian would show that the identification underlying the variance bound fails. A complementary test is to check empirically whether the ensemble average of trajectory coefficients follows the decoupled exponential law while individual trajectories do not.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that Liouvillian normality is a collective property of the smooth generator $S$ and the jump generator $J$, not a property of either alone: the condition $[\mathcal{L},\mathcal{L}^\dagger]=0$ expands to $D_S + D_J + D_{SJ} = 0$, and the cross term $D_{SJ}$ is what compensates for non-normality in the individual components. In the steady-state subspace this becomes an exact balance, $\langle\rho_{\rm ss},\,[D_S-D_J]\rho_{\rm ss}\rangle=0$. Because a normal superoperator is unitarily diagonalizable, a normal Lindbladian has no Jordan blocks and therefore no exceptional points. Even so, an individual trajectory's coefficients in the Liouvillian eigenbasis obey coupled stochastic equations; independence is recovered only in the ensemble average, so modal compressibility is an ensemble-level, not trajectory-level, property.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the unnormalized jump process defined in Appendix B, where each channel fires as a unit-rate Poisson process, is the correct corresponding unnormalized representation of the physical normalized trajectories, so that the ensemble average of the unnormalized states reproduces the same density matrix as the normalized ones; if that correspondence fails, the paper's Monte Carlo variance conclusion does not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A normal Lindbladian admits an orthonormal eigenoperator basis, so the unconditional density matrix evolves as independent exponential modes with no transient amplification.
  • A normal Lindbladian cannot support an exceptional point at any parameter value, eliminating Jordan-block-induced critical slowing down and variance spikes from that source.
  • Individual quantum trajectories generally mix Liouvillian modes through the jump nonlinearity even when the generator is normal; the mixing cancels exactly upon ensemble averaging.
  • In the doubled-space description, normality makes the uncoupled evolution contractive, so any long-time growth of trajectory fluctuations must come from the stochastic correlation term rather than from non-normal eigenmode geometry.
  • Under well-conditioned trajectory weights, the Monte Carlo sampling cost for a normal Liouvillian remains asymptotically stable in simulation time.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implicit extension is that the unraveling freedom shown in Eq. (12) could be used to reshape the balance between smooth and jump contributions, potentially reducing trajectory-level mode mixing or sampling variance without changing the unconditional dynamics.
  • The steady-state balance relation offers a diagnostic: computing the steady-state expectation of $\langle\rho_{\rm ss},[D_S-D_J]\rho_{\rm ss}\rangle$ on an attempted unraveling would reveal whether normality is realized through genuine cancellation or through trivial term-by-term vanishing.
  • For non-normal Liouvillians, the same smooth/jump decomposition may identify which component drives transient amplification and suggest a tailored unraveling to suppress it.
  • Because individual trajectories keep modes coupled even when the generator is normal, compressed trajectory simulations should expect mode correlations within a single run to persist even when the ensemble state is highly compressible.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies normal Lindblad generators through the decomposition of the Liouvillian into a deterministic smooth part S and a stochastic jump part J. It derives a steady-state balance relation (Prop. 1), proves that normal Lindbladians cannot have exceptional points and are unitarily diagonalizable (Thm. 1), and analyzes single-trajectory dynamics in the Liouvillian eigenbasis, showing that trajectory coefficients remain coupled even though the ensemble-averaged coefficients decouple. The paper then develops a doubled-Liouville-space formalism in Sec. VII and claims that for normal Lindbladians the trajectory variance and Monte Carlo sampling cost remain bounded at long times, based on the unnormalized jump unraveling of App. B.

Significance. The algebraic core of the paper is sound and useful: Prop. 1 is a clean statement about the steady-state balance between smooth and jump contributions, Thm. 1 is correct (though it is essentially the spectral theorem for normal operators), and the observation in Sec. VI that individual trajectories couple Liouvillian modes while the ensemble decouples is conceptually valuable. The paper is self-contained, has no fitted parameters, and the derivations are checkable linear algebra. However, the claimed Monte Carlo efficiency result in Sec. VII rests on an unphysical unnormalized unraveling and is not established. If that section is repaired or removed, the remaining contribution would be a solid paper.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section VII / Appendix B, Eqs. (B.1)–(B.2) and Eq. (48)] The unnormalized jump unraveling used in the doubled-space analysis is not the unnormalized counterpart of the physical normalized unraveling. In the normalized jump unraveling (41), the jump rate for channel k is the state-dependent quantity ℘_k = Tr[J_k(ρ_c)], so the Poisson increments satisfy E[dN_k | ρ_c] = ℘_k dt. Appendix B instead sets E[dN_k] = dt, making every channel attempt a jump at unit rate. For spontaneous emission with L = √γ σ_- and initial state |e⟩, the normalized trajectories from the Appendix B dynamics jump to |g⟩ at rate 1, yielding E[ρ_c] = e^{-t}|e⟩⟨e| + (1-e^{-t})|g⟩⟨g|, which differs from the Lindblad solution unless γ = 1. Consequently Eq. (48), if interpreted as identifying the physical normalized trajectory measure with the unit-rate unnormalized measure, is false. The doubled Liouvillian (59) therefore governs a second moment of an unphysical trajectory measure, and the bounded-variance and Monte Carlo efficiency conclusions in Sec. VII are not established.
  2. [Section VII, Eqs. (70)–(72) and Sec. VII.C.1] Even if one granted the unit-rate unraveling as a calculational device, the argument does not close. The physical normalized second moment E[Tr(Aρ_c)^2] is related to the unnormalized doubled state by Eq. (72), which involves division by w_c^2 before the ensemble average. The assumed bound sup_t Ẽ[w_c^2] < ∞ (Eq. (70)) says nothing about inverse-weight fluctuations such as Ẽ[w_c^{-2}] or about correlations between weights and trajectory observables. In addition, App. C's Gronwall bound (C.15) is an exponential upper bound, not a uniform bound, and no control on Ẽ[w_c^2] is actually derived from Liouvillian normality. Thus the statement 'the trajectory variance remains bounded at long times' (Sec. VII.C.2) is an extra regularity assumption, not a theorem.
  3. [Section VII.B, Eqs. (59)–(66)] The stability analysis is performed on the uncoupled generator L̃_0^(2) = L⊗I + I⊗L, but the full doubled generator is L̃^(2) = L̃_0^(2) + W̃. The paper shows only that L̃_0^(2) is normal and contractive; it does not show that the full semigroup e^{t L̃^(2)} is bounded or that W̃ cannot produce transient or sustained amplification. The statement that 'any possible growth of second moments must originate from W̃' is true but does not quantify that growth; App. C's exponential weight bound is the only quantitative control and it is insufficient for the claimed bounded-variance result.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III, Eq. (12)] The text says the decomposition is 'invariant under transformation', but Eq. (12) actually changes S and J while leaving L invariant; 'covariant' or 'transforms covariantly' would be more precise.
  2. [Section IV.C, Eq. (26)] The effective mode rank R_ϵ(t) is defined by a sum over α = 1..m, but the text does not state that the modes are ordered by decreasing |c_α(t)|; please make the ordering explicit.
  3. [Section V.1, Eq. (36)] The claim that generic no-jump trajectories align with the slowest-decaying mode should be qualified by requiring that the initial state has nonzero overlap with that mode and that the mode is unique; otherwise degenerate or orthogonal slow modes invalidate the statement.
  4. [Appendix B, Eq. (B.1)] The notation Kρ̃_c dt uses K both as the number of channels and as a scalar multiplying the state; since K is not defined inline in App. B, please clarify the meaning of K in this equation.
  5. [Throughout] The paper uses 'non-normal' both for superoperators and for the effective Hamiltonian; while the usage is clear, a brief reminder that [H_eff, H_eff†] is the relevant commutator for the effective Hamiltonian would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's central normality and trajectory results are derived from definitions and standard spectral theory; the cited self-work supplies only definitions, not load-bearing premises.

full rationale

The main derivation chain is self-contained. Equation (15) is the exact expansion of [L,L†] after writing L = S + J; Proposition 1 evaluates that identity on the steady state using ker(L) = ker(L†) for a normal superoperator, so the balance relation is a consequence of normality rather than an input. Theorem 1 is the standard spectral theorem for normal operators, with an independent Jordan-chain proof in Appendix A; no exceptional-point result is imported from prior work. The Sec. VI statement that individual trajectory coefficients couple while ensemble averages decouple follows from the conditioned-state equation and the definition c_alpha = E[a_alpha]; there is no fitted parameter or prediction. The doubled-space analysis is tensor-product algebra: (L⊗I + I⊗L) inherits normality from L, and the weight-fluctuation bound follows from Itô calculus in Appendix C. The only self-citation, Ref. [26], introduces the non-normality measure eta = ||[L,L†]|| and the classification ratios; these are definitions, not an unverified uniqueness theorem, and the paper does not use them to force its conclusions. A genuine caveat exists in Sec. VII: Eq. (48) identifies the unit-rate unnormalized unraveling of Appendix B with the physical normalized trajectory ensemble, a nontrivial identification that is not generally valid; and the bounded-variance conclusion is conditioned on Eq. (70) and an inverse-weight regularity assumption. This is a correctness/assumption concern, not a circularity, so it does not increase the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters or invented physical entities appear. The central derivation uses only standard linear algebra and the GKSL form. The problematic assumptions are in Section VII: the unit-rate unravelling and the weight boundedness assumption are ad hoc to the paper, and the first is false as a description of physical trajectories.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The dynamics is governed by the GKSL master equation in Lindblad form.
    The entire analysis starts from Eq (1); the results are restricted to Markovian generators of this form.
  • domain assumption A steady state ρ_ss exists with L(ρ_ss)=0.
    Proposition 1 requires a steady state; for finite-dimensional CPTP semigroups at least one exists, but the balance relation is only stated on this state.
  • standard math For a normal superoperator, ker(L)=ker(L†).
    Used in the proof of Proposition 1; follows from the spectral theorem for normal operators.
  • standard math The Lindbladian spectrum lies in the closed left half-plane.
    Used in Section VII to conclude the uncoupled doubled propagator is a contraction; standard for CPTP semigroups.
  • ad hoc to paper The unit-rate Poisson unraveling with E[dN_k]=dt reproduces the physical normalized trajectory statistics.
    This assumption underlies Appendix B and the Monte Carlo variance conclusion; it is not true for standard jump unravelings, where E[dN_k]=Tr(J_kρ_c)dt.
  • ad hoc to paper The trajectory-weight second moment is bounded: sup_t Ẽ[w_c²]<∞.
    Explicitly assumed in Eq (70) to connect bounded doubled evolution to bounded normalized variance; not proven for physical unravelings.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of From normal Lindbladians to non-normal quantum trajectories." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FSKFO7RN

@misc{pith2026260804775,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: From normal Lindbladians to non-normal quantum trajectories},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FSKFO7RN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.04775}
}
read the original abstract

Efficient simulation of Markovian open quantum systems remains a central challenge because the density-matrix description grows exponentially with system size. Quantum trajectory methods provide an alternative by replacing mixed-state evolution with stochastic pure-state realizations. Here we investigate this framework for normal Lindblad generators, whose orthogonal eigenoperator decomposition precludes transient amplification. By decomposing the Lindbladian into deterministic smooth and stochastic jump contributions, we derive an exact steady-state balance relation that identifies the interplay between these processes as the mechanism underlying Liouvillian normality. We further show that normal Lindbladians exclude exceptional points and that, although individual quantum trajectories generally exhibit stochastic coupling between Liouvillian eigenmodes, these couplings cancel upon ensemble averaging, recovering independent orthogonal relaxation modes. These results provide a trajectory-level interpretation of Liouvillian normality and clarify how a global property of the Lindblad generator is realized through stochastic quantum dynamics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.04775 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Conceptual organization of the normal Lindbladians [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    During a no-jump interval, an unnormal- ized wave function evolves according to the effective non- Hermitian Hamiltonian ˆHeff , introduced in Eq

    Smooth evolution analysis To understand how the steady-state balance identity manifests at the level of individual trajectories, we first consider the deterministic evolution between stochastic jump events. During a no-jump interval, an unnormal- ized wave function evolves according to the effective non- Hermitian Hamiltonian ˆHeff , introduced in Eq. (10...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Quantum jumps also alter the relative orientation of states within the trajec- tory ensemble

    Stochastic Jump Action and smooth–Jump Interference The modification of trajectory-state overlaps is not unique to the smooth evolution. Quantum jumps also alter the relative orientation of states within the trajec- tory ensemble. Consider a jump event occurring through channelkat timet. The trajectory states are trans- formed according to |ϕjump 1 ⟩= ˆLk...

    work page

  3. [3]

    The remaining step is to relate this quantity to the variance of observables evaluated on normalized trajectories

    Connection to Trajectory Variance The doubled-space construction provides a linear evo- lution equation for the weighted second moment of the stochastic trajectories. The remaining step is to relate this quantity to the variance of observables evaluated on normalized trajectories. The normalized trajectory is recovered from the un- normalized state throug...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Implications for Monte Carlo sampling The preceding analysis establishes that, for a normal Liouvillian, the principal source of trajectory-sampling inflation associated with non-normal transient amplifica- tion is absent. The orthogonal spectral structure of the Liouvillian prevents transient amplification in the uncou- pled doubled dynamics, while the r...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Furthermore, because the Hamiltonian vanishes, the smooth generator is likewise Hermitian, and consequentlyD J =D S =D SJ = 0

    Spin-1 pure dephasing As an illustrative example, consider a spin-1 system undergoing pure dephasing, ˆH= 0, ˆL= √γd ˆSz,(79) whereγ d ∈R + is the dephasing rate and ˆSz =   1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0−1   .(80) Since ˆL= ˆL†, the jump superoperatorJ(ρ) =γ d ˆSzρ ˆSz is Hermitian. Furthermore, because the Hamiltonian vanishes, the smooth generator is likewise Her...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Driven thermal qubit Consider a two-level system with Hamiltonian ˆH0 = ν 2 ˆσz, whereνdenotes the transition frequency between the two energy levels and ˆσz is the Pauli-zoperator. The system is coupled to an infinite-temperature thermal en- vironment through jump operators ˆL± = √γth ˆσ±,(90) corresponding respectively to excitation and relaxation proce...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Breuer and F

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

    2007

  8. [8]

    Briegel, W

    H.-J. Briegel, W. D¨ ur, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Quan- tum repeaters: The role of imperfect local operations in quantum communication, Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 5932 (1998)

    1998

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    T. A. B. Daniel A. Lidar,Quantum Error Correction (Cambridge, 2013)

    2013

  2. [10]

    C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, Quantum sensing, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 035002 (2017)

    2017

  3. [11]

    Verstraete, M

    F. Verstraete, M. M. Wolf, and J. Ignacio Cirac, Quan- tum computation and quantum-state engineering driven by dissipation, Nature Physics5, 633 (2009)

    2009

  4. [12]

    Daryanoosh, G

    S. Daryanoosh, G. J. Pryde, H. M. Wiseman, and S. Slus- sarenko, Experimental investigation of a multiphoton Heisenberg-limited interferometric scheme: The effect of imperfections, Phys. Rev. A110, 012614 (2024)

    2024

  5. [13]

    Campaioli, J

    F. Campaioli, J. H. Cole, and H. Hapuarachchi, Quan- tum master equations: Tips and tricks for quantum op- tics, quantum computing, and beyond, PRX Quantum5, 020202 (2024)

    2024

  6. [14]

    Gorini, A

    V. Gorini, A. Kossakowski, and E. C. G. Sudarshan, Completely positive dynamical semigroups of n-level sys- tems, Journal of Mathematical Physics17, 821 (1976)

    1976

  7. [15]

    Lindblad, On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups, Communications in Mathematical Physics 48, 119 (1976)

    G. Lindblad, On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups, Communications in Mathematical Physics 48, 119 (1976)

    1976

  8. [16]

    Dalibard, Y

    J. Dalibard, Y. Castin, and K. Mølmer, Wave-function approach to dissipative processes in quantum optics, Phys. Rev. Lett.68, 580 (1992)

    1992

  9. [17]

    R. Dum, P. Zoller, and H. Ritsch, Monte Carlo simulation of the atomic master equation for spontaneous emission, Phys. Rev. A45, 4879 (1992)

    1992

  10. [18]

    Gisin and I

    N. Gisin and I. C. Percival, Wave-function approach to dissipative processes: are there quantum jumps?, Phys. Lett. A167, 315 (1992)

    1992

  11. [19]

    H. J. Carmichael,Statistical Methods in Quantum Optics (Springer-verlag, 2008)

    2008

  12. [20]

    H. M. Wiseman and G. J. Milburn,Quantum Measure- ment and Control(Cambridge University Press, 2010)

    2010

  13. [21]

    K. W. Murch, S. J. Weber, C. Macklin, and I. Siddiqi, Observing single quantum trajectories of a superconduct- ing quantum bit, Nature502, 211 (2013)

    2013

  14. [22]

    S. Peng, X. Sun, Q. Zhao, and H. Zhou, Quantum- trajectory-inspired Lindbladian simulation, PRX Quan- tum6, 030358 (2025)

    2025

  15. [23]

    Sander, M

    A. Sander, M. Fr¨ ohlich, M. Eigel, J. Eisert, P. Gelß, M. Hinterm¨ uller, R. M. Milbradt, R. Wille, and C. B. Mendl, Large-scale stochastic simulation of open quan- tum systems, Nature Communications16, 11074 (2025)

    2025

  16. [24]

    Borras and M

    E. Borras and M. Marvian, Quantum simulation algo- rithms based on quantum trajectories, Quantum10, 2063 (2026)

    2026

  17. [25]

    Y.-G. Liu, H. Fan, and S. Chen, Digital quantum simu- lation of the Lindblad master equation and its nonlinear extensions via quantum trajectory averaging, Phys. Rev. A (2026)

    2026

  18. [26]

    Sander, S

    A. Sander, S. Cichy, M. Eigel, J. Eisert, M. Fr¨ ohlich, T. Peham, and R. Wille, Computational regimes in matrix-product-state-based quantum trajectory simula- tions, arXiv:2606.13779 (2026)

    2026

  19. [27]

    Ashida, Z

    Y. Ashida, Z. Gong, and M. Ueda, Non-Hermitian physics, Advances in Physics69, 249 (2020)

    2020

  20. [28]

    Ochkan, R

    K. Ochkan, R. Chaturvedi, V. K¨ onye, L. Veyrat, R. Gi- raud, D. Mailly, A. Cavanna, U. Gennser, E. M. Han- kiewicz, B. B¨ uchner, J. van den Brink, J. Dufouleur, and I. C. Fulga, Non-Hermitian topology in a multi-terminal quantum Hall device, Nature Physics20, 395 (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    G. D. Bello, F. Pavan, V. Cataudella, and D. Farina, Local and global master equations through the lens of non-Hermitian physics, arXiv:2509.10425 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Z. Li, R. Cai, X. Wang, K. Shimomura, C. Lu, Z. Yang, M. Sato, and G. Ma, Exceptional deficiency of non- Hermitian systems, Nature Physics22, 962 (2026)

    2026

  23. [31]

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

    2005

  24. [32]

    Daryanoosh, Non-normality and dissipation in Marko- vian quantum dynamics: Implications for quantum sim- ulation, Phys

    S. Daryanoosh, Non-normality and dissipation in Marko- vian quantum dynamics: Implications for quantum sim- ulation, Phys. Rev. A114, 022406 (2026)

    2026

  25. [33]

    C. B. Naves, T. K. Kvorning, and J. Larson, When level repulsion fails: non-normality and chaos in open quan- tum systems, arXiv:2604.00118 (2026)

    2026

  26. [34]

    Longhi, Quantum Mpemba effect from non-normal dy- namics, Entropy27, 581 (2025)

    S. Longhi, Quantum Mpemba effect from non-normal dy- namics, Entropy27, 581 (2025)

    2025

  27. [35]

    C. M. Bender and S. Boettcher, Real spectra in non- Hermitian Hamiltonians having PT symmetry, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 5243 (1998)

    1998

  28. [36]

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

    2012

  29. [37]

    Daryanoosh, H

    S. Daryanoosh, H. M. Wiseman, and T. Brandes, Stochastic feedback control of quantum transport to re- alize a dynamical ensemble of two nonorthogonal pure states, Phys. Rev. B93, 085127 (2016)

    2016

  30. [38]

    M¨ uller and I

    M. M¨ uller and I. Rotter, Exceptional points in open quantum systems, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical41, 244018 (2008)

    2008

  31. [39]

    Minganti, A

    F. Minganti, A. Miranowicz, R. W. Chhajlany, and F. Nori, Quantum exceptional points of non-Hermitian Hamiltonians and Liouvillians: The effects of quantum jumps, Phys. Rev. A100, 062131 (2019)

    2019

Pith tools

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