Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 32 references

Enhancement of sensitivity near exceptional points in dissipative qubit-resonator systems

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper reports a qubit-resonator sensor whose sensitivity to coupling changes diverges at an exceptional point, with measured power-law exponents close to −1/2 confirming the enhancement.

desk verdict Correct theory, but the experimental confirmation is a re-analysis of prior data where Ω is inferred from the same measured E, so the claimed sensitivity divergence is close to a tautology. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.15769 v1 pith:PQ2IHMD4 submitted 2025-01-27 quant-ph

Pei-Rong Han , Fan Wu , Xin-Jie Huang , Huai-Zhi Wu , Chang-Ling Zou , Wei Yi , Mengzhen Zhang , Hekang Li
show 6 more authors
Kai Xu Dongning Zheng Heng Fan Jianming Wen Zhen-Biao Yang Shi-Biao Zheng
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords exceptionalpointnon-HermitiansensingRabisplittingdissipativequbit-resonatorno-jumptrajectorysensitivityenhancementsuperconductingcircuit
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper proposes and demonstrates a way to sense the coupling strength between a qubit and a lossy resonator by operating near an exceptional point. In the no-jump evolution trajectory, quantum jumps are discarded and the surviving dynamics is governed by a non-Hermitian Hamiltonian whose vacuum Rabi splitting $E=\sqrt{\Omega^2-\kappa^2/16}$ responds to small coupling changes with a diverging derivative at $\Omega_0=|\kappa|/4$, where $\kappa$ is the difference between the resonator and qubit decay rates. The authors reanalyze measured data from their earlier circuit-QED experiment and extract $S=|dE/d\Omega|$, which grows as the coupling approaches the exceptional point; power-law fits give exponents $-0.572$ above and $-0.530$ below the point, close to the predicted $-1/2$. If correct, this turns the resonator's dissipation from a nuisance into the resource that creates the enhancement.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the non-Hermitian Hamiltonian $H_S=\Omega(a^\dagger\sigma_-+a\sigma_+)-\frac{i}{2}\kappa_q\sigma_+\sigma_--\frac{i}{2}\kappa_p a^\dagger a$, restricted to the single-excitation subspace $\{|e,0\rangle,|g,1\rangle\}$. Its eigenvalues give $E=\sqrt{\Omega^2-\kappa^2/16}$, so the exceptional point sits at $\Omega_0=|\kappa|/4$, where the two eigenstates coalesce and the derivative $dE/d\Omega$ diverges. Experimentally, the no-jump trajectory—selected by discarding quantum-jump outcomes and renormalizing the rest—is where this Hamiltonian governs the evolution; excitation-number conservation provides the handle that separates the noisy jump outcomes from the no-jump signal. The readout is achieved by mapping the resonator state onto an ancilla qubit before measurement, so that the vacuum Rabi splitting in the no-jump subspace can be extracted by fitting the measured density matrix.

What would settle it

Measure the vacuum Rabi splitting while sweeping the parametric modulation amplitude that is supposed to set $\Omega$, calibrating $\Omega$ independently from sideband Rabi oscillations in a low-loss configuration; if $S=|dE/d\Omega|$ does not grow as $|\Delta\Omega|^{-1/2}$ near the exceptional point when $\Delta\Omega$ is known from that independent calibration, the central claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the vacuum Rabi splitting of a qubit coupled to a lossy resonator acts as an amplified transducer for the coupling $\Omega$ when the system is placed at the exceptional point $\Omega_0=|\kappa|/4$, with $\kappa=\kappa_p-\kappa_q$ the difference between the photonic and qubit decay rates. For the no-jump trajectory, the single-excitation dynamics is generated by the non-Hermitian Hamiltonian $H_S$, and the half-splitting $E=\sqrt{\Omega^2-\kappa^2/16}$ has derivative $dE/d\Omega=\Omega/\sqrt{\Omega^2-\kappa^2/16}$, which diverges as $|\Delta\Omega|^{-1/2}$ near the exceptional point. The paper uses data from an earlier experiment in which the eigenenergies were extracted by fitting measured no-jump population dynamics to this Hamiltonian, and reports sensitivity $S=|dE/d\Omega|$ with power-law fits $S=A|\Delta\Omega/\Omega_0|^B$ giving $B=-0.572$ for $\Delta\Omega>0$ and $B=-0.530$ for $\Delta\Omega<0$. These are presented as confirmation that the exceptional point transforms natural dissipation into a favorable resource for estimating the coupling strength.

Load-bearing premise

The experimental confirmation assumes that $\Delta\Omega$, the deviation of the effective coupling from the exceptional point, is an independently controlled quantity; if $\Omega$ is only inferred from the measured splitting $E$, as the Fig. 1 caption states, then the claimed divergence is a mathematical transformation of the data rather than an independent verification.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A small deviation of the qubit–resonator coupling from the exceptional point can be inferred from the vacuum Rabi splitting, with the amplification growing without bound as $\Delta\Omega\to 0$ in the idealized model.
  • The same protocol should work for measuring the coupling between two qubits with unequal decay rates, which the paper states as a direct generalization.
  • Because the divergence comes from the no-jump sector, dissipation no longer needs to be suppressed; the loss rate is what sets the position of the exceptional point.
  • Across the exceptional point the splitting changes from real to imaginary, so the sensor can be operated on either side depending on whether the signal appears as a frequency shift or as a linewidth change.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The reported verification would be stronger if $\Omega$ were calibrated independently of the measured $E$; with $\Omega$ inferred from $E$, the divergent $S$ partly follows from the same data by algebra, so a decisive test requires an independent control knob for $\Omega$.
  • A full metrological analysis would count the cost of postselection: the no-jump trajectory's probability decays with time and loss, so the per-shot enhancement in $S$ may trade against the reduced number of usable events; the paper does not quantify that trade-off.
  • The same conditional-dynamics idea could be ported to other open bosonic systems, such as mechanical or optical modes with postselectable no-jump records, where exceptional-point sensitivity could be tested without superconducting qubits.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a protocol for EP-enhanced sensing of the coupling strength between a qubit and a lossy resonator, based on postselecting the no-jump trajectory so that the dynamics is governed by the non-Hermitian Hamiltonian H_S of Eq. (2). The central theoretical result is E = sqrt(Ω² − κ²/16), giving dE/dΩ = Ω/sqrt(Ω² − κ²/16), which diverges at the exceptional point Ω0 = |κ|/4. The authors then use data previously published in Ref. [32] to extract the vacuum Rabi splitting E from the no-jump population dynamics, define an experimental sensitivity S = (Re E − Im E)/ΔΩ, and fit S to a power law S = A|ΔΩ/Ω0|^B, obtaining B ≈ −0.572 for ΔΩ > 0 and B ≈ −0.530 for ΔΩ < 0. They conclude that the experimental results confirm the non-Hermiticity-enabled sensitivity enhancement.

Significance. If established, this would be a valuable demonstration of EP-enhanced sensing of a concrete physical parameter in a quantum dissipative system, using the system's own dissipation as a resource via the no-jump postselection. The analytic derivation of the square-root splitting and its diverging derivative is simple and correct, and the no-jump protocol is a plausible route to accessing the non-Hermitian Hamiltonian while discarding noisy jump outcomes. The paper also transparently states that it reuses data from Ref. [32], which is a strength in terms of disclosure. However, the experimental confirmation as presented is not secure: the calibration of Ω appears to be inferred from the same measured E that defines S, the experimental definition of S is not the same as the theoretical |dE/dΩ|, no uncertainties are reported for the fitted exponents, and the known noise limitations of EP sensors are not discussed. The paper's contribution would be substantially strengthened by addressing these points.

major comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 1 caption; §Experimental implementation; Fig. 3] The caption of Fig. 1 states that Ω is 'inferred from the measured E', and Fig. 3 computes S from the same measured E and ΔΩ. If ΔΩ is obtained by inverting E = sqrt(Ω² − κ²/16) rather than from an independent calibration of the parametric modulation amplitude ε, then the plotted divergent S is a mathematical transform of the measured E and does not constitute independent experimental confirmation. Please report how Ω was calibrated relative to the modulation amplitude, or provide a separate measurement of Ω from an observable that is not the same E used in S. If such an independent calibration is not available from the existing data, this limitation must be stated explicitly and the claim that the enhancement is experimentally confirmed must be tempered accordingly.
  2. [§The divergent behavior; Fig. 3] The theoretical sensitivity is defined as S = |dE/dΩ|, but the experimental data points use S = (Re E − Im E)/ΔΩ. For Ω < Ω0, E is purely imaginary, so Re E − Im E = −|E|, which is not the magnitude of the derivative; for Ω > Ω0, E is real and S differs from |dE/dΩ| by a factor of approximately 2 near the exceptional point. Please derive the plotted quantity from the model, or define a single consistent measure of sensitivity, and show explicitly how the experimental S relates to |dE/dΩ|.
  3. [Fig. 3; power-law fits] No error bars are shown on S, and the fitted parameters A = 1.349, B = −0.572 (ΔΩ > 0) and A = 1.215, B = −0.530 (ΔΩ < 0) are quoted without uncertainties. Since the central quantitative claim is that the exponent is consistent with −1/2, the paper must report confidence intervals, the number of independent data points, and the fitting procedure, including how the eigenenergies and their uncertainties were obtained from the time-domain data of Ref. [32].
  4. [Introduction; Conclusion; Ref. [15]] The paper does not address the known noise floor of exceptional-point sensors. Reference [15] and related work show that the enhanced susceptibility at an EP does not generally translate into enhanced measurement precision once noise is accounted for, and the quantum Fisher information may not exhibit the same divergence. Since the manuscript claims sensitivity enhancement for a quantum sensor, please clarify whether the claim concerns only the susceptibility dE/dΩ or the precision achievable with the postselected no-jump measurement, and discuss the signal-to-noise ratio and the effect of discarding jump outcomes. A concrete test would be to compute the classical and quantum Fisher information for the no-jump trajectory and compare it with the susceptibility.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§The Q1-R1 system is initially prepared...] There is a typo: 'state tansfer' should be 'state transfer'.
  2. [Fig. 1; Fig. 3] The horizontal axis of both figures appears to be labeled only with units '(MHz)'; please label the axis explicitly as ΔΩ = Ω − Ω0 (MHz) or as Ω (MHz) with the EP position marked.
  3. [§The Q1-R1 system is initially prepared...; Data reuse] The manuscript reuses data from Ref. [32] but does not state which panels are reproduced or what new analysis is performed here. Please identify the specific data set, cite the original figure, and describe the new fitting or processing steps used to obtain E and S.
  4. [Abstract] The abstract says 'demonstrate a protocol', but the experimental data are from a prior publication and the present paper performs a reanalysis. Consider phrasing such as 'propose a protocol and analyze previously measured data to demonstrate...' so that the contribution is accurately described.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Experimental confirmation is constructed from the same measured E used to infer Ω, so the divergent sensitivity is a restatement of the model rather than an independent verification.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Fig. 1 caption; experimental procedure paragraph describing Fig. 3]
    "The qubit-resonator coupling strength Ω is inferred from the measured E, so that the signal amplification is characterized by S = |dE/dΩ|."

    The control parameter Ω is not independently calibrated but is inferred from the measured splitting E, the very quantity whose response is being characterized. Given the model relation E=√(Ω²−κ²/16), inferring Ω from E and then evaluating S=|dE/dΩ| at that Ω reproduces the model's own derivative. The claimed divergent sensitivity is therefore a consequence of the inversion, not an independent experimental measurement of how E responds to a controlled change in Ω.

  2. self definitional [Fig. 3 caption and accompanying text 'The divergent behavior of E...']
    "The data at each point is related to the measured E by S = (Re E − Im E)/∆Ω, where ∆Ω denotes the deviation of the effective Q1-R1 coupling from the EP. The lines are the power law fitting S = A |∆Ω/Ω0|B."

    Both S and ΔΩ are derived from the same measured E via the inferred Ω, so the plotted data are not an independent test of the model. The least-squares power-law fits with B≈−0.57 and −0.53 merely describe the constructed ratio (Re E−Im E)/ΔΩ, which for complex E is not equal to |dE/dΩ|; hence the agreement with a −1/2 exponent does not independently confirm the EP-enhanced sensitivity. Without an independent calibration of ΔΩ from the modulation amplitude, the demonstration is definitional.

full rationale

The theoretical part is self-contained and non-circular: E=√(Ω²−κ²/16) and dE/dΩ=Ω/√(Ω²−κ²/16) follow directly from the NH Hamiltonian, so the formal EP divergence is a legitimate model result. The circularity lies in the experimental 'demonstration.' The manuscript never reports an independent calibration of the effective coupling Ω against the modulation amplitude ε. Instead, Fig. 1 states that Ω is inferred from the measured E, and Fig. 3 constructs each sensitivity point from the same measured E (S=(Re E−Im E)/ΔΩ). If ΔΩ is obtained by inverting E(Ω), then plotting S vs ΔΩ merely replots the model's derivative; the fitted exponents near −0.5 are then a mathematical consequence of the E(Ω) relation rather than independent empirical confirmation. The reuse of data from the authors' prior Ref. [32] (acknowledged: 'We here use the data measured in Ref. [32]') does not break this, because the present reanalysis supplies no independent Ω calibration. The plotted quantity also differs from |dE/dΩ| for complex E, further weakening the claim that the experiment measures the theoretical sensitivity. Therefore the theoretical prediction is fine, but the central experimental confirmation reduces by construction to the model; score 6.

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

The central claim rests on the assumption that Ω is independently controlled. The paper's own caption suggests the opposite, which would make the sensitivity enhancement a mathematical consequence of the model. The no-jump postselection and state mapping are also assumed to be faithful.

free parameters (4)
  • A_positive = 1.349
    Amplitude in power-law fit S = A |ΔΩ/Ω0|^B for ΔΩ>0, fitted to experimental data.
  • B_positive = -0.572
    Exponent in power-law fit for ΔΩ>0; expected -0.5, fitted.
  • A_negative = 1.215
    Amplitude in power-law fit for ΔΩ<0.
  • B_negative = -0.530
    Exponent in power-law fit for ΔΩ<0.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The system evolution can be decomposed into jump and no-jump trajectories; discarding jump outcomes yields a state governed by the non-Hermitian Hamiltonian HS.
    Used to justify extracting eigenenergies from postselected data.
  • domain assumption The effective coupling Ω is a controlled parameter set by modulation amplitude and is known independently of the measured splitting E.
    Needed for ΔΩ to be an independent variable; contradicted by Fig 1 caption.
  • domain assumption Master equation (1) accurately describes the dissipative qubit-resonator system within the single-excitation subspace.
    Basis for the entire model.
  • domain assumption The state transfer and mapping from Q1-R1 to Q2-Q1 faithfully represents the Q1-R1 output state after correcting for R1 decay.
    Experimental reconstruction of the resonator state.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhancement of sensitivity near exceptional points in dissipative qubit-resonator systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PQ2IHMD4

@misc{pith2026250115769,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhancement of sensitivity near exceptional points in dissipative qubit-resonator systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PQ2IHMD4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.15769}
}
read the original abstract

Dissipation usually plays a negative role in quantum metrological technologies, which aim to improve measurement precision by leveraging quantum effects that are vulnerable to environment-induced decoherence. Recently, it has been demonstrated that dissipation can actually be used as a favorable resource for enhancing the susceptibility of signal detection. However, demonstrations of such enhancement for detecting physical quantities in open quantum systems are still lacking. Here we propose and demonstrate a protocol for realizing such non-Hermitian quantum sensors for probing the coupling between a qubit and a resonator subjecting to energy dissipations. The excitation-number conversion associated with the no-jump evolution trajectory enables removal of the noisy outcomes with quantum jumps, implementing the exceptional point (EP), where the Rabi splitting exhibits a divergent behavior in response to a tiny variation of the effective coupling. The sensitivity enhancement near the EP is confirmed by both theoretical calculation and experimental measurement.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.15769 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: (color online). Calculated non-Hermiticity-enabled sensitivity enhancement. The qubit-resonator coupling strength Ω [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: (color online). Experimental device. The experiment is performed with a circuit quantum electrodynamics architecture [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: (color online). Demonstration of sensitivity enhancement. The data at each point is related to the measured [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [32]

    P.-R. Han, F. Wu, X.-J. Huang, H.-Z. Wu, C.-L. Zou, W. Yi, M. Zhang, H. Li, K. Xu, D. Zheng, H. Fan, J. Wen, Z.-B. Yang, and S.-B. Zheng, Exceptional entanglement phenomena: non-Hermiticity meeting non-classicality, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 260201 (2023)

    work page 2023

  2. [15]

    Zhang, W

    M. Zhang, W. Sweeney, C. W. Hsu, L. Yang, A. D. Stone, and L. Jiang, Quantum noise theory of exceptional point amplifying sensors, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 180501 (2019)

    work page 2019

  3. [1]

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

    2017

  4. [2]

    Pezz` e, A

    L. Pezz` e, A. Smerzi, M. K. Oberthaler, R. Schmied, and P. Treutlein, Quantum metrology with nonclassical states of atomic ensembles, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 035005 (2018)

    2018

  5. [3]

    Facon, E.-K

    A. Facon, E.-K. Dietsche, D. Grosso, S. Haroche, J.-M. Raimond, M. Brune, and S. Gleyzes, A sensitive electrometer based on a Rydberg atom in a Schr¨ odinger-cat state,Nature 535, 262 (2016)

    work page 2016

  6. [4]

    Chalopin, C

    T. Chalopin, C. Bouazza, A. Evrard, V. Makhalov, D. Dreon, J. Dalibard, L. A. Sidorenkov, and S. Nascimbene, Quantum- enhanced sensing using non-classical spin states of a highly magnetic atom, Nat. Commun. 9, 4955 (2018)

    work page 2018

  7. [5]

    Nagata, R

    T. Nagata, R. Okamoto, J. L. O’Brien, K. Sasaki, and S. Takeuchi, Beating the standard quantum limit with four entangled photons, Science 316, 726 (2007)

    work page 2007

  8. [6]

    Leibfried, M

    D. Leibfried, M. D. Barrett, T. Schaetz, J. Britton, J. Chiaverini, W. M. Itano, J. D. Jost, C. Langer, and D. J. Wineland, Toward Heisenberg-limited spectroscopy with multiparticle entangled states, Science 304, 1476 (2004)

    work page 2004

Show all 32 references
  1. [7]

    T. Monz, P. Schindler, J. T. Barreiro, M. Chwalla, D. Nigg, W. A. Coish, M. Harlander, W. H¨ ansel, M. Hennrich, and R. Blatt, 14-qubit entanglement: Creation and coherence, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 130506 (2011)

    2011

  2. [8]

    Hosten, N

    O. Hosten, N. J. Engelsen, R. Krishnakumar, and M. A. Kasevich, Measurement noise 100 times lower than the quantum- projection limit using entangled atoms, Nature 529, 505 (2016)

    2016

  3. [9]

    Xu, Y.-R

    K. Xu, Y.-R. Zhang, Z.-H. Sun, H. Li, P. Song, Z. Xiang, K. Huang, H. Li, Y.-H. Shi, C.-T. Chen, X. Song, D. Zheng, F. Nori, H. Wang, and H. Fan, Metrological characterization of non-Gaussian entangled states of superconducting qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 150501 (2022)

    2022

  4. [10]

    K. C. McCormick, J. Keller, S. C. Burd, D. J. Wineland, A. C. Wilson, and D. Leibfried, Quantum-enhanced sensing of a single-ion mechanical oscillator, Nature 572, 86 (2019)

    2019

  5. [11]

    W. Wang, Y. Wu, Y. Ma, W. Cai, L. Hu, X. Mu, Y. Xu, Zi-Jie Chen, H. Wang, Y. P. Song, H. Yuan, C. -L. Zou, L. -M. Duan, and L. Sun, Heisenberg limited single-mode quantum metrology in a superconducting circuit, Nat. Commun. 10, 4382 (2019)

    2019

  6. [12]

    Pezz` e, Y

    L. Pezz` e, Y. Li, W. Li, and A. Smerzi, Witnessing entanglement without entanglement witness operators,Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 113, 11459 (2016)

    2016

  7. [13]

    Wiersig, Enhancing the sensitivity of frequency and energy splitting detection by using exceptional points: application to microcavity sensors for single-particle detection, Phys

    J. Wiersig, Enhancing the sensitivity of frequency and energy splitting detection by using exceptional points: application to microcavity sensors for single-particle detection, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 203901 (2014)

    2014

  8. [14]

    Z.-P. Liu, J. Zhang, S ¸. K.¨Ozdemir, B. Peng, H. Jing, X.-Y. L¨ u, C.-W. Li, L. Yang, F. Nori, and Y.-X Liu, Metrology with PT -symmetric cavities: enhanced sensitivity near the PT -phase transition, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 110802 (2016)

    2016

  9. [16]

    Y. Chu, Y. Liu, H. Liu, and J. Cai, Quantum sensing with a single-qubit pseudo-Hermitian system, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 020501 (2020)

    2020

  10. [17]

    X.-W. Luo, C. Zhang, and S. Du, Quantum squeezing and sensing with pseudo anti-parity-time symmetry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 173602 (2022)

    2022

  11. [18]

    J. Wang, D. Mukhopadhyay, and G. S. Agarwal, Quantum Fisher information perspective on sensing in anti-PT symmetric systems, Phys. Rev. Research4, 013131 (2022)

    2022

  12. [19]

    Chen, S ¸

    W. Chen, S ¸. K.¨Ozdemir, G. Zhao, J. Wiersig, and L. Yang, Exceptional points enhance sensing in an optical microcavity, Nature (London)548, 192 (2017)

    2017

  13. [20]

    Hodaei, A

    H. Hodaei, A. U. Hassan, S. Wittek, H. Garcia-Gracia, R. El-Ganainy, D. N. Christodoulides, and M. Khajavikhan, Enhanced sensitivity at higher-order exceptional points, Nature (London)548, 187 (2017)

    2017

  14. [21]

    Kononchuk, J

    R. Kononchuk, J. Cai, F. Ellis, R. Thevamaran, and T. Kottos, Exceptional-point-based accelerometers with enhanced signal-to-noise ratio, Nature 607, 697 (2022)

    2022

  15. [22]

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

    2020

  16. [23]

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

    1998

  17. [24]

    C. M. Bender, D. C. Brody, and H. F. Jones, Complex extension of quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 270401 (2002). 6

    2002

  18. [25]

    Mostafazadeh, Pseudo-Hermiticity versus PT symmetry: The necessary condition for the reality of the spectrum of a non-Hermitian Hamiltonian, J

    A. Mostafazadeh, Pseudo-Hermiticity versus PT symmetry: The necessary condition for the reality of the spectrum of a non-Hermitian Hamiltonian, J. Math. Phys.43, 205 (2002)

    2002

  19. [26]

    Zheng, L

    C. Zheng, L. Hao, and G. L. Long, Observation of a fast evolution in a parity-time-symmetric system, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A. 371, 20120053 (2013)

    2013

  20. [27]

    Zheng, Quantum simulation of PT-arbitrary-phase–symmetric systems, Europhys

    C. Zheng, Quantum simulation of PT-arbitrary-phase–symmetric systems, Europhys. Lett.136, 30002 (2022)

    2022

  21. [28]

    L. Xiao, X. Zhan, Z. H. Bian, K. K. Wang, X. Zhang, X. P. Wang, J. Li, K. Mochizuki, D. Kim, N. Kawakami, W. Yi, H. Obuse, B. C. Sanders, and P. Xue, Observation of topological edge states in parity–time-symmetric quantum walks, Nat. Phys. 13, 1117 (2017)

    2017

  22. [29]

    Li, and C

    D. Li, and C. Zheng, Non-Hermitian generalization of R´ enyi entropy,Entropy 24 1563 (2022)

    2022

  23. [30]

    Petruccione, The Theory of Open Quantum Systems, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, (2007)

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

    2007

  24. [31]

    Zheng, Universal quantum simulation of single-qubit nonunitary operators using duality quantum algorithm, Sci

    C. Zheng, Universal quantum simulation of single-qubit nonunitary operators using duality quantum algorithm, Sci. Rep. 11, 3960 (2021)

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.