Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 140 references

Anomalous entanglement scaling from eigenvector nonorthogonality in critical non-Hermitian free fermions

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

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

Pith's one-line read A single overlap angle between nonorthogonal Bloch states determines the logarithmic Rényi entanglement coefficients of critical non-Hermitian free-fermion steady states, replacing the central charge with a parameter-free band-geometric for

desk verdict A convincing parameter-free mechanism for anomalous entanglement coefficients in non-Hermitian critical fermions, with a clean two-band result that holds up; the disorder and additivity parts are softer and the core math is partly borrowed. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.25256 v1 pith:RQORJG4K submitted 2026-07-28 cond-mat.mes-hall quant-ph

Zhenyu Xiao , Shinsei Ryu This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mes-hallquant-ph
keywords non-HermitianfreefermionsentanglemententropyimaginaryDiracpointeigenvectornonorthogonalityRényicriticalsteadystatecentralchargedisorder
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 claims that the logarithmic growth of entanglement entropy in critical non-Hermitian free-fermion chains is not governed by a central charge but by a single geometric angle θ: the overlap between the two right Bloch states at each crossing in the imaginary part of the energy (an 'imaginary Dirac point'). Because non-Hermitian eigenvectors are generally nonorthogonal, the occupation discontinuity at the Fermi-like point is weakened, lowering the coefficient ζ_n of the Rényi entropy from the Hermitian value (1+1/n)/6. The paper derives a closed-form, parameter-free expression ζ_n(θ) and shows that multiple crossings contribute additively, with single-band crossings adding a c=1/2 piece. If correct, this gives a complete classification of logarithmic entanglement in 1D critical non-Hermitian free-fermion steady states, and explains why the Rényi family cannot be fit by any single central charge.

What carries the argument

The key object is the imaginary Dirac point: a momentum where Im E(k) crosses zero while Re E(k) remains split, so the occupied state switches between two Bloch branches. The overlap angle θ between the two right Bloch spinors at that point, defined by sinθ = |(u_R^+)† u_R^-|, controls the jump of the occupied projector: the discontinuity is cosθ instead of 1. This feeds into a Toeplitz/Fisher-Hartwig treatment of the correlation matrix, where the long-distance kernel has the form 1/2 sinθ τ_z + i cosθ/(2π(i-j)) τ_x, whose eigenvalues give the gapped entanglement spectrum and, through the single-level Rényi entropy, the closed-form logarithmic coefficients.

What would settle it

Compute the Rényi entropies numerically in a non-Hermitian SSH chain at fixed overlap angle θ while varying the real energy gap at the imaginary Dirac point (e.g., by tuning h+(0)h−(0)); if ζ_n departs from Eq. (14), the assumption that only θ controls the logarithmic coefficient is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the Rényi entanglement entropy of the steady state selected by non-Hermitian time evolution scales as S_n = ζ_n ln ℓ + O(1), with ζ_n determined entirely by the band structure at the momenta where Im E crosses zero. At a two-band crossing, the right eigenvectors have overlap sin θ = |(u_R^+)† u_R^-|; the low-energy correlator becomes C(k) = 1/2 I + 1/2 sinθ τ_z + 1/2 sgn(k) cosθ τ_x, so the occupation discontinuity has amplitude cosθ instead of 1. This weakened discontinuity produces a gapped entanglement spectrum with gap Eθ = 2 arctanh|sinθ| and yields the integral formula for ζ_n, which evaluates to closed-form dilogarithmic expressions. Multiple crossings add, g

Load-bearing premise

The derivation assumes that the long-distance correlation matrix is fully controlled by the single reduced discontinuity cosθ at the imaginary Dirac point, so that all other momentum dependence—finite real energy gap, eigenvector curvature, or additional singularities—contributes only to the O(1) part of the entropy and never to the ln ℓ coefficient.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The Rényi family ζ_n is a one-parameter curve: measuring any single ζ_n determines θ and predicts all other Rényi indices, including the n→∞ limit.
  • The result replaces the central charge as the organizing quantity for critical non-Hermitian fermion steady states: the nonuniversal-looking coefficients are exactly fixed by band geometry.
  • For any 1D critical non-Hermitian free-fermion steady state, the logarithmic coefficient is the sum of independent crossing contributions, so models with several imaginary Dirac points or single-band Fermi points are covered by the same formula.
  • Weak real onsite disorder does not localize the steady state; it renormalizes the effective overlap angle and increases the entanglement, in contrast to Hermitian disordered free fermions.
  • The same coefficient formula applies to non-Hermitian ground states by replacing Im E crossings with Re E crossings, extending the classification to a different occupation rule.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the same coefficient arises for partially transmitting defects and for weak measurements, the imaginary Dirac point mechanism may be one instance of a broader 'weakened discontinuity' principle in which any perturbation that reduces the occupation jump by a factor cosθ produces the same ζ_n(θ); one could test this by engineering a Hermitian lattice with a momentum-dependent occupation weig
  • In higher dimensions the occupation boundary Im E=0 becomes a nodal hypersurface, and the overlap angle becomes momentum-dependent; a plausible extension is a Widom-type area-law whose coefficient integrates cosθ(k) over the hypersurface, which could be checked numerically for a 2D non-Hermitian model.
  • The disorder-induced enhancement suggests a renormalization-group flow in which weak disorder drives θ toward π/2 (the exceptional-point limit); computing θ_eff(W) from the fitted ζ_1 offers a clean numerical test of whether the flow is monotone.
  • The entanglement gap Eθ≈2|sinθ| implies a characteristic length scale ξ≈1/|sinθ|; finite-size scaling of the entropy at fixed θ may reveal a crossover from ζ_n ln ℓ to the c=1 value at ℓ≫ξ, which is testable in existing lattice numerics.
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 the steady state selected by long-time non-Hermitian evolution in one-dimensional free-fermion chains with imaginary gap closures. It argues that the logarithmic entanglement scaling of this steady state is governed by 'imaginary Dirac points'—isolated momenta where Im E(k) crosses zero—and that the Rényi coefficients ζ_n are completely fixed by the overlap angle θ of the two right Bloch spinors at the crossing. The central result is Eq. (14), a closed-form integral for ζ_n(θ), together with the additivity formula Eq. (15) for multiple crossings and single-band Fermi points. The clean-limit predictions are tested against lattice numerics at L = 32768–65536 with no fitted parameters, showing agreement to 3–4 significant figures. The paper also reports that weak real onsite disorder preserves logarithmic scaling and enhances the entanglement coefficient, and it provides a lattice scattering argument explaining the absence of impurity backscattering.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper identifies a genuinely new mechanism for universal entanglement scaling: a continuously tunable Rényi family determined by a single band-structure angle rather than a central charge. The clean-case numerics are unusually strong for a Letter: the analytic curves in Fig. 2(c,d) and Eq. (18) agree with lattice fits to several significant figures with no adjustable parameter in the clean case. The paper also includes a transparent definition of the steady-state occupation rule, an explicit orthonormalization procedure for nonorthogonal occupied subspaces, closed-form expressions for ζ_n, and an analytic lattice scattering solution supporting the disorder robustness claim. These are concrete, checkable contributions. However, the central derivation relies on an unproven Fisher–Hartwig-type assumption for non-Hermitian projection-valued symbols, and the additivity formula is asserted rather than derived. The disorder section, while suggestive, uses a fitted θ_eff and therefore does not independently confirm the proposed renormalization picture.

major comments (3)
  1. [Imaginary Dirac point, Eqs. (10)–(14)] The derivation of ζ_n replaces the exact occupied projector by the frozen-spinor symbol Eq. (10). The claim that all other k-dependence—eigenvector curvature, the finite real gap, and the artificial branch cut at k=π in the sgn(k) representation—contributes only to the O(1) part of the entropy is load-bearing for the universality of Eq. (14). For Hermitian Toeplitz matrices this is the standard Fisher–Hartwig theorem, but no such theorem is cited or proved for non-Hermitian, projection-valued symbols with det C(k)=0. The numerical evidence in Fig. 2 is excellent but does not stress the regime where the frozen-spinor approximation is most fragile: θ near π/2 with a small real gap, where the spinor rotates rapidly. Please provide a rigorous justification, a precise existing theorem, or a targeted numerical test in that regime.
  2. [Generic critical steady states, Eq. (15)] The additivity formula is asserted rather than derived: 'the contributions add.' For Hermitian Fermi points this follows from the product structure of Fisher–Hartwig symbols, but here the symbol is a non-Abelian 2×2 projector and it is not obvious that distinct imaginary Dirac points contribute independently. The Supplemental verifies Eq. (15) for three clean multi-crossing models, but all use well-separated high-symmetry crossings. Since Eq. (15) is the basis for the paper's 'generic' claim, please provide a derivation or at least a test with two imaginary Dirac points brought close together in momentum space, where interference between the singularities could modify the coefficient.
  3. [Disorder effect, Fig. 3(d) and Eq. (14)] The disorder comparison replaces θ by a fitted θ_eff and then compares the Rényi family to Eq. (14). Because θ_eff is fit from the same ζ_n data, this does not independently test the claim that weak disorder 'renormalizes the occupation-discontinuity amplitude.' A predictive theory of θ_eff(W), or a collapse of ζ_n across several W values with a single independently determined θ_eff, is needed to support the disorder picture. Additionally, Fig. 3(c) shows finite-size convergence for only two W values without error bars; the L→∞ extrapolation is asserted rather than demonstrated.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (10)] Eq. (10) is not periodic in k (sgn(k) has a jump at k=±π). Please clarify explicitly that this is a low-energy expansion valid only near the imaginary Dirac point, not the exact periodic symbol used in the Fourier transform.
  2. [Fig. 2(c) and Eq. (18)] The numerical ζ_n values have no error bars. Given the finite fit window (128≤ℓ≤512 for L=65536), reporting uncertainties would strengthen the claim of agreement to 3–4 significant figures.
  3. [Eq. (17)] The expression for ζ_n with n=2,3,... should state explicitly that it applies to integer n only, and the n→∞ limit is a separate formula. The current wording 'for integer n and n→∞' is clear but could be tightened.
  4. [Fig. 3(b)] The caption mentions an inset showing ζ_1 versus W, but the inset is not visible in the manuscript version provided. Please ensure the figure includes it.
  5. [Reference [111]] Reference [111] is the Supplemental Material placeholder. It is cited many times in the main text; consider giving it a standard 'See Supplemental Material' citation rather than a numbered reference if that is the journal convention.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the clean-case ζ_n(θ) formula is a parameter-free analytic prediction checked against lattice numerics; the disorder θ_eff is explicitly fitted, not disguised as a prediction.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. The overlap angle θ is computed directly from the band structure in Eq. (9), substituted into the derived integral Eq. (14), and compared with independently fitted lattice slopes in Fig. 2 and Eq. (18) without adjusting θ. The frozen-spinor/low-energy reduction to Eq. (10) is an uncontrolled approximation, but that is a validity risk rather than circularity: if eigenvector curvature or another singularity contributed to the Toeplitz exponent, the formula would fail numerically, and the paper's extensive lattice checks would disagree. The disorder section is also not circular: Fig. 3(d) explicitly states that θ is replaced by a fitted θ_eff, and the text describes the Rényi family as 'described by Eq. (14) after replacing θ by a fitted θ_eff' — a one-parameter consistency test, not an independent prediction. The self-citations ([106], [68]) are used only for standard Slater-determinant and QR-orthonormalization identifications and are not load-bearing; no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. No step reduces by construction to its own inputs, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The clean derivation introduces no fitted parameters: θ follows from the band structure Eq. (9). The disorder part introduces one fitted angle θ_eff. The main mathematical machinery (Toeplitz asymptotics) is imported from prior literature, and the additivity formula is presumed rather than proved.

free parameters (1)
  • θ_eff (disorder effective overlap angle) = sin θ_eff ≈ 0.517 at W=1 (Fig. 3d); ζ1(W) fitted separately
    Used to compare Eq. (14) with disorder-averaged Rényi entropies; no microscopic derivation of θ_eff(W) is provided, so the disorder comparison is a fit, not a prediction.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Long-time non-Hermitian evolution selects the right eigenstate with maximum ImE (unique) [Eq. (2)].
    Defines the steady state; fails in PT-symmetric or degenerate-imaginary regimes, which the paper sets aside.
  • domain assumption The steady-state density matrix is the pure projector |Ψ_S⟩⟨Ψ_S| (physical state), not a biorthogonal combination.
    Choice of entanglement definition; alternative biorthogonal definitions give different results.
  • standard math Toeplitz/Fisher-Hartwig asymptotics: eigenvalues of 2K_A satisfy η_m = tanh(ε_m^(0)/2) with ε_m^(0) ≃ π²(2m+1)/lnℓ [Refs. 108,109], and the sum may be replaced by a constant level density lnℓ/(2π²).
    Standard result for the sine kernel; invoked to turn Eq. (12) into the integral Eq. (14).
  • ad hoc to paper Distinct crossings contribute additively to ζ_n [Eq. (15)].
    Stated without derivation; validated only numerically in the Supplemental Material. A multiplicative symbol would give additive logarithmic coefficients, but this is not shown.
  • standard math The right-eigenmode Fock configuration with Im ε_m >0 can be orthonormalized (QR/Schur) to give the physical correlation matrix C=Q+Q†.
    Standard for Slater determinants of nonorthogonal orbitals; described in End Matter.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Anomalous entanglement scaling from eigenvector nonorthogonality in critical non-Hermitian free fermions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RQORJG4K

@misc{pith2026260725256,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Anomalous entanglement scaling from eigenvector nonorthogonality in critical non-Hermitian free fermions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RQORJG4K}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.25256}
}
read the original abstract

Entanglement carries universal content that labels phases and critical points. We study the entanglement entropy of the steady states of critical non-Hermitian free-fermion chains. It scales logarithmically with subsystem size, but the coefficients vary continuously with the parameters and form a R\'enyi family that no single central charge can reproduce. We trace this anomaly to an ``imaginary'' Dirac point, a crossing in the imaginary part of the energy where the occupied state switches between two Bloch states. Their nonorthogonality weakens the occupation discontinuity and lowers the logarithmic coefficient. A low-energy expansion yields closed-form coefficients in excellent agreement with lattice numerics in various one-dimensional critical steady states. Remarkably, weak real onsite disorder leaves this logarithmic scaling intact and enhances the entanglement. Our results provide a generic understanding of entanglement in critical non-Hermitian free-fermion steady states.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.25256 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Schematic of the non-Hermitian SSH model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Von Neumann entanglement entropy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (b) shows that, throughout this weak-disorder regime, the disorder-averaged S1(ℓ) remains logarithmic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

140 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Amico, R

    L. Amico, R. Fazio, A. Osterloh, and V. Vedral, Entan- glement in many-body systems, Rev. Mod. Phys.80, 517 (2008)

    2008

  2. [2]

    Eisert, M

    J. Eisert, M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio, Colloquium: Area laws for the entanglement entropy, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 277 (2010)

    2010

  3. [3]

    Holzhey, F

    C. Holzhey, F. Larsen, and F. Wilczek, Geometric and renormalized entropy in conformal field theory, Nucl. Phys. B424, 443 (1994)

    1994

  4. [4]

    Calabrese and J

    P. Calabrese and J. Cardy, Entanglement entropy and quantum field theory, J. Stat. Mech.2004, P06002 (2004)

    2004

  5. [5]

    Vidal, J

    G. Vidal, J. I. Latorre, E. Rico, and A. Kitaev, En- tanglement in quantum critical phenomena, Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 227902 (2003)

    2003

  6. [6]

    Calabrese and J

    P. Calabrese and J. Cardy, Evolution of entanglement entropy in one-dimensional systems, J. Stat. Mech. 2005, P04010 (2005)

    2005

  7. [7]

    J. M. Deutsch, Quantum statistical mechanics in a closed system, Phys. Rev. A43, 2046 (1991). 6

  8. [8]

    Srednicki, Chaos and quantum thermalization, Phys

    M. Srednicki, Chaos and quantum thermalization, Phys. Rev. E50, 888 (1994)

    1994

Show all 140 references
  1. [9]

    Rigol, V

    M. Rigol, V. Dunjko, and M. Olshanii, Thermalization and its mechanism for generic isolated quantum sys- tems, Nature452, 854 (2008)

    2008

  2. [10]

    J. H. Bardarson, F. Pollmann, and J. E. Moore, Un- bounded growth of entanglement in models of many- body localization, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 017202 (2012)

    2012

  3. [11]

    Nandkishore and D

    R. Nandkishore and D. A. Huse, Many-body localiza- tion and thermalization in quantum statistical mechan- ics, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.6, 15 (2015)

    2015

  4. [12]

    D. A. Abanin, E. Altman, I. Bloch, and M. Serbyn, Col- loquium: Many-body localization, thermalization, and entanglement, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 021001 (2019)

    2019

  5. [13]

    M. Heyl, A. Polkovnikov, and S. Kehrein, Dynamical quantum phase transitions in the transverse-field Ising model, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 135704 (2013)

    2013

  6. [14]

    Heyl, Dynamical quantum phase transitions: a re- view, Rep

    M. Heyl, Dynamical quantum phase transitions: a re- view, Rep. Prog. Phys.81, 054001 (2018)

    2018

  7. [15]

    Diehl, A

    S. Diehl, A. Micheli, A. Kantian, B. Kraus, H. P. B¨ uchler, and P. Zoller, Quantum states and phases in driven open quantum systems with cold atoms, Nat. Phys.4, 878 (2008)

    2008

  8. [16]

    M¨ uller, S

    M. M¨ uller, S. Diehl, G. Pupillo, and P. Zoller, En- gineered open systems and quantum simulations with atoms and ions, inAdvances in Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, Vol. 61 (Academic Press, 2012) pp. 1– 80

    2012

  9. [17]

    A. J. Daley, Quantum trajectories and open many-body quantum systems, Adv. Phys.63, 77 (2014)

    2014

  10. [18]

    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

  11. [19]

    M. B. Plenio and P. L. Knight, The quantum-jump ap- proach to dissipative dynamics in quantum optics, Rev. Mod. Phys.70, 101 (1998)

    1998

  12. [20]

    C. E. R¨ uter, K. G. Makris, R. El-Ganainy, D. N. Christodoulides, M. Segev, and D. Kip, Observation of parity–time symmetry in optics, Nat. Phys.6, 192 (2010)

    2010

  13. [21]

    Regensburger, C

    A. Regensburger, C. Bersch, M.-A. Miri, G. On- ishchukov, D. N. Christodoulides, and U. Peschel, Parity–time synthetic photonic lattices, Nature488, 167 (2012)

    2012

  14. [22]

    L. Feng, R. El-Ganainy, and L. Ge, Non-Hermitian pho- tonics based on parity–time symmetry, Nat. Photonics 11, 752 (2017)

    2017

  15. [23]

    El-Ganainy, K

    R. El-Ganainy, K. G. Makris, M. Khajavikhan, Z. H. Musslimani, S. Rotter, and D. N. Christodoulides, Non- Hermitian physics and PT symmetry, Nat. Phys.14, 11 (2018)

    2018

  16. [24]

    Miri and A

    M.-A. Miri and A. Al` u, Exceptional points in optics and photonics, Science363, eaar7709 (2019)

    2019

  17. [25]

    Ozawa, H

    T. Ozawa, H. M. Price, A. Amo, N. Goldman, M. Hafezi, L. Lu, M. C. Rechtsman, D. Schuster, J. Si- mon, O. Zilberberg, and I. Carusotto, Topological pho- tonics, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 015006 (2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    Gorini, A

    V. Gorini, A. Kossakowski, and E. C. G. Sudarshan, Completely positive dynamical semigroups ofN-level systems, J. Math. Phys.17, 821 (1976)

    1976

  19. [27]

    Lindblad, On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups, Commun

    G. Lindblad, On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups, Commun. Math. Phys.48, 119 (1976)

    1976

  20. [28]

    Breuer and F

    H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione,The Theory of Open Quantum Systems(Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002)

    2002

  21. [29]

    Ashida, Z

    Y. Ashida, Z. Gong, and M. Ueda, Non-Hermitian physics, Adv. Phys.69, 249 (2020)

    2020

  22. [30]

    W. D. Heiss, The physics of exceptional points, J. Phys. A45, 444016 (2012)

    2012

  23. [31]

    E. J. Bergholtz, J. C. Budich, and F. K. Kunst, Excep- tional topology of non-Hermitian systems, Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 015005 (2021)

    2021

  24. [32]

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

    1998

  25. [33]

    C. M. Bender, Making sense of non-Hermitian Hamilto- nians, Rep. Prog. Phys.70, 947 (2007)

    2007

  26. [34]

    Yao and Z

    S. Yao and Z. Wang, Edge states and topological invari- ants of non-Hermitian systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 086803 (2018)

    2018

  27. [35]

    F. K. Kunst, E. Edvardsson, J. C. Budich, and E. J. Bergholtz, Biorthogonal bulk-boundary correspondence in non-Hermitian systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 026808 (2018)

    2018

  28. [36]

    Kawabata, K

    K. Kawabata, K. Shiozaki, M. Ueda, and M. Sato, Sym- metry and topology in non-Hermitian physics, Phys. Rev. X9, 041015 (2019)

    2019

  29. [37]

    Yokomizo and S

    K. Yokomizo and S. Murakami, Non-Bloch band theory of non-Hermitian systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 066404 (2019)

    2019

  30. [38]

    Okuma, K

    N. Okuma, K. Kawabata, K. Shiozaki, and M. Sato, Topological origin of non-Hermitian skin effects, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 086801 (2020)

    2020

  31. [39]

    Herviou, N

    L. Herviou, N. Regnault, and J. H. Bardarson, En- tanglement spectrum and symmetries in non-Hermitian fermionic non-interacting models, SciPost Phys.7, 069 (2019)

    2019

  32. [40]

    Chang, J.-S

    P.-Y. Chang, J.-S. You, X. Wen, and S. Ryu, En- tanglement spectrum and entropy in topological non- Hermitian systems and nonunitary conformal field the- ory, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 033069 (2020)

    2020

  33. [41]

    L.-M. Chen, S. A. Chen, and P. Ye, Entanglement, non- Hermiticity and duality, SciPost Phys.11, 003 (2021)

    2021

  34. [42]

    Guo, Y.-C

    Y.-B. Guo, Y.-C. Yu, R.-Z. Huang, L.-P. Yang, R.-Z. Chi, H.-J. Liao, and T. Xiang, Entanglement entropy of Non-Hermitian free fermions, J. Phys.: Condens. Mat- ter33, 475502 (2021)

    2021

  35. [43]

    Okuma and M

    N. Okuma and M. Sato, Quantum anomaly, non- Hermitian skin effects, and entanglement entropy in open systems, Phys. Rev. B103, 085428 (2021)

    2021

  36. [44]

    Modak and B

    R. Modak and B. P. Mandal, Eigenstate entanglement entropy in a parity-time invariant non-Hermitian sys- tem, Phys. Rev. A103, 062416 (2021)

    2021

  37. [45]

    B´ acsi and B

    ´A. B´ acsi and B. D´ ora, Dynamics of entanglement after exceptional quantum quench, Phys. Rev. B103, 085137 (2021)

    2021

  38. [46]

    Gopalakrishnan and M

    S. Gopalakrishnan and M. J. Gullans, Entanglement and purification transitions in non-Hermitian quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 170503 (2021)

    2021

  39. [47]

    Jian, Z.-C

    S.-K. Jian, Z.-C. Yang, Z. Bi, and X. Chen, Yang- Lee edge singularity triggered entanglement transition, Phys. Rev. B104, L161107 (2021)

    2021

  40. [48]

    C. H. Lee, Exceptional bound states and negative entan- glement entropy, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 010402 (2022)

    2022

  41. [49]

    Tu, Y.-C

    Y.-T. Tu, Y.-C. Tzeng, and P.-Y. Chang, R´ enyi en- tropies and negative central charges in non-Hermitian quantum systems, SciPost Phys.12, 194 (2022). 7

    2022

  42. [50]

    Ortega-Taberner, L

    C. Ortega-Taberner, L. Rødland, and M. Hermanns, Po- larization and entanglement spectrum in non-Hermitian systems, Phys. Rev. B105, 075103 (2022)

    2022

  43. [51]

    Cipolloni and J

    G. Cipolloni and J. Kudler-Flam, Entanglement entropy of non-Hermitian eigenstates and the Ginibre ensemble, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 010401 (2023)

    2023

  44. [52]

    Hsieh and P.-Y

    C.-T. Hsieh and P.-Y. Chang, Relating non-Hermitian and Hermitian quantum systems at criticality, SciPost Phys. Core6, 062 (2023)

    2023

  45. [53]

    Kawabata, T

    K. Kawabata, T. Numasawa, and S. Ryu, Entanglement phase transition induced by the non-Hermitian skin ef- fect, Phys. Rev. X13, 021007 (2023)

    2023

  46. [54]

    Le Gal, X

    Y. Le Gal, X. Turkeshi, and M. Schir` o, Volume-to-area law entanglement transition in a non-Hermitian free fermionic chain, SciPost Phys.14, 138 (2023)

    2023

  47. [55]

    Turkeshi and M

    X. Turkeshi and M. Schir` o, Entanglement and correla- tion spreading in non-Hermitian spin chains, Phys. Rev. B107, L020403 (2023)

    2023

  48. [56]

    Zerba and A

    C. Zerba and A. Silva, Measurement phase transitions in the no-click limit as quantum phase transitions of a non- Hermitian vacuum, SciPost Phys. Core6, 051 (2023)

    2023

  49. [57]

    Fossati, F

    M. Fossati, F. Ares, and P. Calabrese, Symmetry- resolved entanglement in critical non-Hermitian sys- tems, Phys. Rev. B107, 205153 (2023)

    2023

  50. [58]

    Rottoli, M

    F. Rottoli, M. Fossati, and P. Calabrese, Entanglement Hamiltonian in the non-Hermitian SSH model, J. Stat. Mech.2024, 063102 (2024)

    2024

  51. [59]

    X. Feng, S. Liu, S. Chen, and W. Guo, Absence of log- arithmic and algebraic scaling entanglement phases due to the skin effect, Phys. Rev. B107, 094309 (2023)

    2023

  52. [60]

    D. F. Mu˜ noz-Arboleda, R. Arouca, and C. Morais Smith, Thermodynamics and entanglement entropy of the non-Hermitian Su-Schrieffer-Heeger model, Phys. Rev. B110, 115135 (2024)

    2024

  53. [61]

    Yang, C.-Z

    Z. Yang, C.-Z. Lu, and J. Lu, Entanglement entropy on generalized Brillouin zone, Phys. Rev. B110, 235127 (2024)

    2024

  54. [62]

    L.-M. Chen, Y. Zhou, S. A. Chen, and P. Ye, Quan- tum entanglement and non-Hermiticity in free-fermion systems, Chin. Phys. Lett.41, 127302 (2024)

    2024

  55. [63]

    Zhou, Entanglement phase transitions in non- Hermitian quasicrystals, Phys

    L. Zhou, Entanglement phase transitions in non- Hermitian quasicrystals, Phys. Rev. B109, 024204 (2024)

    2024

  56. [64]

    Zhou, Entanglement phase transitions in non- Hermitian Floquet systems, Phys

    L. Zhou, Entanglement phase transitions in non- Hermitian Floquet systems, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 023081 (2024)

    2024

  57. [65]

    Zhou, Entanglement phase transitions in non- Hermitian Kitaev chains, Entropy26, 272 (2024)

    L. Zhou, Entanglement phase transitions in non- Hermitian Kitaev chains, Entropy26, 272 (2024)

    2024

  58. [66]

    Huang, H.-Z

    X. Huang, H.-Z. Li, Y.-J. Zhao, S. Liu, and J.-X. Zhong, Quantum feedback induced entanglement relax- ation and dynamical phase transition in monitored free fermion chains with a Wannier-Stark ladder, Phys. Rev. B111, 184302 (2025)

    2025

  59. [67]

    S. Liu, H. Wang, T. Liu, and W.-L. You, Non-Hermitian entanglement dip from scaling-induced exceptional crit- icality, Sci. Bull.70, 2929 (2025)

    2025

  60. [68]

    Z. Xiao, T. Ohtsuki, and K. Kawabata, Universal stochastic equations of monitored quantum dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 140401 (2025)

    2025

  61. [69]

    Y. Li, X. Chen, and M. P. A. Fisher, Quantum Zeno ef- fect and the many-body entanglement transition, Phys. Rev. B98, 205136 (2018)

    2018

  62. [70]

    Skinner, J

    B. Skinner, J. Ruhman, and A. Nahum, Measurement- induced phase transitions in the dynamics of entangle- ment, Phys. Rev. X9, 031009 (2019)

    2019

  63. [71]

    A. Chan, R. M. Nandkishore, M. Pretko, and G. Smith, Unitary-projective entanglement dynamics, Phys. Rev. B99, 224307 (2019)

    2019

  64. [72]

    Y. Li, X. Chen, and M. P. A. Fisher, Measurement- driven entanglement transition in hybrid quantum cir- cuits, Phys. Rev. B100, 134306 (2019)

    2019

  65. [73]

    Y. Bao, S. Choi, and E. Altman, Theory of the phase transition in random unitary circuits with measure- ments, Phys. Rev. B101, 104301 (2020)

    2020

  66. [74]

    S. Choi, Y. Bao, X.-L. Qi, and E. Altman, Quan- tum error correction in scrambling dynamics and measurement-induced phase transition, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 030505 (2020)

    2020

  67. [75]

    Jian, Y.-Z

    C.-M. Jian, Y.-Z. You, R. Vasseur, and A. W. W. Lud- wig, Measurement-induced criticality in random quan- tum circuits, Phys. Rev. B101, 104302 (2020)

    2020

  68. [76]

    M. J. Gullans and D. A. Huse, Dynamical purification phase transition induced by quantum measurements, Phys. Rev. X10, 041020 (2020)

    2020

  69. [77]

    Alberton, M

    O. Alberton, M. Buchhold, and S. Diehl, Entanglement transition in a monitored free-fermion chain, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 170602 (2021)

    2021

  70. [78]

    Fuji and Y

    Y. Fuji and Y. Ashida, Measurement-induced quantum criticality under continuous monitoring, Phys. Rev. B 102, 054302 (2020)

    2020

  71. [79]

    Buchhold, Y

    M. Buchhold, Y. Minoguchi, A. Altland, and S. Diehl, Effective theory for the measurement-induced phase transition of Dirac fermions, Phys. Rev. X11, 041004 (2021)

    2021

  72. [80]

    Lavasani, Y

    A. Lavasani, Y. Alavirad, and M. Barkeshli, Measurement-induced topological entanglement transitions in symmetric random quantum circuits, Nat. Phys.17, 342 (2021)

    2021

  73. [81]

    D. C. Brody, Biorthogonal quantum mechanics, J. Phys. A47, 035305 (2014)

    2014

  74. [82]

    Bianchini, O

    D. Bianchini, O. A. Castro-Alvaredo, B. Doyon, E. Levi, and F. Ravanini, Entanglement entropy of non-unitary conformal field theory, J. Phys. A48, 04FT01 (2015)

    2015

  75. [83]

    Bianchini, O

    D. Bianchini, O. A. Castro-Alvaredo, and B. Doyon, En- tanglement entropy of non-unitary integrable quantum field theory, Nucl. Phys. B896, 835 (2015)

    2015

  76. [84]

    Bianchini and F

    D. Bianchini and F. Ravanini, Entanglement entropy from corner transfer matrix in Forrester–Baxter non- unitary RSOS models, J. Phys. A49, 154005 (2016)

    2016

  77. [85]

    Couvreur, J

    R. Couvreur, J. L. Jacobsen, and H. Saleur, Entangle- ment in nonunitary quantum critical spin chains, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 040601 (2017)

    2017

  78. [86]

    Turkeshi, A

    X. Turkeshi, A. Biella, R. Fazio, M. Dalmonte, and M. Schir` o, Measurement-induced entanglement transi- tions in the quantum Ising chain: From infinite to zero clicks, Phys. Rev. B103, 224210 (2021)

    2021

  79. [87]

    P. W. Anderson, Absence of diffusion in certain random lattices, Phys. Rev.109, 1492 (1958)

    1958

  80. [88]

    W. P. Su, J. R. Schrieffer, and A. J. Heeger, Solitons in polyacetylene, Phys. Rev. Lett.42, 1698 (1979)

    1979

  81. [89]

    Esaki, M

    K. Esaki, M. Sato, K. Hasebe, and M. Kohmoto, Edge states and topological phases in non-Hermitian systems, Phys. Rev. B84, 205128 (2011)

    2011

  82. [90]

    Schomerus, Topologically protected midgap states in complex photonic lattices, Opt

    H. Schomerus, Topologically protected midgap states in complex photonic lattices, Opt. Lett.38, 1912 (2013)

    1912

  83. [91]

    B. Zhu, R. L¨ u, and S. Chen, Parity-time symmetry in the non-Hermitian Su-Schrieffer-Heeger model with complex boundary potentials, Phys. Rev. A89, 062102 8 (2014)

    2014

  84. [92]

    T. E. Lee, Anomalous edge state in a non-Hermitian lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 133903 (2016)

    2016

  85. [93]

    Klett, H

    M. Klett, H. Cartarius, D. Dast, J. Main, and G. Wun- ner, Relation betweenPT-symmetry breaking and topologically nontrivial phases in the Su-Schrieffer- Heeger and Kitaev models, Phys. Rev. A95, 053626 (2017)

    2017

  86. [94]

    Weimann, M

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

    2017

  87. [95]

    Lieu, Topological phases in the non-Hermitian Su- Schrieffer-Heeger model, Phys

    S. Lieu, Topological phases in the non-Hermitian Su- Schrieffer-Heeger model, Phys. Rev. B97, 045106 (2018)

    2018

  88. [96]

    C. Yin, H. Jiang, L. Li, R. L¨ u, and S. Chen, Geomet- rical meaning of winding number and its characteriza- tion of topological phases in one-dimensional chiral non- Hermitian systems, Phys. Rev. A97, 052115 (2018)

    2018

  89. [97]

    V. M. Martinez Alvarez, J. E. Barrios Vargas, and L. E. F. Foa Torres, Non-Hermitian robust edge states in one dimension: Anomalous localization and eigenspace condensation at exceptional points, Phys. Rev. B97, 121401 (2018)

    2018

  90. [98]

    H. Shen, B. Zhen, and L. Fu, Topological band theory for non-Hermitian Hamiltonians, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 146402 (2018)

    2018

  91. [99]

    Z. Gong, Y. Ashida, K. Kawabata, K. Takasan, S. Hi- gashikawa, and M. Ueda, Topological phases of non- Hermitian systems, Phys. Rev. X8, 031079 (2018)

    2018

  92. [100]

    Klett, H

    M. Klett, H. Cartarius, D. Dast, J. Main, and G. Wun- ner, Topological edge states in the Su-Schrieffer-Heeger model subject to balanced particle gain and loss, Eur. Phys. J. D72, 214 (2018)

    2018

  93. [101]

    Parto, S

    M. Parto, S. Wittek, H. Hodaei, G. Harari, M. A. Bandres, J. Ren, M. C. Rechtsman, M. Segev, D. N. Christodoulides, and M. Khajavikhan, Edge-mode las- ing in one-dimensional topological active arrays, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 113901 (2018)

    2018

  94. [102]

    Xiong, Why does bulk boundary correspondence fail in some non-Hermitian topological models, J

    Y. Xiong, Why does bulk boundary correspondence fail in some non-Hermitian topological models, J. Phys. Commun.2, 035043 (2018)

    2018

  95. [103]

    F. K. Kunst and V. Dwivedi, Non-Hermitian systems and topology: A transfer-matrix perspective, Phys. Rev. B99, 245116 (2019)

    2019

  96. [104]

    Ghatak, M

    A. Ghatak, M. Brandenbourger, J. van Wezel, and C. Coulais, Observation of non-Hermitian topology and its bulk-edge correspondence in an active mechanical metamaterial, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.117, 29561 (2020)

    2020

  97. [105]

    Helbig, T

    T. Helbig, T. Hofmann, S. Imhof, M. Abdelghany, T. Kiessling, L. W. Molenkamp, C. H. Lee, A. Sza- meit, M. Greiter, and R. Thomale, Generalized bulk- boundary correspondence in non-Hermitian topolectri- cal circuits, Nat. Phys.16, 747 (2020)

    2020

  98. [106]

    Xiao and K

    Z. Xiao and K. Kawabata, Symmetry and topology of monitored quantum dynamics, Phys. Rev. B113, 134307 (2026)

    2026

  99. [107]

    Peschel, Calculation of reduced density matrices from correlation functions, J

    I. Peschel, Calculation of reduced density matrices from correlation functions, J. Phys. A36, L205 (2003)

    2003

  100. [108]

    Peschel and V

    I. Peschel and V. Eisler, Reduced density matrices and entanglement entropy in free lattice models, J. Phys. A 42, 504003 (2009)

    2009

  101. [109]

    Peschel, On the reduced density matrix for a chain of free electrons, J

    I. Peschel, On the reduced density matrix for a chain of free electrons, J. Stat. Mech.2004, P06004 (2004)

    2004

  102. [110]

    Banerjee, J

    A. Banerjee, J. T. Gohsrich, and F. K. Kunst, Spectral- topology-induced criticality in non-Hermitian fermionic metals (2026), arXiv:2607.05190

    2026 arXiv

  103. [111]

    See Supplemental Material at [URL will be inserted by publisher] for additional model checks, including open- boundary models without skin accumulation

  104. [112]

    Hatano and D

    N. Hatano and D. R. Nelson, Localization transitions in non-Hermitian quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 570 (1996)

    1996

  105. [113]

    D. S. Fisher, Random antiferromagnetic quantum spin chains, Phys. Rev. B50, 3799 (1994)

    1994

  106. [114]

    Refael and J

    G. Refael and J. E. Moore, Entanglement entropy of random quantum critical points in one dimension, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 260602 (2004)

    2004

  107. [115]

    Y. Liu, Y. Zeng, L. Li, and S. Chen, Exact solution of single impurity problem in non-reciprocal lattices: Im- purity induced size-dependent non-Hermitian skin ef- fect, Phys. Rev. B104, 085401 (2021)

    2021

  108. [116]

    N. G. Leumer and D. Bercioux, Impurity-induced counter skin-effect and linear modes in the Hatano– Nelson model, APL Quantum2, 036105 (2025)

    2025

  109. [117]

    Peschel and V

    I. Peschel and V. Eisler, Exact results for the entangle- ment across defects in critical chains, J. Phys. A45, 155301 (2012)

    2012

  110. [118]

    Calabrese, M

    P. Calabrese, M. Mintchev, and E. Vicari, Entangle- ment entropy of quantum wire junctions, J. Phys. A 45, 105206 (2012)

    2012

  111. [119]

    S. J. Garratt, Z. Weinstein, and E. Altman, Measure- ments conspire nonlocally to restructure critical quan- tum states, Phys. Rev. X13, 021026 (2023)

    2023

  112. [120]

    X. Sun, H. Yao, and S.-K. Jian, New critical states in- duced by measurement (2023), arXiv:2301.11337

    2023 arXiv

  113. [121]

    Weinstein, R

    Z. Weinstein, R. Sajith, E. Altman, and S. J. Gar- ratt, Nonlocality and entanglement in measured critical quantum Ising chains, Phys. Rev. B107, 245132 (2023)

    2023

  114. [122]

    Z. Yang, D. Mao, and C.-M. Jian, Entanglement in a one-dimensional critical state after measurements, Phys. Rev. B108, 165120 (2023)

    2023

  115. [123]

    Zhang, Z

    K. Zhang, Z. Yang, and C. Fang, Correspondence between winding numbers and skin modes in non- Hermitian systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 126402 (2020)

    2020

  116. [124]

    Affleck, W

    I. Affleck, W. Hofstetter, D. R. Nelson, and U. Schollw¨ ock, Non-Hermitian luttinger liquids and flux line pinning in planar superconductors, J. Stat. Mech. 2004, P10003 (2004)

    2004

  117. [125]

    Widom, On a class of integral operators with discon- tinuous symbol, inToeplitz Centennial, Operator The- ory: Advances and Applications, Vol

    H. Widom, On a class of integral operators with discon- tinuous symbol, inToeplitz Centennial, Operator The- ory: Advances and Applications, Vol. 4 (Birkh¨ auser, Basel, 1982) pp. 477–500

    1982

  118. [126]

    Gioev and I

    D. Gioev and I. Klich, Entanglement entropy of fermions in any dimension and the Widom conjecture, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 100503 (2006)

    2006

  119. [127]

    Fleckenstein, A

    C. Fleckenstein, A. Zorzato, D. Varjas, E. J. Bergholtz, J. H. Bardarson, and A. Tiwari, Non-Hermitian topol- ogy in monitored quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. Res.4, L032026 (2022)

    2022

  120. [128]

    Anomalous entanglement scaling from eigenvector nonorthogonality in critical non-Hermitian free fermions

    X. Cao, A. Tilloy, and A. De Luca, Entanglement in a fermion chain under continuous monitoring, SciPost Phys.7, 024 (2019). 9 END MA TTER Closed-form coefficients and numerical comparison We collect the closed-form expressions for the logarith- mic coefficients. Similar integr...

    2019

  121. [129]

    (1), with (t1, t2, g1, g2) = (1,2,0.5,0).(S1)

    The Su–Schrieffer–Heeger (SSH) model in main-text Eq. (1), with (t1, t2, g1, g2) = (1,2,0.5,0).(S1)

  122. [130]

    A three-orbital model with an additional orbitalsin each unit cell: ˆHmix = X j h t1eg1 c† j,bcj,a +t 1e−g1 c† j,acj,b +t 2eg2 c† j+1,acj,b +t 2e−g2 c† j,bcj+1,a +λ(c † j,acj,s −c † j+1,acj,s +c † j,scj,a −c † j,scj+1,a) + iγc† j,scj,s +t c(c† j+1,scj,s −c † j,scj+1,s) i .(S2)...

  123. [131]

    Red and black denote occupied and unoccupied branches, respectively, and the circles mark the momenta where ImE(k) = 0

    The SSH model with (t1, t2, g1, g2) = (2e−1/2,2,0.5,0).(S4) Figure S1(a)–(c) shows the corresponding ImE(k) bands. Red and black denote occupied and unoccupied branches, respectively, and the circles mark the momenta where ImE(k) = 0

  124. [132]

    Using the overlap-angle formula in main-text Eq

    For the first model, ImE ±(k) = 0 atk= 0 andk=π, corresponding to two imaginary Dirac points. Using the overlap-angle formula in main-text Eq. (9), we findθ(k= 0) = 0.167. . .andθ(k=π) = 0.640. . .. The two contributionsζ n(θi), evaluated from main-text Eq. (14), add according...

  125. [133]

    , while two bands cross atk= 0

    For the second model, one band satisfies ImE(k) = 0 atk=k 0, π−k0, wherek 0 = arcsin[γ/(2tc)] = 0.3046. . ., while two bands cross atk= 0. This gives one imaginary Dirac point and two single-band Fermi points. The imaginary Dirac point hasθ mix = 0.594. . ., and the total coef...

  126. [134]

    Atk= 0 the crossing is an imaginary Dirac point withθ= 0.189

    For the third model, two bands cross atk= 0 andk=π. Atk= 0 the crossing is an imaginary Dirac point withθ= 0.189. . ., while atk=π HSSH(π) = 0 2e −1 −2 0 0 .(S5) Thek=πexceptional point corresponds toθ=π/2 and contributes zero, so the total coefficient isζ n(0.189. . .). π/4 5...

  127. [135]

    Forµ I =w, the crossing atk=π/2 lies on the occupation boundary: E±(π/2) = iw± p ∆2 −γ 2 = 0.4i± √ 3 2 .(S14) This is an off-zero imaginary Dirac point with |sinθ|= γ ∆ = 0.5,cosθ= √ 3 2 .(S15) The same cut also has two single-band Fermi points atk=−0.722861πandk=−0.277139π, a...

  128. [136]

    Forµ I = 0, the cut has four single-band Fermi points and no imaginary Dirac point. The filling isν= 1/2, and the theoretical coefficient is 1 + 1/n 3 .(S17) 5 For both cuts, we useL= 65536, twisted momentak m = 2π(m+ 0.37)/L, and fit the periodic-boundary entropy to Sn(ℓ) =a ...

  129. [137]

    (1)] with (t1, t2, g1, g2) = (3.6,2,1,0).(S19) 6

    The SSH model [main-text Eq. (1)] with (t1, t2, g1, g2) = (3.6,2,1,0).(S19) 6

  130. [138]

    Red and black denote occupied and unoccupied branches, respectively, and the circle in panel (a) marks the momentum where ReE(k) = 0

    The same model with (t1, t2, g1, g2) = (1,2,0.5,0).(S20) Figure S4(a,b) shows the corresponding ReE(k) bands. Red and black denote occupied and unoccupied branches, respectively, and the circle in panel (a) marks the momentum where ReE(k) = 0

  131. [139]

    The overlap angle of the right spinors there isθ gs with|sinθ gs|= 0.840

    For the first model, the occupation has a weakened discontinuity atk=π, where the two bands cross on the boundary ReE= 0. The overlap angle of the right spinors there isθ gs with|sinθ gs|= 0.840. . ., so the coefficients areζ n(θgs)

  132. [140]

    There is no Fermi point, and the logarithmic coefficient vanishes

    For the second model, the spectrum is gapped across ReE= 0. There is no Fermi point, and the logarithmic coefficient vanishes. For both cases, we useL= 65536, twisted momentak m = 2π(m+ 0.37)/L, and fit the periodic-boundary entropy to Sn(ℓ) =a n +ζ n ln L π sin πℓ L (S21) ove...

Pith tools

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