Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 78 references

The Role of Exceptional Points and Transmission Peak Degeneracies in Non-Hermitian Sensing

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read TPDs, unlike EPs, keep square-root splitting under nuisance drift because a displaced sensing sweep still crosses a transmission extrema degeneracy; a robust point at $\phi=0$, $\tilde\kappa_c=2$ removes the cube-root nuisance response.

desk verdict Solid theory-experiment paper on TPD sensing; the robust-TPD design target is more sensitive to kappa_c calibration than claimed, but the broader TED-retention result holds up. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.09141 v4 pith:VIYQ3ISL submitted 2025-06-10 physics.app-ph physics.opticsquant-ph

Alexander S. Carney , Juan S. Salcedo-Gallo , Salil K. Bedkihal , Mattias Fitzpatrick This is my paper
classification physics.app-phphysics.opticsquant-ph
keywords non-Hermitiansensingtransmissionpeakdegeneracyexceptionalpointcavitymagnonicssquare-rootfrequencysplittingnuisanceparameterdriftrobustTPDsyntheticgaugefield
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 transmission peak degeneracies (TPDs)—points where two transmission peaks and the intervening minimum merge in the steady-state spectrum of a non-Hermitian dimer—are practical alternatives to exceptional points (EPs), degeneracies where eigenvalues and eigenvectors coalesce, for sensing. The central claim is that TPDs retain square-root frequency splitting even when a nuisance parameter drifts the operating point off the exact degeneracy, because the sensing sweep still crosses a transmission extrema degeneracy (TED) where the square-root response survives. The paper gives analytic figures of merit for TPD sensors, including splitting strengths, Petermann factors, thermal noise efficiency, and distances to instability and to EPs, and validates them on a cavity-magnonics platform with tunable coupling phase and dissipation. It further identifies a robust TPD at coupling phase $\phi=0$ and normalized dissipation $\tilde\kappa_c=2$ at which the cube-root nuisance response vanishes exactly. A fair reader would care because this turns TPDs from isolated curiosities into engineerable operating points with a concrete design rule.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the transmission extrema equation, a depressed cubic $x^3+\tilde p x+\tilde q=0$ whose roots are the stationary points of the steady-state transmission spectrum $\tilde{\beta}_{\mathrm{ss}}(\tilde f_d)$. The coefficients $\tilde p$ and $\tilde q$ are determined by the eigenvalue splitting $\tilde\Delta_\lambda$ and the average dissipation $\tilde\kappa_c-\tilde\Delta_\kappa$. The discriminant $\mathrm{Disc}=-4\tilde p^3-27\tilde q^2$ separates the single-peak regime from the split-peak regime; a transmission extrema degeneracy (TED) is a double root where a peak merges with the intervening minimum, and a transmission peak degeneracy (TPD) is the triple root where both peaks and the minimum coincide, occurring when $\mathrm{Disc}=0$ and $\tilde q=0$ simultaneously. The robust-TPD mechanism is the factorization of the $\mathrm{Disc}=0$ contour at $\phi=0$, $\tilde\kappa_c=2$, which removes the cusp catastrophe that otherwise transduces small nuisance fluctuations into large peak-position uncertainty.

What would settle it

Tune the $\phi=0$ platform to $\tilde\kappa_c=2$, inject a controlled nuisance detuning $\tilde\delta(\tilde\Delta_f)$ with Gaussian width $\sigma=10^{-3}$, and measure the distribution of the single-peak frequency near the TPD; the robust-TPD claim predicts no cusp-induced broadening and $\tilde\nu_0\approx\tilde\delta/2$, whereas a non-robust configuration like $\tilde\kappa_c=1.5$ should show the characteristic broadening. A cleaner test is to measure the scaling exponent of $\tilde\nu_0$ versus $\tilde\delta$: it should be 1 at the robust point and 1/3 away from it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that TPDs are third-order degeneracies of the transmission extrema equation, sitting at the intersection of the discriminant contour $\mathrm{Disc}=0$ and the contour $\tilde q=0$ in the plane of detuning imbalance $\tilde\Delta_f$ and dissipation imbalance $\tilde\Delta_\kappa$. When a nuisance perturbation pushes a sensing sweep off the TPD, the sweep still crosses the $\mathrm{Disc}=0$ contour at a transmission extrema degeneracy (TED), a second-order degeneracy where one transmission peak merges with the intervening minimum; crossing a TED preserves the square-root splitting, $\tilde\Delta\nu(\tilde\Delta^{\mathrm{TED}}+\tilde\epsilon)\approx \tilde\Delta\nu(\tilde\Delta^{\mathrm{TED}})+\tilde a^{\mathrm{TED}}_{\mathrm{sqrt}}\sqrt{\|\tilde\epsilon\|}$, as long as the crossing is not grazing. Exceptional points have no such safety net: any nonzero nuisance perturbation regularizes the divergent susceptibility, so the square-root eigenvalue splitting is lost. The paper derives closed-form splitting and nuisance coefficients for the $\phi=0$ and $\phi=\pi$ TPDs, and shows that at $\phi=0$, $\tilde\kappa_c=2$, the cube-root nuisance coefficient $\tilde b^{\mathrm{TPD}}_{\mathrm{cbrt}}$ vanishes, so the single peak frequency shifts only linearly with the nuisance parameter and the cusp catastrophe in the discriminant contour disappears.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes the two-mode linear state-space model with a single complex coupling phase and Lorentzian linewidths fully describes the cavity-magnon dimer in the TPD parameter regions, including the specific drive/readout configuration; if additional modes, nonlinearity, non-Lorentzian line shapes, or a different input-output channel enter, the predicted TPD locations and scaling exponents would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • TPD sensors can be designed by selecting $\phi$ and $\tilde\kappa_c$ rather than by hunting for an isolated degeneracy, since the paper's figures of merit are analytic functions of those two controls.
  • Any sensing sweep displaced from a TPD by small nuisance drift still crosses a TED, so the square-root response $\tilde\Delta\nu\propto\sqrt{\|\tilde\epsilon\|}$ is recovered; this explains why existing TPD demonstrations observe clean square-root scaling despite imperfect alignment.
  • At the robust TPD ($\phi=0$, $\tilde\kappa_c=2$), the cube-root nuisance response vanishes and the cusp catastrophe disappears, reducing nuisance-induced uncertainty in peak positions to linear order.
  • Because the Petermann factor at a TPD is finite and set by the distance to the nearest EP, TPD sensors avoid the noise amplification that limits EP sensors, with closed-form expressions for $\phi=0$ and $\phi=\pi$.
  • Since TPDs move with $\tilde\kappa_c$ while EPs stay fixed, the same platform can be reconfigured across PT-symmetric, anti-PT-symmetric, and anyonic-PT-symmetric regimes, so the design rules are directly testable one configuration at a time.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the same cubic formalism should predict an analogous robust point for other drive/readout configurations, since the paper shows that changing which mode is driven and read out changes the TPD count.
  • Because cusp geometry controls stochastic escape in bistable systems, the robust TPD may also suppress noise-induced switching and nonlinear amplification near the degeneracy, a testable prediction that goes beyond the linear model.
  • One could operate a sensor on the TED surface itself rather than at a TPD, effectively converting nuisance drift from a liability into a calibration signal, since square-root splitting persists along the entire $\mathrm{Disc}=0$ contour.
  • For multi-mode extensions, higher-order extrema equations would likely produce higher-order degeneracies; if the cubic structure generalizes, robustness to drift may grow with the order of the degeneracy.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a unified semiclassical theory of transmission peak degeneracies (TPDs) in a two-mode non-Hermitian dimer, derives the locations of exceptional points and TPDs, and provides analytic figures of merit for sensor design: signal splitting strength, thermal noise efficiency, Petermann factor, and nuisance-perturbation scaling. It identifies a specific 'robust TPD' configuration at coupling phase φ=0 and average dissipation κ_c=2, where the cube-root nuisance response is claimed to vanish, and argues that TPDs retain square-root sensing response even when nuisance drift displaces the sweep from the TPD, because the sweep then crosses a transmission extrema degeneracy (TED). Experimental validation is presented in a cavity-magnonics platform for φ=0, π, π/2 at two values of κ_c each, showing that measured transmission peak locations and square-root splittings agree with theory. The TED-retention and robust-TPD claims are supported by analytic expansions and Monte Carlo simulations rather than by direct experiment.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this is a substantial contribution: it unifies previously fragmented treatments of TPDs, gives closed-form design formulas, and offers a concrete operating point for nuisance-robust sensing. The analytic derivations are internally consistent, the experimental peak locations match the theoretical model, and the paper provides data, code, and an interactive theory explorer, which are valuable for reproducibility. The robustness claims, however, rest on a fine-tuned cancellation and on simulations rather than experimental measurements, and the reported control precision is directly relevant to whether the proposed robust operating point is practically attainable.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. VI, Eq. (25), Fig. 5] The robust TPD is a codimension-one fine-tuned point, and the reported experimental control precision is not sufficient to realize it. Equation (25) gives the nuisance coefficient as (1/2)|κ̃_c^2−4|^{1/3}; for κ̃_c=2+η this is approximately 0.79|η|^{1/3}, so η=0.01 restores a coefficient ≈0.17, and the κ̃_c=1.95(1) configuration in Fig. 3(b) has coefficient ≈0.29. Since the signal coefficient a_sqrt^{TPD} is only 2 at κ̃_c=2, a restored cube-root nuisance can dominate for small target perturbations: for ε=δ=10^{-3}, the nuisance term is ≈0.017 versus a signal splitting of ≈0.063, and the ratio grows as ε decreases. Figure 5 propagates σ(δ(Δ̃f))=10^{-3} but keeps κ̃_c fixed at exactly 2, so it does not sample the κ̃_c uncertainty reported in Sec. IV. The paper should quantify the required precision in κ̃_c, include κ̃_c uncertainty in the Monte Carlo, and either identify a robust operating interval or temper the claim that κ̃_c=2 is a robust design target.
  2. [Sec. VI and Appendix XII] The TED-retention and robust-TPD claims are not directly tested experimentally. Section IV validates TPD locations and square-root splitting along the q̃=0 trajectory, but the central claim that a nuisance-displaced path still yields square-root splitting at a TED, and the claimed suppression of cube-root nuisance at κ̃_c=2, are supported only by analytic Puiseux expansions and Monte Carlo (Fig. 5). Given that the platform provides in situ control of κ_c and Δ̃_f, an experimental measurement of the nuisance response—for example, peak splitting versus δ(Δ̃_f) at κ̃_c=2 and at κ̃_c≠2—would directly support the headline claim. If such an experiment is not feasible in the present work, the text should state explicitly that the robustness results are theoretical predictions rather than experimentally validated findings.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. VI] The phrase 'TPDs, unlike EPs, retain square-root splitting even under nuisance parameter drift' should be clarified: Appendix XI A shows that EPs also exhibit a square-root response to a pure nuisance perturbation (Eq. 59). The distinction is that a fixed nuisance regularizes the EP sensing susceptibility, whereas a TPD sweep crossing a TED retains a square-root response in the sensing direction; the current wording overstates the contrast.
  2. [Fig. 5 caption] The caption says the robust configuration 'effectively decouples the peak splitting from δ̃(Δ̃_f)', but Eq. (25) leaves a linear response δ̃/2. A more precise statement is that the cube-root term vanishes, not that the response is decoupled.
  3. [Main text, Sec. V–VI] The paper should state explicitly that all TPD formulas and the robust design point assume the specific drive/readout choice B=[1,0]^T, C=[0,1]; Appendix XI C shows that other input–output configurations give different TPD counts and locations, so the design principle is not presentation-independent.
  4. [Fig. 2 caption and Appendix X] The term 'rogue TPD' is used in the main text and figure captions before it is defined; define it at first use in the main text rather than only in Appendix X.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the TPD/TED scaling laws are derived analytically from the stated two-mode model, and experimental comparisons use independently calibrated parameters rather than fitted predictions.

full rationale

The derivation chain for the paper's central claims is self-contained. TPD locations and the square-root and cube-root scaling laws (Eqs. 17-27) follow analytically from the two-mode state-space model in Eq. 4 through the depressed cubic extrema condition in Eq. 9 and the closed-form root formulas of Eqs. 13-16 and Eq. 61; no parameter is fitted to the predicted scaling coefficients. The robust TPD condition kappa_c = 2 arises as an exact zero of the analytic Puiseux coefficient in Eq. 25, not from a fit or from a self-citation. The experimental comparisons in Sec. IV use independently measured or calibrated parameters (f_c, f_y, kappa_c, kappa_y, J) and then compare measured peak positions with the model, which is standard model validation rather than fitting the prediction. The TED square-root retention in Eq. 27 and Appendix XII B is a derived normal-form property of the discriminant surface; although it is related to known catastrophe theory, the paper explicitly quantifies the residual splitting and expansion coefficients. The self-citations, such as Ref. [34], support the experimental platform and nonlinear context but are not load-bearing for the analytic TPD/TED claims. The skeptic concern about fine-tuning at kappa_c = 2 is a sensitivity or correctness issue, not a circularity, because the cancellation is real within the stated model and is not obtained by reusing the predicted quantity as an input. No circular step could be identified by quoting the paper's equations, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

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

No new physical entities are introduced. The 'effective synthetic gauge field' is implemented as a phase shifter, not a new field. TPD, TED, and robust TPD are new concepts derived from the existing two-mode model.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The cavity-magnon dimer is described by the 2x2 state-space matrix Eq. 4 with a single complex coupling phase phi and Lorentzian linewidths.
    Invoked in Sec III and Appendix IX; if higher modes or non-Lorentzian effects contribute, TPD locations and scaling would shift.
  • domain assumption The steady-state transmission spectrum is |C alpha_ss|^2 from Eq. 3 and its extrema obey the cubic Eq. 9.
    Used for all TPD and TED analysis; valid only in the linear regime where eigenvalues have negative real parts.
  • domain assumption The system remains in the linear regime for all experimental sweeps; the model is invalid beyond the stated instability transitions.
    The paper explicitly bounds the linear regime (Sec III, Fig. 3) and excludes data beyond it, so the analysis does not cover nonlinear effects.
  • standard math The Petermann factor computed via spectral projectors (Eq. 52-53) and the thermal noise efficiency N_th (Eq. 22) capture the relevant noise costs.
    These are standard results from laser and quantum noise theory [20,49,54].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Role of Exceptional Points and Transmission Peak Degeneracies in Non-Hermitian Sensing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VIYQ3ISL

@misc{pith2026250609141,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Role of Exceptional Points and Transmission Peak Degeneracies in Non-Hermitian Sensing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VIYQ3ISL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.09141}
}
read the original abstract

Transmission peak degeneracies (TPDs) have emerged as a promising alternative to exceptional points (EPs) for non-Hermitian sensing, providing square-root frequency splitting without the eigenbasis collapse and associated noise amplification that limit EP sensors. However, existing treatments of TPDs remain fragmented, lacking a unified theoretical framework, systematic figures of merit, or design principles for practical implementation. Here, we develop a comprehensive theory of two-dimensional TPDs that clarifies their relationship to EPs, maps their locations in parameter space, and provides analytic figures of merit for sensor design. We validate our theory using a tunable cavity-magnonics platform with in situ control of mode frequency, dissipation, and complex coupling via an effective synthetic gauge field. Our platform enables systematic exploration of six representative EP-TPD configurations spanning PT-symmetric, anti-PT-symmetric and anyonic-PT-symmetric regimes. Crucially, we show that TPDs, unlike EPs, retain square-root splitting even under nuisance parameter drift through generalized transmission extrema degeneracies (TEDs). We further identify specific robust TPD configurations that minimize the impact of nuisance drift. These findings establish a unified theoretical and experimental framework for TPD-based non-Hermitian sensing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.09141 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Schematic of our architecture. The coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Parameter landscape for ϕ = 0 (a),(b), ϕ = π (c),(d), and ϕ = π/2 (e),(f) overlaid atop the Petermann fac￾tor (clipped to 90th percentile). Each panel corresponds to the same ϕ and ˜κc used in the experimental panel in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Lime contours are Re(∆˜ λ) = (˜κc − ∆˜ κ), and separate the parameter space into stable (Inferno colorscale) and un￾stable (grayscale, linear model inapplicable) regimes. (g), an alternative representation of EPs and TPDs, representing a cross-section along the ∆˜ f axis for the ˜κc, ϕ configuration in (a). The imaginary eigenvalues (Im(λ˜)) split at the EP (solid red vertical), while the transmission peak frequenci… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Experimentally fit transmission peak locations ˜ν [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a)–(c) Experimental data from Fig. 3 recast as peak splitting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Monte Carlo simulation of nuisance propagation for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a)(b) Geometric interpretation of the ϕ = 0 and ϕ = π configurations. The imaginary eigenvalues, |Im(λ˜±)| do not change with ˜κc, while the peak locations, ˜ν±, do. Furthermore, the peak locations do not line up with the imaginary eigenvalues, but remain bounded by t…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Peak splitting at a TED. (a.i) local scaling of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Theory for ϕ = 0 (a),(b), ϕ = π (c),(d), and ϕ = π/2 (e),(f) overlaid atop Nth (clipped to 90th percentile), using the exact parameters as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Experimental implementation. (a) Closed-loop configuration of coupled cavity and YIG mode, including switches to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 76 canonical work pages

  1. [34]

    Discrepancy between transmis- sion spectrum splitting and eigenvalue splitting: a reex- amination on exceptional point-based sensors.Photonics Research, 9(8):1645–1649, August 2021

    Qi Geng and Ka-Di Zhu. Discrepancy between transmis- sion spectrum splitting and eigenvalue splitting: a reex- amination on exceptional point-based sensors.Photonics Research, 9(8):1645–1649, August 2021

    work page 2021

  2. [1]

    Review of exceptional point-based sensors

    Jan Wiersig. Review of exceptional point-based sensors. Photonics Research, 8(9):1457, September 2020

    work page 2020

  3. [2]

    Figure 3(e),(f) de- picts the TPD (projected onto the ˜∆κ axis) at ˜∆TPD = (−0.860(3),−2.327(9)) for ˜κ c = 1.30(1) (Fig

    and movable TPDs without a reasonable closed form solution (Appendix X). Figure 3(e),(f) de- picts the TPD (projected onto the ˜∆κ axis) at ˜∆TPD = (−0.860(3),−2.327(9)) for ˜κ c = 1.30(1) (Fig. 3(e)) and ˜∆TPD = (−0.657(4),−3.04(2)) for ˜κ c = 2.32(3) (Fig. 3(f)). Unlike theϕ= 0, πconfigurations, the in- stability transition remains inaccessible within t...

    work page

  4. [3]

    established in Sec. IV. Along this trajectory, the peak splitting scales as ˜∆ν( ˜∆TPD +˜ϵ)≈˜aTPD sqrt p ∥˜ϵ∥,(17) where ˜aTPD sqrt is a scaling coefficient defined in Sec. V A. By strictly defining the signal perturbation˜ϵas the component along this optimal trajectory, we distinguish it from nuisance perturbations ˜δ≡( ˜δ( ˜∆κ), ˜δ( ˜∆f )), which are or...

    work page

  5. [4]

    20-21 alongside the numerically calculated Peter- mann factor forϕ=π/2

    Figure 4(d.iv) plots Eqs. 20-21 alongside the numerically calculated Peter- mann factor forϕ=π/2. The Petermann factor at a TPD is related to the Euclidean distance in ˜∆-space be- tween the TPD and nearest EP (Fig. 4(d.vi)), defined as dist EP(ϕ,˜κc)≡min EP∥ ˜∆TPD(ϕ,˜κc)− ˜∆EP(ϕ)∥2. As distEP →0, the TPD and EP coalesce, and the Peter- mann factor diverg...

    work page

  6. [5]

    The same structure holds forϕ=πwith the roles of ˜∆κ and ˜∆f exchanged, and for generalϕalong the hy- perbolic sensing path

    Finally, with ˜δ̸= 0,˜ϵ̸= 0, evaluating the sensing susceptibility at finite ˜δyields lim ˜ϵ→0+ ˜χEP ˜ϵ(˜∆κ) ˜δ̸=0 ∝Im 4 + 2˜δ ip −˜δ2 + 4˜δ i ! <∞.(60) Thus, any nonzero nuisance perturbation ˜δregularizes the divergent susceptibility, reducing it to a finite value. The same structure holds forϕ=πwith the roles of ˜∆κ and ˜∆f exchanged, and for generalϕa...

    work page

  7. [6]

    Sensors operating at exceptional points: General theory.Physical Review A, 93(3):033809, March 2016

    Jan Wiersig. Sensors operating at exceptional points: General theory.Physical Review A, 93(3):033809, March 2016

    work page 2016

  8. [7]

    Jan Wiersig. Enhancing the Sensitivity of Frequency and Energy Splitting Detection by Using Exceptional Points: Application to Microcavity Sensors for Single-Particle Detection.Physical Review Letters, 112(20):203901, May 2014

    work page 2014

Show all 78 references
  1. [8]

    Symmetry-breaking-induced plas- monic exceptional points and nanoscale sensing.Nature Physics, 16(4):462–468, April 2020

    Jun-Hee Park, Abdoulaye Ndao, Wei Cai, Liyi Hsu, Ashok Kodigala, Thomas Lepetit, Yu-Hwa Lo, and Boubacar Kant´ e. Symmetry-breaking-induced plas- monic exceptional points and nanoscale sensing.Nature Physics, 16(4):462–468, April 2020

    2020

  2. [9]

    Exceptional-point- based accelerometers with enhanced signal-to-noise ratio

    Rodion Kononchuk, Jizhe Cai, Fred Ellis, Ramathasan Thevamaran, and Tsampikos Kottos. Exceptional-point- based accelerometers with enhanced signal-to-noise ratio. Nature, 607(7920):697–702, July 2022. 18

    2022

  3. [10]

    Noise re- silient exceptional-point voltmeters enabled by oscilla- tion quenching phenomena.Nature Communications, 14(1):5515, September 2023

    Arunn Suntharalingam, Lucas Fern´ andez-Alc´ azar, Ro- dion Kononchuk, and Tsampikos Kottos. Noise re- silient exceptional-point voltmeters enabled by oscilla- tion quenching phenomena.Nature Communications, 14(1):5515, September 2023

    2023

  4. [11]

    Parity-time- symmetric whispering-gallery mode nanoparticle sensor [Invited].Photonics Research, 6(5):A23–A30, May 2018

    Weijian Chen, Jing Zhang, Bo Peng, S ¸ahin Kaya ¨Ozdemir, Xudong Fan, and Lan Yang. Parity-time- symmetric whispering-gallery mode nanoparticle sensor [Invited].Photonics Research, 6(5):A23–A30, May 2018

    2018

  5. [12]

    ¨Ozdemir, S

    S ¸ K. ¨Ozdemir, S. Rotter, F. Nori, and L. Yang. Par- ity–time symmetry and exceptional points in photonics. Nature Materials, 18(8):783–798, August 2019

    2019

  6. [13]

    Exceptional points in optics and photonics.Science, 363(6422):eaar7709, January 2019

    Mohammad-Ali Miri and Andrea Al` u. Exceptional points in optics and photonics.Science, 363(6422):eaar7709, January 2019

    2019

  7. [14]

    Harnessing exceptional points for ultrahigh sensitive acoustic wave sensing.Microsystems & Nano- engineering, 11(1):1–10, March 2025

    Xingyu Lu, Yang Yuan, Fa Chen, Xiaoxiao Hou, Yanlong Guo, Leonhard Reindl, Yongqing Fu, Wei Luo, and De- gang Zhao. Harnessing exceptional points for ultrahigh sensitive acoustic wave sensing.Microsystems & Nano- engineering, 11(1):1–10, March 2025

    2025

  8. [15]

    Zhenya Dong, Zhipeng Li, Fengyuan Yang, Cheng-Wei Qiu, and John S. Ho. Sensitive readout of implantable microsensors using a wireless system locked to an excep- tional point.Nature Electronics, 2(8):335–342, August 2019

    2019

  9. [16]

    Huerta-Morales, Mario A

    Jos´ e D. Huerta-Morales, Mario A. Quiroz-Ju´ arez, Yo- gesh N. Joglekar, and Roberto de J. Le´ on-Montiel. Gen- erating high-order exceptional points in coupled elec- tronic oscillators using complex synthetic gauge fields. Physical Review A, 107(4):042219, April 2023

    2023

  10. [17]

    Naghiloo, M

    M. Naghiloo, M. Abbasi, Yogesh N. Joglekar, and K. W. Murch. Quantum state tomography across the excep- tional point in a single dissipative qubit.Nature Physics, 15(12):1232–1236, December 2019

    2019

  11. [18]

    Joglekar, and Kater W

    Weijian Chen, Maryam Abbasi, Byung Ha, Serra Er- damar, Yogesh N. Joglekar, and Kater W. Murch. Decoherence-Induced Exceptional Points in a Dissipa- tive Superconducting Qubit.Physical Review Letters, 128(11):110402, March 2022

    2022

  12. [19]

    Dengke Zhang, Xiao-Qing Luo, Yi-Pu Wang, Tie-Fu Li, and J. Q. You. Observation of the exceptional point in cavity magnon-polaritons.Nature Communications, 8(1):1368, November 2017

    2017

  13. [20]

    Observation of an anti-PT-symmetric ex- ceptional point and energy-difference conserving dynam- ics in electrical circuit resonators.Nature Communica- tions, 9(1):2182, June 2018

    Youngsun Choi, Choloong Hahn, Jae Woong Yoon, and Seok Ho Song. Observation of an anti-PT-symmetric ex- ceptional point and energy-difference conserving dynam- ics in electrical circuit resonators.Nature Communica- tions, 9(1):2182, June 2018

    2018

  14. [21]

    Anyonic-parity- time symmetry in complex-coupled lasers.Science Ad- vances, 8(22):eabm7454, June 2022

    Geva Arwas, Sagie Gadasi, Igor Gershenzon, Asher Friesem, Nir Davidson, and Oren Raz. Anyonic-parity- time symmetry in complex-coupled lasers.Science Ad- vances, 8(22):eabm7454, June 2022

    2022

  15. [22]

    Exceptional points enhance sensing in an optical microcavity.Nature, 548(7666):192– 196, August 2017

    Weijian Chen, S ¸ahin Kaya ¨Ozdemir, Guangming Zhao, Jan Wiersig, and Lan Yang. Exceptional points enhance sensing in an optical microcavity.Nature, 548(7666):192– 196, August 2017

    2017

  16. [23]

    Petermann-factor sensitiv- ity limit near an exceptional point in a Brillouin ring laser gyroscope.Nature Communications, 11(1):1610, March 2020

    Heming Wang, Yu-Hung Lai, Zhiquan Yuan, Myoung- Gyun Suh, and Kerry Vahala. Petermann-factor sensitiv- ity limit near an exceptional point in a Brillouin ring laser gyroscope.Nature Communications, 11(1):1610, March 2020

    2020

  17. [24]

    A. E. Siegman. Excess spontaneous emission in non- Hermitian optical systems. II. Laser oscillators.Physical Review A, 39(3):1264–1268, February 1989

    1989

  18. [25]

    Langbein

    W. Langbein. No exceptional precision of exceptional point sensors.Physical Review A, 98(2):023805, August

  19. [26]

    Mengzhen Zhang, William Sweeney, Chia Wei Hsu, Lan Yang, A. D. Stone, and Liang Jiang. Quantum Noise Theory of Exceptional Point Amplifying Sensors.Physi- cal Review Letters, 123(18):180501, October 2019

    2019

  20. [27]

    Exceptional- Point Sensors Offer No Fundamental Signal-to- Noise Ratio Enhancement.Physical Review Letters, 132(24):243601, June 2024

    Hudson Loughlin and Vivishek Sudhir. Exceptional- Point Sensors Offer No Fundamental Signal-to- Noise Ratio Enhancement.Physical Review Letters, 132(24):243601, June 2024

    2024

  21. [28]

    Asger Mortensen, P

    N. Asger Mortensen, P. a. D. Gon¸ calves, Mercedeh Khajavikhan, Demetrios N. Christodoulides, Christos Tserkezis, and Christian Wolff. Fluctuations and noise- limited sensing near the exceptional point of parity-time- symmetric resonator systems.Optica, 5(10):1342–1346, October 2018

    2018

  22. [29]

    Prospects and fundamental limits in ex- ceptional point-based sensing.Nature Communications, 11(1):2454, May 2020

    Jan Wiersig. Prospects and fundamental limits in ex- ceptional point-based sensing.Nature Communications, 11(1):2454, May 2020

    2020

  23. [30]

    Grant and Michel J

    Matthew J. Grant and Michel J. F. Digonnet. Rota- tion sensitivity and shot-noise-limited detection in an exceptional-point coupled-ring gyroscope.Optics Letters, 46(12):2936, June 2021

    2021

  24. [31]

    Sparks, R

    M. Sparks, R. Loudon, and C. Kittel. Ferromagnetic Relaxation. I. Theory of the Relaxation of the Uniform Precession and the Degenerate Spectrum in Insulators at Low Temperatures.Physical Review, 122(3):791–803, May 1961

    1961

  25. [32]

    Hoi-Kwan Lau and Aashish A. Clerk. Fundamental limits and non-reciprocal approaches in non-Hermitian quan- tum sensing.Nature Communications, 9(1):4320, Octo- ber 2018

    2018

  26. [33]

    Single-cavity loss-enabled nanometrology.Nature Nanotechnology, 19(10):1472– 1477, October 2024

    Jipeng Xu, Yuanhao Mao, Zhipeng Li, Yunlan Zuo, Jianfa Zhang, Biao Yang, Wei Xu, Ning Liu, Zhi Jiao Deng, Wei Chen, Keyu Xia, Cheng-Wei Qiu, Zhihong Zhu, Hui Jing, and Ken Liu. Single-cavity loss-enabled nanometrology.Nature Nanotechnology, 19(10):1472– 1477, October 2024

    2024

  27. [35]

    Heeres, Nissim Ofek, Katrina Sliwa, Eric Holland, Chen Wang, Jacob Blumoff, Kevin Chou, Michael J

    Matthew Reagor, Wolfgang Pfaff, Christopher Axline, Reinier W. Heeres, Nissim Ofek, Katrina Sliwa, Eric Holland, Chen Wang, Jacob Blumoff, Kevin Chou, Michael J. Hatridge, Luigi Frunzio, Michel H. Devoret, Liang Jiang, and Robert J. Schoelkopf. Quantum mem- ory with millisecon...

    2016

  28. [36]

    Bender and Stefan Boettcher

    Carl M. Bender and Stefan Boettcher. Real Spectra in Non-Hermitian Hamiltonians Having $\mathsc{P}\mathsc{T}$Symmetry.Physical Re- view Letters, 80(24):5243–5246, June 1998

    1998

  29. [37]

    Barry, Reed A

    John F. Barry, Reed A. Irion, Matthew H. Steinecker, Daniel K. Freeman, Jessica J. Kedziora, Reginald G. Wilcox, and Danielle A. Braje. Ferrimagnetic Oscillator Magnetometer.Physical Review Applied, 19(4):044044, April 2023

    2023

  30. [38]

    Jinwei Rao, C. Y. Wang, Bimu Yao, Z. J. Chen, K. X. Zhao, and Wei Lu. Meterscale Strong Coupling be- tween Magnons and Photons.Physical Review Letters, 131(10):106702, September 2023

    2023

  31. [39]

    Salcedo-Gallo, Michiel Burgelman, Vincent P

    Juan S. Salcedo-Gallo, Michiel Burgelman, Vincent P. Flynn, Alexander S. Carney, Majd Hamdan, Tunmay Gerg, Daniel C. Smallwood, Lorenza Viola, and Mattias Fitzpatrick. Demonstration of a tunable non-Hermitian 19 nonlinear microwave dimer.Nature Communications, 16(1):7193, August 2025

    2025

  32. [40]

    Tettamanzi, and Vincent Castel

    Alan Gardin, Guillaume Bourcin, Jeremy Bourhill, Vin- cent Vlaminck, Christian Person, Christophe Fumeaux, Giuseppe C. Tettamanzi, and Vincent Castel. En- gineering synthetic gauge fields through the coupling phases in cavity magnonics.Physical Review Applied, 21(6):064033, June 2024

    2024

  33. [41]

    Experimental Demonstration of Controllable PT and Anti- PT Cou- pling in a Non-Hermitian Metamaterial.Physical Review Letters, 132(15):156601, April 2024

    Chang Li, Ruisheng Yang, Xinchao Huang, Quanhong Fu, Yuancheng Fan, and Fuli Zhang. Experimental Demonstration of Controllable PT and Anti- PT Cou- pling in a Non-Hermitian Metamaterial.Physical Review Letters, 132(15):156601, April 2024

    2024

  34. [42]

    Christodoulides, and Ulf Peschel

    Alois Regensburger, Christoph Bersch, Mohammad- Ali Miri, Georgy Onishchukov, Demetrios N. Christodoulides, and Ulf Peschel. Parity–time syn- thetic photonic lattices.Nature, 488(7410):167–171, August 2012

    2012

  35. [43]

    Anti- parity–time symmetry with flying atoms.Nature Physics, 12(12):1139–1145, December 2016

    Peng Peng, Wanxia Cao, Ce Shen, Weizhi Qu, Jian- ming Wen, Liang Jiang, and Yanhong Xiao. Anti- parity–time symmetry with flying atoms.Nature Physics, 12(12):1139–1145, December 2016

    2016

  36. [44]

    Anti–parity-time symmetry in diffusive systems.Science, 364(6436):170– 173, April 2019

    Ying Li, Yu-Gui Peng, Lei Han, Mohammad-Ali Miri, Wei Li, Meng Xiao, Xue-Feng Zhu, Jianlin Zhao, Andrea Al` u, Shanhui Fan, and Cheng-Wei Qiu. Anti–parity-time symmetry in diffusive systems.Science, 364(6436):170– 173, April 2019

    2019

  37. [45]

    Synthetic Anti-PT Symmetry in a Sin- gle Microcavity.Physical Review Letters, 124(5):053901, February 2020

    Fangxing Zhang, Yaming Feng, Xianfeng Chen, Li Ge, and Wenjie Wan. Synthetic Anti-PT Symmetry in a Sin- gle Microcavity.Physical Review Letters, 124(5):053901, February 2020

    2020

  38. [46]

    Bimu Yao, Tao Yu, Xiang Zhang, Wei Lu, Yongsheng Gui, Can-Ming Hu, and Yaroslav M. Blanter. The micro- scopic origin of magnon-photon level attraction by trav- eling waves: Theory and experiment.Physical Review B, 100(21):214426, December 2019

    2019

  39. [47]

    Parity-Time-Anyonic Coupled Res- onators System With Tunable Exceptional Points.IEEE Access, 7:107874–107878, 2019

    Yong-Pan Gao, Yang Sun, Xiao-Fei Liu, Tie-Jun Wang, and Chuan Wang. Parity-Time-Anyonic Coupled Res- onators System With Tunable Exceptional Points.IEEE Access, 7:107874–107878, 2019

    2019

  40. [48]

    Harder, Y

    M. Harder, Y. Yang, B. M. Yao, C. H. Yu, J. W. Rao, Y. S. Gui, R. L. Stamps, and C.-M. Hu. Level Attraction Due to Dissipative Magnon-Photon Coupling.Physical Review Letters, 121(13):137203, September 2018

    2018

  41. [49]

    Nonlinear Exceptional Points with a Complete Basis in Dynamics.Physical Review Letters, 130(26):266901, June 2023

    Kai Bai, Jia-Zheng Li, Tian-Rui Liu, Liang Fang, Duand- uan Wan, and Meng Xiao. Nonlinear Exceptional Points with a Complete Basis in Dynamics.Physical Review Letters, 130(26):266901, June 2023

    2023

  42. [50]

    Yuhao Wu, Lei Kang, and Douglas H. Werner. Gen- eralized$\mathcal{P}\mathcal{T}$Symmetry in Non- Hermitian Wireless Power Transfer Systems.Physical Review Letters, 129(20):200201, November 2022

    2022

  43. [51]

    Pal, and Somnath Ghosh

    Shamba Ghosh, Arpan Roy, Sibnath Dey, Bishnu P. Pal, and Somnath Ghosh. Suppression of the Petermann noise factor in a chiral optical mode converter without encir- cling an exceptional point.JOSA B, 41(11):2534–2539, November 2024

    2024

  44. [52]

    Phan.Identification and Control of Mechanical Systems

    Jer-Nan Juang and Minh Q. Phan.Identification and Control of Mechanical Systems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2001

    2001

  45. [53]

    Zheng, Demetrios N

    Mei C. Zheng, Demetrios N. Christodoulides, Ragnar Fleischmann, and Tsampikos Kottos.$\mathcal{PT}$ optical lattices and universality in beam dynamics.Phys- ical Review A, 82(1):010103, July 2010

    2010

  46. [54]

    Non- Hermitian Physics.Advances in Physics, 69(3):249–435, July 2020

    Yuto Ashida, Zongping Gong, and Masahito Ueda. Non- Hermitian Physics.Advances in Physics, 69(3):249–435, July 2020. arXiv:2006.01837 [cond-mat]

    2020 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Exceptional surfaces in PT-symmetric non-Hermitian photonic systems.Optica, 6(2):190–193, February 2019

    Hengyun Zhou, Jong Yeon Lee, Shang Liu, and Bo Zhen. Exceptional surfaces in PT-symmetric non-Hermitian photonic systems.Optica, 6(2):190–193, February 2019

    2019

  48. [56]

    Xu Zheng and Y. D. Chong. Noise Constraints for Nonlin- ear Exceptional Point Sensing.Physical Review Letters, 134(13):133801, April 2025

    2025

  49. [57]

    R. W. D. Nickalls. Vi` ete, Descartes and the cubic equa- tion.The Mathematical Gazette, 90(518):203–208, July 2006

    2006

  50. [58]

    Ad Angularum Sectionem Analytica The- oremsta.Opera mathematica, volume 4, 1615

    Fran¸ cois Vi` ete. Ad Angularum Sectionem Analytica The- oremsta.Opera mathematica, volume 4, 1615

  51. [59]

    A. A. Clerk, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, Florian Mar- quardt, and R. J. Schoelkopf. Introduction to quantum noise, measurement, and amplification.Reviews of Mod- ern Physics, 82(2):1155–1208, April 2010

    2010

  52. [60]

    Arnold.Catastrophe Theory

    Vladimir I. Arnold.Catastrophe Theory. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1992

    1992

  53. [61]

    Anderson, Ruichao Ma, Jonathan Simon, and David I

    Clai Owens, Aman LaChapelle, Brendan Saxberg, Bran- don M. Anderson, Ruichao Ma, Jonathan Simon, and David I. Schuster. Quarter-flux Hofstadter lattice in a qubit-compatible microwave cavity array.Physical Re- view A, 97(1):013818, January 2018

    2018

  54. [62]

    Observation of Nonlinear Exceptional Points with a Complete Basis in Dynamics.Physical Review Letters, 132(7):073802, February 2024

    Kai Bai, Tian-Rui Liu, Liang Fang, Jia-Zheng Li, Chen Lin, Duanduan Wan, and Meng Xiao. Observation of Nonlinear Exceptional Points with a Complete Basis in Dynamics.Physical Review Letters, 132(7):073802, February 2024

    2024

  55. [63]

    Enhancement of magnonic frequency combs by ex- ceptional points.Nature Physics, 20(7):1139–1144, July 2024

    Congyi Wang, Jinwei Rao, Zhijian Chen, Kaixin Zhao, Liaoxin Sun, Bimu Yao, Tao Yu, Yi-Pu Wang, and Wei Lu. Enhancement of magnonic frequency combs by ex- ceptional points.Nature Physics, 20(7):1139–1144, July 2024

    2024

  56. [64]

    Topological exceptional surfaces in non- Hermitian systems with parity-time and parity-particle- hole symmetries.Physical Review B, 99(4), 2019

    Ryo Okugawa. Topological exceptional surfaces in non- Hermitian systems with parity-time and parity-particle- hole symmetries.Physical Review B, 99(4), 2019

    2019

  57. [65]

    Weiyuan Tang, Xue Jiang, Kun Ding, Yi-Xin Xiao, Zhao- Qing Zhang, C. T. Chan, and Guancong Ma. Excep- tional nexus with a hybrid topological invariant.Science, 370(6520):1077–1080, November 2020

    2020

  58. [66]

    Ma- theny, Florian Marquardt, Aashish A

    Kejie Fang, Jie Luo, Anja Metelmann, Matthew H. Ma- theny, Florian Marquardt, Aashish A. Clerk, and Oskar Painter. Generalized non-reciprocity in an optomechan- 20 ical circuit via synthetic magnetism and reservoir engi- neering.Nature Physics, 13(5):465–471, May 2017

    2017

  59. [67]

    Koll´ ar, Mattias Fitzpatrick, and Andrew A

    Alicia J. Koll´ ar, Mattias Fitzpatrick, and Andrew A. Houck. Hyperbolic lattices in circuit quantum electro- dynamics.Nature, 571(7763):45–50, July 2019

    2019

  60. [68]

    Guo-Qiang Zhang and J. Q. You. Higher-order excep- tional point in a cavity magnonics system.Physical Re- view B, 99(5):054404, February 2019

    2019

  61. [69]

    Hassan, Steffen Wittek, Hipolito Garcia-Gracia, Ramy El-Ganainy, Demetrios N

    Hossein Hodaei, Absar U. Hassan, Steffen Wittek, Hipolito Garcia-Gracia, Ramy El-Ganainy, Demetrios N. Christodoulides, and Mercedeh Khajavikhan. Enhanced sensitivity at higher-order exceptional points.Nature, 548(7666):187–191, August 2017

    2017

  62. [70]

    Dissipative cou- plings in cavity magnonics.Journal of Applied Physics, 127(13):130901, April 2020

    Yi-Pu Wang and Can-Ming Hu. Dissipative cou- plings in cavity magnonics.Journal of Applied Physics, 127(13):130901, April 2020

    2020

  63. [71]

    Classical phase synchronization in dissipative non- Hermitian coupled systems.Physical Review A, 108(2):023721, August 2023

    Jonas Rohn, Kai Phillip Schmidt, and Claudiu Genes. Classical phase synchronization in dissipative non- Hermitian coupled systems.Physical Review A, 108(2):023721, August 2023

    2023

  64. [72]

    Nonreciprocity and Unidirectional Invis- ibility in Cavity Magnonics.Physical Review Letters, 123(12), 2019

    Yi-Pu Wang. Nonreciprocity and Unidirectional Invis- ibility in Cavity Magnonics.Physical Review Letters, 123(12), 2019

    2019

  65. [73]

    Introduction to quantum non-reciprocal interactions: from non-Hermitian Hamiltonians to quan- tum master equations and quantum feedforward schemes

    Aashish Clerk. Introduction to quantum non-reciprocal interactions: from non-Hermitian Hamiltonians to quan- tum master equations and quantum feedforward schemes. SciPost Physics Lecture Notes, page 044, March 2022

    2022

  66. [74]

    Metelmann

    A. Metelmann. Nonreciprocal Photon Transmission and Amplification via Reservoir Engineering.Physical Review X, 5(2), 2015

    2015

  67. [75]

    Coherent states and rational surfaces.Journal of Physics A: Mathemati- cal and Theoretical, 43(25):255205, May 2010

    Dorje C Brody and Eva-Maria Graefe. Coherent states and rational surfaces.Journal of Physics A: Mathemati- cal and Theoretical, 43(25):255205, May 2010

    2010

  68. [77]

    J. A. Osborn. Demagnetizing Factors of the General El- lipsoid.Physical Review, 67(11-12):351–357, June 1945

    1945

  69. [78]

    Dengke Zhang, Xin-Ming Wang, Tie-Fu Li, Xiao-Qing Luo, Weidong Wu, Franco Nori, and J. Q. You. Cavity quantum electrodynamics with ferromagnetic magnons in a small yttrium-iron-garnet sphere.npj Quantum In- formation, 1(1):1–6, November 2015

    2015

  70. [2018]

    arXiv:1801.05750 [physics]

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.