Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 70 references

Biorthogonal-only Floquet Dynamical Quantum Phase Transitions

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In a driven non-Hermitian SSH chain, biorthogonal Loschmidt rate can turn nonanalytic while self-normal rate stays analytic.

desk verdict A clean, exactly solvable demonstration that biorthogonal and self-normal DQPTs need not coexist; the only real soft spot is the under-derived self-normal existence condition, which deserves a referee's look. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.07882 v1 pith:VY3TXKPH submitted 2026-08-08 quant-ph

Jiangrong Wen , Qidong Yuan , Zi-Xiang Hu , Jian-Jun Dong This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords biorthogonalDQPTFloquetnon-HermitianSSHchainLoschmidtechoexceptionallinesself-normalratedynamicalquantumphasetransitionassociatedstates
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 tries to establish that, in non-Hermitian quantum systems, the choice of inner product can decide not just where a dynamical quantum phase transition (DQPT) occurs but whether it occurs at all. Concretely, it studies an exactly solvable periodically driven non-Hermitian Su-Schrieffer-Heeger chain and exhibits a finite biorthogonal-only regime: for the same Hamiltonian, initial state, and time evolution, the biorthogonal Loschmidt rate develops nonanalytic cusps while the self-normal Loschmidt rate remains smooth. The critical conditions are derived analytically, tying biorthogonal criticality to real-part gap closings of the effective Floquet Hamiltonian and its exceptional lines, while self-normal criticality has no such spectral boundary. If the claim is right, observed DQPTs in non-Hermitian settings cannot be treated as formulation-independent, and the biorthogonal construction selects genuinely distinct nonequilibrium physics.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the normalized biorthogonal Loschmidt echo built from associated (left) states, $g^B_k(t)=|\langle \tilde{u}_{k,-}|U_R(t)|u_{k,-}\rangle|^2 / \sum_\mu |\langle \tilde{u}_{k,\mu}|U_R(t)|u_{k,-}\rangle|^2$, which vanishes only when the associated-state overlap is zero. Working in the rotating frame reduces the driven problem to a time-independent effective Floquet Hamiltonian $H_F(k)=d_k\cdot\sigma$, and the zero-overlap condition reduces to $\mathrm{Re}\,E_{k_c,-}=0$ with $E_{k_c,-}\neq 0$, i.e., a real-part gap closing at exceptional lines. This spectral locking is what separates biorthogonal from self-normal criticality.

What would settle it

Directly compute $g^B_k(t)$ and $g^S_k(t)$ for parameters in the B-only region, for example $(\eta,\gamma)=(0.5,5.5)$ with $\omega=2$, and check whether $\lambda_B(t)$ shows cusps at the times predicted by Eq. (12) while $\lambda_S(t)$ remains analytic; equivalently, tune $\gamma$ across the exceptional line $\gamma^2=16+\omega^2$ and verify that biorthogonal cusps appear exactly at the boundary while the self-normal rate stays smooth.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a parameter region in a driven non-Hermitian SSH chain where the biorthogonal Floquet DQPT and the self-normal Floquet DQPT decouple completely. Starting from the minus branch of the effective Floquet Hamiltonian, the biorthogonal Loschmidt echo vanishes at momenta where $\mathrm{Re}\,E_{k_c,-}=0$ with $E_{k_c,-}\neq 0$, producing two critical times per driving period; the same initial state gives a self-normal echo whose nonanalyticity requires a different condition and appears only once per period, at the midpoint. The authors solve both conditions analytically and obtain four regimes (B-only, Both, S-only, None), with the B-only region finite rather than fine-tuned. They conclude that the overlap structure is a decisive ingredient in non-Hermitian Floquet dynamical criticality.

Load-bearing premise

The algebraic derivation of the critical-time formula in Eq. (12) and the self-normal existence condition in Eq. (14) is asserted rather than shown; if either algebraic condition is wrong, the four-regime diagram shifts, even though the qualitative scenario might survive.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Biorthogonal and self-normal DQPTs are not necessarily concomitant; a finite B-only regime exists in the $(\eta,\gamma)$ plane.
  • Biorthogonal Floquet DQPTs are tied to real-part gap closings of the effective Floquet Hamiltonian, so exceptional lines mark the onset boundaries.
  • Each biorthogonal critical momentum yields a pair of critical times per driving period, whereas self-normal criticality yields a single critical time at the midpoint.
  • The full parameter space is divided into B-only, Both, S-only, and None regimes, with boundaries given by the analytic conditions in Eqs. (12) and (14).

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the B-only regime survives beyond this exactly solvable model, the biorthogonal Loschmidt rate offers a way to detect exceptional lines dynamically, without directly probing the spectrum.
  • The $\gamma\to-\gamma$ asymmetry of the self-normal region, contrasted with the symmetric biorthogonal region, suggests the self-normal criterion is branch-dependent; testing initial states occupying the plus branch would be a natural extension.
  • The photonic-resonator and topolectrical-circuit platforms mentioned in the paper could make the B-only regime testable with current Floquet engineering, with the predicted pair of cusps per period as a clean experimental signature.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies a periodically driven non-Hermitian Su-Schrieffer-Heeger chain that is exactly solvable in a rotating frame. It defines biorthogonal and self-normal Loschmidt echoes for the same initial state and time evolution, derives analytic critical conditions, and classifies the parameter space into four regimes: biorthogonal-only (B-only), both, self-normal-only, and neither. The central claim is the existence of a finite B-only Floquet DQPT region, in which the biorthogonal rate is nonanalytic while the self-normal rate remains smooth, together with the additional claim that biorthogonal criticality produces a pair of critical times per driving period whereas self-normal criticality produces a single midpoint time.

Significance. If correct, the paper establishes a qualitative distinction between biorthogonal and self-normal DQPTs, showing that the choice of overlap structure can decide whether a dynamical phase transition occurs at all. The manuscript has genuine strengths: the model is exactly solvable, the biorthogonal critical-momentum condition follows transparently from the zero of the overlap and reduces correctly at k=0 and k=pi, the four-regime picture is supported by representative rate-function plots, and no parameter fitting is involved. The B-only regime is a consequence of the derived critical conditions rather than an input. However, two analytic steps that are load-bearing for the headline claims are not shown, and one of them, the paired-critical-time statement, appears to overcount the solutions of the zero-overlap equation.

major comments (2)
  1. [Eq. (12) and Fig. 2] Solving the biorthogonal zero-overlap condition gives, after factoring out e^{-i omega t/2}, the equation 1 + C e^{i omega t}=0 with C=(E-omega/2)/(E+omega/2). Imposing Re E=0 makes |C|=1, and for a fixed branch of E this equation has exactly one solution per driving period: if Im E>0 then t=tau+nT, while if Im E<0 then t=(n+1)T-tau. It does not produce both tau and T-tau for the same branch. Equation (12) therefore appears to overcount the critical times, and the abstract's 'pair of critical times' claim, as well as the descriptions of Figs. 2 and 3, need to be corrected or supported by a derivation that specifies the branch convention. This is not cosmetic: the paired-time structure is one of the two headline distinctions drawn between the two formulations.
  2. [Eq. (14)] The piecewise condition for the existence of a real solution k to the self-normal zero-overlap condition is stated without derivation. Because the B-only region in Fig. 4 is the complement of this condition inside the biorthogonally critical part of parameter space, an algebraic or branch-selection error in Eq. (14) would directly change the central claim. Please provide the derivation, and clarify whether the condition uses signed gamma or |gamma|: the eta<=0 branch contains (gamma/omega)^2 while the eta>0 branch contains gamma/omega, and the text's statement that reversing gamma does not preserve the admissible solution needs to be reconciled with this notation.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Title and headers] The title and running header contain artifacts such as 'Transi tions' and other line-break spacing issues; please clean these before submission.
  2. [Eq. (14)] If gamma is allowed to be negative, the notation gamma/omega in Eq. (14) should be made explicit as signed or absolute; for eta>0 a negative gamma makes the first inequality impossible, which may be intentional but should be stated.
  3. [Numerics] The calculations use N=8000 unit cells, but no finite-size convergence statement is given; since the Loschmidt rates are defined in the thermodynamic limit, a brief note on convergence would be helpful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the biorthogonal-only regime is a computed consequence of two independent overlap criteria, not an input to the derivation.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained against the model. The biorthogonal critical condition is obtained by setting the associated-state overlap to zero, angle~u_{k_c,-}|U_R(t_c)|u_{k_c,-}rangle = 0, which the paper reduces to Re E_{k_c,-}=0; the self-normal regime is obtained separately from angle u_{k_c,-}|u_{k_c,-}(t_c)rangle = 0, summarized in Eq. (14) as a parameter inequality. The B-only region is then the set-theoretic intersection of the biorthogonal DQPT region (bounded by exceptional lines) with the complement of the self-normal region. Nothing is fitted: the four-regime diagram is produced by evaluating two independently derived analytic conditions on the same Hamiltonian and initial state, not by imposing the existence of a B-only region. The only self-referential element is the use of the biorthogonal Loschmidt echo of the authors' prior work (ref. [39]); that is a definition/construction rather than a load-bearing theorem, and it has independent uptake (refs. [55-58]). No uniqueness theorem is imported to force the choice of overlap. Eq. (14) is indeed stated without the intermediate algebra, which is a proof gap and a correctness risk (a wrong inequality would move the regime boundaries), but an omitted derivation is not circularity: the condition is an output of the overlap calculation, not an assumption equivalent to the claimed B-only regime. I therefore find no circular step.

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

No parameters are fitted to data. The model parameters eta, gamma, omega are inputs varied to access the four regimes; the analytical conditions (Eqs. 12 and 14) involve no fitted constants. N=8000 and omega=2 are numerical choices for illustration only. No new particles, forces, mediators, or dimensions are introduced; the model uses only standard lattice degrees of freedom.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The left and right eigenstates of HF(k) form a complete biorthonormal basis for diagonalizable non-Hermitian operators.
    Invoked in Section 4 before Eq. (6) to define the associated bra and the biorthogonal echo; this is standard in biorthogonal quantum mechanics (ref. [52]).
  • domain assumption Nonanalytic cusps in the Loschmidt rate function lambda(t) define a dynamical quantum phase transition in the thermodynamic limit.
    Used throughout; standard DQPT framework from ref. [15]. The large-N limit is taken in Eq. (11).
  • standard math The rotating-frame transformation of Eq. (4) exactly diagonalizes the time dependence of H(k,t), giving the Floquet effective Hamiltonian HF(k).
    Standard Floquet theory; the transformation UR(t)=exp(-i omega t sigma_z/2) is exact for this model and is stated in Section 3.
  • domain assumption The initial state is the product over momenta of the minus-branch eigenstates of HF(k), |Psi(0)> = product over k of |u_{k,-}>.
    Introduced after Eq. (7). The B-only regime is established for this specific initial state; other initial states could alter the conditions, though the paper does not claim universality.
  • standard math The associated-state norm <psi~(t)|psi(t)> = sum_mu |c_mu(t)|^2 is strictly positive for nonzero states, so the biorthogonal echo gB_k(t) is well-defined and between 0 and 1.
    Stated in Section 4 before Eq. (7); follows from the definition of the associated bra and biorthonormality.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Biorthogonal-only Floquet Dynamical Quantum Phase Transitions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VY3TXKPH

@misc{pith2026260807882,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Biorthogonal-only Floquet Dynamical Quantum Phase Transitions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VY3TXKPH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.07882}
}
read the original abstract

Non-Hermitian dynamical quantum phase transitions (DQPTs) are intrinsically sensitive to the choice of inner product under nonunitary time evolution. Although the biorthogonal formulation based on associated states provides a normalized Loschmidt echo with a probabilistic interpretation, previous studies have found biorthogonal and self-normal DQPTs to occur in the same parameter regimes, suggesting that the two forms of dynamical criticality are concomitant. Here we demonstrate that this is not the case. In an exactly solvable periodically driven non-Hermitian Su-Schrieffer-Heeger chain, we uncover a finite biorthogonal-only Floquet DQPT regime, where the biorthogonal Loschmidt rate becomes nonanalytic while the self-normal Loschmidt rate remains smooth. The critical conditions are obtained analytically, showing that the onset of biorthogonal Floquet DQPTs is locked to the exceptional lines of the effective Floquet Hamiltonian, whereas self-normal criticality has no corresponding spectral boundary. Moreover, for each critical momentum, the biorthogonal DQPT exhibits a pair of critical times within every driving period, whereas the self-normal DQPT exhibits only one. Our results establish a fundamental distinction between biorthogonal and self-normal DQPTs, thereby opening a route toward new nonequilibrium quantum phenomena in non-Hermitian systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.07882 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Schematic of the periodically driven non-Herm [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Real parts of the dispersions Re Ek,± in Regions I– IV. (b) Corresponding biorthogonal Loschmidt rates λB(t). Circles mark the critical points. The parameters are (η, γ) = (0.85, 4.75), (2.5, 6), (0.2, 2.5), and (2.0, 2.0) for Regions I–IV, respectively. where τkc = 2 ω arctan  1 ω q γ 2 − ω2 − 4x 2 kc  . The two criti￾cal times are equidistant from the midpoint of each driving pe￾riod, t (n) c,1 +t (n) c,2 2 … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Global Floquet-DQPT diagram for the biorthogonal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    W. D. Heiss, The physics of exceptional points, J. Phys. A 45, 444016 (2012)

    2012

  2. [2]

    The corresponding time- independent effective Hamiltonian is HF (k) = U † R(t)H(k,t )UR(t) −iU † R(t)∂tUR(t) = dk · σ

    (3) The time-dependent Schrödinger equation i∂t|Ψk(t)⟩ = H(k,t )|Ψk(t)⟩ can be solved exactly by introducing the rotating-frame transformation UR(t) = e−iωtσz /2 and |Φk(t)⟩ = U † R(t)|Ψk(t)⟩ [59–64]. The corresponding time- independent effective Hamiltonian is HF (k) = U † R(t)H(k,t )UR(t) −iU † R(t)∂tUR(t) = dk · σ. (4) Here, dk = ( xk,y k, −ω/2), while...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Tzeng, C.-Y

    Y .-C. Tzeng, C.-Y . Ju, G.-Y . Chen, and W.-M. Huang, Hunting for the non-Hermitian exceptional points with fidelity susc epti- bility, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 013015 (2021)

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    By jointly applyin g the biorthogonal and self-normal critical criteria, Fig

    This branch dependence also shows that self-normal criticality is not tied to the same spectral boundaries. By jointly applyin g the biorthogonal and self-normal critical criteria, Fig. 4 di- vides the parameter space into four distinct regimes: B-onl y, Both, S-only, and None. Most importantly, the B-only regime spans a finite area instead of consisting o...

    work page

  5. [5]

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

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

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

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Yao and Z

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

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    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

Show all 70 references
  1. [9]

    Guo, C.-H

    C.-X. Guo, C.-H. Liu, X.-M. Zhao, Y . Liu, and S. Chen, Exac t Solution of Non-Hermitian Systems with Generalized Bound- ary Conditions: Size-Dependent Boundary Effect and Fragil ity of the Skin Effect, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 116801 (2021)

    2021

  2. [10]

    Zhang, T

    X. Zhang, T. Zhang, M.-H. Lu, and Y .-F. Chen, A review on non-Hermitian skin effect, Adv. Phys. X 7, 2109431 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    G. K. Dash, S. K. Patra, D. Sen, and M. Thakurathi, Multipl e Floquet exceptional points with a higher-order skin effect, Phys. Rev. B 113, 075113 (2026)

    2026

  4. [12]

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

    2018

  5. [13]

    Edvardsson, F

    E. Edvardsson, F. K. Kunst, and E. J. Bergholtz, Non- Hermitian extensions of higher-order topological phases a nd their biorthogonal bulk-boundary correspondence, Phys. R ev. B 99, 081302(R) (2019)

    2019

  6. [14]

    Y okomizo and S

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

    2019

  7. [15]

    Helbig, T

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

    2020

  8. [16]

    Y . Cao, Y . Li, and X. Yang, Non-Hermitian bulk-boundarycor- respondence in a periodically driven system, Phys. Rev. B 103, 075126 (2021)

    2021

  9. [17]

    M. Heyl, A. Polkovnikov, and S. Kehrein, Dynamical Quan tum Phase Transitions in the Transverse-Field Ising Model, Phy s. Rev. Lett. 110, 135704 (2013)

    2013

  10. [18]

    Andraschko and J

    F. Andraschko and J. Sirker, Dynamical quantum phase tr an- sitions and the Loschmidt echo: A transfer matrix approach, Phys. Rev. B 89, 125120 (2014)

    2014

  11. [19]

    N. O. Abeling and S. Kehrein, Quantum quench dynamics in the transverse field Ising model at nonzero temperatures, Ph ys. Rev. B 93, 104302 (2016)

    2016

  12. [20]

    Heyl and J

    M. Heyl and J. C. Budich, Dynamical topological quantum phase transitions for mixed states, Phys. Rev. B 96, 180304(R) (2017)

    2017

  13. [21]

    Bhattacharya, S

    U. Bhattacharya, S. Bandyopadhyay, and A. Dutta, Mixed state dynamical quantum phase transitions, Phys. Rev. B 96, 180303(R) (2017)

    2017

  14. [22]

    Kosior and K

    A. Kosior and K. Sacha, Dynamical quantum phase transit ions in discrete time crystals, Phys. Rev. A 97, 053621 (2018)

    2018

  15. [23]

    Sedlmayr, M

    N. Sedlmayr, M. Fleischhauer, and J. Sirker, Fate of dyn ami- cal phase transitions at finite temperatures and in open syst ems, Phys. Rev. B 97, 045147 (2018)

    2018

  16. [24]

    J. Lang, B. Frank, and J. C. Halimeh, Dynamical Quantum Phase Transitions: A Geometric Picture, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 130603 (2018)

    2018

  17. [25]

    J. Lang, B. Frank, and J. C. Halimeh, Concurrence of dyna mi- cal phase transitions at finite temperature in the fully conn ected transverse-field Ising model, Phys. Rev. B 97, 174401 (2018)

    2018

  18. [26]

    B. Mera, C. Vlachou, N. Paunkovi ´c, V . R. Vieira, and O. Viyuela, Dynamical phase transitions at finite temperature from fidelity and interferometric Loschmidt echo induced metric s, Phys. Rev. B 97, 094110 (2018)

    2018

  19. [27]

    Heyl, Dynamical quantum phase transitions: a review , Rep

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

    2018

  20. [28]

    Dong and Y .-F

    J.-J. Dong and Y .-F. Yang, Functional field integral approach to quantum work, Phys. Rev. B 100, 035124 (2019)

    2019

  21. [29]

    Bandyopadhyay, A

    S. Bandyopadhyay, A. Polkovnikov, and A. Dutta, Observ ing dynamical quantum phase transitions through quasilocal st ring operators, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 200602 (2021)

    2021

  22. [30]

    C. Y . Wong and W. C. Y u, Loschmidt amplitude spectrum in dy- namical quantum phase transitions, Phys. Rev. B 105, 174307 (2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    Y . Zeng, B. Zhou, and S. Chen, Dynamical singularity of t he rate function for quench dynamics in finite-size quantum sys - tems, Phys. Rev. B 107, 134302 (2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    Yao, L.-Y

    G.-Z. Yao, L.-Y . Peng, and Q. Gong, Theory of finite-size scal- 6 ing in dynamical quantum phase transitions, Phys. Rev. A 112, 042203 (2025)

    2025

  25. [33]

    J. J. Osborne, I. P . McCulloch, and J. C. Halimeh, Probin g con- finement through dynamical quantum phase transitions: From quantum spin models to lattice gauge theories, Phys. Rev. Re s. 7, 043076 (2025)

    2025

  26. [34]

    Mitra and S

    A. Mitra and S. C. L. Srivastava, Dynamical quantum phas e transitions through the lens of mode dynamics, Phys. Rev. B 113, 104309 (2026)

    2026

  27. [35]

    Jurcevic, H

    P . Jurcevic, H. Shen, P . Hauke, C. Maier, T. Brydges, C. Hempel, B. P . Lanyon, M. Heyl, R. Blatt, and C. F. Roos, Direct Observation of Dynamical Quantum Phase Transitions in an Interacting Many-Body System, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 080501 (2017)

    2017

  28. [36]

    Zhang, G

    J. Zhang, G. Pagano, P . W. Hess, A. Kyprianidis, P . Becke r, H. Kaplan, A. V . Gorshkov, Z.-X. Gong, and C. Monroe, Observa- tion of a many-body dynamical phase transition with a 53-qub it quantum simulator, Nature (London) 551, 601 (2017)

    2017

  29. [37]

    K. Wang, X. Qiu, L. Xiao, X. Zhan, Z. Bian, W. Yi, and P . Xue , Simulating Dynamic Quantum Phase Transitions in Photonic Quantum Walks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 020501 (2019)

    2019

  30. [38]

    X.-Y . Guo, C. Yang, Y . Zeng, Y . Peng, H.-K. Li, H. Deng, Y .-R. Jin, S. Chen, D. Zheng, and H. Fan, Observation of a Dynamical Quantum Phase Transition by a Superconducting Qubit Simu- lation, Phys. Rev. Appl. 11, 044080 (2019)

    2019

  31. [39]

    Nie, B.-B

    X. Nie, B.-B. Wei, X. Chen, Z. Zhang, X. Zhao, C. Qiu, Y . Tian, Y . Ji, T. Xin, D. Lu, and J. Li, Experimental Observatio n of Equilibrium and Dynamical Quantum Phase Transitions via Out-of-Time-Ordered Correlators, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 250601 (2020)

    2020

  32. [40]

    Tian, H.-X

    T. Tian, H.-X. Yang, L.-Y . Qiu, H.-Y . Liang, Y .-B. Yang,Y . Xu, and L.-M. Duan, Observation of Dynamical Quantum Phase Transitions with Correspondence in an Excited State Phase D i- agram, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 043001 (2020)

    2020

  33. [41]

    Jing, J.-J

    Y . Jing, J.-J. Dong, Y .-Y . Zhang, and Z.-X. Hu, Biorthog o- nal dynamical quantum phase transitions in non-Hermitian s ys- tems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 220402 (2024)

    2024

  34. [42]

    Zhou, Q.-H

    L. Zhou, Q.-H. Wang, H. Wang, and J. Gong, Dynamical quan - tum phase transitions in non-Hermitian lattices, Phys. Rev . A 98, 022129 (2018)

    2018

  35. [43]

    Zhou and Q

    L. Zhou and Q. Du, Non-Hermitian topological phases and dy- namical quantum phase transitions: a generic connection, N ew J. Phys. 23, 063041 (2021)

    2021

  36. [44]

    Mondal and T

    D. Mondal and T. Nag, Anomaly in the dynamical quantum phase transition in a non-Hermitian system with extended ga p- less phases, Phys. Rev. B 106, 054308 (2022)

    2022

  37. [45]

    Mondal and T

    D. Mondal and T. Nag, Finite-temperature dynamical qua ntum phase transition in a non-Hermitian system, Phys. Rev. B 107, 184311 (2023)

    2023

  38. [46]

    J. Naji, M. Jafari, R. Jafari, and A. Akbari, Dissipativ e Flo- quet Dynamical Quantum Phase Transition, Phys. Rev. A 105, 022220 (2022)

    2022

  39. [47]

    Fu and X

    Y . Fu and X. Gao, Anatomy of non-Hermitian dynamical qua n- tum phase transitions, Phys. Rev. B 112, L140302 (2025)

    2025

  40. [48]

    F. Wang, G. Liang, Z. Zhao,and B.-M. Xu, Gauge-Invarian t Non-Hermitian Quantum Theory: Foundation and Applications to Dynamical Phase Transitions, arXiv:2603.21281

    arXiv

  41. [49]

    H. Chen, X. Qin, J.-J. Dong, Y .-Y . Zhang, and Z.-X. Hu, Higher-order exceptional lines in a non-Hermitian Jaynes- Cummings triangle, Phys. Rev. A 112, 042213 (2025)

    2025

  42. [50]

    Lu, S.-H

    M.-C. Lu, S.-H. Shi, and G. Sun, Dynamical signatures of the Yang-Lee edge singularity in non-Hermitian systems, Ph ys. Rev. B 111, 054309 (2025)

    2025

  43. [51]

    M. Deng, W. Li, K. Hu, C. Sun, and F. Li, Nonadiabatic dy- namics and universal behaviors in non-Hermitian systems under biorthogonal framework, Phys. Rev. B 112, L020306 (2025)

    2025

  44. [52]

    Fu, Probability balance equation, inner product and Loschmidt echo for non-Hermitian systems, Commun

    L. Fu, Probability balance equation, inner product and Loschmidt echo for non-Hermitian systems, Commun. Theor. Phys. 78, 085102 (2026)

    2026

  45. [53]

    P . T. Leung, W. M. Suen, C. P . Sun, and K. Y oung, Waves in open systems via a biorthogonal basis, Phys. Rev. E 57, 6101 (1998)

    1998

  46. [54]

    D. C. Brody, Biorthogonal quantum mechanics, J. Phys. A : Math. Theor. 47, 035305 (2014)

    2014

  47. [55]

    Ashida, Z

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

    2020

  48. [56]

    I. I. Arkhipov, Covariant formulation of the Berry conn ection in non-Hermitian systems, Phys. Rev. Res. 8, 033037 (2026)

    2026

  49. [57]

    Zhang, K

    X. Zhang, K. Hu, and F. Li, Nonadiabatic dynamics in non- Hermitian quantum systems from the quantum metric perspec- tive, Phys. Rev. B 112, 224305 (2025)

    2025

  50. [58]

    J. Yao, R. Zhang, S. Cheng, Z. Wang, and H. Gu, Dynamical quantum phase transition in the non-Hermitian generalized Su- Schrieffer-Heeger model, Eur. Phys. J. B 99, 69 (2026)

    2026

  51. [59]

    H. Gu, Y . Zhao, S. Cheng, Y . Xie, X. Yang, and Y . Chen, Biorthogonal dynamical quantum phase transitions in non- Hermitian topological superconductors, arXiv:2605.15982

    arXiv

  52. [60]

    Zhang, K

    H. Zhang, K. Wang, L. Xiao, and P . Xue, Self-normal and biorthogonal dynamical quantum phase transitions in non- Hermitian quantum walks, Light Sci Appl 14, 253 (2025)

    2025

  53. [61]

    K. Yang, L. Zhou, W. Ma, X. Kong, P . Wang, X. Qin, X. Rong, Y . Wang, F. Shi, J. Gong, and J. Du, Floquet dynamical quan- tum phase transitions, Phys. Rev. B 100, 085308 (2019)

    2019

  54. [62]

    Zamani, R

    S. Zamani, R. Jafari, and A. Langari, Floquet dynamical quan- tum phase transition in the extended XY model: Nonadiabatic to adiabatic topological transition, Phys. Rev. B 102, 144306 (2020)

    2020

  55. [63]

    Jafari and A

    R. Jafari and A. Akbari, Floquet dynamical phase transi tion and entanglement spectrum, Phys. Rev. A 103, 012204 (2021)

    2021

  56. [64]

    Cai and W

    D.-H. Cai and W. Yi, Synthetic topology and Floquet dyna mic quantum phase transition in a periodically driven Raman lattice, Phys. Rev. A 105, 042812 (2022)

    2022

  57. [65]

    J. Naji, R. Jafari, L. Zhou, and A. Langari, Engineering Flo- quet dynamical quantum phase transitions, Phys. Rev. B 106, 094314 (2022)

    2022

  58. [66]

    Zamani, R

    S. Zamani, R. Jafari, and A. Langari, Out-of-time-orde r corre- lations and Floquet dynamical quantum phase transition, Ph ys. Rev. B 105, 094304 (2022)

    2022

  59. [67]

    Holthaus, Floquet engineering with quasienergy ban ds of periodically driven optical lattices, J

    M. Holthaus, Floquet engineering with quasienergy ban ds of periodically driven optical lattices, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. O pt. Phys. 49, 013001 (2016)

    2016

  60. [68]

    Sun, J.-C

    G. Sun, J.-C. Tang, and S.-P . Kou, Biorthogonal quantum crit- icality in non-Hermitian many-body systems, Front. Phys. 17, 33502 (2022)

    2022

  61. [69]

    Tang, S.-P

    J.-C. Tang, S.-P . Kou, and G. Sun, Dynamical scaling of Loschmidt echo in non-Hermitian systems, Europhys. Lett. 137, 40001 (2022)

    2022

  62. [70]

    Lu and P .-Y

    H.-H. Lu and P .-Y . Chang, Biorthogonal quench dynamics of entanglement and quantum geometry in PT-symmetric non- Hermitian systems, Phys. Rev. B 113, 174304 (2026)

    2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.