pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.15982 · v1 · pith:6I2MMM6Mnew · submitted 2026-05-15 · 🪐 quant-ph

Biorthogonal Dynamical Quantum Phase Transitions in a Non-Hermitian Kitaev Chain

Haoran Gu , Yubo Zhao , Siyuan Cheng , Yuee Xie , Xiaosen Yang , Yuanping Chen This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-20 18:01 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords dynamical quantum phase transitionsnon-Hermitian Kitaev chainbiorthogonal frameworkLoschmidt rate functiondynamical Fisher zerostopological superconductorsnonequilibrium dynamics
0
0 comments X

The pith

Accounting for biorthogonality shifts the critical times at which dynamical quantum phase transitions occur in the non-Hermitian Kitaev chain.

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

This paper extends a biorthogonal framework to dynamical quantum phase transitions in non-Hermitian topological superconductors. The non-Hermitian Kitaev chain serves as the model, where left and right eigenstates are not orthogonal. The authors introduce an associated-state formalism and rewrite the Loschmidt rate function, the dynamical topological order parameter, and the dynamical Fisher zeros. This produces critical times that differ from those obtained with conventional self-normalized methods. Momentum-resolved checks at critical momenta confirm that the framework remains consistent.

Core claim

In the non-Hermitian Kitaev chain, dynamical quantum phase transitions are located by constructing associated states that respect the biorthogonality of left and right eigenvectors. The Loschmidt rate function is then reformulated, along with the dynamical topological order parameter and the positions of dynamical Fisher zeros. The resulting critical times differ from the values given by conventional self-normal approaches, and the same shift appears when subsystems at critical momenta are examined separately.

What carries the argument

The associated-state formalism that pairs states to enforce biorthogonality while reformulating the Loschmidt rate function and dynamical Fisher zeros.

If this is right

  • Dynamical Fisher zeros appear at different times once biorthogonality is enforced.
  • The dynamical topological order parameter must be redefined to remain consistent with the non-orthogonal inner product.
  • Momentum-resolved subsystems at critical momenta continue to exhibit the same shifted transition times.
  • Nonequilibrium dynamics of non-Hermitian topological superconductors require the biorthogonal treatment to locate transitions correctly.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same biorthogonal reformulation could be applied to other non-Hermitian lattice models to check for analogous shifts in critical times.
  • Experimental protocols that measure Loschmidt echoes in open quantum systems may need to incorporate left-right state pairing to match theoretical predictions.
  • The framework suggests a route to connect dynamical transitions with the non-Hermitian topological invariants already studied in equilibrium.

Load-bearing premise

The associated-state construction correctly incorporates biorthogonality without creating artifacts that move the dynamical Fisher zeros.

What would settle it

A direct numerical computation of the biorthogonal Loschmidt echo for the non-Hermitian Kitaev chain that yields the same critical times as the conventional self-normal method.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.15982 by Haoran Gu, Siyuan Cheng, Xiaosen Yang, Yuanping Chen, Yubo Zhao, Yuee Xie.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: (a) also shows the conventional Loschmidt echo L(t) = |⟨Ψ(0)|Ψ(t)⟩|2 , together with an enforced nor￾malization factor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (b) indicates that multiple critical momenta kc can exist, each associated with a distinct critical time tc. Moreover, a characteristic pattern is observed: for t < tc, p(kc, t) exhibits n local maxima and reaches 1 at the (n + 1)-th maximum, whereas for t ≫ tc, it tends to a steady state. By employing a biorthogonal framework, we study DQPTs in a non-Hermitian Kitaev chain. This formula￾tion applies to ge… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Dynamical quantum phase transitions in non-Hermitian systems pose fundamental challenges due to the intrinsic biorthogonality of their eigenstates. In this work, we extend a biorthogonal framework to investigate dynamical quantum phase transitions in non-Hermitian topological superconductors. Taking the non-Hermitian Kitaev chain as a prototypical model, we construct an associated-state formalism and reformulate the Loschmidt rate function, dynamical topological order parameter, and dynamical Fisher zeros. Within this framework, we find that the critical times at which dynamical quantum phase transitions occur differ from those based on the conventional self-normal approaches. We further analyze momentum-resolved subsystems at critical momenta and demonstrate the robustness of the biorthogonal framework. Our work highlights the essential role of biorthogonality in nonequilibrium dynamics and establishes a consistent theoretical framework for dynamical quantum phase transitions in non-Hermitian topological superconductors.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper extends a biorthogonal framework to dynamical quantum phase transitions (DQPTs) in non-Hermitian topological superconductors, taking the non-Hermitian Kitaev chain as the model. It introduces an associated-state formalism to reformulate the Loschmidt rate function, the dynamical topological order parameter, and the locations of dynamical Fisher zeros. The central result is that the critical times at which DQPTs occur differ from those obtained with conventional self-normalized approaches; the work also examines momentum-resolved subsystems at critical momenta and claims robustness of the biorthogonal construction.

Significance. If the reported shift in critical times is shown to originate from biorthogonality rather than a specific normalization choice, the framework would provide a useful consistent treatment of nonequilibrium dynamics in non-Hermitian systems. The emphasis on associated states and the analysis of subsystems could help clarify how left/right eigenvector structure affects dynamical observables in PT-symmetric or open quantum models.

major comments (2)
  1. [Biorthogonal Framework] Biorthogonal Framework section: the reformulated Loschmidt rate function is constructed via the associated-state formalism; the manuscript does not demonstrate that the shift in Fisher-zero locations survives under an alternative but equally valid biorthogonal normalization (e.g., a different scaling of the left eigenvectors that preserves the biorthogonal inner product). Without this check the difference could be an artifact of the particular projection chosen rather than a direct consequence of biorthogonality.
  2. [Results on Critical Times] Results section on critical times: the claim that critical times differ from self-normal approaches is load-bearing, yet the comparison is presented only for the final rate function; an explicit side-by-side plot or table of the conventional versus biorthogonal Loschmidt echo (or its zeros) for the same time-evolved state would be required to isolate the effect.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Biorthogonal Framework] Notation for the associated states and the biorthogonal inner product should be introduced once with a clear definition before being used in the rate-function expression.
  2. [Momentum-Resolved Analysis] Figure captions for the momentum-resolved plots should explicitly state the system size and the value of the non-Hermitian parameter used.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to strengthen the presentation of the biorthogonal framework and the comparisons.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Biorthogonal Framework section: the reformulated Loschmidt rate function is constructed via the associated-state formalism; the manuscript does not demonstrate that the shift in Fisher-zero locations survives under an alternative but equally valid biorthogonal normalization (e.g., a different scaling of the left eigenvectors that preserves the biorthogonal inner product). Without this check the difference could be an artifact of the particular projection chosen rather than a direct consequence of biorthogonality.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee highlighting this subtlety regarding normalization choices. In the associated-state formalism, the left and right eigenvectors are fixed by the biorthogonality condition, and the Loschmidt rate function is constructed from the associated states. Overall scaling factors that preserve the inner product cancel in the echo amplitude and thus do not shift the Fisher-zero locations. To make this explicit and rule out any possible artifact, we have added a short discussion together with a numerical verification under rescaled left eigenvectors in the revised manuscript. The shift in critical times remains unchanged, confirming it originates from the biorthogonal structure. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Results section on critical times: the claim that critical times differ from self-normal approaches is load-bearing, yet the comparison is presented only for the final rate function; an explicit side-by-side plot or table of the conventional versus biorthogonal Loschmidt echo (or its zeros) for the same time-evolved state would be required to isolate the effect.

    Authors: We agree that a direct visual comparison would better isolate the effect. While the difference in critical times follows from the distinct rate functions and zero locations, we have added a new figure in the revised manuscript that shows the Loschmidt echo versus time for both the conventional self-normalized approach and the biorthogonal associated-state formalism, using the identical time-evolved state. The plot explicitly marks the shifted positions of the dynamical Fisher zeros. revision: yes

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Reformulated Loschmidt rate function shifts critical times by construction of associated-state formalism

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Abstract]
    "we construct an associated-state formalism and reformulate the Loschmidt rate function, dynamical topological order parameter, and dynamical Fisher zeros. Within this framework, we find that the critical times at which dynamical quantum phase transitions occur differ from those based on the conventional self-normal approaches."

    The critical times are located at the dynamical Fisher zeros of the reformulated Loschmidt rate function. Since the rate function itself is redefined via the associated-state formalism to incorporate biorthogonality, any shift in zero locations (and thus critical times) is produced by the reformulation step rather than derived from the model Hamiltonian or time evolution independently of that choice.

full rationale

The paper's central result—that critical times for dynamical quantum phase transitions differ from conventional self-normal approaches—follows directly from the choice to construct an associated-state formalism and use it to redefine the Loschmidt rate function and dynamical Fisher zeros. Because the locations of the zeros are determined by the zeros of this newly reformulated rate function, the reported difference is a definitional consequence of adopting the biorthogonal construction rather than an independent prediction extracted from the underlying time-evolution operator. The abstract presents this difference as a finding within the framework, but no separate validation isolates the effect from the normalization choice itself. This matches the self-definitional pattern without requiring external data fitting.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The abstract provides no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the associated-state formalism appears to be the main new construct introduced to handle biorthogonality.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard quantum mechanics applies to non-Hermitian Hamiltonians with biorthogonal left and right eigenstates
    Invoked implicitly when constructing the associated-state formalism for the Loschmidt echo and Fisher zeros.
invented entities (1)
  • associated-state formalism no independent evidence
    purpose: To reformulate dynamical quantities while respecting biorthogonality
    New construct introduced in the paper to extend the framework to dynamical quantum phase transitions

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5696 in / 1404 out tokens · 74919 ms · 2026-05-20T18:01:16.066286+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Unified resonant-manifold framework for dynamical quantum phase transitions

    quant-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    A resonant-manifold framework unifies manifold and branch DQPTs by attributing them to resonances within the initial manifold and with a transitional manifold connected by low-order processes, shown in Z2 LGT quenches.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

100 extracted references · 100 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    T. E. Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 133903 (2016)

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    Yao and Z

    S. Yao and Z. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 086803 (2018)

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Z. Gong, Y. Ashida, K. Kawabata, K. Takasan, S. Hi- gashikawa, and M. Ueda, Phys. Rev. X 8, 031079 (2018)

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    El-Ganainy, K

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

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Yokomizo and Shuichi Murakami, Phys

    K. Yokomizo and Shuichi Murakami, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 066404 (2019)

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Kawabata, K

    K. Kawabata, K. Shiozaki, M. Ueda, and M. Sato, Phys. Rev. X 9, 041015 (2019)

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    E. J. Bergholtz, J. C. Budich, and F. K. Kunst, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 015005 (2021)

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Jing, J.-J

    Y. Jing, J.-J. Dong, Y.-Y. Zhang, and Z.-X. Hu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 220402 (2024)

    work page 2024

  9. [9]

    Kawabata, T

    K. Kawabata, T. Bessho, and M. Sato, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 066405 (2019)

    work page 2019

  10. [10]

    Mandal and E

    I. Mandal and E. J. Bergholtz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 186601 (2021)

    work page 2021

  11. [11]

    W. Liu, Y. Wu, C.-K. Duan, X. Rong, and J. Du, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 170506 (2021)

    work page 2021

  12. [12]

    M. Król, I. Septembre, P. Oliwa, M. Kędziora, K. Łempicka-Mirek, M. Muszyński, R. Mazur, P. Morawiak, W. Piecek, P. Kula, W. Bardyszewski, P. G. Lagoudakis, D. D. Solnyshkov, G. Malpuech, B. Piętka, and J. Szczytko, Nat. Commun. 13, 5340 (2022)

    work page 2022

  13. [13]

    C.-X. Guo, S. Chen, K. Ding, and H. Hu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 157201 (2023)

    work page 2023

  14. [14]

    F. U. J. Klauck, M. Heinrich, A. Szameit, and T. A. W. Wolterink, Sci. Adv. 11, eadr8275 (2025)

    work page 2025

  15. [15]

    Longhi, Phys

    S. Longhi, Phys. Rev. Res. 1, 023013 (2019)

    work page 2019

  16. [16]

    F. Song, S. Yao, and Z. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 170401 (2019)

    work page 2019

  17. [17]

    L. Li, C. H. Lee, S. Mu, and J. Gong, Nat. Commun. 11, 5491 (2020)

    work page 2020

  18. [18]

    Zhang, Z

    K. Zhang, Z. Yang, and C. Fang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 126402 (2020)

    work page 2020

  19. [19]

    Liang, D

    Q. Liang, D. Xie, Z. Dong, H. Li, H. Li, B. Gadway, W. Yi, and B. Yan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 070401 (2022)

    work page 2022

  20. [20]

    Zhang, Z

    K. Zhang, Z. Yang, and C. Fang, Nat. Commun. 13, 2496 (2022)

    work page 2022

  21. [21]

    Kawabata, T

    K. Kawabata, T. Numasawa, and S. Ryu, Phys. Rev. X 13, 021007 (2023)

    work page 2023

  22. [22]

    Jones-Smith and H

    K. Jones-Smith and H. Mathur, Phys. Rev. A 82, 042101 (2010)

    work page 2010

  23. [23]

    V. M. Martinez Alvarez, J. E. Barrios Vargas, and L. E. F. Foa Torres, Phys. Rev. B 97, 121401 (2018)

    work page 2018

  24. [24]

    K. Sim, N. Defenu, P. Molignini, and R. Chitra, Phys. Rev. Res. 7, 013325 (2025)

    work page 2025

  25. [25]

    F. K. Kunst, E. Edvardsson, J. C. Budich, and E. J. Bergholtz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 026808 (2018) . 6

    work page 2018

  26. [26]

    Edvardsson, F

    E. Edvardsson, F. K. Kunst, T. Yoshida, and E. J. Bergholtz, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 043046 (2020)

    work page 2020

  27. [27]

    Sun, J.-C

    G. Sun, J.-C. Tang, and S.-P. Kou, Front. Phys. 17, 33502 (2021)

    work page 2021

  28. [28]

    Miri and A

    M.-A. Miri and A. Alù, Science 363, eaar7709 (2019)

    work page 2019

  29. [29]

    K. Ding, C. Fang, and G. Ma, Nat. Rev. Phys. 4, 745 (2022)

    work page 2022

  30. [30]

    C. Lv, R. Zhang, Z. Zhai, and Q. Zhou, Nat. Commun. 13, 2184 (2022)

    work page 2022

  31. [31]

    Zhou, Phys

    L. Zhou, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 043164 (2022)

    work page 2022

  32. [32]

    Q. Zhou, J. Wu, Z. Pu, J. Lu, X. Huang, W. Deng, M. Ke, and Z. Liu, Nat. Commun. 14, 4569 (2023)

    work page 2023

  33. [33]

    H. Shen, B. Zhen, and L. Fu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 146402 (2018)

    work page 2018

  34. [34]

    Okuma, K

    N. Okuma, K. Kawabata, K. Shiozaki, and M. Sato, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 086801 (2020)

    work page 2020

  35. [35]

    Helbig, T

    T. Helbig, T. Hofmann, S. Imhof, M. Abdelghany, T. Kiessling, L. W. Molenkamp, C. H. Lee, A. Szameit, M. Greiter, and R. Thomale, Nat. Phys. 16, 747 (2020)

    work page 2020

  36. [36]

    L. Xiao, T. Deng, K. Wang, G. Zhu, Z. Wang, W. Yi, and P. Xue, Nat. Phys. 16, 761 (2020)

    work page 2020

  37. [37]

    Z. Yang, K. Zhang, C. Fang, and J. Hu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 226402 (2020)

    work page 2020

  38. [38]

    Kawabata, N

    K. Kawabata, N. Okuma, and M. Sato, Phys. Rev. B 101, 195147 (2020)

    work page 2020

  39. [39]

    Zirnstein, G

    H.-G. Zirnstein, G. Refael, and B. Rosenow, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 216407 (2021)

    work page 2021

  40. [40]

    Zhang, X

    W. Zhang, X. Ouyang, X. Huang, X. Wang, H. Zhang, Y. Yu, X. Chang, Y. Liu, D.-L. Deng, and L.-M. Duan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 090501 (2021)

    work page 2021

  41. [41]

    W. Chen, L. Peng, H. Lu, and X. Lu, Phys. Rev. B 105, 075126 (2022)

    work page 2022

  42. [42]

    Yokomizo and S

    K. Yokomizo and S. Murakami, Phys. Rev. B 107, 195112 (2023)

    work page 2023

  43. [43]

    Nakamura, T

    D. Nakamura, T. Bessho, and M. Sato, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 136401 (2024)

    work page 2024

  44. [44]

    Heyl, Phys

    M. Heyl, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 205701 (2014)

    work page 2014

  45. [45]

    J. C. Budich and M. Heyl, Phys. Rev. B 93, 085416 (2016)

    work page 2016

  46. [46]

    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, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 080501 (2017)

    work page 2017

  47. [47]

    S. A. Weidinger, M. Heyl, A. Silva, and M. Knap, Phys. Rev. B 96, 134313 (2017)

    work page 2017

  48. [48]

    D. M. Kennes, D. Schuricht, and C. Karrasch, Phys. Rev. B 97, 184302 (2018)

    work page 2018

  49. [49]

    Heyl, Rep

    M. Heyl, Rep. Prog. Phys. 81, 054001 (2018)

    work page 2018

  50. [50]

    K. Wang, X. Qiu, L. Xiao, X. Zhan, Z. Bian, W. Yi, and P. Xue, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 020501 (2019)

    work page 2019

  51. [51]

    H.-X. Yang, T. Tian, Y.-B. Yang, L.-Y. Qiu, H.-Y. Liang, A.-J. Chu, C. B. Dağ, Y. Xu, Y. Liu, and L.-M. Duan, Phys. Rev. A 100, 013622 (2019)

    work page 2019

  52. [52]

    Tian, H.-X

    T. Tian, H.-X. Yang, L.-Y. Qiu, H.-Y. Liang, Y.-B. Yang, Y. Xu, and L.-M. Duan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 043001 (2020)

    work page 2020

  53. [53]

    M. Heyl, A. Polkovnikov, and S. Kehrein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 135704 (2013)

    work page 2013

  54. [54]

    J. N. Kriel, C. Karrasch, and S. Kehrein, Phys. Rev. B 90, 125106 (2014)

    work page 2014

  55. [55]

    M. Heyl, F. Pollmann, and B. Dóra, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 016801 (2018)

    work page 2018

  56. [56]

    Bhattacharjee and A

    S. Bhattacharjee and A. Dutta, Phys. Rev. B 97, 134306 (2018)

    work page 2018

  57. [57]

    X.-Y. Guo, C. Yang, Y. Zeng, Y. Peng, H.-K. Li, H. Deng, Y.-R. Jin, S. Chen, D. Zheng, and H. Fan, Phys. Rev. Appl. 11, 044080 (2019)

    work page 2019

  58. [58]

    Chen, J.-M

    Z. Chen, J.-M. Cui, M.-Z. Ai, R. He, Y.-F. Huang, Y.- J. Han, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, Phys. Rev. A 102, 042222 (2020)

    work page 2020

  59. [59]

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

    work page 2019

  60. [60]

    Zamani, R

    S. Zamani, R. Jafari, and A. Langari, Phys. Rev. B 102, 144306 (2020)

    work page 2020

  61. [61]

    Zhou and Q

    L. Zhou and Q. Du, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 33, 345403 (2021)

    work page 2021

  62. [62]

    Jafari, A

    R. Jafari, A. Akbari, U. Mishra, and H. Johannesson, Phys. Rev. B 105, 094311 (2022)

    work page 2022

  63. [63]

    J. Naji, R. Jafari, L. Zhou, and A. Langari, Phys. Rev. B 106, 094314 (2022)

    work page 2022

  64. [64]

    J. Naji, M. Jafari, R. Jafari, and A. Akbari, Phys. Rev. A 105, 022220 (2022)

    work page 2022

  65. [65]

    N. O. Abeling and S. Kehrein, Phys. Rev. B 93, 104302 (2016)

    work page 2016

  66. [66]

    B. Mera, C. Vlachou, N. Paunković, V. R. Vieira, and O. Viyuela, Phys. Rev. B 97, 094110 (2018)

    work page 2018

  67. [67]

    Mondal and T

    D. Mondal and T. Nag, Phys. Rev. B 107, 184311 (2023)

    work page 2023

  68. [68]

    Bhattacharya, S

    U. Bhattacharya, S. Bandyopadhyay, and A. Dutta, Phys. Rev. B 96, 180303 (2017)

    work page 2017

  69. [69]

    Heyl and J

    M. Heyl and J. C. Budich, Phys. Rev. B 96, 180304 (2017)

    work page 2017

  70. [70]

    H. Lang, Y. Chen, Q. Hong, and H. Fan, Phys. Rev. B 98, 134310 (2018)

    work page 2018

  71. [71]

    Bernien, S

    H. Bernien, S. Schwartz, A. Keesling, H. Levine, A. Om- ran, H. Pichler, S. Choi, A. S. Zibrov, M. Endres, M. Greiner, V. Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin, Nature 551, 579 (2017)

    work page 2017

  72. [72]

    Fläschner, D

    N. Fläschner, D. Vogel, M. Tarnowski, B. S. Rem, D.-S. Lühmann, M. Heyl, J. C. Budich, L. Mathey, K. Seng- stock, and C. Weitenberg, Nat. Phys. 14, 265 (2018)

    work page 2018

  73. [73]

    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, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 250601 (2020)

    work page 2020

  74. [74]

    Xu, Q.-Q

    X.-Y. Xu, Q.-Q. Wang, M. Heyl, J. C. Budich, W.-W. Pan, Z. Chen, M. Jan, K. Sun, J.-S. Xu, Y.-J. Han, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, Light Sci. Appl. 9, 7 (2020)

    work page 2020

  75. [75]

    Zhou and Q

    L. Zhou and Q. Du, New J. Phys. 23, 063041 (2021)

    work page 2021

  76. [76]

    Hamazaki, Nat

    R. Hamazaki, Nat. Commun. 12, 5108 (2021)

    work page 2021

  77. [77]

    Mueller, J

    N. Mueller, J. A. Carolan, A. Connelly, Z. Davoudi, E. F. Dumitrescu, and K. Yeter-Aydeniz, PRX Quan- tum 4, 030323 (2023)

    work page 2023

  78. [78]

    Nehra and D

    R. Nehra and D. Roy, Phys. Rev. B 109, 094311 (2024)

    work page 2024

  79. [79]

    Dóra and C

    B. Dóra and C. P. Moca, Phys. Rev. B 110, L121116 (2024)

    work page 2024

  80. [80]

    Fu and G

    Y. Fu and G. Xianlong, Phys. Rev. B 112, L140302 (2025)

    work page 2025

Showing first 80 references.