Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

A Krylov-space expansion turns the adiabatic gauge potential of non-Hermitian systems into a sparse matrix equation, so counterdiabatic drives can be built without diagonalization and with controlled locality.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-10 17:43 UTC pith:W6LJG5YA

load-bearing objection Clean non-Hermitian generalization of Krylov AGP that works and is usable; main limit is the weak-non-Hermiticity regime they already flag. the 1 major comments →

arxiv 2607.07802 v1 pith:W6LJG5YA submitted 2026-07-08 quant-ph cond-mat.othercond-mat.stat-mech

Shortcuts to Adiabaticity for non-Hermitian systems in Krylov Space

Ankit W. Shrestha , Budhaditya Bhattacharjee , Adolfo del Campo This is my paper
classification quant-ph cond-mat.othercond-mat.stat-mech
keywords shortcuts to adiabaticityadiabatic gauge potentialnon-Hermitian systemsKrylov spacebi-Lanczos algorithmArnoldi iterationPT symmetrycounterdiabatic driving
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Shortcuts to adiabaticity let a quantum system follow an adiabatic path in finite time by adding a counterdiabatic drive. That drive is built from the adiabatic gauge potential, which is hard to compute for many-body systems and had been available for non-Hermitian Hamiltonians only in model-specific form. This paper supplies a general construction: an integral representation of the gauge potential is rewritten as a nested-commutator series, then projected onto the bi-Lanczos or Arnoldi Krylov basis generated from the driving term. The result is a sparse tridiagonal or upper-Hessenberg matrix equation whose solution is the exact or truncated gauge potential. On a decaying two-level atom the method recovers the known exact drive and diverges at the exceptional point; on the interacting Hatano–Nelson chain a few dozen Krylov terms already suppress excess energy; on a PT-symmetric Heisenberg chain the gauge-potential norm itself tracks the PT-breaking transition. Because only a small fraction of the full Krylov space is needed, the route is practical for large non-Hermitian many-body systems where full diagonalization is impossible.

Core claim

The adiabatic gauge potential of a non-Hermitian Hamiltonian admits an integral representation that expands into a nested-commutator series; when that series is written in the bi-Lanczos or Arnoldi Krylov basis generated from ∂λH, the exact or truncated gauge potential reduces to the solution of a sparse tridiagonal or upper-Hessenberg matrix equation that generalizes the Hermitian Krylov construction.

What carries the argument

The bi-Lanczos/Arnoldi Krylov basis of the Liouvillian superoperator Lλ = [Hλ, ·] acting on ∂λH. Only the odd-indexed vectors appear, so the gauge potential is a short linear combination whose coefficients solve a sparse matrix equation (tridiagonal for bi-Lanczos, upper-Hessenberg for Arnoldi).

Load-bearing premise

The construction assumes weak non-Hermiticity: the imaginary parts of energy differences do not produce large exponential growth, so the biorthogonal counterdiabatic term remains valid.

What would settle it

Apply a truncated Krylov counterdiabatic drive to the interacting Hatano–Nelson model (or the PT Heisenberg chain) and measure residual excess energy or final-state fidelity; if the residual fails to drop monotonically with Krylov order or remains large far from exceptional points, the claim that a small Krylov fraction already yields accurate control is falsified.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a diagonalization-free framework for counterdiabatic shortcuts to adiabaticity in non-Hermitian systems by expressing the adiabatic gauge potential (AGP) in Krylov space. Starting from an integral representation of the AGP (Eq. 21, App. A), the authors recast it as a nested-commutator series and generate the basis via bi-Lanczos and Arnoldi algorithms, reducing the problem to sparse tridiagonal or upper-Hessenberg matrix equations (Eqs. 29, 32) that generalize the Hermitian construction. Truncated expansions are shown to converge rapidly. Demonstrations include recovery of the exact drive and exceptional-point divergence for a decaying two-level atom, suppression of excess energy in the interacting Hatano–Nelson model with few Krylov vectors, detection of the PT-breaking transition via AGP norm in a Heisenberg chain, and closed-form AGP results for the non-Hermitian transverse-field Ising model that capture both Ising and PT transitions.

Significance. If the results hold, the work supplies a practical, systematically improvable route to counterdiabatic control of many-body non-Hermitian systems, where exact diagonalization is prohibitive and prior STA constructions were largely model-specific. The reduction to sparse matrix equations, the controlled locality of nested commutators, and the rapid convergence with a small fraction of the Krylov space are concrete advances over spectral formulas. The AGP-norm diagnostic of PT transitions and exceptional points, the exact NH-TFIM solution, recovery of the known two-level result, and the publicly available simulation codes are particular strengths that make the contribution both theoretically clean and usable.

major comments (1)
  1. The central construction (biorthogonal CD term Eq. 18, integral representation Eq. 21, and the subsequent Krylov matrix equations) rests on the weak-non-Hermiticity condition Eq. 17 (§II.A). The paper is explicit that the usual adiabatic condition is insufficient for strongly complex spectra and that the AGP diverges at exceptional points (recovered for the two-level atom). All many-body examples stay inside the safe regime (real spectrum for open-boundary Hatano–Nelson; real spectrum in the PT-unbroken phase). This is a legitimate scope restriction rather than an internal inconsistency, but the abstract and conclusion currently advertise a general non-Hermitian framework without a crisp statement of the domain of validity. A short, prominent paragraph delimiting when the integral/Krylov equations guarantee transitionless driving (and what fails near strong non-Hermiticity or singular bi
minor comments (5)
  1. Figs. 1–2: axis labels and legends are readable, but the caption of Fig. 2 should state more clearly that the plotted points are the absolute excess energy evaluated at the oscillation maxima, and should quote the system parameters (N, J, U, h0) already given for Fig. 1.
  2. Notation: the same symbol L is used for the Liouvillian superoperator and for system size in the NH-TFIM section; a brief local redefinition or a different letter for one of them would reduce momentary confusion.
  3. Eq. (29) and the surrounding text: the statement that c_{2d_A} and b_{2d_A} “do not exist and can be taken as zero” for even K is correct but terse; a one-sentence reminder that the last row/column is simply truncated would help readers implementing the matrix.
  4. References: the recent experimental non-Hermitian STA demonstration in a superconducting qubit (Erdamar et al., PRX Quantum 2026) is already cited; a short sentence in the introduction noting that the present Krylov construction is complementary to that single-qubit experiment would improve context.
  5. Typographical: “Schr¨ odinger” and similar accented characters appear inconsistently rendered in a few places; a final pass for UTF-8 consistency is recommended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: AGP is defined from the biorthogonal spectral/integral formula and re-expressed in Krylov space; matrix equations for α_k are solved from the constraint, not fitted to dynamics.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The AGP begins from the standard biorthogonal definition (Eqs. 18–20) or the derived integral representation (Eq. 21, Appendix A), is rewritten as the nested-commutator series (Eq. 24) under a spectral-gap assumption, and is then expanded in the bi-Lanczos/Arnoldi basis generated from ∂_λH. The coefficients α_k are obtained by solving the sparse matrix equations (29) or (32) that enforce the constraint L[i∂_λH + L A] = 0; they are not fitted to any target trajectory or excess-energy data. Truncation (Eq. 33) and the AGP-norm diagnostic (Eqs. 58–60) are derived observables. Self-citations to the authors’ prior Hermitian Krylov constructions ([17,18]) supply the starting point that is generalized, but the non-Hermitian bi-orthogonal coefficients {c_n}, the integral representation, the variational consistency check, and the closed-form NH-TFIM solution are derived independently inside the paper. Numerical checks (excess-energy suppression, recovery of the two-level exact drive, detection of PT/EP features) are external validations, not inputs. The only mild self-reference is the natural extension of the Hermitian Krylov method; it is not load-bearing for the new claims. Score 1 reflects that minor, non-circular self-citation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The construction rests on standard linear-algebra and non-Hermitian spectral theory plus the weak-non-Hermiticity assumption that keeps the biorthogonal CD term valid. No free parameters are fitted to data; truncation order M is a controlled approximation parameter, not a fit. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • Krylov truncation order M = model-dependent (e.g. 80, 50)
    Chosen by hand to demonstrate convergence (e.g., M=80 for Hatano–Nelson, d_A=50 for NH-TFIM); not fitted to data but controls the accuracy of the approximate AGP.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Weak non-Hermiticity: exp(∫ Im(E_n−E_m) dt′) ≈ 1 so that the biorthogonal counterdiabatic term remains valid (Eq. 17).
    Invoked in §II.A to justify using the Ibáñez et al. form of H_CD; fails near exceptional points or for strong non-Hermiticity.
  • domain assumption Existence of a complete biorthogonal eigenbasis away from exceptional points (geometric = algebraic multiplicity).
    Standard non-Hermitian spectral theory; used throughout the integral representation and matrix-element formulae.
  • standard math Hilbert–Schmidt (or biorthogonal) inner product on operators and the associated Frobenius norm for the AGP.
    Defines the Krylov orthonormalization and the AGP-norm diagnostic (Eqs. 58–60).
  • standard math Baker–Campbell–Hausdorff expansion of the integral representation yields only odd nested commutators when a spectral gap is present.
    Used to justify the series (Eq. 24) and the restriction to odd Krylov vectors.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 29590 in / 2997 out tokens · 25871 ms · 2026-07-10T17:43:44.034640+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Shortcuts to adiabaticity (STA) reproduce adiabatic dynamics in finite time, but their counterdiabatic implementation relies on the adiabatic gauge potential (AGP), which is difficult to compute and implement in many-body systems and whose extension to open and non-Hermitian settings has remained largely model-specific. Here, we develop a general, diagonalization-free framework for engineering STA in non-Hermitian systems by representing the AGP in Krylov space. Starting from an integral representation of the counterdiabatic control, we recast the AGP as a nested-commutator series with controlled locality and generate the associated Krylov basis using the bi-Lanczos and Arnoldi algorithms. This reduces the exact or truncated AGP to a sparse tridiagonal or upper-Hessenberg matrix equation that generalizes the Hermitian construction. We demonstrate the method on a decaying two-level atom, where it recovers the exact drive and signals the exceptional point; on the interacting Hatano-Nelson model, where truncated controls rapidly suppress nonadiabatic excitations; and on a PT-symmetric Heisenberg chain, whose AGP norm detects the PT-symmetry-breaking transition. Throughout, the expansion converges with only a small fraction of the full Krylov space, offering a practical route to fast, accurate control of many-body non-Hermitian systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.07802 by Adolfo del Campo, Ankit W. Shrestha, Budhaditya Bhattacharjee.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Excess energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Absolute value of the excess energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: shows the AGP norm (Eq. (60)) for differ￾ent approximate AGPs constructed using first M odd￾indexed Krylov basis vectors. For the calculation, we fix χ ≈ 10−7 so that the Hamiltonian is non-Hermitian, but the spectrum is real up to the machine precision. We can see that it rapidly approaches the exact AGP norm in Eq. (58). Moreover, it also captures the phase transition at ξ = 1/2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Norm of the adiabatic gauge potential for the Non [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Stochastic Counterdiabatic Driving via Biorthogonal Liouvillian Eigenmodes

    physics.comp-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0

    Biorthogonal eigenmodes of the discrete Fokker–Planck generator yield a counterdiabatic correction that tracks instantaneous equilibrium to machine precision and drives dissipated work to ~0 at arbitrary protocol speed.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 88 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 5 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    (62) is Hermi- tian

    PT unbroken:γ <1 In this regime, the Hamiltonian in Eq. (62) is Hermi- tian. Since the initial operatorMis also Hermitian, the Arnoldi/bi-Lanczos algorithms become the usual Lanczos algorithm, providing the same results as derived in [17]. We mention the same below. The Krylov vectors areK n = (−1)niWn/ √ Land the diagonal Krylov coefficients area n = 0. ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Operator Growth Hypothesis

    PT broken :γ >1 This is the sector where the analysis deviates from the usual TFIM. For this, we employ the bi-Lanczos algo- rithm, where we note that the right Krylov vectors are propagated byL g = [H,·] and the left Krylov vectors are propagated byL † g = [H †,·]. Forγ >1, we can write Eq. (62) asH=H J −iµMwhereµ=h p γ2 −1∈R andH J =−J P i τ x i τ x i+1...

    work page arXiv

  3. [3]

    With the given initial operators, define|R 0) = L|P0)−a 0|P0) and (S 0|= (Q 0|L −a 0(Q0|, where a0 = (Q0|L|P0)

    work page

  4. [4]

    ], run the following steps: (a) Calculateω j = (Sj−1|Rj−1),c j = p |ωj|, and bj =ω j/cj

    Forj∈[1,2, . . .], run the following steps: (a) Calculateω j = (Sj−1|Rj−1),c j = p |ωj|, and bj =ω j/cj. (b) Ifc j ̸= 0, define new Krylov basis vectors |Pj) = |Rj−1) cj & (Q j|= (Sj−1| bj .(B8) (c) Calculate the new intermediate vectors |Rj) =L|P j)−a j|Pj)−b j|Pj−1), (Sj|= (Q j|L −a j(Qj| −c j(Qj−1|,(B9) where,a j = (Qj|L|Pj) and go back to (a)

    work page

  5. [5]

    In the new basis, the superoperatorLtakes the tridiag- onal form (Qm|L|Pn) =   a0 b1 0 0· · · c1 a1 b2 0· · · 0c 2 a2 b3 · · · 0 0c 3 a3 · · ·

    Halt the algorithm ifc j = 0 and the resul- tant set of vectors{|P 0),|P 1), ...,|P K−1)}and {(Q0|,(Q 1|, ...,(Q K−1 |}are Krylov basis vectors satisfying the bi-orthonormal condition. In the new basis, the superoperatorLtakes the tridiag- onal form (Qm|L|Pn) =   a0 b1 0 0· · · c1 a1 b2 0· · · 0c 2 a2 b3 · · · 0 0c 3 a3 · · · ... ... ... ... ...  ...

    work page

  6. [6]

    X. Chen, A. Ruschhaupt, S. Schmidt, A. del Campo, D. Gu´ ery-Odelin, and J. G. Muga, Fast optimal friction- less atom cooling in harmonic traps: Shortcut to adia- baticity, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 063002 (2010)

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    Demirplak and S

    M. Demirplak and S. A. Rice, Adiabatic population transfer with control fields, The Journal of Physical Chemistry A107, 9937 (2003)

    work page 2003

  8. [8]

    Demirplak and S

    M. Demirplak and S. A. Rice, Assisted adiabatic passage revisited, The Journal of Physical Chemistry B109, 6838 (2005)

    work page 2005

  9. [9]

    Demirplak and S

    M. Demirplak and S. A. Rice, On the consistency, ex- tremal, and global properties of counterdiabatic fields, The Journal of Chemical Physics129, 154111 (2008)

    work page 2008

  10. [10]

    M. V. Berry, Transitionless quantum driving, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical42, 365303 (2009)

    work page 2009

  11. [11]

    Torrontegui, S

    E. Torrontegui, S. Ib´ a˜ nez, S. Mart´ ınez-Garaot, M. Mod- ugno, A. del Campo, D. Gu´ ery-Odelin, A. Ruschhaupt, X. Chen, and J. G. Muga, Shortcuts to adiabaticity, in Advances in Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics(El- sevier, 2013) p. 117–169

    work page 2013

  12. [12]

    Gu´ ery-Odelin, A

    D. Gu´ ery-Odelin, A. Ruschhaupt, A. Kiely, E. Tor- rontegui, S. Mart´ ınez-Garaot, and J. G. Muga, Short- cuts to adiabaticity: Concepts, methods, and applica- tions, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 045001 (2019)

    work page 2019

  13. [13]

    T. Hatomura, Shortcuts to adiabaticity: theoretical framework, relations between different methods, and ver- satile approximations, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics57, 102001 (2024)

    work page 2024

  14. [14]

    Visuri, A

    A.-M. Visuri, A. Gomez Cadavid, B. A. Bhargava, S. V. Romero, A. Grabarits, P. Chandarana, E. Solano, A. del Campo, and N. N. Hegade, Digitized counterdiabatic quantum critical dynamics, npj Quantum Information 12, 47 (2026)

    work page 2026

  15. [15]

    del Campo, M

    A. del Campo, M. M. Rams, and W. H. Zurek, Assisted Finite-Rate Adiabatic Passage Across a Quantum Criti- cal Point: Exact Solution for the Quantum Ising Model, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 115703 (2012)

    work page 2012

  16. [16]

    Takahashi, Transitionless quantum driving for spin systems, Phys

    K. Takahashi, Transitionless quantum driving for spin systems, Phys. Rev. E87, 062117 (2013)

    work page 2013

  17. [17]

    Damski, Counterdiabatic driving of the quantum Ising model, J

    B. Damski, Counterdiabatic driving of the quantum Ising model, J. Stat. Mech. Theory Exp.2014, P12019 (2014)

    work page 2014

  18. [18]

    Saberi, T

    H. Saberi, T. Opatrn´ y, K. Mølmer, and A. del Campo, Adiabatic tracking of quantum many-body dynamics, Phys. Rev. A90, 060301 (2014)

    work page 2014

  19. [19]

    Takahashi, Unitary deformations of counterdiabatic driving, Phys

    K. Takahashi, Unitary deformations of counterdiabatic driving, Phys. Rev. A91, 042115 (2015)

    work page 2015

  20. [20]

    Sels and A

    D. Sels and A. Polkovnikov, Minimizing irreversible losses in quantum systems by local counterdiabatic driving, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA114, E3909 (2017)

    work page 2017

  21. [21]

    P. W. Claeys, M. Pandey, D. Sels, and A. Polkovnikov, Floquet-engineering counterdiabatic protocols in quan- tum many-body systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 090602 (2019)

    work page 2019

  22. [22]

    Takahashi and A

    K. Takahashi and A. del Campo, Shortcuts to adiabatic- ity in Krylov space, Phys. Rev. X14, 011032 (2024)

    work page 2024

  23. [23]

    A Lanczos approach to the Adiabatic Gauge Potential

    B. Bhattacharjee, A Lanczos approach to the Adiabatic Gauge Potential, (2023), arXiv:2302.07228

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  24. [24]

    Morawetz and A

    S. Morawetz and A. Polkovnikov, Universal counterdia- batic driving in Krylov space, PRX Quantum6, 040320 (2025)

    work page 2025

  25. [25]

    Universal Defect Statistics in Counterdiabatic Quantum Critical Dynamics

    A. Grabarits and A. del Campo, Universal defect statis- tics in counterdiabatic quantum critical dynamics (2025), arXiv:2503.22212 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    Chandarana, N

    P. Chandarana, N. N. Hegade, K. Paul, F. Albarr´ an- Arriagada, E. Solano, A. del Campo, and X. Chen, Digitized-counterdiabatic quantum approximate opti- mization algorithm, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 013141 (2022)

    work page 2022

  27. [27]

    N. N. Hegade, X. Chen, and E. Solano, Digitized coun- terdiabatic quantum optimization, Phys. Rev. Res.4, L042030 (2022)

    work page 2022

  28. [28]

    N. N. Hegade, K. Paul, Y. Ding, M. Sanz, F. Albarr´ an- Arriagada, E. Solano, and X. Chen, Shortcuts to adia- baticity in digitized adiabatic quantum computing, Phys. Rev. Appl.15, 024038 (2021)

    work page 2021

  29. [29]

    Chandarana, N

    P. Chandarana, N. N. Hegade, I. Montalban, E. Solano, and X. Chen, Digitized counterdiabatic quantum algo- rithm for protein folding, Phys. Rev. Appl.20, 014024 (2023)

    work page 2023

  30. [30]

    Chandarana, K

    P. Chandarana, K. Paul, M. Garcia-de Andoin, Y. Ban, M. Sanz, and X. Chen, Photonic counterdiabatic quan- tum optimization algorithm, Communications Physics7, 315 (2024)

    work page 2024

  31. [31]

    R. Dann, A. Tobalina, and R. Kosloff, Shortcut to equi- libration of an open quantum system, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 250402 (2019)

    work page 2019

  32. [32]

    Dupays, I

    L. Dupays, I. L. Egusquiza, A. del Campo, and A. Chenu, Superadiabatic thermalization of a quantum oscillator by engineered dephasing, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 033178 (2020)

    work page 2020

  33. [33]

    Dupays and A

    L. Dupays and A. Chenu, Shortcuts to Squeezed Thermal States, Quantum5, 449 (2021)

    work page 2021

  34. [34]

    Z. Yin, C. Li, J. Allcock, Y. Zheng, X. Gu, M. Dai, S. Zhang, and S. An, Shortcuts to adiabaticity for open systems in circuit quantum electrodynamics, Na- 16 ture Communications13, 188 (2022)

    work page 2022

  35. [35]

    Vacanti, R

    G. Vacanti, R. Fazio, S. Montangero, G. M. Palma, M. Paternostro, and V. Vedral, Transitionless quantum driving in open quantum systems, New Journal of Physics 16, 053017 (2014)

    work page 2014

  36. [36]

    Alipour, A

    S. Alipour, A. Chenu, A. T. Rezakhani, and A. del Campo, Shortcuts to Adiabaticity in Driven Open Quan- tum Systems: Balanced Gain and Loss and Non- Markovian Evolution, Quantum4, 336 (2020)

    work page 2020

  37. [37]

    Alipour, A

    S. Alipour, A. T. Rezakhani, A. Chenu, A. del Campo, and T. Ala-Nissila, Entropy-based formulation of ther- modynamics in arbitrary quantum evolution, Phys. Rev. A105, L040201 (2022)

    work page 2022

  38. [38]

    Tanaka and N

    S. Tanaka and N. Yamamoto, Robust adaptive measure- ment scheme for qubit-state preparation, Phys. Rev. A 86, 062331 (2012)

    work page 2012

  39. [39]

    Hacohen-Gourgy, L

    S. Hacohen-Gourgy, L. P. Garc´ ıa-Pintos, L. S. Martin, J. Dressel, and I. Siddiqi, Incoherent qubit control using the quantum zeno effect, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 020505 (2018)

    work page 2018

  40. [40]

    Lewalle, Y

    P. Lewalle, Y. Zhang, and K. B. Whaley, Optimal zeno dragging for quantum control: A shortcut to zeno with action-based scheduling optimization, PRX Quantum5, 020366 (2024)

    work page 2024

  41. [41]

    del Campo, Shortcuts to adiabaticity via adaptive quantum Zeno measurements (2026), arXiv:2602.17786 [quant-ph]

    A. del Campo, Shortcuts to adiabaticity via adaptive quantum Zeno measurements (2026), arXiv:2602.17786 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  42. [42]

    Ashida, Z

    Y. Ashida, Z. Gong, and M. Ueda, Non-Hermitian physics, Advances in Physics69, 249 (2020)

    work page 2020

  43. [43]

    Ib´ a˜ nez, S

    S. Ib´ a˜ nez, S. Mart´ ınez-Garaot, X. Chen, E. Torrontegui, and J. G. Muga, Shortcuts to adiabaticity for non- hermitian systems, Phys. Rev. A84, 023415 (2011)

    work page 2011

  44. [44]

    Ib´ a˜ nez, S

    S. Ib´ a˜ nez, S. Mart´ ınez-Garaot, X. Chen, E. Torrontegui, and J. G. Muga, Erratum: Shortcuts to adiabaticity for non-Hermitian systems [Phys. Rev. A 84, 023415 (2011)], Phys. Rev. A86, 019901 (2012)

    work page 2011

  45. [45]

    B. T. Torosov, G. Della Valle, and S. Longhi, Non- hermitian shortcut to adiabaticity, Phys. Rev. A87, 052502 (2013)

    work page 2013

  46. [46]

    H¨ ornedal, O

    N. H¨ ornedal, O. A. Pro´ sniak, A. del Campo, and A. Chenu, A geometrical description of non-Hermitian dynamics: speed limits in finite rank density operators, Quantum9, 1729 (2025)

    work page 2025

  47. [47]

    Erdamar, M

    S. Erdamar, M. Abbasi, W. Chen, N. H¨ ornedal, A. Chenu, and K. W. Murch, Exploring the riemann- surface topology of a non-hermitian superconducting qubit using shortcuts to adiabaticity, PRX Quantum7, 010337 (2026)

    work page 2026

  48. [48]

    McArdle, T

    S. McArdle, T. Jones, S. Endo, Y. Li, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Variational ansatz-based quantum simula- tion of imaginary time evolution, npj Quantum Informa- tion5, 75 (2019)

    work page 2019

  49. [49]

    Motta, C

    M. Motta, C. Sun, A. T. K. Tan, M. J. O’Rourke, E. Ye, A. J. Minnich, F. G. S. L. Brand˜ ao, and G. K.-L. Chan, Determining eigenstates and thermal states on a quan- tum computer using quantum imaginary time evolution, Nature Physics16, 205 (2020)

    work page 2020

  50. [50]

    Lau and A

    H.-K. Lau and A. A. Clerk, Fundamental limits and non- reciprocal approaches in non-hermitian quantum sensing, Nature Communications9, 4320 (2018)

    work page 2018

  51. [51]

    McDonald and A

    A. McDonald and A. A. Clerk, Exponentially-enhanced quantum sensing with non-hermitian lattice dynamics, Nature Communications11, 5382 (2020)

    work page 2020

  52. [52]

    W. Ding, X. Wang, and S. Chen, Fundamental sensitiv- ity limits for non-hermitian quantum sensors, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 160801 (2023)

    work page 2023

  53. [53]

    Dupays, A

    L. Dupays, A. del Campo, and B. D´ ora, Slow approach to adiabaticity in many-body non-hermitian systems: The hatano-nelson model, Phys. Rev. B111, 045130 (2025)

    work page 2025

  54. [54]

    Pandey,Studies of non-equilibrium behavior of quan- tum many-body systems using the adiabatic eigenstate de- formations, Ph.D

    M. Pandey,Studies of non-equilibrium behavior of quan- tum many-body systems using the adiabatic eigenstate de- formations, Ph.D. thesis, Boston University (2021)

    work page 2021

  55. [55]

    R. P. Feynman, Forces in molecules, Phys. Rev.56, 340 (1939)

    work page 1939

  56. [56]

    Kolodrubetz, D

    M. Kolodrubetz, D. Sels, P. Mehta, and A. Polkovnikov, Geometry and non-adiabatic response in quantum and classical systems, Physics Reports697, 1 (2017)

    work page 2017

  57. [57]

    J. Muga, J. Palao, B. Navarro, and I. Egusquiza, Com- plex absorbing potentials, Physics Reports395, 357 (2004)

    work page 2004

  58. [58]

    Zhang and B

    Q. Zhang and B. Wu, Non-Hermitian quantum systems and their geometric phases, Phys. Rev. A99, 032121 (2019)

    work page 2019

  59. [59]

    The adiabatic theorem for non-Hermitian quantum systems with real eigenvalues and the complex geometric phase

    M. Huang and R.-K. Lee, Adiabatic theorem for non- Hermitian quantum systems with non-degenerate real eigenvalues: A proof following Kato’s approach, (2025), arXiv:2511.00968

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  60. [60]

    Hajong, R

    G. Hajong, R. Modak, and B. P. Mandal, Hellmann- Feynman theorem in non-Hermitian systems, Phys. Rev. A109, 022227 (2024)

    work page 2024

  61. [61]

    Hatomura and K

    T. Hatomura and K. Takahashi, Controlling and explor- ing quantum systems by algebraic expression of adiabatic gauge potential, Phys. Rev. A103, 012220 (2021)

    work page 2021

  62. [62]

    Nandy, A

    P. Nandy, A. S. Matsoukas-Roubeas, P. Mart´ ınez- Azcona, A. Dymarsky, and A. del Campo, Quantum dynamics in Krylov space: Methods and applications, Physics Reports1125-1128, 1 (2025)

    work page 2025

  63. [63]

    Krylov Complexity

    E. Rabinovici, A. S´ anchez-Garrido, R. Shir, and J. Son- ner, Krylov complexity, (2025), arXiv:2507.06286

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  64. [64]

    Ib´ a˜ nez, A

    S. Ib´ a˜ nez, A. Peralta Conde, D. Gu´ ery-Odelin, and J. G. Muga, Interaction of strongly chirped pulses with two- level atoms, Phys. Rev. A84, 013428 (2011)

    work page 2011

  65. [65]

    Hatano and D

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

    work page 1996

  66. [66]

    Hatano and D

    N. Hatano and D. R. Nelson, Vortex pinning and non- Hermitian quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. B56, 8651 (1997)

    work page 1997

  67. [67]

    D´ ora, M

    B. D´ ora, M. A. Werner, and C. P. Moca, Quantum quench dynamics in the luttinger liquid phase of the Hatano-Nelson model, Phys. Rev. B108, 035104 (2023)

    work page 2023

  68. [68]

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

    work page 1998

  69. [69]

    Kattel, P

    P. Kattel, P. R. Pasnoori, and N. Andrei, Exact solution of a non-Hermitian PT-symmetric spin chain, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical56, 325001 (2023)

    work page 2023

  70. [70]

    Grabarits, F

    A. Grabarits, F. Balducci, and A. del Campo, Fight- ing exponentially small gaps by counterdiabatic driving, PRX Quantum7, 010322 (2026)

    work page 2026

  71. [71]

    C.-Z. Lu, X. Deng, S.-P. Kou, and G. Sun, Many-body phase transitions in a non-Hermitian ising chain, Phys. Rev. B110, 014441 (2024)

    work page 2024

  72. [72]

    F. Yang, H. Wang, M.-L. Yang, C.-X. Guo, X.-R. Wang, G.-Y. Sun, and S.-P. Kou, Hidden continuous quantum phase transition without gap closing in non-Hermitian 17 transverse ising model, New Journal of Physics24, 043046 (2022)

    work page 2022

  73. [73]

    Sun, J.-C

    G. Sun, J.-C. Tang, and S.-P. Kou, Biorthogonal quan- tum criticality in non-Hermitian many-body systems, Frontiers of Physics17, 33502 (2021)

    work page 2021

  74. [74]

    R. A. Usmani, Inversion of a tridiagonal jacobi matrix, Linear Algebra and its Applications212-213, 413 (1994)

    work page 1994

  75. [75]

    A. W. Shrestha, B. Bhattacharjee, and A. del Campo, https://github.com/A-Wenju/STA_non_Hermitian_ Krylov(2026)

    work page 2026

  76. [76]

    Viswanath and G

    V. Viswanath and G. M¨ uller,The recursion method: ap- plication to many-body dynamics(Springer, 1994)

    work page 1994

  77. [77]

    Rabinovici, A

    E. Rabinovici, A. S´ anchez-Garrido, R. Shir, and J. Son- ner, Operator complexity: a journey to the edge of Krylov space, JHEP06, 062

    work page

  78. [78]

    D. E. Parker, X. Cao, A. Avdoshkin, T. Scaffidi, and E. Altman, A universal operator growth hypothesis, Phys. Rev. X9, 041017 (2019)

    work page 2019

  79. [79]

    Barb´ on, E

    J. Barb´ on, E. Rabinovici, R. Shir, and R. Sinha, On the evolution of operator complexity beyond scrambling, Journal of High Energy Physics2019, 1 (2019)

    work page 2019

  80. [80]

    Bhattacharjee, X

    B. Bhattacharjee, X. Cao, P. Nandy, and T. Pathak, Krylov complexity in saddle-dominated scrambling, Journal of High Energy Physics2022, 174 (2022)

    work page 2022

Showing first 80 references.