Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 58 references

Observation of Metal-Insulator and Spectral Phase Transitions in Aubry-Andr\'e-Harper Models

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper reports the first experimental realization of the unitary almost-Mathieu operator with single-photon quantum walks, observing a metal-insulator transition at $\lambda_1=\lambda_2$ and two non-Hermitian spectral transitions tied…

desk verdict A legitimate first UAMO implementation with a clean Hermitian phase diagram; the non-Hermitian transition claims are plausible but depend on a calibration-sensitive normalization and need tightening before they fully land. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.08255 v1 pith:CZUOB5SX submitted 2025-08-11 quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hallphysics.optics

Quan Lin , Christopher Cedzich , Qi Zhou , Peng Xue This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.mes-hallphysics.optics
keywords Aubry-André-HarpermodelunitaryalmostMathieuoperatornon-Hermitianquantumwalkmetal-insulatortransitionPTsymmetrybreakingspectralwindingnumberquasiperiodicpotentialsingle-photon
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 reports the first experimental realization of the unitary almost-Mathieu operator (UAMO), an exactly solvable quantum-walk model that simulates the Aubry-André-Harper (AAH) quasicrystal, using single photons. In the Hermitian limit, the measured photon distributions show the predicted metal-insulator transition at $\lambda_1=\lambda_2$, with ballistic spreading on the metallic side and localization on the insulating side. By adding non-reciprocal hopping controlled by a parameter $\eta$, the authors observe the parity-time (PT) symmetry-breaking transition at $\eta_{\rm PT}=-\log\lambda_0$, where the total photon probability begins to grow exponentially and the walker drifts directionally. They also identify a second, discrete-time-specific spectral transition at $\eta_0=\operatorname{arcsinh}(\lambda'_1/\lambda_1)/(2\pi)$, above which all quasienergies become purely imaginary; both non-Hermitian transitions are accompanied by a change in the spectral winding number. The work matters because it turns a theoretically well-studied but experimentally elusive family of quasicrystal models into a controllable photonic platform and clarifies how localization, symmetry breaking, and topology interact.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Floquet operator $W_{\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\eta}=S_{\lambda_1,\eta}Q_{\lambda_2,\theta}$, a one-dimensional quantum walk with a two-level coin. The coin rotation at site $x$ is quasiperiodic, with angle $2\pi(x\Phi+\theta)$ and coupling $\lambda_2$; the shift operator has amplitudes $e^{\pm 2\pi\eta}\lambda_1$ that break reciprocity when $\eta\ne0$. In the Hermitian case this is the unitary almost-Mathieu operator, an exactly solvable simulator of the AAH model. The analysis is carried by three analytic quantities: the self-dual condition $\lambda_1=\lambda_2$, the Lyapunov exponent $\log\lambda_0$ with $\lambda_0=\lambda_2(1+\lambda'_1)/(\lambda_1(1+\lambda'_2))$, and the spectral winding number $\nu_\eta(z)$ of Eq. (4), which is quantized to $0$ or $\pm1$ and changes exactly at the PT-breaking and all-complex transitions.

What would settle it

Measure the number of photons removed at each step directly, the $N_L(t,x)$ counts in Eq. (9), and compare the reconstructed $P(t)$ with the raw survival probability obtained by dividing detected counts by input counts; the claimed PT and all-complex transitions should appear only after the stated $e^{8\pi\eta t}$ normalization is applied. Repeating the same walk with a tunable attenuator in place of the loss element and checking that the fitted $\eta_{\rm PT}$ and $\eta_0$ move exactly with the independently measured loss rate would settle whether the transitions are spectral or calibration artifacts.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a single-photon discrete-time quantum walk can implement the unitary almost-Mathieu operator and its non-Hermitian pseudo-unitary extension, and that dynamical measurements in this platform directly reveal three phase transitions. First, with $\eta=0$, the walker's spatial distribution undergoes a metal-insulator transition on the self-dual line $\lambda_1=\lambda_2$, detected through the standard deviation of the position distribution after six steps. Second, in the localized phase $\lambda_1<\lambda_2$, increasing the non-Hermitian parameter $\eta$ past $\eta_{\rm PT}=-\log\lambda_0$ spontaneously breaks PT symmetry: some quasienergies acquire imaginary parts, the total probability $P(t)$ grows exponentially rather than staying constant, and the winding number $\nu_\eta(z)$ becomes nonzero. Third, at the larger value $\eta_0=\operatorname{arcsinh}(\lambda'_1/\lambda_1)/(2\pi)$, a transition occurs that has no analogue in the continuum non-Hermitian AAH model: all quasienergies move off the unit circle and become purely imaginary, so generic initial states exhibit amplification. The authors state that both non-Hermitian transitions are topological in origin because they coincide with quantized changes of the spectral winding number.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusions depend on the per-step loss introduced by the partially polarizing beam splitter and on the formula used to reconstruct the total photon probability matching the nominal value of $\eta$; if that calibration is inaccurate, the observed change from constant to exponentially growing probability could be an artifact of the reconstruction rather than a spectral transition.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single-photon quantum walk resolves the AAH metal-insulator boundary at $\lambda_1=\lambda_2$ through the spreading width of the photon wave packet.
  • In the localized phase, the PT-symmetry-breaking transition at $\eta_{\rm PT}=-\log\lambda_0$ shows up as the crossover from constant to exponentially growing total photon probability, together with directional transport.
  • The second transition at $\eta_0=\operatorname{arcsinh}(\lambda'_1/\lambda_1)/(2\pi)$ marks a regime where all quasienergies are purely imaginary, so generic initial states are amplified; this spectral phase cannot occur in the standard non-Hermitian AAH model.
  • Both non-Hermitian transitions coincide with quantized changes of the spectral winding number $\nu_\eta(z)$, establishing their topological origin.
  • Above the PT-breaking threshold, mode-selective amplification becomes possible, since individual eigenstates can be addressed and amplified without affecting other modes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the central claim is right, the $\eta_0$ transition should appear in any discrete-time quantum walk with the same Floquet structure, not just photonic walks; testing it on other platforms would separate the physics from photon-loss calibration.
  • An independent measurement of the per-step photon loss rate, rather than the reconstructed global attenuation factor, would give a sharp check: the apparent crossover to exponential growth should shift exactly with the measured loss, not with the assumed $\eta$.
  • The duality $\theta\mapsto\theta-i\eta$ exploited here suggests that the experiment effectively realizes complex quasiperiodic phases, offering a possible route to engineering imaginary gauge fields in other synthetic lattices.
  • If the paper's interpretation is correct, finite-lattice versions should show the same transitions in edge-state or mean-chiral-displacement observables, which longer quantum walks could test.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports an experimental implementation of the unitary almost-Mathieu operator (UAMO) and its non-unitary ("pseudo-unitary") extension using single-photon discrete-time quantum walks with polarization-encoded coin states. In the Hermitian case (η=0) the authors measure six-step probability distributions on both sides of the self-dual line λ1=λ2 and map the standard deviation σ over parameter space to exhibit a metal-insulator transition. In the non-Hermitian case they introduce mode-selective loss through a partially polarizing beam splitter and reconstruct the total probability P(t); they interpret an exponentially growing P(t) as a signature of PT-symmetry breaking, and the persistence of no-loss eigenstates below a second critical η0 as evidence of a novel spectral transition in which all quasienergies become complex. Both non-Hermitian transitions are associated with changes in the spectral winding number of the Floquet operator.

Significance. If the experimental claims hold, this is the first implementation of the UAMO and its non-Hermitian counterpart, providing a concrete photonic platform for quasiperiodic, non-unitary Floquet physics. The paper benefits from exact theoretical predictions: the phase boundaries are taken from published formulas rather than fitted, and the measured normalized spatial distributions agree with simulations at high similarity (S>0.96 in the Hermitian panels and S>0.94 in the non-Hermitian panels). The central new physics, a spectral transition beyond which all quasienergies are imaginary, is well motivated theoretically and, if confirmed, would demonstrate a sharp difference between the discrete-time PUAMO and the continuum non-Hermitian AAH model. However, the non-Hermitian evidence currently rests on a reconstructed global norm whose calibration uncertainty is not quantified, and several published phase-boundary formulas contain sign/factor inconsistencies. These issues are fixable but are load-bearing for the main claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods, Eq. (9); Figs. 3b,e and 4c,d] The central observable for both non-Hermitian transitions is the reconstructed total probability P(t)=e^{8πηt} Σ_x N(t,x)/[Σ_x N(t,x)+Σ_{t'}Σ_x N_L(t',x)]. This reconstruction explicitly assumes that the only significant loss is the PPBS loss with reflectivity p=1-e^{-8πη} and that the global factor in Eq. (8) is e^{4πη}. The paper reports no independent calibration of p(η) and no systematic-error propagation; if the actual per-step loss rate differs from the nominal η by δ, the reconstructed P(t) acquires a residual factor e^{8πδ t}. In the PT-unbroken case, where P(t) is predicted to be constant, a positive δ would produce a spurious exponential rise that mimics PT breaking; in the broken case it would corrupt the growth rate. The reported spatial similarities S>0.96 do not constrain this global normalization, because Eq. (9) supplies it separately. Please provide calibration data for the PPBS reflectivity as a function of η and the corresponding uncertainty band for P(t), or use a normalization-free observable.
  2. [Main text, Results; Methods; Appendix] The critical values stated in the text are inconsistent with the values used in the numerics and with the Appendix. In the localized phase λ1<λ2 one has λ0>1 and hence logλ0>0, so the statement in the main text and Methods that PT symmetry is broken at ηPT=-logλ0, and the unbroken interval logλ0<η<-logλ0, are internally inconsistent. For λ1=0.25, λ2=0.5, logλ0≈0.746, while Fig. 4a reports ηPT=0.119; the latter equals (logλ0)/(2π). The Appendix formula L^♯=max{0,-logλ0+2π|η|-...} also gives the transition at |η|=logλ0/(2π). Please correct all occurrences, including the Appendix sentence "L^♯=0 as long as |η|<logλ0", which should read |η|<logλ0/(2π), and fix the sign so that the localized-phase transition is at +logλ0/(2π).
  3. [Fig. 4b and the Results section on the second spectral transition] The no-loss states used to demonstrate the second transition are obtained from spectra computed under periodic boundary conditions, while the experiment is a finite open-boundary quantum walk. Because the model has non-reciprocal hopping, open and periodic boundary-condition spectra can differ substantially in non-Hermitian systems. Please justify that the experimentally prepared initial state has large overlap with a genuine no-loss state of the actual open system and that the flat P(t) at η=0.135 is not a boundary artifact; specify the lattice size and boundary treatment used in the experiment and in the numerical spectra.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption states that panels b and e correspond to the "PT unbroken and broken phases, respectively," which is reversed relative to the text: panel b is the broken phase and panel e is the unbroken phase.
  2. [Results, first paragraph] The word "pervious" in "pervious non-Hermitian AAH model" should be "previous."
  3. [References] References [31] and [54] are the same work (Liu, Zhou, and Chen, PRB 104, 024201) and should be merged.
  4. [Fig. 5 caption] The caption says the left panel has "two turning points," while the text says there are four turning points at ±logλ0 and ±η0; make the caption consistent with the text.
  5. [Data and code availability] Data and code are available only upon request; for a claims-heavy experimental paper, depositing the datasets and calibration files in a public repository would strengthen reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the experiment tests independent prior theory; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no derivation reduces to its inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is an experimental implementation followed by comparison with published theory. The Hermitian transition boundary λ1=λ2 and the non-Hermitian critical values ηPT=log λ0/(2π) (numerically 0.119 for the stated couplings) and η0=arcsinh(λ1'/λ1)/(2π)=0.328 are taken from [38] and [41], not fitted to the data. The measured quantities (similarity S, standard deviation σ, second moment, and reconstructed P(t)) are obtained from photon counts; the P(t) reconstruction in Methods Eq. (9) applies a global e^{8πηt} factor to correct for the calibrated PPBS loss, which is not a fit of the transition point. The fact that [38,39,41,45] share an author with the present paper is a normal self-citation situation; those works are prior parameter-free mathematical results rather than fits to the present data, so they constitute independent evidence for the experimental test. I find no step in which a prediction is equivalent by construction to an input: there is no Eq. X = Eq. Y tautology and no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The visible inconsistency in the text (ηPT written as -log λ0 in the main text and Methods while the quoted numerical value corresponds to log λ0/(2π)) is a typographical/correctness issue, not circularity. The main residual risk is calibration of the PPBS loss used in Eqs. (8)-(9); that would affect the validity of the non-Hermitian observations but does not make the derivation circular.

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

The paper introduces no new theoretical entities or fitted constants. All predicted transition points are imported from prior theory by Cedzich and Fillman (some co-authored by a current author), and the experimental claims rest on calibration assumptions about the photonic implementation.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Aubry-André duality of the UAMO and the sharp mobility edge at λ1 = λ2 (from [38])
    Used to predict metallic vs insulating phases and to set the phase boundary in Fig. 2h without re-derivation.
  • domain assumption Exact formulas for the Lyapunov exponents L_{λ1,λ2,0} = log λ0 (Eq. 3) and the dual exponent L♯_{λ1,λ2,η} from [41]
    Determines the critical values ηPT = -log λ0 and η0 = arcsinh(λ'1/λ1)/(2π) that label the transitions in Figs. 3 and 4.
  • domain assumption PT symmetry of the PUAMO in the modified time frame, with breaking at η = -log λ0 [41]
    Provides the theoretical basis for associating complex quasienergies with PT breaking; not directly measured, only inferred from dynamics.
  • domain assumption The spectral winding number νη(z) in Eq. (4) is the correct topological invariant and changes at the transitions [39,41]
    Used to claim topological origin of the transitions; no direct measurement of the winding number is reported.
  • domain assumption The experimental wave-plate/BD/PPBS settings implement the operators Qx and S_{λ1,η} with the intended η, and the loss reconstruction in Eq. (9) recovers the normalized P(t)
    Underlies all non-Hermitian data; calibration and background subtractions are not independently verifiable from the manuscript.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Observation of Metal-Insulator and Spectral Phase Transitions in Aubry-Andr\'e-Harper Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CZUOB5SX

@misc{pith2026250808255,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Observation of Metal-Insulator and Spectral Phase Transitions in Aubry-Andr\'e-Harper Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CZUOB5SX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.08255}
}
read the original abstract

Non-Hermitian extensions of the Aubry-Andr\'e-Harper (AAH) model reveal a rich variety of phase transitions arising from the interplay of quasiperiodicity and non-Hermiticity. Despite their theoretical significance, experimental explorations remain challenging due to complexities in realizing controlled non-Hermiticity. Here, we present the first experimental realization of the unitary almost-Mathieu operator (UAMO) which simulates the AAH model by employing single-photon quantum walks. Through precise control of quasiperiodicity, we systematically explore the phase diagram displaying a phase transition between localized and delocalized regimes in the Hermitian limit. Subsequently, by introducing non-reciprocal hopping, we experimentally probe the parity-time (PT) symmetry-breaking transition that is characterized by the emergence of complex quasienergies. Moreover, we identify a novel spectral transition exclusive to discrete-time settings, where all quasienergies become purely imaginary. Both transitions are connected to changes in the spectral winding number, demonstrating their topological origins. These results clarify the interplay between localization, symmetry breaking, and topology in non-Hermitian quasicrystals, paving the way for future exploration of synthetic quantum matter.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Hermitian

    The parameter η quantifies the imbalance ofSλ1,η between left-moving and right-moving modes. For η = 0, the shift is balanced and, in partic- ular, unitary. Whenever η̸= 0, the shift is not unitary anymore in the standard sense. By convention, we re- fer to these regimes as the “Hermitian” and the “non- Hermitian” regime, respectively, and we call η the “...

    work page

  2. [2]

    In what follows, the dependence on θ is omitted in the notation

    Here, Φ ∈ [0, 1] plays the role of a magnetic field in an associated two-dimensional sys- tem [44], 0 ≤ λ2≤ 1 controls the coupling of the shift in the synthetic dimension, and the phase θ∈ [0, 1] is its Fourier parameter [38]. In what follows, the dependence on θ is omitted in the notation. In the Hermitian setting η = 0, the model is called UAMO [38] an...

    work page

  3. [3]

    exp” and “th

    Error bars are due to the statistical uncertainty in photon number counting. agate ballistically, with the spectrum of W consisting of 2m bands that resemble a twofold copy of the Hofstadter butterfly. In this work, we focus exclusively on irrational fields, specifically Φ = ( √ 5− 1)/2. Under these con- ditions, the UAMO Wλ1,λ2,0 possesses a metal-insula...

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Stanley, H. E. Phase transitions and critical phenomena. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1971)

    work page 1971

  5. [5]

    Hasan, M. Z. & Kane, C. L. Colloquium: topological insulators. Reviews of Modern Physics 82, 3045 (2010) arXiv:1002.3895

    arXiv 2010

  6. [6]

    A. Kitaev. Periodic table for topological insulators and superconductors. In AIP Conference Proceedings, 22-30 (2009) arXiv:0901.2686

    arXiv 2009

  7. [7]

    & Zhang, S.-C

    Qi, X.-L. & Zhang, S.-C. Topological insulators and superconductors. Reviews of Modern Physics 83, 1057 (2011) arXiv:1008.2026

    arXiv 2011

  8. [8]

    P., Furusaki, A

    Ryu, S., Schnyder, A. P., Furusaki, A. & Ludwig, A. W. Topological insulators and superconductors: tenfold way and dimensional hierarchy. New Journal of Physics 12, 065010 (2010) arXiv:0912.2157

    arXiv 2010

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    Absence of diffusion in certain random lattices

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

    1958

  2. [10]

    50 years of Anderson Localization

    Abrahams, E. 50 years of Anderson Localization. World Scientific (2010)

    2010

  3. [11]

    & Souillard, B

    Kunz, H. & Souillard, B. Sur le spectre des op´ erateurs aux diff´ erences finies al´ eatoires. Communications in Mathematical Physics 78, 201-246 (1980)

    1980

  4. [12]

    An introduction to the mathematics of Ander- son localization

    Stolz, G. An introduction to the mathematics of Ander- son localization. Entropy and the quantum II Contempo- rary Mathematics 552, 71-108 (2011) arXiv:1104.2317

    2011 arXiv

  5. [13]

    & Ramakrishnan, T

    Lee, Patrick A. & Ramakrishnan, T. V. Disordered elec- tronic systems. Reviews of Modern Physics 57, 287-337 (1985)

    1985

  6. [14]

    Unusual band structure, wave functions and electrical conductance in crystals with incommensurate periodic potentials

    Sokoloff, J. Unusual band structure, wave functions and electrical conductance in crystals with incommensurate periodic potentials. Physics Reports 126, 189-244 (1985)

    1985

  7. [15]

    Roati, G. et al. Anderson localization of a non-interacting 8 Bose-Einstein condensate. Nature 453, 895-898 (2008) arXiv:0804.2609

    2008 arXiv

  8. [16]

    & Christodoulides, D

    Segev, M., Silberberg, Y. & Christodoulides, D. N. An- derson localization of light. Nature Photonics 7, 197-204 (2013)

    2013

  9. [17]

    Lahini, Y. et al. Observation of a localization transition in quasiperiodic photonic lattices. Physical Review Let- ters 103, 013901 (2009) arXiv:0807.2845

    2009 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Lin, Q. et al. Observation of non-Hermitian topological Anderson insulator in quantum dynamics. Nature Com- munications 13, 3229 (2022) arXiv:2108.01097

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Lin, Q. et al. Topological phase transitions and mobility edges in non-Hermitian quasicrystals. Physical Review Letters 129, 113601 (2022) arXiv:2112.15024

    2022 arXiv

  12. [20]

    & Andr´ e, G

    Aubry, S. & Andr´ e, G. Analyticity breaking and Ander- son localization in incommensurate lattices. Annals of the Israel Physical Society 3, 18 (1980)

    1980

  13. [21]

    & Chong, Y

    Liu, F., Ghosh, S. & Chong, Y. Localization and adiabatic pumping in a generalized Aubry-Andr´ e- Harper model. Physical Review B 91, 014108 (2015) arXiv:1406.4675

    2015 arXiv

  14. [22]

    K., Acharya, A

    Sahu, D. K., Acharya, A. P., Choudhuri, D. & Datta, S. Self-duality of one-dimensional quasicrystals with spin- orbit interaction. Physical Review B 104, 054202 (2021) arXiv:2102.02387

    2021 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Jitomirskaya, S. Y. Metal-insulator transition for the al- most Mathieu operator. Annals of Mathematics, 1159- 1175 (1999) arXiv:math/9911265

    1999 arXiv

  16. [24]

    E., Lahini, Y

    Verbin, M., Zilberberg, O., Kraus, Y. E., Lahini, Y. & Silberberg, Y. Observation of topological phase transi- tions in photonic quasicrystals. Physical Review Letters 110, 076403 (2013) arXiv:1211.4476

    2013 arXiv

  17. [25]

    & Szameit, A

    Weidemann, S., Kremer, M., Longhi, S. & Szameit, A. Topological triple phase transition in non-Hermitian Flo- quet quasicrystals. Nature 601, 354-359 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    Lahini, Y. et al. Anderson localization and nonlinearity in one-dimensional disordered photonic lattices. Physical Review Letters 100, 013906 (2008) arXiv:0704.3788

    2008 arXiv

  19. [27]

    & Zhou, Q

    Avila, A., You, J. & Zhou, Q. Sharp phase transitions for the almost Mathieu operator. Duke Mathematical Jour- nal 166, 2697-2718 (2017) arXiv:1512.03124

    2017 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Bloch electrons in a uniform magnetic field

    Brown, E. Bloch electrons in a uniform magnetic field. Physical Review 133, A1038 (1964)

    1964

  21. [29]

    Hofstadter, D. R. Energy levels and wave functions of Bloch electrons in rational and irrational magnetic fields. Physical Review B 14, 2239 (1976)

    1976

  22. [30]

    J., Kohmoto, M., Nightingale, M

    Thouless, D. J., Kohmoto, M., Nightingale, M. P. & den Nijs, M. Quantized Hall conductance in a two- dimensional periodic potential. Physical Review Letters 49, 405 (1982)

    1982

  23. [31]

    Niu, Q., Thouless, D. J. & Wu, Y.-S. Quantized Hall conductance as a topological invariant. Physical Review B 31, 3372 (1985)

    1985

  24. [32]

    Localization transitions and winding numbers for non-Hermitian Aubry-Andr´ e-Harper models with off- diagonal modulations

    Cai, X. Localization transitions and winding numbers for non-Hermitian Aubry-Andr´ e-Harper models with off- diagonal modulations. Physical Review B 106, 214207 (2022)

    2022

  25. [33]

    Phase transitions in a non-Hermitian Aubry- Andr´ e-Harper model

    Longhi, S. Phase transitions in a non-Hermitian Aubry- Andr´ e-Harper model. Physical Review B 103, 054203 (2021) arXiv:2102.09214

    2021 arXiv

  26. [35]

    PT symmetric Aubry-Andr´ e model

    Yuce, C. PT symmetric Aubry-Andr´ e model. Physics Letters A 378, 2024-2028 (2014) arXiv:1402.2749

    2014 arXiv

  27. [36]

    Topological phase transition in non-Hermitian quasicrystals

    Longhi, S. Topological phase transition in non-Hermitian quasicrystals. Physical Review Letters 122, 237601 (2019) arXiv:1905.09460

    2019 arXiv

  28. [37]

    & Chen, S

    Jiang, H., Lang, L.-J., Yang, C., Zhu, S.-L. & Chen, S. Interplay of non-Hermitian skin effects and Anderson localization in nonreciprocal quasiperiodic lattices. Phys- ical Review B 100, 054301 (2019)

    2019

  29. [38]

    Bender, C. M. Introduction to PT-symmetric quan- tum theory. Contemporary physics 46, 277-292 (2005) arXiv:quant-ph/0501052

    2005 arXiv

  30. [39]

    Bender, C. M. & Boettcher, S. Real spectra in non- Hermitian Hamiltonians having PT symmetry. Physical Review Letters 80, 5243 (1998) arXiv:physics/9712001

    1998 arXiv

  31. [40]

    non-Hermitian

    We acknowledge that one has to be careful with nomen- clature here: by “non-Hermitian” we mean “non- Hermitian with respect to the given scalar product” [50]

  32. [41]

    & Ong, D

    Cedzich, C., Fillman, J. & Ong, D. C. Almost everything about the unitary almost Mathieu operator. Commu- nications in Mathematical Physics 403, 745-794 (2023) arXiv:2112.03216

    2023 arXiv

  33. [42]

    Cedzich, C. & Li, L. Twenty dry Martinis for the Uni- tary Almost Mathieu Operator. arXiv:2503.06710 (2025). arXiv:2503.06710

    2025 arXiv

  34. [43]

    & Fillman, J

    Cedzich, C. & Fillman, J. Absence of bound states for quantum walks and CMV matrices via reflec- tions. Journal of Spectral Theory 14, 1513-1536 (2024) arXiv:2402.11024

    2024 arXiv

  35. [44]

    & Fillman, J

    Cedzich, C. & Fillman, J. Mobility edges in pseudo- unitary quasiperiodic quantum walks. arXiv:2411.16843 (2024). arXiv:2411.16843

    2024 arXiv

  36. [45]

    Xiao, L. et al. Non-Hermitian bulk-boundary correspon- dence in quantum dynamics. Nature Physics 16, 761-766 (2020) arXiv:1907.12566

    2020 arXiv

  37. [46]

    Xiao, L. et al. Observation of non-Bloch parity-time sym- metry and exceptional points. Physical Review Letters 126, 230402 (2021) arXiv:2009.07288

    2021 arXiv

  38. [47]

    & Werner, A

    Cedzich, C., Fillman, J., Geib, T. & Werner, A. Singu- lar continuous Cantor spectrum for magnetic quantum walks. Letters in Mathematical Physics 110, 1141-1158 (2020) arXiv:1908.09924

    2020 arXiv

  39. [48]

    Cedzich, C., Fillman, J., Li, L., Ong, D. C. & Zhou, Q. Exact mobility edges for almost-periodic CMV matrices via gauge symmetries. International Mathematics Research Notices 2024, 6906-6941 (2024) arXiv:2307.10909

    2024 arXiv

  40. [49]

    For background and definitions of pseudo-unitarity, see [51]

  41. [50]

    & Wang, Z

    Yao, S. & Wang, Z. Edge states and topological invariants of non-Hermitian systems. Physical Review Letters 121, 086803 (2018) arXiv:1803.01876

    2018 arXiv

  42. [51]

    & Wang, Z

    Song, F., Yao, S. & Wang, Z. Non-Hermitian topologi- cal invariants in real space. Physical Review Letters 123, 246801 (2019) arXiv:1905.02211

    2019 arXiv

  43. [52]

    H., Li, L

    Lee, C. H., Li, L. & Gong, J. Hybrid higher-order skin- topological modes in nonreciprocal systems. Physical Re- view Letters 123, 016805 (2019) arXiv:1810.11824

    2019 arXiv

  44. [53]

    Exact PT-symmetry is equivalent to Hermiticity

    Mostafazadeh, A. Exact PT-symmetry is equivalent to Hermiticity. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 36, 7081 (2003) arXiv:quant-ph/0304080

    2003 arXiv

  45. [54]

    Pseudounitary operators and pseu- dounitary quantum dynamics

    Mostafazadeh, A. Pseudounitary operators and pseu- dounitary quantum dynamics. Journal of Mathematical Physics 45, 932-946 (2004) arXiv:math-ph/0302050. 9

    2004 arXiv

  46. [55]

    & Nelson, D

    Hatano, N. & Nelson, D. R. Localization transitions in non-Hermitian quantum mechanics. Physical Review Letters 77, 570 (1996) arXiv:cond-mat/9603165

    1996 arXiv

  47. [56]

    & Nelson, D

    Hatano, N. & Nelson, D. R. Vortex pinning and non- Hermitian quantum mechanics. Physical Review B 56, 8651 (1997) arXiv:cond-mat/9705290

    1997 arXiv

  48. [57]

    & Chen, S

    Liu, Y., Zhou, Q. & Chen, S. Localization transi- tion, spectrum structure, and winding numbers for one- dimensional non-Hermitian quasicrystals. Physical Re- view B 104, 024201 (2021) arXiv:2009.07605

    2021 arXiv

  49. [58]

    & Jitomirskaya, S

    Bourgain, J. & Jitomirskaya, S. Continuity of the Lya- punov exponent for quasiperiodic operators with analytic potential. Journal of Statistical Physics 108, 1203-1218 (2002) arXiv:math-ph/0110040. APPENDIX Quantifying the phase transitions in the non-Hermitian regime. Centra...

    2002 arXiv

  50. [59]

    11 The phase transition is thus expected at λ2 = ( 2e2πηλ1(1+λ′ 1) 2(1+λ′ 1)+λ2 1(e4πη−1), 0≤λ1≤ 2e2π|η| 1+e4π|η|, 1, 2e2π|η| 1+e4π|η| <λ 1≤ 1

    + (e4πη− 1)λ2 1 . 11 The phase transition is thus expected at λ2 = ( 2e2πηλ1(1+λ′ 1) 2(1+λ′ 1)+λ2 1(e4πη−1), 0≤λ1≤ 2e2π|η| 1+e4π|η|, 1, 2e2π|η| 1+e4π|η| <λ 1≤ 1. (10) Note that for the UAMO with η = 0, this boils down to the known phase transition at λ1 =λ2 [38]. To gain furth...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.