Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 181 references

For a non-Hermitian quantum adiabatic algorithm to be practical, the spectrum must be stable under perturbation—not merely real and gapped.

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 · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 23:39 UTC pith:2X5EWORE

load-bearing objection Useful new design principle, but the robustness claim is the load-bearing part that isn't proven. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.15343 v1 pith:2X5EWORE submitted 2026-07-16 quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hall

Non-Hermitian Quantum Adiabatic Algorithm

Zi-Bo Jin , Yi Zhang This is my paper
classification quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords non-Hermitian quantum adiabatic algorithmpseudospectrumhistory-decoupled constructionmaximum independent setnon-unitary quantum circuitFeynman-Kitaev constructionadiabatic quantum computationcoupled optical waveguides
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.

For a non-Hermitian quantum adiabatic algorithm to be practical, the paper argues, a real spectrum and a nonzero energy gap are not enough: a non-Hermitian Hamiltonian can be so sensitive that tiny perturbations destroy the gap and the adiabatic protection. The paper's central requirement is a stable pseudospectrum—a guarantee that eigenvalues do not move far under small perturbation—and it shows that the standard history-state mapping from quantum circuits to Hamiltonians fails this test, because non-Hermitian effects accumulate along the whole circuit. The authors replace it with a history-decoupled construction: the Hamiltonian at each segment involves only the current non-unitary gate, while the accumulated computation lives in the quantum state itself. For a hard family of maximum independent set problems, the resulting path has a constant gap, polynomial evolution time, and high success probability that survives random perturbations, unlike both a Hermitian search-based path (exponentially slow) and the direct non-Hermitian history-state path (exponentially fragile). This matters because non-unitary circuits are easy to design for optimization but were previously hampered by post-selection and noise; the paper shows an adiabatic route that avoids the accumulation.

Core claim

Central claim: a real, gapped spectrum is not enough for non-Hermitian adiabatic computation; the pseudospectrum must also be stable, meaning eigenvalues stay put under small perturbations. The direct non-Hermitian Feynman-Kitaev mapping has a real, polynomially gapped spectrum but is exponentially unstable, because non-Hermitian effects accumulate along the whole circuit. The history-decoupled construction uses H_l(s)=Ω(I−P_l(s)) in each segment, with a projection built only from the current gate V_l; this Hamiltonian has eigenvalues 0 and Ω and its pseudospectrum is governed by V_l's local singular values, not by the circuit's accumulated history. On a hard MIS benchmark family, this gives

What carries the argument

The history-decoupled (HD) Hamiltonian path: at segment l it is H_l(s)=Ω(I−P_l(s)), where P_l(s)=Σ_a |r^{(l,a)}(s)⟩⟨ℓ^{(l,a)}(s)|, with |r^{(l,a)}(s)⟩ = cosθ |a⟩⊗|l−1⟩ + sinθ V_l |a⟩⊗|l⟩ and ⟨ℓ^{(l,a)}(s)| the corresponding left vector built from V_l^{-1}. This rank-d_w projection Hamiltonian has spectrum {0,Ω} and adiabatically transfers a state from clock site |l−1⟩ to |l⟩ while applying V_l once. Its key property is that the pseudospectrum decomposes into independent 2×2 blocks, one per singular value σ_j of V_l, so the relevant condition number is κ(S_l)=max{1,‖V_l‖}max{1,‖V_l^{-1}‖}, local to a single gate rather than growing with circuit depth. That locality is what prevents the expone

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that noise-induced mixing inside the highly degenerate instantaneous ground-state subspace—where the finite gap Ω provides no protection—is harmless because the non-Hermitian dynamics self-focuses onto the target solution; the paper supports this heuristically and numerically but proves no bound.

What would settle it

Run the proposed coupled-waveguide realization with deliberately time-dependent coupling or loss fluctuations at segment boundaries (where the degeneracy is largest) and measure the output intensity distribution across configurations. If, for realistic noise amplitudes, the distribution spreads over the degenerate subspace or peaks at a wrong configuration as n grows, the claimed robustness of HD QAA is refuted even though the pseudospectral-gap analysis itself remains correct.

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

If this is right

  • The HD path's constant gap Ω replaces the Θ(L^{-2}) gap of the history-state mapping, so adiabatic evolution time scales polynomially while preserving the non-unitary circuit's optimization advantage.
  • On the hard MIS benchmark family, the HD construction achieves success probability near 1 at fixed total time T=10L for n=9,…,45, whereas a Hermitian search-based path decays exponentially over the same time.
  • Under random perturbations of strength up to ε=10^{-1}, HD QAA success probability remains close to the clean case; the direct FK mapping's success degrades substantially, and its perturbation threshold for gap closure shrinks exponentially with rounds and system size.
  • The construction maps onto coupled optical waveguides with an auxiliary lossy channel: for each configuration x the non-Hermitian 2×2 dynamics is realized with propagation length Θ(n^3), producing output intensities whose maximum identifies the MIS.
  • The post-selection overhead is exponential in total complexity, but the scheme converts an exponentially long coherent evolution into exponentially many short, parallelizable, resettable runs with failure flags.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If pseudospectral stability becomes an accepted design criterion, many non-Hermitian optimization proposals that check only real spectra may need re-evaluation; the FK example shows that a perfectly gapped ideal path can be useless under realistic noise.
  • The HD principle generalizes: any non-unitary circuit subroutine can be embedded as a locally applied projection Hamiltonian, so the same 'state carries history, Hamiltonian carries only the current operation' strategy could be applied to other gate families or hybrid algorithms.
  • The paper's robustness for degenerate ground-state mixing is argued heuristically via self-focusing; a clean experimental test in the waveguide platform (adding noise at segment boundaries) could either support or challenge this assumption.
  • Read honestly, the result is a wall-clock-time advantage with exponential overhead in physical resources, so the path to an actual quantum speedup passes through many-body platforms where dissipation is built in and the exponential channel replication is avoided.

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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript argues that non-Hermitian quantum adiabatic algorithms require three conditions: a real spectrum, a finite spectral gap, and a stable pseudospectrum. It examines two Hamiltonian constructions from non-unitary circuits: a direct Feynman-Kitaev (FK) mapping, which has a real, gapped spectrum but an exponentially unstable pseudospectrum, and a history-decoupled (HD) construction H_l(s)=Ω(I-P_l(s)), whose pseudospectrum is controlled by local gate singular values and whose gap is constant. For maximum independent set on CK graphs, the authors construct O(n^3)-depth diagonal non-unitary circuits, and numerical evolution shows that the HD QAA maintains success probability near 1 while the FK QAA degrades and a Hermitian Grover QAA fails exponentially. Noise simulations show HD robustness for the small G_2 instance. An optical coupled-waveguide implementation is proposed, and the paper explicitly disclaims exponential speedup, describing polynomial wall-clock time accompanied by exponential parallel or post-selection overhead.

Significance. If the robustness claim holds, the paper establishes pseudospectral stability as a design principle for non-Hermitian adiabatic computation and provides a constructive, local Hamiltonian framework. The analytical pseudospectrum formula via singular-value decomposition (Eqs. 35-40), the local condition-number bound (Eqs. 41-42), and the explicit numerical comparison across HM/FK/HD constructions are valuable and internally consistent. The paper is also unusually honest about complexity: Sec. V clearly separates wall-clock time from total computational complexity. The main unresolved point is whether robustness against perturbations survives in the degenerate ground-state manifold, and several supporting derivations are deferred to absent appendices; these issues presently block full acceptance.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. V, Eq. (30), Fig. 7] The robustness claim is not protected by the spectral gap. H_l(s)=Ω(I-P_l(s)) has a d_w-dimensional zero-energy subspace; norm-ε perturbations have matrix elements inside this subspace that cost no energy. The manuscript explicitly acknowledges this in Sec. V ('noise may induce state mixing or even quantum walk within the degenerate subspace — this is not protected by the finite gap Ω') and answers with a self-focusing argument, but no quantitative bound or scaling analysis is given. The numerical evidence in Fig. 7 is only for G_2 (n=5, zero-space dimension 32), far from the CK hardness regime. Since the abstract promises 'remains robust against perturbations' and this is the central advantage over FK, the authors should provide either (i) a bound on intra-degenerate transition rates induced by norm-bounded perturbations over total time T=Θ(n^3), using the local amplification factors p^
  2. [Sec. III, Eq. (30); Sec. V] Ideal adiabatic following inside the degenerate ground subspace needs an explicit justification. The non-Hermitian adiabatic theorem cited (Ref. [162]) is invoked without stating whether it covers a degenerate eigenvalue manifold. The construction relies on the specific parallel-transported vector |r^(l,a)(s)⟩; the claim in Sec. V that 'there is no holonomy or off-diagonal matrix element within the degenerate subspace in the ideal case' is asserted rather than proved. Please provide a short derivation that the biorthogonal left vectors satisfy ⟨ℓ^(l,a)|∂_s r^(l,b)⟩=0 and therefore the initial |ψ_{l-1}⟩ is mapped to V_l|ψ_{l-1}⟩, or cite a degenerate non-Hermitian adiabatic theorem with matching hypotheses.
  3. [Appendices referenced throughout] The submitted text repeatedly defers load-bearing details to appendices that are not present: the pseudospectrum derivation after Eq. (40); the CK-circuit analysis and r=Θ(m) bound in Sec. IV A; the ε_c estimates in Fig. 6; and the 'measure-theoretic analysis of the degeneracy' in Sec. V. These omissions make the manuscript non-self-contained and prevent verification of central claims. A revised version should include the appendices or move the necessary derivations into the main text.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Table I] 'Polynomial-evolution-time' should be qualified as wall-clock time for a single successful branch. Sec. V correctly explains that the total complexity is exponential, but the abstract and Table I may be read as complexity claims.
  2. [Fig. 6] Panels (b) and (c) use asinh-scaled axes, which makes the pseudospectral contours and their exponential growth hard to interpret. A normal-scale inset or labeled contour levels would improve readability.
  3. [Fig. 7 caption] The caption should state the number of rounds and the problem size explicitly; currently one must infer 'G_2' means n=5 and 'settings identical to Fig. 5' includes r=n.
  4. [Eq. (52)] The threshold ε_c is presented as an estimate; state explicitly that Eq. (52) is an approximation and justify why evaluating at x=x_MIS gives the most prominent pseudospectral problem rather than a generic configuration.
  5. [Sec. IV B] The sentence 'we adopt r=n' is abrupt. The relationship between this choice and the theoretical r=Θ(m) from Sec. IV A, and its effect on L and T, should be clarified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: HD QAA derivation is self-contained; the admitted degenerate-subspace limitation is a weakness, not a circular step.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained rather than circular. The real, gapped spectrum of the HD construction follows directly from the algebraic fact that P_l(s) is a projector (Sec. III, Eq. 30), so H_l(s)=Ω(I-P_l(s)) has spectrum {0,Ω}. The pseudospectral-stability claim is derived, not assumed: Eqs. (35)-(40) block-diagonalize H_l(s) by a unitary Q_l and show the pseudospectrum depends only on local singular values σ_j of the current gate V_l, with no accumulation of the cumulative history W_l. This is an explicit inequality/structure proof, not a restatement of the conclusion. The numerical success probabilities (Fig. 5) are obtained by integrating the time-dependent Schrödinger equation with fixed, stated hyperparameters (p=2, q=4, Ω=1, T=10L, r=n) that are not fitted to force the plotted result; the high PMIS for HD QAA is consistent with the non-unitary QC construction, but the adiabatic following itself is verified by simulation. The FK instability comparison is likewise an independent calculation using condition numbers and projectors. The paper explicitly flags a real limitation in Sec. V: 'noise may induce state mixing or even quantum walk within the degenerate subspace — this is not protected by the finite gap Ω', and its robustness response is a heuristic self-focusing argument rather than a proven bound. That weakens the robustness claim, but it is a limitation of the argument, not a circular derivation. Finally, no load-bearing self-citation chain is present: the cited non-Hermitian adiabatic theorem [162] and the non-unitary MIS circuit [132] are external works, and the authors' own prior non-Hermitian band-theory papers are used only for peripheral context and examples. Therefore the paper's derivation does not reduce to its inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or conserved quantities. The auxiliary lossy waveguide is a standard optical element. The main new content is the history-decoupled Hamiltonian construction, which is a mapping, not an entity. The free parameters are simulation choices, not fitted values.

free parameters (5)
  • p = 2
    Vertex-amplification factor in non-unitary MIS gates; chosen for numerics, not fitted to the target result.
  • q = 4
    Edge-constraint amplification factor; any q>p>1 works theoretically.
  • Ω = 1
    Gap parameter in HD Hamiltonian; sets the energy scale and adiabatic time, not fitted.
  • r = n
    Number of rounds in the non-unitary QC; chosen to ensure consistent success probability across problem sizes.
  • T = 10L
    Total evolution time; chosen for fair comparison across QAAs and to satisfy adiabaticity, not tuned to data.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption There exists a rigorous adiabatic theorem for non-Hermitian Hamiltonians with real spectra and nonvanishing gap (Ref [162]).
    Invoked in Sec. II B and used throughout; the precise hypotheses (diagonalizability, smoothness, degeneracy) are not stated.
  • standard math Bauer–Fike bound: eigenvalue perturbations are bounded by κ(S)||δH||; the ε-pseudospectrum equals the union of spectra under perturbations of amplitude ≤ε.
    Standard results used in Sec. II C, Eqs. (13)-(16).
  • domain assumption For the CK graph family, r=Θ(m) rounds of the diagonal non-unitary gates yield a constant success probability for the MIS, giving L=Θ(n^3).
    Stated in Sec. IV A and deferred to the Appendix; built on the non-unitary QC of Ref [132]. The polynomial-complexity claim depends on this.
  • domain assumption The HD Hamiltonian decouples into independent 2×2 blocks in the configuration basis because the MIS gates A_i(p) and B_jk(q) are diagonal.
    Used in Sec. IV C and in the numerical method; true for the chosen gates.
  • domain assumption In the strong-loss limit, the auxiliary waveguide field reaches a steady state (dξ/dz≈0) and can be adiabatically eliminated.
    Standard coupled-mode approximation in Sec. IV C, Eq. (63).

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 27699 in / 23387 out tokens · 224575 ms · 2026-08-01T23:39:06.189443+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Non-Hermitian systems offer new opportunities for quantum optimization and computation. Here, we show that non-Hermitian quantum adiabatic algorithms require not only a real, gapped spectrum, but also a stable pseudospectrum. We propose a novel framework by mapping non-unitary quantum circuits to local Hamiltonian paths, thereby preserving their optimization advantages and shallow depth. While a direct non-Hermitian extension of the Feynman-Kitaev construction suffers severe pseudospectral instability, our history-decoupled construction yields both a controlled pseudospectrum and a real, gapped spectrum. Using the CK benchmark family of maximum independent set problems, we demonstrate polynomial-evolution-time non-Hermitian adiabatic computation that remains robust against perturbations. We further discuss a feasible optical implementation using coupled waveguides with an auxiliary lossy channel. Our work establishes pseudospectral stability, alongside real, gapped spectra, as key principles and a practical route for non-Hermitian quantum adiabatic computation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.15343 by Yi Zhang, Zi-Bo Jin.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. A schematic illustration of the mapping from QC to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. (a) A gap with an isolated (merged) pseudospectrum is stable (unstable) under perturbations. (b) The non-Hermitian [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. A schematic illustration of the CK graph ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. A schematic illustration of the non-unitary QC for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The success probability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Pseudospectral and gap stability of the FK QAA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The success probability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Following a simple, shallow QC build through [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

181 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Born and V

    M. Born and V. Fock, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik51, 165 (1928)

    1928

  2. [2]

    Kato, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan5, 435 (1950)

    T. Kato, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan5, 435 (1950)

    1950

  3. [3]

    Simon, Physical Review Letters51, 2167 (1983)

    B. Simon, Physical Review Letters51, 2167 (1983)

    1983

  4. [4]

    Kadowaki and H

    T. Kadowaki and H. Nishimori, Physical Review E58, 5355 (1998), arXiv:cond-mat/9804280

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  5. [5]

    Farhi, J

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, S. Gutmann, and M. Sipser, arXiv preprint quant-ph/0001106 (2000), arXiv:quant- ph/0001106 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  6. [6]

    Farhi, J

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, S. Gutmann, J. Lapan, A. Lundgren, and D. Preda, Science292, 472 (2001), arXiv:quant-ph/0104129

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  7. [7]

    Albash and D

    T. Albash and D. A. Lidar, Reviews of Modern Physics 90, 015002 (2018), arXiv:1611.04471 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

    M. H. S. Amin and V. Choi, Physical Review A80, 062326 (2009), arXiv:0904.1387 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  9. [9]

    A. P. Young, S. Knysh, and V. N. Smelyanskiy, Physical Review Letters104, 020502 (2010), arXiv:0910.1378

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  10. [10]

    Altshuler, H

    B. Altshuler, H. Krovi, and J. Roland, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences107, 12446 (2010), arXiv:0908.2782

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  11. [11]

    Choi, arXiv preprint arXiv:1004.2226 (2010), arXiv:1004.2226 [quant-ph]

    V. Choi, arXiv preprint arXiv:1004.2226 (2010), arXiv:1004.2226 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  12. [12]

    Pichler, S.-T

    H. Pichler, S.-T. Wang, L. Zhou, S. Choi, and M. D. Lukin, arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.10816 (2018)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  13. [13]

    Ebadi, A

    S. Ebadi, A. Keesling, M. Cain, T. T. Wang, H. Levine, D. Bluvstein, G. Semeghini, A. Omran, J. Liu, R. Sama- jdar, X.-Z. Luo, B. Nash, X. Gao, B. Barak, E. Farhi, S. Sachdev, N. Gemelke, L. Zhou, S. Choi, H. Pichler, S. Wang, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Sci- ence376, 1209 (2022)

    2022

  14. [14]

    Nguyen, J.-G

    M.-T. Nguyen, J.-G. Liu, J. Wurtz, M. D. Lukin, S.-T. Wang, and H. Pichler, PRX Quantum4, 010316 (2023), arXiv:2209.03965

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  15. [15]

    Bombieri, Z

    L. Bombieri, Z. Zeng, R. Tricarico, R. Lin, S. Notar- nicola, M. Cain, M. D. Lukin, and H. Pichler, PRX Quantum6, 020306 (2025), arXiv:2411.04645. 16

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    R. P. Feynman, Foundations of Physics16, 507 (1986)

    1986

  17. [17]

    A. Y. Kitaev, A. H. Shen, and M. N. Vyalyi,Classical and Quantum Computation, Graduate Studies in Math- ematics, Vol. 47 (American Mathematical Society, Prov- idence, RI, 2002)

    2002

  18. [18]

    Kempe, A

    J. Kempe, A. Kitaev, and O. Regev, SIAM Journal on Computing35, 1070 (2006), arXiv:quant-ph/0406180

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  19. [19]

    Aharonov, W

    D. Aharonov, W. van Dam, J. Kempe, Z. Landau, S. Lloyd, and O. Regev, SIAM Journal on Computing 37, 166 (2007), arXiv:quant-ph/0405098 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  20. [20]

    H. Yu, Y. Huang, and B. Wu, Chinese Physics Letters 35, 110303 (2018), arXiv:1706.07646

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  21. [21]

    Dalibard, Y

    J. Dalibard, Y. Castin, and K. Mølmer, Physical Review Letters68, 580 (1992)

    1992

  22. [22]

    Ashida, Z

    Y. Ashida, Z. Gong, and M. Ueda, Advances in Physics 69, 249 (2020), arXiv:2006.01837

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  23. [23]

    Minganti, A

    F. Minganti, A. Miranowicz, R. W. Chhajlany, I. I. Arkhipov, and F. Nori, Physical Review A101, 062112 (2020), arXiv:2002.11620

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  24. [24]

    Rotter, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and The- oretical42, 153001 (2009)

    I. Rotter, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and The- oretical42, 153001 (2009)

    2009

  25. [25]

    Malzard, C

    S. Malzard, C. Poli, and H. Schomerus, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 200402 (2015)

    2015

  26. [26]

    H. J. Carmichael, Phys. Rev. Lett.70, 2273 (1993)

    1993

  27. [27]

    Guo and D

    C. Guo and D. Poletti, Phys. Rev. A95, 052107 (2017)

    2017

  28. [28]

    Dangel, M

    F. Dangel, M. Wagner, H. Cartarius, J. Main, and G. Wunner, Phys. Rev. A98, 013628 (2018)

    2018

  29. [29]

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

    2019

  30. [30]

    McDonald, R

    A. McDonald, R. Hanai, and A. A. Clerk, Phys. Rev. B 105, 064302 (2022)

    2022

  31. [31]

    Altland, M

    A. Altland, M. Fleischhauer, and S. Diehl, Phys. Rev. X11, 021037 (2021)

    2021

  32. [32]

    Doppler, A

    J. Doppler, A. A. Mailybaev, J. B¨ ohm,et al., Nature 537, 76 (2016)

    2016

  33. [33]

    H. Xu, D. Mason, L. Jiang, and J. G. E. Harris, Nature 537, 80 (2016), arXiv:1602.06881

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  34. [34]

    Liang, D

    Q. Liang, D. Xie, Z. Dong, H. Li, H. Li, B. Gadway, W. Yi, and B. Yan, Physical Review Letters129, 070401 (2022), arXiv:2201.09478

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  35. [35]

    L. Xiao, K. Wang, X. Zhan, Z. Bian, K. Kawabata, M. Ueda, W. Yi, and P. Xue, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 230401 (2019)

    2019

  36. [36]

    Xiao, W.-T

    L. Xiao, W.-T. Xue, F. Song, Y.-M. Hu, W. Yi, Z. Wang, and P. Xue, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 070801 (2024)

    2024

  37. [37]

    Li, L.-W

    Z. Li, L.-W. Wang, X. Wang, Z.-K. Lin, G. Ma, and J.-H. Jiang, Nature Communications15, 6544 (2024)

    2024

  38. [38]

    Orito and K.-I

    T. Orito and K.-I. Imura, Phys. Rev. B108, 214308 (2023)

    2023

  39. [39]

    C. M. Bender and S. Boettcher, Physical Review Letters 80, 5243 (1998), arXiv:physics/9712001

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  40. [40]

    El-Ganainy, K

    R. El-Ganainy, K. G. Makris, M. Khajavikhan, Z. H. Musslimani, S. Rotter, and D. N. Christodoulides, Na- ture Physics14, 11 (2018)

    2018

  41. [41]

    Miri and A

    M.-A. Miri and A. Al` u, Science363, eaar7709 (2019)

    2019

  42. [42]

    Y. Li, C. Liang, C. Wang, C. Lu, and Y.-C. Liu, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 223903 (2022)

    2022

  43. [43]

    S. Lapp, J. Ang’ong’a, F. A. An, and B. Gadway, New Journal of Physics21, 045006 (2019)

    2019

  44. [44]

    Aaronson, Proceedings of the Royal Society A461, 3473 (2005)

    S. Aaronson, Proceedings of the Royal Society A461, 3473 (2005)

    2005

  45. [45]

    X. Zhan, L. Xiao, Z. Bian, K. Wang, X. Qiu, B. C. Sanders, W. Yi, and P. Xue, Physical Review Letters 119, 130501 (2017), arXiv:1709.10287

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  46. [46]

    De Tomasi and I

    G. De Tomasi and I. M. Khaymovich, Phys. Rev. B109, 174205 (2024)

    2024

  47. [47]

    Brandenbourger, X

    M. Brandenbourger, X. Locsin, E. Lerner, and C. Coulais, Nature Communications10, 4608 (2019)

    2019

  48. [48]

    Ghatak, M

    A. Ghatak, M. Brandenbourger, J. van Wezel, and C. Coulais, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci- ences117, 29561 (2020)

    2020

  49. [49]

    Y. Chen, X. Li, C. Scheibner, V. Vitelli, and G. Huang, Nature Communications12, 5935 (2021)

    2021

  50. [50]

    W. Wang, X. Wang, and G. Ma, Nature608, 50 (2022)

    2022

  51. [51]

    W. Wang, M. Hu, X. Wang, G. Ma, and K. Ding, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 207201 (2023)

    2023

  52. [52]

    Christensen, M

    J. Christensen, M. Willatzen, V. R. Velasco, and M.-H. Lu, Physical Review Letters116, 207601 (2016)

    2016

  53. [53]

    Zhang, Y

    L. Zhang, Y. Yang, Y. Ge,et al., Nature Communica- tions12, 6297 (2021), arXiv:2104.08844

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  54. [54]

    Zhang, Y

    X. Zhang, Y. Tian, J.-H. Jiang, M.-H. Lu, and Y.- F. Chen, Nature Communications12, 5377 (2021), arXiv:2102.09825

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  55. [55]

    K. Ding, G. Ma, M. Xiao, Z. Q. Zhang, and C. T. Chan, Phys. Rev. X6, 021007 (2016)

    2016

  56. [56]

    Aur´ egan and V

    Y. Aur´ egan and V. Pagneux, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 174301 (2017)

    2017

  57. [57]

    K. Ding, G. Ma, Z. Q. Zhang, and C. T. Chan, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 085702 (2018)

    2018

  58. [58]

    W. Tang, X. Jiang, K. Ding, Y.-X. Xiao, Z.-Q. Zhang, C. T. Chan, and G. Ma, Science370, 1077 (2020), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.abd8872

    work page doi:10.1126/science.abd8872 2020

  59. [59]

    S. Puri, J. Ferdous, A. Shakeri, A. Basiri, M. Dubois, and H. Ramezani, Phys. Rev. Appl.16, 014012 (2021)

    2021

  60. [60]

    W. Tang, K. Ding, and G. Ma, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 034301 (2021)

    2021

  61. [61]

    W. Tang, K. Ding, and G. Ma, Na- tional Science Review9, nwac010 (2022), https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article- pdf/9/11/nwac010/47838733/nwac010.pdf

    2022

  62. [62]

    Zhang, F

    X. Zhang, F. Zangeneh-Nejad, Z.-G. Chen, M.-H. Lu, and J. Christensen, Nature618, 687 (2023)

    2023

  63. [63]

    Z. Gu, H. Gao, P.-C. Cao, T. Liu, X.-F. Zhu, and J. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Appl.16, 057001 (2021)

    2021

  64. [64]

    X. Wen, X. Zhu, A. Fan, W. Y. Tam, J. Zhu, H. W. Wu, F. Lemoult, M. Fink, and J. Li, Communications Physics5, 18 (2022)

    2022

  65. [65]

    H. Fan, H. Gao, T. Liu, S. An, X. Kong, G. Xu, J. Zhu, C.-W. Qiu, and Z. Su, Phys. Rev. B107, L201108 (2023)

    2023

  66. [66]

    Huang, S

    L. Huang, S. Huang, C. Shen, S. Yves, A. S. Pilipchuk, X. Ni, S. Kim, Y. K. Chiang, D. A. Powell, J. Zhu, Y. Cheng, Y. Li, A. F. Sadreev, A. Al` u, and A. E. Miroshnichenko, Nature Reviews Physics6, 11 (2024)

    2024

  67. [67]

    A. Guo, G. J. Salamo, D. Duchesne, R. Morandotti, M. Volatier-Ravat, V. Aimez, G. A. Siviloglou, and D. N. Christodoulides, Physical Review Letters103, 093902 (2009)

    2009

  68. [68]

    C. E. R¨ uter, K. G. Makris, R. El-Ganainy, D. N. Christodoulides, M. Segev, and D. Kip, Nature Physics 6, 192 (2010)

    2010

  69. [69]

    Regensburger, C

    A. Regensburger, C. Bersch, M.-A. Miri, G. On- ishchukov, D. N. Christodoulides, and U. Peschel, Na- ture488, 167 (2012)

    2012

  70. [70]

    L. Xiao, T. Deng, K. Wang, G. Zhu, Z. Wang, W. Yi, and P. Xue, Nature Physics16, 761 (2020), arXiv:1907.12566. 17

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  71. [71]

    L. Xiao, T. Deng, K. Wang, Z. Wang, W. Yi, and P. Xue, Physical Review Letters126, 230402 (2021), arXiv:2009.07288

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  72. [72]

    Chen, S ¸

    W. Chen, S ¸. Kaya ¨Ozdemir, G. Zhao, J. Wiersig, and L. Yang, Nature548, 192 (2017)

    2017

  73. [73]

    Reisenbauer, H

    M. Reisenbauer, H. Rudolph, L. Egyed, K. Hornberger, A. V. Zasedatelev, M. Abuzarli, B. A. Stickler, and U. Deli´ c, Nature Physics20, 1629 (2024)

    2024

  74. [74]

    Helbig, T

    T. Helbig, T. Hofmann, S. Imhof,et al., Nature Physics 16, 747 (2020)

    2020

  75. [75]

    S. Liu, R. Shao, S. Ma, L. Zhang, O. You, H. Wu, Y. J. Xiang, T. J. Cui, and S. Zhang, Research2021, 5608038 (2021)

    2021

  76. [76]

    D. Zou, T. Chen, W. He, J. Bao, C. H. Lee, H. Sun, and X. Zhang, Nature Communications12, 7201 (2021), arXiv:2104.11260

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  77. [77]

    Zhu, X.-Q

    P. Zhu, X.-Q. Sun, T. L. Hughes, and G. Bahl, Nature Communications14, 720 (2023)

    2023

  78. [78]

    Ezawa, Phys

    M. Ezawa, Phys. Rev. B99, 121411 (2019)

    2019

  79. [79]

    Ezawa, Phys

    M. Ezawa, Phys. Rev. B100, 081401 (2019)

    2019

  80. [80]

    Hofmann, T

    T. Hofmann, T. Helbig, F. Schindler, N. Salgo, M. Brzezi´ nska, M. Greiter, T. Kiessling, D. Wolf, A. Vollhardt, A. Kabaˇ si, C. H. Lee, A. Biluˇ si´ c, R. Thomale, and T. Neupert, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 023265 (2020)

    2020

Showing first 80 references.