Spectral Mixing, Skin Localization, and Linear Optical Response in Dissipative Photonic Lattices

Chen-Huan Wu

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 24 references

Spectral Mixing, Skin Localization, and Linear Optical Response in Dissipative Photonic Lattices

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In a dissipative photonic lattice, the response participation number drops with disorder before the spatial skin center moves.

desk verdict A clean but conventional response-participation diagnostic for non-Hermitian lattices, undermined by under-specified numerics and tiny disorder ensembles; the core idea is worth refereeing, not rejecting. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.08080 v1 pith:JWI4E7OI submitted 2026-08-08 physics.optics

Chen-Huan Wu This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.optics

keywords non-HermitianphotonicsHatano–NelsonmodelskineffectbiorthogonalGreenfunctionresponseparticipationnumberspectralmixingdisorderlocalizationphotonicquantumwalk

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

At stake is whether a small set of port-to-port optical response measurements can distinguish two effects that both accompany non-Hermitian transport in a finite photonic lattice: dissipative spectral mixing, which spreads the signal over many modes, and skin localization, which pins it to one boundary. The paper argues yes, using the biorthogonal Green function to split the response into a phase-coherent intensity and an incoherent modal-weight sum, and defining a participation number $N_{\mathrm{eff}}$ that counts how many complex modes actually carry the measured signal. Numerically, loss increases $N_{\mathrm{eff}}$, periodic-boundary non-reciprocal winding increases it, and onsite disorder decreases it. In a $(g,W)$ parameter map averaged over disorder, $N_{\mathrm{eff}}$ drops with disorder while the response-weighted spatial center stays near the skin boundary, a finite-size crossover the paper proposes as a diagnostic ordering. If correct, this gives a practical spectral probe for disorder-induced dephasing in photonic experiments before the spatial mode profile visibly shifts.

What carries the argument

The motor of the argument is the biorthogonal Green function spectral decomposition $G^R(\omega)=\sum_\nu |R_\nu\rangle\langle L_\nu|/(\omega-\Omega_\nu)$. Each modal amplitude $A_\nu^{ab}(\omega)=\langle a|R_\nu\rangle\langle L_\nu|b\rangle/(\omega+i\eta-\Omega_\nu)$ carries the skin bias through the boundary overlaps, and the paper compares the coherent response $R_{\mathrm{coh}}=|\sum_\nu A_\nu|^2$ with the modal-weight response $R_{\mathrm{mix}}=\sum_\nu |A_\nu|^2$. From $R_{\mathrm{mix}}$ it defines the probability $p_\nu$ over modes, the Shannon entropy $S_{\mathrm{resp}}=-\sum p_\nu \ln p_\nu$, and the participation number $N_{\mathrm{eff}}=\exp(S_{\mathrm{resp}})$, whose frequency average over a window is the diagnostic $\langle N_{\mathrm{eff}}\rangle$. The spatial counterpart is the response-weighted center $\langle X^R_{\mathrm{resp}}\rangle=\sum p_\nu X^R_\nu$, where $X^R_\nu$ is the right-eigenmode center of mass. The separation of $R_{\mathrm{coh}}$ and $R_{\mathrm{mix}}$ is what isolates interference among non-Hermitian modal residues, and the pair $(\langle N_{\mathrm{eff}}\rangle, \langle X^R_{\mathrm{resp}}\rangle)$ is what makes the disorder-before-skin-shift ordering visible.

What would settle it

Recompute the $(g,W)$ map at a chain length well beyond the localization length (for example $L=200$) with many disorder realizations and with the frequency window and $\eta$ in Eq. (36) varied over a decade; if the disorder strength at which $\langle N_{\mathrm{eff}}\rangle$ begins to drop no longer lies below the disorder strength at which $\langle X^R_{\mathrm{resp}}\rangle/L$ leaves the skin boundary, the claimed ordering is a finite-size artifact rather than a diagnostic property.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that in a finite dissipative Hatano–Nelson photonic chain, the response participation number $N_{\mathrm{eff}}(\omega)=\exp[S_{\mathrm{resp}}(\omega)]$, built from the biorthogonal modal weights $p_\nu(\omega)\propto |\langle a|R_\nu\rangle\langle L_\nu|b\rangle/(\omega+i\eta-\Omega_\nu)|^2$, is a more sensitive finite-size probe of disorder-induced modal dephasing than the response-weighted skin center $\langle X^R_{\mathrm{resp}}\rangle/L$. Loss broadens resonances and increases $N_{\mathrm{eff}}$; periodic boundary conditions expose the complex spectral loop and increase modal participation; onsite disorder localizes the modes and suppresses $N_{\mathrm{eff}}$. In the $(g,W)$ map at $L=26$, the suppression of $N_{\mathrm{eff}}$ begins before the spatial center leaves the skin boundary, with an empirical crossover scale $W_{\mathrm{cross}}\simeq 1.35$ that the paper identifies as a finite-size effect rather than a thermodynamic transition. The time-domain quantum walk independently shows drift and right-edge accumulation of a localized excitation, consistent with the skin profile of the right eigenvectors.

Load-bearing premise

The crossover ordering rests on the unstated frequency window and numerical broadening $\eta$ used to average $N_{\mathrm{eff}}$, together with only five disorder realizations per $(g,W)$ point at $L=26$; if those choices are unrepresentative, the finding that $N_{\mathrm{eff}}$ drops before the spatial center moves could be a numerical artifact rather than a stable diagnostic property.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the ordering holds, $N_{\mathrm{eff}}$ can be extracted from a small number of port-to-port spectra and used as a disorder sensor in finite non-Hermitian photonic lattices, without needing full eigenvector tomography.
Loss and non-reciprocity produce opposite tendencies in the same diagnostic: adding linewidth raises $\langle N_{\mathrm{eff}}\rangle$, while adding onsite disorder lowers it.
Periodic-boundary non-reciprocity increases modal participation through the complex spectral winding, so $N_{\mathrm{eff}}$ is sensitive to boundary conditions as well as to disorder.
The time-domain result gives an independent, experimentally accessible signature: an edge-accumulated wave packet with $P_{\mathrm{skin}}(\tau)$ approaching unity is direct evidence of the skin effect.
The crossover at $W_{\mathrm{cross}}\simeq 1.35$ is not a phase transition; the paper claims only that response participation changes before the spatial center changes at these finite sizes.

Reading between the lines

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

Inference: In longer chains the crossover scale should move to smaller $W$, because the one-dimensional localization estimate $\xi_A\sim 96t^2/W^2$ makes the comparison with $L$ length-dependent; this is a testable scaling prediction the paper does not make.
Inference: The $R_{\mathrm{coh}}$–$R_{\mathrm{mix}}$ separation suggests a two-measurement experimental protocol: a total transmitted intensity carries the coherent part, while a mode-resolved spectrum carries the modal weights, and comparing them would directly test whether interference among biorthogonal residues is observable.
Inference: If the ordering is generic, $N_{\mathrm{eff}}$ could serve as an early-warning diagnostic for decoherence in non-reciprocal photonic devices, detecting disorder-induced dephasing before the output mode profile moves; the five-realization ensemble at $L=26$ is only a first step toward that claim.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper's real contribution is turning the biorthogonal Green function of a finite dissipative Hatano-Nelson chain into a response-weighted participation number N_eff, and then arguing that N_eff is a more sensitive finite-size probe of disorder than the spatial skin center. The decomposition into coherent and modal-weight channels is standard algebra, yes, but the packaging - modal residues with biorthogonal skin bias, entropy-based mode counting, and a (g,W) crossover map - is a reasonable and potentially useful diagnostic for few-port photonic experiments. The authors are also honest: they repeatedly label the crossover as finite-size, not thermodynamic, and they distinguish the asymptotic localization length from what their small chains actually show. The time-domain quantum walk is a nice independent check that non-reciprocity produces edge accumulation. The soft spots are real and mostly numerical. Eq. (36) defines the frequency-averaged N_eff but never gives the window [omega1, omega2] or the broadening eta used in Eq. (19). That matters because N_eff(omega) is controlled by Lorentzian tails; different eta or a window that excludes disorder-shifted resonances can change whether N_eff drops at all. The heat map in Fig. 5(a) uses only five realizations per grid point, and Fig. 4 uses single realizations for the sweeps. No code or data are provided. The stress-test note is correct: without these details, the claimed ordering - N_eff responds before the spatial center moves - is an observation tied to unstated choices, not a robust diagnostic property. That said, the concern is about reproducibility, not the underlying logic. The math is internally consistent, and the one ensemble-averaged panel (Fig. 5(d)) does show the monotonic decrease with disorder at g=0.22. This is an addressable paper, not a broken one. Who gets value from it: experimentalists working with non-Hermitian photonic lattices and few port measurements could use N_eff as a simple indicator; theorists may find the response-weighted center a clean way to talk about skin persistence. It is not a landmark, but it deserves serious referee time - precisely because a referee can demand the missing parameters, more disorder realizations, and open code. My recommendation: send it to peer review with a clear request for major revision on the numerical reproducibility, not a desk rejection.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper studies the linear response of a finite dissipative Hatano–Nelson photonic chain. It resolves the port-to-port response into a phase-coherent intensity R_coh (Eq. 20) and an incoherent modal-weight contribution R_mix (Eq. 21), and defines a mode-participation entropy S_resp and N_eff from the normalized modal weights (Eqs. 23–25). It also defines a response-weighted skin center X_R_resp (Eq. 27) and compares the frequency-domain diagnostics with a continuous-time quantum walk. Numerical results show that loss increases, periodic-boundary spectral winding increases, and disorder decreases the frequency-averaged participation number; the (g,W) map with disorder-ensemble averages is used to claim a finite-size crossover in which N_eff responds to disorder before the response-weighted center moves away from the skin boundary. The algebraic derivation is mostly straightforward, and the paper is explicit that the crossover is a finite-size diagnostic rather than a thermodynamic transition.

Significance. If the claimed ordering is robust, the participation number is a genuinely useful few-port diagnostic that complements spatial skin measures. The paper's strengths are the clean algebraic separation of coherent and modal-weight channels, the use of analytic length scales (Eqs. 8 and 28) as interpretive references, the independent time-domain check in Fig. 3, and the consistent caveats that the results are finite-size diagnostics. The central numerical claim, however, is currently tied to unstated frequency-window and broadening parameters and to very small disorder ensembles, so the crossover ordering is not yet quantitatively established as a robust diagnostic property.

major comments (2)

[Sec. VI, Eq. (36) and Fig. 5] The central crossover claim is stated in terms of the frequency-averaged participation number \langle N_eff\rangle defined in Eq. (36) over a window [\omega_1,\omega_2], and the modal weights in Eq. (19) depend on a numerical broadening \eta, but the paper never specifies \omega_1, \omega_2, or \eta. The text and figure captions only refer to a "fixed finite frequency window." This is load-bearing because N_eff(\omega) is controlled by the Lorentzian weights p_\nu(\omega): for small \eta the response collapses onto the nearest pole, while for large \eta all modes mix, and a window that excludes disorder-shifted resonances records spectral escape rather than modal dephasing. The authors should state the exact window, broadening, and frequency-grid parameters, and demonstrate that the crossover ordering in Fig. 5(a,b) is robust to reasonable variations of these parameters.
[Fig. 5(a,b,d)] The empirical crossover scale W_cross \simeq 1.35 and the claimed ordering that N_eff responds before X_R_resp is displaced are based on a (g,W) heat map computed with only five disorder realizations per grid point and no error bars. Fig. 5(d) shows that the disorder-averaged N_eff carries nontrivial standard errors even with fifteen realizations, and that check is performed at only one value of g. With five realizations, the horizontal bands and the position of W_cross in Fig. 5(a) cannot be regarded as established. The authors should provide ensemble-averaged maps or at least ensemble-averaged W sweeps with standard errors at several g values, including points near the claimed crossover, before concluding that the ordering is a robust finite-size property.

minor comments (5)

[Fig. 4 caption] The word "enhances" is misspelled as "genhances" in the caption of Fig. 4(b).
[Eq. (29) and Sec. VI] The window operators D_L, D_C, and D_R introduced in Eq. (29) are not used in any of the figures; the authors should either use them in the numerical analysis or remove them to avoid an unused definition.
[Fig. 3 caption] The time unit in Fig. 3 is stated as J^{-1}, whereas the Hamiltonian in Eq. (3) is parametrized by the hopping amplitude t and the text says all frequencies are measured in units of t; the notation should be unified.
[Sec. VI numerical parameters] The numerical sections should specify the chain lengths, probe profiles |a\rangle and |b\rangle, and window sizes used for Figs. 2, 4, and 5; the current text gives L=28 for sweeps and L=44 for frequency-resolved response, but not the corresponding probe and window details.
[Eq. (40)] The Kubo-type expression in Eq. (40) introduces occupation weights p_i, but these weights play no role in the rest of the paper; the passage could be shortened or clarified to avoid suggesting a thermodynamic interpretation that is explicitly disavowed elsewhere.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: N_eff and X_R_resp are defined directly from modal weights; the crossover line is an empirical label, not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central quantities are defined operationally from the biorthogonal Green function: p_nu(omega) in Eq. (23) is the normalized squared modal-weight response from Eq. (21), S_resp is its Shannon entropy, and N_eff = exp[S_resp]. No parameter is fitted to a target outcome; the loss, non-reciprocity, and disorder sweeps in Fig. 4 are computed from these definitions, and the text explicitly labels them as finite-size diagnostic trends: 'The curves in Fig. 4 use a fixed representative disorder realization for each sweep rather than a disorder ensemble average.' The crossover in Fig. 5 is likewise presented as an empirical observation: the dashed line is called 'the empirical finite-size crossover scale W_cross ≃ 1.35', and the asymptotic formula Eq. (37) is kept only as a reference, with the paper noting that xi_A(W_cross) ∼ 5.3 × 10^1 > L, i.e., Eq. (37) did not predict the numerical location. There is no step in which a fitted parameter is renamed a prediction: N_eff and X_R_resp are different functionals of the same p_nu, and the claim that one changes before the other is a numerical outcome of the model, not an identity forced by the definitions. The references to prior work are contextual (e.g., [14,15] for interference decomposition, [16] for quantum walks, [17] for non-Hermitian scaling, [18-21] for related models), and none is a self-citation used to justify the central claim. The manuscript does leave the averaging window and numerical broadening eta unspecified and uses only five disorder realizations at L=26 for Fig. 5(a); these are reproducibility limitations, partly acknowledged by the authors ('For quantitative disorder statistics one should average N_eff over many independent disorder realizations'), but they do not make the derivation circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard biorthogonal spectral machinery, an effective single-particle model, and finite-size numerics with several unspecified or empirically chosen scales. No new physical entity is introduced.

free parameters (3)

Numerical broadening eta = not stated
Introduced in Eq. (19) and used in every frequency-resolved plot; the value is never given, and frequency-averaged N_eff depends on it.
Frequency window [omega1, omega2] = not stated
Eq. (36) defines the frequency-averaged participation number over a fixed window whose endpoints are unspecified; the reported trends may depend on this choice.
Empirical crossover scale W_cross = approx 1.35
The dashed line in Fig. 5 is chosen by inspection of the finite-size (g,W) map with five disorder realizations per point; it is an empirical scale rather than a derived parameter.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption The finite non-Hermitian chain has a complete biorthogonal eigenbasis at every scanned parameter point
Eq. (12) and the spectral representation Eq. (15) require biorthogonal normalization and completeness; near exceptional points this fails and would need Jordan-chain terms, but no check is reported.
domain assumption The internal Green function Eq. (13) is an adequate model of port-to-port response
External coupling rates, drive normalization, and detector loading are neglected; the paper states this explicitly, but the experimental relevance of N_eff depends on that neglect.
ad hoc to paper The Hermitian Anderson localization length Eq. (28) is a valid order-of-magnitude scale for interpreting the finite-size crossover
Eq. (28) is an infinite one-dimensional Hermitian estimate with model-dependent factors; the paper acknowledges this but still uses it to position W_cross relative to the chain length.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spectral Mixing, Skin Localization, and Linear Optical Response in Dissipative Photonic Lattices." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JWI4E7OI

@misc{pith2026260808080,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spectral Mixing, Skin Localization, and Linear Optical Response in Dissipative Photonic Lattices},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JWI4E7OI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.08080}
}

abstract

We study the linear optical response of a finite dissipative Hatano--Nelson photonic lattice. The response between selected input and output ports is resolved into a phase-coherent intensity and an incoherent modal-weight contribution using the biorthogonal Green function. Their comparison isolates interference among non-Hermitian modal residues, while a response-weight entropy and the associated participation number $\Neff$ quantify how broadly the measured signal is distributed over the complex modes. The numerical results show that loss broadens the modal distribution, periodic-boundary spectral winding increases modal participation, and onsite disorder reduces it. Time-domain quantum-walk dynamics independently display the drift and right-edge accumulation produced by non-reciprocal hopping under open boundaries. A parameter map in the $(g,W)$ plane, supplemented by disorder-ensemble averages, identifies a finite-size crossover in which $\Neff$ responds to disorder before the response-weighted center is displaced from the skin boundary. The analysis applies to coupled waveguides, microring arrays, driven cavity lattices, and other linear photonic platforms with loss, gain, or non-reciprocal coupling.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.08080 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Boundary-to-boundary optical response and modal participation in a finite lossy Hatano– [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Frequency-averaged response participation number as a function of the main non-Hermitian [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

[1]

Hatano, Naomichi, and David R. Nelson. ”Localization transitions in non-Hermitian quantum mechanics.” Physical review letters 77.3 (1996): 570

work page 1996
[2]

Hatano, Naomichi, and David R. Nelson. ”Vortex pinning and non-Hermitian quantum me- chanics.” Physical Review B 56.14 (1997): 8651

work page 1997
[3]

”Statistical-mechanical theory of irreversible processes

Kubo, Ryogo. ”Statistical-mechanical theory of irreversible processes. I. General theory and simple applications to magnetic and conduction problems.” Journal of the physical society of Japan 12.6 (1957): 570-586

work page 1957
[4]

”Quantum fluids of light.” Reviews of Modern Physics 85.1 (2013): 299-366

Carusotto, Iacopo, and Cristiano Ciuti. ”Quantum fluids of light.” Reviews of Modern Physics 85.1 (2013): 299-366

work page 2013
[5]

”Non-Hermitian physics and PT symmetry.” Nature Physics 14.1 (2018): 11-19

El-Ganainy, Ramy, et al. ”Non-Hermitian physics and PT symmetry.” Nature Physics 14.1 (2018): 11-19

work page 2018
[6]

”Exceptional points in optics and photonics.” Science 363.6422 (2019): eaar7709

Miri, Mohammad-Ali, and Andrea Alu. ”Exceptional points in optics and photonics.” Science 363.6422 (2019): eaar7709

work page 2019
[7]

”Non-Hermitian and topological photonics: optics at an exceptional point.” Nanophotonics 10.1 (2020): 403-423

Parto, Midya, et al. ”Non-Hermitian and topological photonics: optics at an exceptional point.” Nanophotonics 10.1 (2020): 403-423

work page 2020
[8]

”Anomalous edge state in a non-Hermitian lattice.” Physical review letters 116.13 (2016): 133903

Lee, Tony E. ”Anomalous edge state in a non-Hermitian lattice.” Physical review letters 116.13 (2016): 133903

work page 2016

Show all 24 references

[9]

”Edge states and topological invariants of non-Hermitian systems.” Physical review letters 121.8 (2018): 086803

Yao, Shunyu, and Zhong Wang. ”Edge states and topological invariants of non-Hermitian systems.” Physical review letters 121.8 (2018): 086803

2018
[10]

”Non-hermitian chern bands.” Physical review letters 121.13 (2018): 136802

Yao, Shunyu, Fei Song, and Zhong Wang. ”Non-hermitian chern bands.” Physical review letters 121.13 (2018): 136802

2018
[11]

”Biorthogonal bulk-boundary correspondence in non-Hermitian sys- tems.” arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.06492 (2018)

Kunst, Flore K., et al. ”Biorthogonal bulk-boundary correspondence in non-Hermitian sys- tems.” arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.06492 (2018)

2018 arXiv
[12]

”Non-Bloch band theory of non-Hermitian sys- tems.” Physical review letters 123.6 (2019): 066404

Yokomizo, Kazuki, and Shuichi Murakami. ”Non-Bloch band theory of non-Hermitian sys- tems.” Physical review letters 123.6 (2019): 066404

2019
[13]

”Biorthogonal quantum mechanics.” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 47.3 (2014): 035305

Brody, Dorje C. ”Biorthogonal quantum mechanics.” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 47.3 (2014): 035305

2014
[14]

”Random-matrix theory of quantum transport.” Reviews of modern physics 69.3 (1997): 731

Beenakker, Carlo WJ. ”Random-matrix theory of quantum transport.” Reviews of modern physics 69.3 (1997): 731. 23

1997
[15]

Mesoscopic physics of electrons and photons

Akkermans, Eric, and Gilles Montambaux. Mesoscopic physics of electrons and photons. Vol
[16]

Cambridge: Cambridge university press, 2007

2007
[17]

”Engineering entanglement and transport in interacting quantum walks with tailored potentials.” arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.17825 (2026)

Forghieri, Gaia, and Matteo GA Paris. ”Engineering entanglement and transport in interacting quantum walks with tailored potentials.” arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.17825 (2026)

2026 arXiv
[18]

Arouca, R., C. H. Lee, and C. Morais Smith. ”Unconventional scaling at non-Hermitian critical points.” Physical Review B 102.24 (2020): 245145

2020
[19]

”Many-body non-Hermitian skin effect with exact steady states in the dissipative quantum link model.” Physical review letters 135.26 (2025): 260401

Hu, Yu-Min, et al. ”Many-body non-Hermitian skin effect with exact steady states in the dissipative quantum link model.” Physical review letters 135.26 (2025): 260401

2025
[20]

”Full counting statistics for boundary driven transport in the presence of correlated gain and loss channels.” Physical Review B 114.5 (2026): 055410

Ganguly, Katha, and Bijay Kumar Agarwalla. ”Full counting statistics for boundary driven transport in the presence of correlated gain and loss channels.” Physical Review B 114.5 (2026): 055410

2026
[21]

”Anomalous entanglement scaling from eigenvector nonorthogonality in critical non-Hermitian free fermions.” arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.25256 (2026)

Xiao, Zhenyu, and Shinsei Ryu. ”Anomalous entanglement scaling from eigenvector nonorthogonality in critical non-Hermitian free fermions.” arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.25256 (2026)

2026 arXiv
[22]

”Tunable non-Hermitian skin effect and topological phases in ladders with staggered nonreciprocal inter-leg hopping.” arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.11454 (2026)

Li, Pu-Xuan, and Qi-Bo Zeng. ”Tunable non-Hermitian skin effect and topological phases in ladders with staggered nonreciprocal inter-leg hopping.” arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.11454 (2026)

2026 arXiv
[23]

Quantum noise: a handbook of Markovian and non- Markovian quantum stochastic methods with applications to quantum optics

Gardiner, Crispin, and Peter Zoller. Quantum noise: a handbook of Markovian and non- Markovian quantum stochastic methods with applications to quantum optics. Springer Science & Business Media, 2004

2004
[24]

Rappoport

Garc ´ ıa, Jose H., Lucian Covaci, and Tatiana G. Rappoport. ”Real-space calculation of the conductivity tensor for disordered topological matter.” Physical review letters 114.11 (2015): 116602

2015

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Hatano, Naomichi, and David R. Nelson. ”Localization transitions in non-Hermitian quantum mechanics.” Physical review letters 77.3 (1996): 570

work page 1996

[2] [2]

Hatano, Naomichi, and David R. Nelson. ”Vortex pinning and non-Hermitian quantum me- chanics.” Physical Review B 56.14 (1997): 8651

work page 1997

[3] [3]

”Statistical-mechanical theory of irreversible processes

Kubo, Ryogo. ”Statistical-mechanical theory of irreversible processes. I. General theory and simple applications to magnetic and conduction problems.” Journal of the physical society of Japan 12.6 (1957): 570-586

work page 1957

[4] [4]

”Quantum fluids of light.” Reviews of Modern Physics 85.1 (2013): 299-366

Carusotto, Iacopo, and Cristiano Ciuti. ”Quantum fluids of light.” Reviews of Modern Physics 85.1 (2013): 299-366

work page 2013

[5] [5]

”Non-Hermitian physics and PT symmetry.” Nature Physics 14.1 (2018): 11-19

El-Ganainy, Ramy, et al. ”Non-Hermitian physics and PT symmetry.” Nature Physics 14.1 (2018): 11-19

work page 2018

[6] [6]

”Exceptional points in optics and photonics.” Science 363.6422 (2019): eaar7709

Miri, Mohammad-Ali, and Andrea Alu. ”Exceptional points in optics and photonics.” Science 363.6422 (2019): eaar7709

work page 2019

[7] [7]

”Non-Hermitian and topological photonics: optics at an exceptional point.” Nanophotonics 10.1 (2020): 403-423

Parto, Midya, et al. ”Non-Hermitian and topological photonics: optics at an exceptional point.” Nanophotonics 10.1 (2020): 403-423

work page 2020

[8] [8]

”Anomalous edge state in a non-Hermitian lattice.” Physical review letters 116.13 (2016): 133903

Lee, Tony E. ”Anomalous edge state in a non-Hermitian lattice.” Physical review letters 116.13 (2016): 133903

work page 2016