Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Quasiperiodicity-induced non-Hermitian skin effect from the breakdown of scale-free localization

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A quasiperiodic potential can break scale-free boundary localization in a non-reciprocal ring and switch it into the non-Hermitian skin effect before bulk localization sets in.

desk verdict Genuinely new finite-size NHSE regime driven by quasiperiodicity, with a useful non-normality diagnostic; the multi-peak scaling gap is real but not fatal, and the paper deserves refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.11155 v2 pith:F34AGIXM submitted 2026-02-11 cond-mat.mes-hall

Kazuma Saito , Ryo Okugawa , Kazuki Yokomizo , Takami Tohyama , Chen-Hsuan Hsu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords non-Hermitianskineffectscale-freelocalizationquasiperiodicpotentialgeneralizedboundaryconditionsnon-normalityratioconditionnumbernon-reciprocalhoppingimpuritybond
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 studies a one-dimensional non-reciprocal lattice whose two ends are bridged by a tunable impurity bond (generalized boundary conditions) and which also feels a quasiperiodic onsite potential. The claim is that increasing the quasiperiodic strength while the system sits in the scale-free localized regime — boundary-accumulated states whose decay length grows linearly with system size — does not simply drive it into bulk localization; on the open-boundary side it first produces a genuine non-Hermitian skin effect, and near the periodic-boundary side it produces an extended regime. Because the skin effect is usually thought of as boundary-condition-driven and quasiperiodicity as a localizing agent, the insight is that quasiperiodicity can itself open an intermediate skin-effect window by suppressing the impurity bond before the bulk hoppings. The paper also introduces a practical diagnostic, the non-normality ratio, for telling the regimes apart in a setting where standard spectral-winding topology does not apply. If the claim is right, quasiperiodic modulation becomes a tunable knob for boundary-condition-induced localization in non-reciprocal systems.

What carries the argument

The central object is the non-normality ratio κ_R(μ) = κ_GBC(μ)/κ_PBC, built from the condition number κ(V)=||V|| ||V^{-1}|| of the matrix of right eigenvectors (in the orthonormal basis that makes it unique). Under the assumption of a single boundary-localization center and one localization length ξ, the condition number obeys κ=O(e^{L/ξ}), giving the regime dictionary: ξ independent of L is the NHSE, ξ proportional to L is scale-free localization, and κ_R=O(1) marks extended or localized bulk phases. The impurity-bond strength μ is the dial that interpolates between open and periodic boundaries, and the multi-peak ansatz |ψ(x)| = A_0 e^{-|x-X_0|/ξ_0} + A_1 e^{-|x-X_1|/ξ_1} + A_2 e^{-|x-X_2

What would settle it

Compute the full spectrum and the extracted ξ_1 at λ=2.7J, μ=e^{-25} for a sequence of L up to and beyond L_c≈109 using high-precision arithmetic. If any GBC bulk eigenvalue retains a non-zero imaginary part at large L, or if ξ_1 begins to grow with L beyond the claimed crossover, the 'genuine NHSE' claim fails. The complementary laboratory test: in an electrical-circuit implementation with quasiperiodic modulation, measure the steady-state spatial density at fixed λ and increasing L; the NHSE regime requires a boundary peak whose width stays independent of L.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that for the Hamiltonian H = -J Σ_{j=1}^{L-1}(e^α c†_j c_{j+1} + e^{-α} c†_{j+1} c_j) + Σ_j λ cos(2πj/τ + φ) c†_j c_j - μJ(e^α c†_L c_1 + e^{-α} c†_1 c_L), with critical potential λ_c = 2J e^α, the boundary physics under generalized boundary conditions has an extra intermediate regime. Starting from μ small (effective open boundaries) and λ=0, the system shows the non-Hermitian skin effect at small size and scale-free localization at large size; increasing λ below λ_c collapses the GBC spectrum onto the real axis inside the complex PBC loop, which is presented as the signature of a genuine NHSE, while the multi-peak analysis of the density gives a loca

Load-bearing premise

The regime-reading law κ=O(e^{L/ξ}) assumes every eigenstate piles up at the same boundary with one common decay length; in the crossover region where the claimed NHSE appears, the density shows several coexisting peaks, so the single-length assumption is exactly where it is weakest.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Quasiperiodicity becomes a control knob for the skin effect: a fixed device can be switched from scale-free localization to NHSE by ramping a single potential amplitude.
  • The NHSE window is finite-size: in the thermodynamic limit it shrinks to the critical point, so experiments probing it must choose system sizes below the λ-dependent crossover length L_c.
  • The non-normality ratio is a numerically cheap alternative to entanglement entropy for building regime diagrams under generalized boundary conditions.
  • Near the PBC limit, quasiperiodicity delocalizes the SFL state, so boundary-condition engineering plus quasiperiodicity gives access to three distinct transport regimes in one lattice.
  • The prediction that the GBC spectrum becomes purely real inside the complex PBC loop is a sharp, directly observable spectral fingerprint.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the crossover is genuinely continuous, then the single-ξ scaling law used to define the regimes is strained exactly where the new NHSE appears, because the wavefunction has coexisting peaks; a multi-peak generalization of the condition-number scaling law would give the sharpest boundary.
  • The mechanism suggests the same effect should occur under any perturbation that preferentially suppresses the impurity bond before the bulk—for example, a suitably placed high onsite barrier or random disorder—making quasiperiodicity one instance of a more general route.
  • One can test the claim without a full phase diagram: fix μ and L, ramp λ, and measure the imaginary parts of the GBC spectrum; the onset of exact spectral reality should coincide with the onset of the L-independent localization length.
  • Because the regime diagram depends on L, a single tunable-size lattice could trace the full NHSE-SFL crossover as a function of λ, which would distinguish the quasiperiodicity-induced NHSE from a mere finite-size artifact.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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 studies a one-dimensional non-reciprocal lattice with a tunable impurity bond connecting the boundaries (generalized boundary conditions) and an onsite quasiperiodic potential. The authors introduce a non-normality ratio κR = κGBC/κPBC and use its scaling with system size to distinguish between the non-Hermitian skin effect (NHSE), scale-free localization (SFL), extended, and localized regimes. The central claim is that increasing the quasiperiodic potential strength λ in an SFL regime drives a breakdown of SFL: for strongly modified boundaries the system first enters an NHSE regime before becoming bulk-localized, while near the PBC limit it can cross over into an extended regime. The claims are supported by several numerical diagnostics, including κR scaling, collapse of the GBC spectrum onto the real axis, multi-peak wavefunction fits, localization-length scaling, and entanglement-entropy cross-checks.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper identifies a qualitatively new finite-size regime in non-Hermitian quasiperiodic systems: quasiperiodicity acts not merely as a localizing potential but as a boundary-condition controller that can destroy SFL and stabilize an intermediate NHSE phase. This goes beyond the previously studied purely unidirectional model and is potentially relevant to experimental platforms such as electrical circuits. The paper is also notable for combining several independent diagnostics, for explicitly comparing with earlier work, and for making the numerical data available. The main weakness is that the quantitative regime classification via κR relies on a scaling law derived under a single-center, single-ξ assumption, which is exactly the regime where the manuscript itself introduces multi-peak wavefunctions.

major comments (3)
  1. [SM Sec. II; Eq. (6), Fig. 3(c)] The scaling law κ = O(e^{L/ξ}) that underlies the κR-based classification is derived under the explicit assumption that all right eigenstates are exponentially localized at a single common center with a single localization length ξ (SM Eqs. S8–S9). However, the manuscript itself models the SFL–NHSE crossover window (2J ≲ λ ≲ 3.3J) with three coexisting peaks X0, X1, X2, each with its own localization length (Eq. (6), Fig. 3(c)). Since κR is a global condition number built from all eigenvectors, an exponential growth of κR could be supplied by one narrow constant-ξ component even if the state remains a crossover mixture, or the sum over eigenstates in Eq. (S9) could mix different ξ's in a way that makes the apparent exponent L-dependent. Please either derive a multi-peak/multi-center generalization of the scaling law or show explicitly, e.g., by comparing the κR growth rate with the fitte
  2. [Regime diagrams, Fig. 2 and Figs. S2–S3] The regime boundaries are drawn as crossover lines but no quantitative criterion is specified. In Fig. 2(a-2) the separation between the 'linearly increasing region' and the 'plateau' is described verbally; in Fig. 2(b-1) the critical length Lc is drawn as a curve without stating the fitting or threshold procedure. Since the regime diagram is the central quantitative output, please define the operational criterion (e.g., a threshold derivative of log10κR with respect to L or |lnμ|, or a crossing of exponential vs logarithmic fits) and provide an uncertainty estimate for at least one representative boundary. In addition, the text states that quantities are averaged over 100 phases while the caption of Fig. 2(a-1) specifies φ=0; please reconcile this by reporting phase-averaged boundaries with error bars or by explicitly stating that the diagram is for a single phase and discussing the pha
  3. [Quasiperiodicity-assisted delocalization, Fig. 4] The identification of the extended regime for 1.7J < λ < λc at lnμ = −0.5 rests mainly on the absence of κR growth with L (Fig. 2(c-2)) and on the wave-like density profiles in Fig. 4. Because κR is a boundary-sensitivity measure, an O(1) value is necessary but not sufficient to distinguish an extended state from a critical or weakly localized state. Please add a bulk diagnostic (e.g., inverse participation ratio, level spacing statistics, or correlation length) for representative parameters in this region to support the 'extended regime' label.
minor comments (5)
  1. [SM Sec. I] Near Eq. (S4), the phrase 'between the sharp transition between the sharp transition' appears to contain a duplicated segment; please correct.
  2. [SM Sec. III heading] The heading 'CHARACTERIZING REIGMES VIA THE ENTANGLEMENT ENTROPY' contains a typo: 'REIGMES' should be 'REGIMES'.
  3. [Eq. (4) and SM Sec. II notation] The notation in Eq. (4), (E_a^n | E_b^n) = δ_ab, is ambiguous for non-Hermitian systems. Please clarify that the right eigenvectors are normalized and that the orthonormalization is applied within degenerate subspaces. In SM Sec. II, the notation ⟨⟨E_a^n|...⟩⟩ for left eigenvectors should be defined explicitly.
  4. [Fig. 2 caption and phase averaging] The main text says that quantities are averaged over 100 values of φ unless otherwise noted, but Fig. 2(a-1) is labeled φ=0. Please state clearly for each panel whether the data are phase-averaged or single-phase, and include error bars or a phase-sensitivity statement for the regime diagram.
  5. [Discussion of thermodynamic limit] The paragraph after Fig. 3 states that the emerging NHSE region collapses to the critical point λc in the thermodynamic limit. This is an important caveat and could be stated more prominently, for example in the abstract, so that readers do not interpret the predicted NHSE as a true thermodynamic phase rather than a finite-size regime.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the SFL-to-NHSE claim is supported by independent spectral, wavefunction, and entanglement evidence, not built into the definitions.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that quasiperiodicity drives a breakdown of SFL into either NHSE or extended regimes. This claim is not equivalent to any fitted input by construction. The non-normality ratio kappa_R is defined as a normalized diagnostic (Eq. 5), but the regime assignment is made from observed L-scaling behavior of kappa_R and is corroborated by independent signatures: the GBC spectrum collapsing onto the real axis inside the complex PBC loop (Fig. 3b), multi-peak wavefunction fits with L-independent xi_1 for lambda = 2.7J (Eq. 6, Fig. 3d), and entanglement-entropy scaling cross-checks in SM Sec. III. The bulk localization threshold lambda_c = 2J e^alpha is taken from prior non-Hermitian AAH results (Refs. [27,43]) and is also independently reflected in the entanglement spectrum and in the localized profile at lambda = 3.3J. Self-citations (e.g., Refs. [15,18,43,50]) are background or verification, not the sole load-bearing support for the new crossover. The skeptical concern that SM Eqs. (S8)-(S9) assume a single localization center and a single xi, while the crossover region has coexisting peaks, is a potential validity or model-mismatch issue for the diagnostic, but it is not circular: no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and the NHSE label is not forced by the definition of kappa_R alone.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The free parameters of the Hamiltonian (J, α, τ, φ-averaged λ) are standard inputs. The only fitted quantities are the multi-peak wavefunction ansatz parameters used as characterization evidence. The main load-bearing assumptions are the κR scaling form and the representative-eigenstate choice, both of which are stated explicitly but only heuristically justified.

free parameters (1)
  • Multi-peak ansatz parameters (A0,A1,A2,ξ0,ξ1,ξ2) = not tabulated; vary with λ, μ, and L
    Equation (6) is fitted to wavefunction profiles to extract localization lengths. The claim that ξ1 is nearly independent of L (NHSE behavior) is direct evidence for the central result, so these fitted quantities enter the supporting evidence, although they are not free parameters of the Hamiltonian.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Condition-number scaling κ=O(e^{L/ξ}) with all wavefunctions exponentially localized at a common boundary center and common localization length ξ
    SM Sec. II derives this from Eqs. (S5)-(S9) assuming localization at X=0 with a single ξ. This is load-bearing for the κR-based regime classification, and it is violated in the multi-peak crossover region (main text Fig. 3(c), Eq. (6)).
  • domain assumption The bulk localization transition remains at λc = 2J e^α for all boundary conditions, including GBC
    Used to identify the localized phase boundary and to interpret the intermediate λ<λc region; stated in the Model section and attributed to Refs. [27,43], with additional support from an entanglement-spectrum check described in SM.
  • domain assumption The right eigenstate with the second smallest real part is representative of the quasiperiodicity-induced localization properties
    Stated in the Model section: the smallest-real-part state is dominated by an impurity-induced in-gap mode, so all wavefunction-profile and ξ analyses use the second-smallest state. This choice shapes every regime-classification plot.
  • domain assumption Quasiperiodicity suppresses the impurity-bond hopping before bulk hoppings, effectively realizing OBC
    This is the proposed mechanism for the quasiperiodicity-induced NHSE. SM Sec. V verifies it numerically via the expectation-value ratio (Eq. S15, Fig. S4), but it is not derived from first principles.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quasiperiodicity-induced non-Hermitian skin effect from the breakdown of scale-free localization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F34AGIXM

@misc{pith2026260211155,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quasiperiodicity-induced non-Hermitian skin effect from the breakdown of scale-free localization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F34AGIXM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.11155}
}
read the original abstract

Non-reciprocal systems exhibit extreme sensitivity to boundary conditions, typically manifesting as the non-Hermitian skin effect (NHSE) under open boundaries. By bridging the boundaries with a tunable impurity bond, one can access intermediate regimes where scale-free localization (SFL) can emerge. Here, we investigate the competition between such boundary coupling and quasiperiodic disorder in a one-dimensional non-reciprocal lattice. Our analyses reveal a quasiperiodicity-induced breakdown of the SFL regime, which evolves into either the NHSE or an extended regime, depending on boundary conditions. These results uncover the crucial roles of boundary effects and quasiperiodicity in non-Hermitian systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.11155 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic illustration of the system, with non [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a-1) Non-normality ratio-based regime diagram [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Spatial distributions of the density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Higher-winding phases in one-dimensional non-Hermitian topological superconductors

    cond-mat.mes-hall 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Higher-winding phases with multiple Majorana pairs per end in 1D non-Hermitian topological superconductors are mapped with the Schur-Cohn zero-counting method and confirmed in open-boundary spectra.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [58]

    Zhang, L

    Y. Zhang, L. Su, and S. Chen, Phys. Rev. B111, L140201 (2025)

    2025

  2. [1]

    C. M. Bender, Rep. Prog. Phys.70, 947 (2007)

    2007

  3. [2]

    Okuma and M

    N. Okuma and M. Sato, Ann. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 14, 83 (2023)

    2023

  4. [3]

    Hatano and D

    N. Hatano and D. R. Nelson, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 570 (1996)

    1996

  5. [4]

    Hatano and D

    N. Hatano and D. R. Nelson, Phys. Rev. B56, 8651 (1997)

    1997

  6. [5]

    Hatano and D

    N. Hatano and D. R. Nelson, Phys. Rev. B58, 8384 (1998)

    1998

  7. [6]

    Yao and Z

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

    2018

  8. [7]

    Z. Gong, Y. Ashida, K. Kawabata, K. Takasan, S. Hi- gashikawa, and M. Ueda, Phys. Rev. X8, 031079 (2018)

    2018

Show all 71 references
  1. [8]

    C. H. Lee, L. Li, and J. Gong, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 016805 (2019)

    2019

  2. [9]

    Kawabata, K

    K. Kawabata, K. Shiozaki, M. Ueda, and M. Sato, Phys. Rev. X9, 041015 (2019)

    2019

  3. [10]

    D. S. Borgnia, A. J. Kruchkov, and R.-J. Slager, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 056802 (2020)

    2020

  4. [11]

    Okuma, K

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

    2020

  5. [12]

    Yoshida, T

    T. Yoshida, T. Mizoguchi, and Y. Hatsugai, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 022062 (2020)

    2020

  6. [13]

    Zhang, Z

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

    2020

  7. [14]

    Kawabata, M

    K. Kawabata, M. Sato, and K. Shiozaki, Phys. Rev. B 102, 205118 (2020)

    2020

  8. [15]

    Okugawa, R

    R. Okugawa, R. Takahashi, and K. Yokomizo, Phys. Rev. B102, 241202 (2020)

    2020

  9. [16]

    Y. Fu, J. Hu, and S. Wan, Phys. Rev. B103, 045420 (2021)

    2021

  10. [17]

    Longhi, Phys

    S. Longhi, Phys. Rev. B103, 054203 (2021)

    2021

  11. [18]

    Okugawa, R

    R. Okugawa, R. Takahashi, and K. Yokomizo, Phys. Rev. B103, 205205 (2021)

    2021

  12. [19]

    Schindler, K

    F. Schindler, K. Gu, B. Lian, and K. Kawabata, PRX Quantum4, 030315 (2023)

    2023

  13. [20]

    Hamanaka, K

    S. Hamanaka, K. Yamamoto, and T. Yoshida, Phys. Rev. B108, 155114 (2023)

    2023

  14. [21]

    Nakamura, K

    D. Nakamura, K. Inaka, N. Okuma, and M. Sato, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 256602 (2023). 6

    2023

  15. [22]

    X.-R. Ma, K. Cao, X.-R. Wang, Z. Wei, Q. Du, and S.-P. Kou, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 013213 (2024)

    2024

  16. [23]

    Yoshida, S.-B

    T. Yoshida, S.-B. Zhang, T. Neupert, and N. Kawakami, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 076502 (2024)

    2024

  17. [24]

    Hamanaka, T

    S. Hamanaka, T. Yoshida, and K. Kawabata, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 266604 (2024)

    2024

  18. [25]

    P. G. Harper, Proc. Phys. Soc. Sect. A68, 874 (1955)

    1955

  19. [26]

    Aubry and G

    S. Aubry and G. Andr´ e, Ann. Isr. Phys. Soc.3, 133 (1980)

    1980

  20. [27]

    Jiang, L.-J

    H. Jiang, L.-J. Lang, C. Yang, S.-L. Zhu, and S. Chen, Phys. Rev. B100, 054301 (2019)

    2019

  21. [28]

    Longhi, Phys

    S. Longhi, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 237601 (2019)

    2019

  22. [29]

    Longhi, Phys

    S. Longhi, Phys. Rev. B100, 125157 (2019)

    2019

  23. [30]

    Liu, X.-P

    Y. Liu, X.-P. Jiang, J. Cao, and S. Chen, Phys. Rev. B 101, 174205 (2020)

    2020

  24. [31]

    Zeng and Y

    Q.-B. Zeng and Y. Xu, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 033052 (2020)

    2020

  25. [32]

    T. Liu, H. Guo, Y. Pu, and S. Longhi, Phys. Rev. B102, 024205 (2020)

    2020

  26. [33]

    Y. Liu, Y. Wang, Z. Zheng, and S. Chen, Phys. Rev. B 103, 134208 (2021)

    2021

  27. [34]

    Longhi, Phys

    S. Longhi, Phys. Rev. B104, 125109 (2021)

    2021

  28. [35]

    Zhai, G.-Y

    L.-J. Zhai, G.-Y. Huang, and S. Yin, Phys. Rev. B106, 014204 (2022)

    2022

  29. [36]

    W. Chen, S. Cheng, J. Lin, R. Asgari, and G. Xianlong, Phys. Rev. B106, 144208 (2022)

    2022

  30. [37]

    Zhai, L.-L

    L.-J. Zhai, L.-L. Hou, Q. Gao, and H.-Y. Wang, Front. Phys.10, 1098551 (2022)

    2022

  31. [38]

    A. P. Acharya and S. Datta, Phys. Rev. B109, 024203 (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    Li, X.-J

    S.-Z. Li, X.-J. Yu, and Z. Li, Phys. Rev. B109, 024306 (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    S. R. Padhi, A. Padhan, S. Banerjee, and T. Mishra, Phys. Rev. B110, 174203 (2024)

    2024

  34. [42]

    X. Tong, Y. Zhang, B. Li, and X. Yang, Phys. Rev. B 111, 214202 (2025)

    2025

  35. [43]

    Wang, C.-K

    Y.-P. Wang, C.-K. Chang, R. Okugawa, and C.-H. Hsu, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 043353 (2025)

    2025

  36. [44]

    Koch and J

    R. Koch and J. C. Budich, Eur. Phys. J. D74, 70 (2020)

    2020

  37. [47]

    H. Wang, J. Liu, T. Liu, and W. Ju, Front. Phys.20, 014203 (2025)

    2025

  38. [48]

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

    2020

  39. [49]

    Y. Liu, Y. Zeng, L. Li, and S. Chen, Phys. Rev. B104, 085401 (2021)

    2021

  40. [50]

    Yokomizo and S

    K. Yokomizo and S. Murakami, Phys. Rev. B104, 165117 (2021)

    2021

  41. [51]

    Molignini, O

    P. Molignini, O. Arandes, and E. J. Bergholtz, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 033058 (2023)

    2023

  42. [52]

    Li, H.-R

    B. Li, H.-R. Wang, F. Song, and Z. Wang, Phys. Rev. B 108, L161409 (2023)

    2023

  43. [54]

    Jiang, R

    Z. Jiang, R. Okamoto, and H. Obuse, Phys. Rev. B109, 235408 (2024)

    2024

  44. [55]

    Sawada, K

    T. Sawada, K. Sone, R. Hamazaki, Y. Ashida, and T. Sagawa, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 046602 (2024)

    2024

  45. [56]

    Liu, J.-M

    G.-J. Liu, J.-M. Zhang, S.-Z. Li, and Z. Li, Phys. Rev. A 110, 012222 (2024)

    2024

  46. [57]

    D. Peng, S. Cheng, and G. Xianlong, Phys. Rev. B111, 094204 (2025)

    2025

  47. [59]

    Shigedomi and T

    Y. Shigedomi and T. Yoshida, Phys. Rev. B113, 035121 (2026)

    2026

  48. [60]

    L. N. Trefethen and M. Embree,Spectra and Pseudospec- tra(Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2005)

    2005

  49. [61]

    Lucas Metz, I

    F. Lucas Metz, I. Neri, and T. Rogers, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.52, 434003 (2019)

    2019

  50. [62]

    Ashida, Z

    Y. Ashida, Z. Gong, and M. Ueda, Adv. Phys.69, 249 (2020)

    2020

  51. [63]

    X. Feng, S. Liu, S.-X. Zhang, and S. Chen, Phys. Rev. B 111, 224310 (2025)

    2025

  52. [65]

    See Supplemental Material for details on the analysis of the model in the absence of quasiperiodicity, the deriva- tion of the scaling law of condition number, the regime di- agram characterized by entanglement entropy, the regime diagram in the strong impurity regime, and dis...

  53. [66]

    Claes and T

    J. Claes and T. L. Hughes, Phys. Rev. B103, L140201 (2021)

    2021

  54. [67]

    Kawabata, T

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

    2023

  55. [68]

    Quasiperiodicity-induced non-Hermitian skin effect from the breakdown of scale-free localization

    K. Saito, Data for research on regimes in a non-Hermitian quasiperiodic system with an impurity bond (2026). 7 Supplemental Materials for “Quasiperiodicity-induced non-Hermitian skin effect from the breakdown of scale-free localization” Kazuma Saito,1,2 Ryo Okugawa,1 Kazuki Yo...

    2026

  56. [70]

    Guo, C.-H

    C.-X. Guo, C.-H. Liu, X.-M. Zhao, Y. Liu, and S. Chen, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 116801 (2021)

    2021

  57. [71]

    Y.-C. Wang, H. H. Jen, and J.-S. You, Phys. Rev. B108, 085418 (2023)

    2023

  58. [72]

    L. Li, C. H. Lee, and J. Gong, Commun. Phys.4, 42 (2021)

    2021

  59. [73]

    Y. O. Nakai, N. Okuma, D. Nakamura, K. Shimomura, and M. Sato, Phys. Rev. B109, 144203 (2024)

    2024

  60. [74]

    Kawabata, T

    K. Kawabata, T. Numasawa, and S. Ryu, Phys. Rev. X13, 021007 (2023)

    2023

  61. [75]

    Zhou, Phys

    L. Zhou, Phys. Rev. B109, 024204 (2024)

    2024

  62. [76]

    Li, X.-J

    S.-Z. Li, X.-J. Yu, and Z. Li, Phys. Rev. B109, 024306 (2024). 12 λ / J 0 1 2 30.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 3.5 〈eαc44 †c45 + e-αc45 †c44〉| | 〈eαc89 †c1 + e-αc1 †c89〉μ| | FIG. S4. Ratio of the absolute value of the boundary hopping expectation to that of the bulk hopping as a function of t...

    2024

  63. [89]

    (c) Spatial distributions of the density|ψ(x)| 2 forL= 89 and lnµ=−25

    The closed (open) symbols represent the spectra for lnµ= −25 (µ= 1). (c) Spatial distributions of the density|ψ(x)| 2 forL= 89 and lnµ=−25. (d) Localization lengths,ξ 0 (for λ= 0) andξ 1 (forλ= 2.7J), for lnµ=−25. stillλ <1.7J,κ R shows increasing behavior, with the growth rat...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.