Nonhermitian defect states from lifetime differences

Henning Schomerus; Mart\'i Bosch; Martina Hentschel; Simon Malzard

Nonhermitian defect states from lifetime differences

T0 review · 0 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Lifetime differences alone can create non-Hermitian defect states

desk verdict A clean symmetry argument plus full-wave confirmation that lifetime differences alone produce nonhermitian defect states; the interface-hopping assumption deserves a check but doesn't sink the central result. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08738 v2 pith:NXN6WSSA submitted 2019-08-23 physics.optics

Martí Bosch , Simon Malzard , Martina Hentschel , Henning Schomerus This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.optics

keywords non-Hermitianphotonicsdefectstatescoupled-resonatoropticalwaveguidewhispering-gallerymodeslifetimedifferencesexceptionalpointsmicroresonatorstight-bindingmodel

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

The paper shows that interface-localized defect states in open optical systems need not rely on asymmetric backscattering, whether reciprocal or nonreciprocal. Instead, they can arise purely from lifetime differences between otherwise degenerate resonator modes. The authors demonstrate this in a lossy coupled-resonator optical waveguide: a chain of circular microresonators, each perturbed by a nanoparticle, with the perturbation position flipped across an interface. Tight-binding analysis predicts a spectrally isolated quadruplet of defect states at the interface, and full-wave simulations of a twelve-resonator chain confirm the localization and the complex-eigenfrequency pattern. If correct, the result means a simple, symmetric, purely passive resonator chain can host non-Hermitian defect states without the elaborate coupling engineering previously thought necessary.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the $2\times 2$ non-Hermitian Hamiltonian that describes a single whispering-gallery mode pair, extended to a chain by evanescent inter-resonator coupling $T=\begin{pmatrix}0&W\\W&0\end{pmatrix}$. The key step is what the paper calls lifetime backscattering: when a symmetric perturbation makes the standing-wave combinations of these modes differ only in lifetime ($\mathrm{Re}\,\delta=0$, $\mathrm{Im}\,\delta\neq 0$), the backscattering coefficients become equal and purely imaginary; rotating the resonator's symmetry axis by an angle $\beta$ obeying $2m\beta=\pi/2+n\pi$ turns these into real, opposite values $A=-B$. That effective term is what opens the gap and produces defect states localized at the interface where the rotation is inverted.

What would settle it

Simulate or fabricate the same twelve-resonator chain with the nanoparticle parameters tuned so that $\mathrm{Re}\,\delta\neq 0$ (for instance, a different $r/R$ at fixed $d/R$): if the spectrally isolated quadruplet at the interface does not disappear or shift as the tight-binding model predicts, the claim that lifetime differences alone drive the defect states is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that non-Hermitian defect states can be generated by lifetime (linewidth) differences alone, with no asymmetric backscattering inside or between resonators. In the two-mode description of a whispering-gallery mode pair (the clockwise and counterclockwise circulating modes of a circular resonator), a reflection-symmetric perturbation that keeps the real frequencies of the standing-wave components aligned but splits their imaginary parts yields purely imaginary backscattering coefficients; rotating the perturbation axis relative to the chain axis converts this into the real condition $A=-B$. A chain in which the perturbation angle is $\beta$ on one side of an interface and $\pi-\beta$ on the other therefore realizes the same exceptional-point defect mechanism (the point at which two eigenmodes coalesce) previously tied to asymmetric coupling. The paper verifies this with finite-element full-wave simulations of a chain of twelve nanoparticle-perturbed circular resonators, obtaining a quadruplet of interface-localized eigenmodes whose complex eigenfrequencies agree with the tight-binding prediction, with discrepancies attributed to the two-mode approximation.

Load-bearing premise

The argument hinges on the assumption that only one clockwise/counterclockwise circulating mode pair per resonator matters and that neighboring resonators couple exclusively through a real, uniform inter-mode coupling $W$ with no extra backscattering; if higher-order modes or coupling-induced backscattering become significant, the $A=-B$ condition that creates the defect states can be disrupted.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Non-Hermitian defect states can be engineered in symmetric resonator shapes with only local perturbations, removing the need for engineered asymmetric backscattering.
The design works with passive loss (openness) alone; no gain or nonreciprocal elements are required.
The interface-localized quadruplet is spectrally isolated and shows exponential decay away from the interface, making it detectable in scattering or transmission measurements.
Because the perturbation is local and the argument is perturbative, the concept transfers to other resonator geometries and platforms beyond the nanoparticle-decorated chain.

Reading between the lines

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

By extension, any local mechanism that splits only the lifetimes of a degenerate mode pair—surface roughness, material absorption, or boundary deformation—could replace the nanoparticle, broadening the set of experimental platforms where this effect should appear.
Time-resolved ringdown measurements at the interface should show the two long-lived defect states outlasting extended states, a dynamical signature the paper does not explicitly report.
Varying the inter-resonator spacing to tune the coupling $W$ across the threshold $|A|=2W$ should switch the defect states on and off, providing a direct test of the predicted phase boundary.

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

Colleague,

Read Bosch et al. The useful new thing: they show that the A=-B condition for nonhermitian defect states can be met without any asymmetric backscattering, using only a split in lifetimes between degenerate standing-wave modes. The symmetry derivation in Sec. III is clean and the tight-binding prediction is genuinely predictive—they extract δ and W from single-resonator and dimer calculations, then predict the chain spectrum. The full-wave COMSOL simulations of a 12-resonator CROW with nanoparticle perturbations show a localized quadruplet, and the complex eigenvalues line up with the tight-binding model well enough to support the mechanism. No code or data is shared, but the two-method comparison is credible.

The real soft spot is the one the stress-test flagged: the model assumes a single, real, uniform inter-resonator hopping W, including across the interface. At the interface the nanoparticle orientation flips, so the mode phases on the two sides differ; the overlap integral between left and right WGM tails can pick up a phase or develop diagonal terms. The paper neither computes nor bounds that interface hopping. It attributes the spectral mismatch to the two-mode approximation, but this specific assumption is untested. If the interface hopping differed significantly from W, the localized states could in principle come from a hopping defect rather than from the lifetime-induced A=-B. The authors do place the nanoparticles far from the coupling regions, which makes a large deviation unlikely, but 'unlikely' isn't verification. I'd want a paragraph showing the interface bond's effective coupling is close to W, either by a dimer calculation with the rotated geometry or by an argument that the phase drops out.

Other weaknesses are minor: the two-mode approximation is standard and the discrepancies are small; the lack of shared data is annoying but common. The citation to Ref. [15] is appropriate—it's the mechanism they extend.

Who gets value: anyone working on nonhermitian topological photonics, especially experimental groups looking for a simple way to make defect-state lasers. The design is practically accessible and the result is likely reproducible.

Recommendation: worth a serious referee. The central claim is important and mostly supported; the interface-hopping gap should be addressed in a revised version. I'd accept with that request.

Referee Report

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies a chain of coupled dielectric microresonators (a CROW) with a central interface created by flipping the orientation of a nanoparticle attached to each resonator. Within a two-mode tight-binding model, the authors show that if the nanoparticle splits only the lifetimes (imaginary diagonal splitting δ) of the standing-wave mode pair and if the orientation satisfies the condition 2mβ = π/2 + nπ, the effective resonator Hamiltonian acquires real, opposite off-diagonal elements A = -B. This produces the same exceptional-point mechanism for interface defect states as earlier reciprocal-asymmetric-backscattering models, but without asymmetric backscattering. The authors extract δ from single-resonator finite-element simulations and W from dimer simulations, and compare the tight-binding spectrum of a 12-resonator chain to full-wave COMSOL simulations. The full-wave calculation shows a quadruplet of interface-localized states with complex eigenfrequencies in reasonable agreement with the tight-binding prediction.

Significance. If correct, this result broadens the practical design space for nonhermitian defect-state photonics by removing the need for engineered asymmetric backscattering. The work's strengths are the clean symmetry derivation in Sec. III A, the fact that the chain spectrum is a genuine prediction (δ and W are not fitted to the chain spectrum), and the independent full-wave corroboration of the quadruplet of localized states. The paper is also careful to place the nanoparticle far from the coupling regions (Sec. IV A), which supports the uniform-hopping assumption. The demonstration is numerical rather than experimental, but the geometry is simple and practically accessible, making the concept readily testable.

minor comments (5)

[Sec. IV B] The claim that the interface hopping equals the bulk coupling W is justified by the choice of β far from the coupling regions, but the manuscript would be more convincing if it stated explicitly whether the dimer used to extract W was composed of two resonators with the same nanoparticle orientations as in the bulk, and whether a dimer with the flipped interface orientations was checked. As written, the reader must infer this from the later chain agreement; a one-sentence clarification would remove residual ambiguity.
[Sec. III A] The notation switches from A0 and B0 in Eq. (14) to A and B in Eqs. (17)-(18) without comment; please align the notation or explicitly define the relationship between the two sets of coefficients.
[Sec. III A] There is a typo in the text: 'oberservation' should be 'observation'.
[Fig. 6] The distinction between 'non-circular symbols' and 'unfilled symbols' is described only in the caption; adding a legend directly on the figure would improve readability.
[Abstract and Sec. II] The phrase 'lossy coupled-resonator optical waveguide' could be misread as implying material loss; the nonhermiticity here is radiative leakage, and a brief clarification in the text would be helpful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: tight-binding parameters are fitted to single-resonator and dimer data, and the chain full-wave simulation is an independent check; self-citations are contextual, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. Section III obtains A=-B from the orientation condition (19) via the algebraic relation A=-B=(-1)^n Im\delta; this is a derived condition, not an assumed target. The numerical inputs \delta=0.00203i and W=0.00076 are obtained from separate single-resonator and dimer full-wave simulations (Secs. IV A and IV B), not from the 12-resonator chain spectrum, so the chain tight-binding eigenfrequencies in Fig. 6 are genuine predictions. The full-wave COMSOL chain simulation independently reproduces the quadruplet of interface-localized states (Figs. 4-6), providing independent numerical support. Self-citations to Refs. [15,18] for the domain-wall mechanism and exponential decay, and Ref. [38] for the coupling form, supply context and analytic expectations, but the conclusion does not reduce to those citations because the full-wave data independently confirm localization and spectral isolation. The assumption of a single WGM pair and uniform off-diagonal coupling T is a modeling approximation; the paper explicitly attributes remaining discrepancies to the two-mode approximation. If the interface hopping were different, that would be a modeling-validity limitation, not a circular reduction of the prediction to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the two-mode tight-binding model, whose parameters delta and W are extracted from full-wave simulations of smaller systems. The main axioms are the two-mode approximation, the reciprocity/reflection symmetry constraints, and the adoption of the EP mechanism from prior work. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)

delta (complex mode splitting parameter) = 0.00203 i
Extracted from full-wave simulation of a single nanoparticle-perturbed resonator; tuned by choosing r/R such that Re(delta)=0, yielding the purely imaginary splitting that drives the defect-state mechanism.
W (inter-resonator coupling) = 0.00076
Extracted by comparing eigenfrequencies of an isolated resonator and a dimer for varying spacing; set at a/R=0.43.
r/R (nanoparticle size ratio) = 0.089
Tuned at fixed d/R=0.013 to make the real part of the mode splitting vanish, as required for the lifetime-only mechanism.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The 2D scalar wave equation with effective refractive index and outgoing-wave (Sommerfeld) boundary conditions describes the open microresonators (Sec. II, Eq. (1)).
Standard for low-aspect-ratio microresonators; reduces Maxwell's equations to a scalar problem.
domain assumption Only one whispering-gallery mode pair (CW/CCW) per resonator participates, and coupling between resonators occurs only between analogous counter-propagating modes with real, uniform coupling W (Sec. II, Eq. (3)).
This is the two-mode approximation; load-bearing because the tight-binding model and the predicted A=-B condition rely on it.
domain assumption Reciprocity and reflection symmetry of the resonator about the nanoparticle axis ensure the standing-wave Hamiltonian is symmetric with zero mode mixing Delta=0, so the backscattering coefficients are equal in magnitude (Sec. III A).
Physical symmetry constraints that convert the lifetime splitting into A0=B0=i Im(delta).
domain assumption The existence of defect states for real A=-B in the tight-binding chain follows the EP mechanism established in Ref. [15].
The paper adopts this prior result without re-deriving the defect-state existence condition; the new contribution is the physical route to A=-B.
ad hoc to paper A tuning point with Re(delta)=0 exists for the chosen nanoparticle geometry and can be reached by varying r/R (Sec. IV A).
Found by parameter sweep in full-wave simulation, not derived from first principles; the central demonstration depends on this condition.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nonhermitian defect states from lifetime differences." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NXN6WSSA

@misc{pith2026190808738,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nonhermitian defect states from lifetime differences},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NXN6WSSA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08738}
}

read the original abstract

Nonhermitian systems provide new avenues to create topological defect states. An unresolved general question is how much the formation of these states depends on asymmetric backscattering, be it nonreciprocal as in the nonhermitian skin effect or reciprocal as encountered between the internal states of asymmetric microresonators. Here, we demonstrate in a concrete, practically accessible setting of a lossy coupled-resonator optical waveguide that nonhermitian defect states can exist in open optical systems due to lifetime differences, without the need for asymmetric backscattering within or between the individual resonators. We apply our findings to a finite system of coupled circular resonators perturbed by nanoparticles, following the concept of creating an interface by inverting the position of the nanoparticles in half of the chain. We compare a coupled-mode tight-binding approximation to full-wave numerical simulations, showing that spectrally isolated defect states can indeed be implemented in this simple nonhermitian photonic device.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08738 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Calculated electric-field intensity distribution for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. (a) Circular microresonator of radius [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Electric field intensity in each resonator for the defect [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Geometry of the designed CROW system, consist [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Complex resonance eigenfrequencies of the res [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

[15]

Malzard, C

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

work page 2015
[1]

Hatano and D

N. Hatano and D. R. Nelson, Phys. Rev. B 56, 8651 (1997)

1997
[2]

Longhi, Phys

S. Longhi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 123601 (2009)

work page 2009
[3]

Jing, S ¸

H. Jing, S ¸. K. ¨Ozdemir, H. L¨ u, and F. Nori, Scientiﬁc Reports 7, 3386 (2017)

work page 2017
[4]

Z. H. Musslimani, K. G. Makris, R. El-Ganainy, and D. N. Christodoulides, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 030402 (2008)

work page 2008
[5]

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

2010
[6]

Y. D. Chong, L. Ge, and A. D. Stone, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 093902 (2011)

work page 2011
[7]

Peng, S ¸

B. Peng, S ¸. K.¨Ozdemir, F. Lei, F. Moniﬁ, M. Gianfreda, G. L. Long, S. Fan, F. Nori, C. M. Bender, and L. Yang, Nature Phys. 10, 394 (2014)

work page 2014

Show all 46 references

[8]

Longhi, Laser Photonics Rev

S. Longhi, Laser Photonics Rev. 3, 243 (2009)

2009
[9]

Wiersig, Phys

J. Wiersig, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 203901 (2014)

2014
[10]

Peng, S ¸

B. Peng, S ¸. K. ¨Ozdemir, M. Liertzer, W. Chen, J. Kramer, H. Yılmaz, J. Wiersig, S. Rotter, and L. Yang, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 113, 6845 (2016)

2016
[11]

Chen, S ¸

W. Chen, S ¸. Kaya ¨Ozdemir, G. Zhao, J. Wiersig, and L. Yang, Nature 548, 192 (2017)

2017
[12]

Kullig, C.-H

J. Kullig, C.-H. Yi, and J. Wiersig, Phys. Rev. A 98, 023851 (2018)

2018
[13]

El-Ganainy, K

R. El-Ganainy, K. G. Makris, M. Khajavikhan, Z. H. Musslimani, S. Rotter, and D. N. Christodoulides, Na- ture Physics 14, 11 (2018)

2018
[14]

C. Poli, M. Bellec, U. Kuhl, F. Mortessagne, and H. Schomerus, Nature Commun. 6, 6710 (2015)

2015
[16]

X. Ni, D. Smirnova, A. Poddubny, D. Leykam, Y. Chong, and A. B. Khanikaev, Phys. Rev. B 98, 165129 (2018)

2018
[17]

H. Zhou, C. Peng, Y. Yoon, C. W. Hsu, K. A. Nelson, L. Fu, J. D. Joannopoulos, M. Soljaˇ ci´ c, and B. Zhen, Science 359, 1009 (2018)

2018
[18]

Malzard and H

S. Malzard and H. Schomerus, Phys. Rev. A 98, 033807 (2018)

2018
[19]

Carlstr¨ om and E

J. Carlstr¨ om and E. J. Bergholtz, Phys. Rev. A 98, 042114 (2018)

2018
[20]

Schomerus, Opt

H. Schomerus, Opt. Lett. 38, 1912 (2013)

2013
[21]

St-Jean, V

P. St-Jean, V. Goblot, E. Galopin, A. Lemaˆ ıtre, T. Ozawa, L. Le Gratiet, I. Sagnes, J. Bloch, and A. Amo, Nat. Photonics 11, 651 (2017)

2017
[22]

H. Zhao, P. Miao, M. H. Teimourpour, S. Malzard, R. El- Ganainy, H. Schomerus, and L. Feng, Nat. Commun. 9, 8 981 (2018)

2018
[23]

R. Yao, H. Li, B. Zheng, S. An, J. Ding, C.-S. Lee, H. Zhang, and W. Guo, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1804.01587 (2018)

2018 arXiv
[24]

Y. Ota, R. Katsumi, K. Watanabe, S. Iwamoto, and Y. Arakawa, Commun. Phys. 1, 86 (2018)

2018
[25]

C. E. Whittaker, E. Cancellieri, P. M. Walker, B. Roy- all, L. E. Tapia Rodriguez, E. Clarke, D. M. Whittaker, H. Schomerus, M. S. Skolnick, and D. N. Krizhanovskii, Phys. Rev. B 99, 081402(R) (2019)

2019
[26]

Z. Gong, Y. Ashida, K. Kawabata, K. Takasan, S. Hi- gashikawa, and M. Ueda, Phys. Rev. X 8, 031079 (2018)

2018
[27]

Kawabata, K

K. Kawabata, K. Shiozaki, M. Ueda, and M. Sato, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1812.09133 (2018)

2018 arXiv
[28]

M. S. Rudner and L. S. Levitov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 065703 (2009)

2009
[29]

F. K. Kunst, E. Edvardsson, J. C. Budich, and E. J. Bergholtz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 026808 (2018)

2018
[30]

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

1996
[31]

Yao and Z

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

2018
[32]

C. Yin, H. Jiang, L. Li, R. L¨ u, and S. Chen, Phys. Rev. A 97, 052115 (2018)

2018
[33]

L.-J. Lang, Y. Wang, H. Wang, and Y. D. Chong, Phys. Rev. B 98, 094307 (2018)

2018
[34]

Hafezi, S

M. Hafezi, S. Mittal, J. Fan, A. Migdall, and J. M. Taylor, Nature Photon. 7, 1001 (2013)

2013
[35]

Longhi, D

S. Longhi, D. Gatti, and G. Della Valle, Phys. Rev. B 92, 094204 (2015)

2015
[36]

Wiersig, S

J. Wiersig, S. W. Kim, and M. Hentschel, Phys. Rev. A 78, 053809 (2008)

2008
[37]

Cao and J

H. Cao and J. Wiersig, Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 61 (2015)

2015
[38]

Schomerus and J

H. Schomerus and J. Wiersig, Phys. Rev. A 90, 053819 (2014)

2014
[39]

Wiersig, Phys

J. Wiersig, Phys. Rev. A 84, 063828 (2011)

2011
[40]

J. D. Jackson and R. F. Fox, Classical Electrodynamics, 3rd ed , Vol. 67 (1999) pp. 841–842

1999
[41]

S. H. Schot, Hist. Math. 19, 385 (1992)

1992
[42]

COMSOL Multiphysics Ⓡ v. 5.3. (2018)

2018
[43]

Berenger, J

J.-P. Berenger, J. Comput. Phys. 114, 185 (1994)

1994
[44]

J. T. Rubin and L. Deych, Phys. Rev. A 81, 053827 (2010)

2010
[45]

Deych, M

L. Deych, M. Ostrowski, and Y. Yi, Opt. Lett. 36, 3154 (2011)

2011
[46]

M. R. Foreman, J. D. Swaim, and F. Vollmer, Adv. Opt. Photon. 7, 168 (2015)

2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [15]

Malzard, C

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

work page 2015

[2] [1]

Hatano and D

N. Hatano and D. R. Nelson, Phys. Rev. B 56, 8651 (1997)

1997

[3] [2]

Longhi, Phys

S. Longhi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 123601 (2009)

work page 2009

[4] [3]

Jing, S ¸

H. Jing, S ¸. K. ¨Ozdemir, H. L¨ u, and F. Nori, Scientiﬁc Reports 7, 3386 (2017)

work page 2017

[5] [4]

Z. H. Musslimani, K. G. Makris, R. El-Ganainy, and D. N. Christodoulides, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 030402 (2008)

work page 2008

[6] [5]

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

2010

[7] [6]

Y. D. Chong, L. Ge, and A. D. Stone, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 093902 (2011)

work page 2011

[8] [7]

Peng, S ¸

B. Peng, S ¸. K.¨Ozdemir, F. Lei, F. Moniﬁ, M. Gianfreda, G. L. Long, S. Fan, F. Nori, C. M. Bender, and L. Yang, Nature Phys. 10, 394 (2014)

work page 2014