Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 42 references

Emulation of Self-Consistent Non-Hermitian Quantum Formalisms

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A dilation-based protocol embeds non-Hermitian quantum dynamics in a larger closed system and yields the first direct tomographic measurement of the dynamical metric.

desk verdict The BoNd protocol is sound, but the GBoNd dilation that is supposed to access the metric-formalism state η|ψ> is not unitary as written, so the paper's central experimental claim is unsupported. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.13078 v1 pith:QNIKYV57 submitted 2025-07-17 quant-ph

Mario Gonzalez , Karin Sim , R. Chitra This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords non-HermitianquantummechanicsmetricformalismoperatordilationNaimarkparity-timesymmetrydynamicalsimulationbiorthogonal
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 sets out to show that the two self-consistent formulations of non-Hermitian quantum mechanics — the norm method and the metric (biorthogonal) formalism — can be realized on a closed, unitary quantum computer rather than remaining theoretical constructions. The proposed operator dilation schemes embed the non-Hermitian system in a larger Hermitian one, and projective measurements on the ancilla qubits make the normally inaccessible states $|\psi(t)\rangle$, $\rho(t)|\psi(t)\rangle$, and $\eta(t)|\psi(t)\rangle$ separately available. On a digital quantum simulator, the tomographically reconstructed dynamical metric $\rho(t)$ matches the analytical solution in both the parity-time-symmetric and broken regimes for a two-level system. If it holds beyond the qubit proof of principle, the scheme makes the metric formalism experimentally testable and opens the way to probing non-Hermitian phenomena in many-body settings.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the operator dilation $\zeta(t)$, a time-dependent unitary embedding of the non-Hermitian time evolution into a closed Hermitian system with ancillas. Its block form in Eq. (7) is chosen with $C(t)\propto\mathrm{tr}[\rho(t)+\rho^{-1}(t)]$ for two-level systems, which simplifies to the block matrix in Eq. (9) and is claimed to keep the dilation valid at all times, including the PT-broken regime. The metric itself, $\rho(t)=\eta^2(t)$, evolves by $i\dot{\rho}=H^{\dagger}\rho-\rho H$, and $\eta$ maps the non-Hermitian state to the equivalent Hermitian state via $|\Psi\rangle=\eta|\psi\rangle$. The dilation is the object that makes the normally inaccessible metric accessible through ancilla postselection and tomography.

What would settle it

Compute whether $\zeta(t)$ from Eq. (7) with $C(t)\propto\mathrm{tr}[\rho(t)+\rho^{-1}(t)]$ satisfies $\zeta^{\dagger}(t)\zeta(t)=I$ for a Hamiltonian of dimension three or higher in the parity-time-broken regime; finding any time where $U_{\mathrm{tot}}^{\dagger}U_{\mathrm{tot}}\neq I$ would show the embedding is not a closed Hermitian evolution.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a single total evolution $U_{\mathrm{tot}}(t,t_0)=\zeta^{-1}(t)(U_h(t,t_0)\otimes I)\zeta(t_0)$, built from a time-dependent operator dilation $\zeta(t)$ of the metric's square root $\eta(t)$, realizes non-Hermitian dynamics inside a purely Hermitian closed system. Postselecting on the ancilla outcomes yields three time-evolved states: the norm-method state $|\psi(t)\rangle$, the biorthogonal left state $\rho(t)|\psi(t)\rangle$, and the metric-formalism state $\eta(t)|\psi(t)\rangle$. The paper reports the first experimental access to the metric operator $\rho(t)$ via state tomography on the latter two states, finding good agreement with analytics for the Hamiltonian $H=\sigma_x+i r\sigma_z$ in both PT-symmetric and PT-broken regimes. It also observes that in the PT-symmetric regime the dynamical metric is time-periodic and its time average $\rho_C$ satisfies $H^{\dagger}\rho_C=\rho_C H$, recovering the stationary pseudo-Hermiticity transformation.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the block matrix used in the dilation is a norm-preserving (unitary) operation at every time, including after parity-time symmetry breaking; the paper asserts this for two-level systems with the chosen $C(t)\propto\mathrm{tr}[\rho+\rho^{-1}]$ but supplies no general proof.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • One circuit realizes all three relevant non-Hermitian states simultaneously, so the norm method and the metric formalism can be compared on identical experimental conditions.
  • The metric operator $\rho(t)$ becomes a directly measurable quantity rather than an inferred theoretical object, since BoNd reconstructs it from tomographic data.
  • Both GBoNd and BoNd remain well-defined in the PT-broken regime for arbitrary times, whereas the original Naimark dilation breaks down when $\rho(t)-I$ ceases to be positive semidefinite.
  • The measured difference at the exceptional point — metric-formalism observables tend to $\langle\sigma_y\rangle\to 0$, $\langle\sigma_z\rangle\to -1$, while the norm method gives the reverse — demonstrates that the two formalisms are experimentally distinguishable.
  • The time-averaged metric in the PT-symmetric phase obeys the pseudo-Hermiticity relation, connecting the dynamical metric to the static similarity transformation usually used to define PT-symmetric quantum mechanics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves implicit that the same dilation circuit could provide a synthetic-laboratory test of information-theoretic bounds: in the metric picture, faster-than-Hermitian evolution and Lieb-Robinson violations of the norm method are tamed, and the protocol gives a way to compare both pictures on a single platform.
  • If the unitarity of the dilation survives in higher dimensions with a suitable $C(t)$, a natural extension is to many-body or lattice systems, where the dynamical metric could be used to observe the non-Hermitian skin effect or geometry-driven defect freezing directly.
  • The authors' analogy between the self-consistent metric and general relativity suggests a testable toy model: treat the ancilla qubits as a synthetic background whose 'geometry' ($\rho$) is back-reacted by the system's evolution, and look for observable signatures in the postselected branch probabilities.
  • Because the qubit demonstration has $\det\rho=1$, the simple choice $C(t)\propto\mathrm{tr}[\rho+\rho^{-1}]$ is exact; testing BoNd on a system with $\det\rho\neq 1$ would pin down whether the protocol's general validity claim needs additional assumptions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes two operator-dilation protocols, the 'Biorthogonal Naimark dilation' (BoNd) and the 'Generalized Biorthogonal Naimark dilation' (GBoNd), to realize non-Hermitian quantum dynamics inside a larger unitary circuit. The BoNd protocol is designed to give access to the norm-evolved state |ψ(t)> and the left state ρ(t)|ψ(t)>; the GBoNd protocol is designed to additionally give access to the metric-formalism state η(t)|ψ(t)>. The authors implement both on IBM Quantum for the qubit Hamiltonian H=σx+i r σz, compare tomographic reconstructions with analytical solutions, and report the first experimental access to the dynamical metric ρ(t).

Significance. Access to the dynamical metric ρ(t) in a closed-system embedding would be a valuable methodological advance, because the metric is the central object of the self-consistent non-Hermitian formalism and is generally not directly measurable in a closed non-Hermitian system. The BoNd construction is sound for qubits (det ρ=1 makes ρ+ρ^{-1} proportional to the identity, so the dilation is unitary), and the experimental data in Fig. 3 show good agreement without fitted parameters. However, the GBoNd protocol, which is the only part claiming access to η(t)|ψ(t)> and to observables in the metric formalism, is not a unitary dilation as written. Since this undermines the paper's strongest claim, the manuscript cannot be accepted in its present form.

major comments (3)
  1. [GBoNd protocol, Eq. (9)] The block matrix in Eq. (9) is not a unitary dilation of η_G for the stated C(t). For M = 1/√C [[η_G^{-1}, η_G],[η_G, -η_G^{-1}]] to be unitary, the first column must satisfy η_G^{-2} + η_G^2 = C I_{H⊗A}, i.e. ρ_G^{-1} + ρ_G = C I. With ρ_G = ρ⊗|0><0|_a + I⊗|1><1|_a, this requires both ρ^{-1}+ρ = C and 2I = C on the two blocks, forcing ρ = I. For the implemented Hamiltonian (11) ρ(t) ≠ I for t>0, so ζ_G^{-1}(t) is non-unitary. Consequently U_tot = ζ_G^{-1}(t)(U_h⊗I)ζ_G(t0) is not a closed Hermitian evolution, and the embedding claim for GBoNd collapses.
  2. [GBoNd protocol, Eq. (10)] Even taken as a formal linear map, Eq. (9) does not yield the normalized state (10). Applying Eq. (9) to |ψ(t0)>|+>_a|+>_b gives, up to relabeling of the ancillas, (1/√(2C))[|ψ>|00> + ρ|ψ>|10> + η|ψ>(|01>+|11>)]. This is proportional to Eq. (10) but with prefactor 1/√(2C), not 1/√C; the norm equals 1 only if 2C = 1 + 2⟨ρ⟩ + ⟨ρ^2⟩, which is not the chosen C(t)=tr[ρ_G+ρ_G^{-1}]/D. Thus the postselection probabilities and the tomographic reconstruction based on Eq. (10) are not those of a unitary circuit, and the Fig. 2 data cannot be interpreted as the advertised metric-formalism observables.
  3. [Metric formalism, Eq. (7)] The assertion that C(t) ∝ tr[ρ(t)+ρ^{-1}(t)] 'ensures the validity of our dilation at all times' is not proved and is false in general. The off-diagonal block √(C I - ρ^{-1}) in Eq. (7) requires C(t) ≥ ||ρ^{-1}(t)||. For a three-dimensional example with ρ eigenvalues 100,1,1, the proposed C = tr[ρ+ρ^{-1}]/D ≈ 104.01/3 < 100, so the square root is not real. The simplified BoNd case works only because a qubit with det ρ = 1 satisfies ρ+ρ^{-1} = (λ+1/λ)I; this special structure should be stated as the reason, rather than presenting the trace choice as generally valid.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Notation] D is used inconsistently: in the BoNd section D=tr[Is], while in the GBoNd section D=tr[Is,a]; please define D explicitly in each context and ensure the formula for C(t) is dimensionally consistent.
  2. [Supplemental material [39]] The supplemental material is cited for the circuit decomposition and for the Hermiticity of the total Hamiltonian, but as submitted it is only a placeholder URL; these implementation details are not verifiable in the current manuscript.
  3. [Fig. 2] The time axis in Fig. 2 is labelled 'in units of [s]=1'; this is unclear, since the circuit time is not physical time. Please specify the relation between the plotted parameter t and the actual gate parameters used in the compiled circuit.
  4. [Conclusion] The notation ∮ for the time average over a period is not defined; please define it explicitly or replace it with a standard time-average symbol.
  5. [Eq. (12)] The normalization denominator ⟨χ(t)|χ(t)⟩ assumes the state is nonzero; at exceptional points or at special times some of the states may vanish, so the condition for the denominator to be nonzero should be stated.
  6. [General] The dilation gates in both protocols are constructed from the analytical ρ(t); the authors should state explicitly that the experiment is an emulation that uses the theoretical metric to build the circuit, rather than a measurement that is independent of the solution.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity in the derivation: the analytical curves follow from solving Eq. (1) with ρ(t0)=I, and no parameters are fitted to the measured data.

  1. other [GBoNd section, Eqs. (7)-(10) and Fig. 1(b)]
    "With this choice, the expression for the dilation simplifies to ζ −1 G (t) = ... [Eq. (9)]. The total time evolution operator is now given by Utot(t, t0) = ζ −1 G (t)(Uh(t, t0) ⊗ Ia,b)ζG(t0). ... the final state |Ψ(t)⟩ = Utot(t, t0) |Ψ(t0)⟩ implementing our GBoNd protocol is given by [Eq. (10)] ..."

    The experimental unitary is assembled from ζG(t), which is defined through the theoretical metric: ρG(t) = ρ(t)⊗|0⟩⟨0| + I⊗|1⟩⟨1|, ηG is its principal square root, and ζG^{-1} in Eq. (9) is the block matrix containing ηG and ηG^{-1}. The tomographically reconstructed state in Eq. (10) therefore contains ρ(t)|ψ(t)⟩ and η(t)|ψ(t)⟩ by construction. The measured 'metric dynamics' is thus an echo of the same ρ(t) used to set C(t) and the dilation gates; it verifies that the compiled circuit implements the intended dilation rather than independently testing the metric equation. This is a mild methodological circularity, not a fitted-parameter or self-citation problem, and the analytical curves themselves are derived from Eq. (1) with ρ(t0)=I.

full rationale

The paper's theoretical derivation is self-contained. The metric ρ(t) is defined as the solution of Eq. (1) with ρ(t0)=I; η is its principal square root; h(t) is defined via Eq. (2); and the identity UH = η^{-1}Uhη(t0) underlies the dilation construction. No parameter is fitted to the measured data: the dashed analytical lines in Figs. 2 and 3 come from solving Eq. (1) with the stated initial condition, and the experimental points are benchmarked against those closed-form solutions. The self-citations (Refs. [32], [34], and the Supplemental Material [39]) are background or standard factorization results and are not load-bearing in the derivation of the dilation; the central mathematical content is Eq. (7) plus the chosen C(t), and the simplification to Eq. (9) is algebraic. The main caveat is that the circuit is constructed using the theoretical ρ(t) and η(t), so the experimental confirmation of the metric dynamics is a verification of the circuit implementation rather than an independent falsifiable test of the non-Hermitian formalism. Separately, the claim that C(t) ∝ tr[ρG+ρG^{-1}] 'ensures the validity of our dilation at all times' is asserted without proof; for the two-ancilla GBoNd case, ρG+ρG^{-1} is not generally proportional to the identity, so the replacement of the square-root blocks in Eq. (7) by ηG is not generally unitary. That is a correctness concern, not a circularity. Overall, the circularity level is low.

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

The dilation protocols are new circuits, not new physical entities. The metric rho(t) is taken from prior literature. No free parameters are fitted to the experimental data; the Hamiltonian parameter r and the scale C(t) are chosen by hand but are not fitted to the measured results.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The metric formalism, with the dynamical metric rho(t) obeying Eq. (1) and initial condition rho(t0)=I, is the correct self-consistent description of non-Hermitian quantum mechanics.
    The paper presupposes the metric formalism from Refs. [5,8,26,27] and does not test it against the norm method; the experiment demonstrates emulation, not adjudication.
  • ad hoc to paper The block matrix in Eq. (7), with C(t) = tr[rho_G+rho_G^-1]/D, is a unitary dilation for all times, so that U_tot is a closed Hermitian evolution.
    The unitarity of the dilation is essential for the embedding claim but is asserted without a proof. For the implemented traceless qubit, det(rho)=1 makes the simplification in Eq. (9) exact, but the general case is not shown.
  • domain assumption The approximate quantum compiler of Ref. [40] at circuit depth 3 yields a faithful circuit approximation of U_tot.
    The experimental evidence depends on the fidelity of the compiled circuit; the compilation error is not quantified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Emulation of Self-Consistent Non-Hermitian Quantum Formalisms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QNIKYV57

@misc{pith2026250713078,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Emulation of Self-Consistent Non-Hermitian Quantum Formalisms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QNIKYV57}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.13078}
}
read the original abstract

Standard quantum mechanics predicts the non-conservation of state norms and probability when the fundamental requirement of the Hermiticity of the Hamiltonian is relaxed. Biorthogonal quantum mechanics, or the more general metric formalism, provides a rigorous formulation of non-Hermitian quantum mechanics wherein norms and probabilities are conserved. The key feature is that the Hilbert space is endowed with a non-trivial dynamical metric. Beyond theoretical considerations, the physical implementation of the metric formalism remains unaddressed. In this work, we propose novel operator dilation schemes, which show that the self-consistent non-Hermitian quantum mechanics can be accessed in physical platforms via an embedding in closed Hermitian systems. Using digital quantum simulators, we present a proof of principle and the first experimental evidence for the dynamical metric engendered by non-Hermiticity in a qubit. Our work ushers in a new paradigm in the quantum simulation of non-Hermitian systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.13078 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Schematic of the Hilbert spaces with their corre [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The spin expectation values [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Considering an initial state |Ψ(t0)⟩ = |ψ(t0)⟩ s ⊗ |+⟩a ⊗ |+⟩ b , where |+⟩ = √ 1 2 (|0⟩ + |1⟩), the final state |Ψ(t)⟩ = Utot(t, t0)|Ψ(t0)⟩ implementing our GBoNd pro￾tocol is given by |Ψ(t)⟩ = 1 p C(t)  |ψ(t)⟩ s |00⟩ + ρ(t)|ψ(t)⟩ s |10⟩ + η(t)|ψ(t)⟩ s (|11⟩ + |01⟩)  , (10) In the above equation, for the sake of readability, we [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The evolutions of the normalized state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Dirac, The principles of quantum mechanics, 1st edn 1930, 4th (1958)

    P. Dirac, The principles of quantum mechanics, 1st edn 1930, 4th (1958)

    work page 1958

  2. [2]

    C. M. Bender and S. Boettcher, Real spectra in non- hermitian hamiltonians having p t symmetry, Physical review letters 80, 5243 (1998)

    work page 1998

  3. [3]

    C. M. Bender, Making sense of non-hermitian hamiltoni- ans, Reports on Progress in Physics 70, 947 (2007)

    2007

  4. [4]

    A. Mostafazadeh, Pseudo-hermiticity versus pt symme- try: The necessary condition for the reality of the spec- trum of a non-hermitian hamiltonian, Journal of Mathe- matical Physics 43, 205 (2002)

    work page 2002

  5. [5]

    Mostafazadeh and A

    A. Mostafazadeh and A. Batal, Physical aspects of pseudo-hermitian and pt-symmetric quantum mechan- ics, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 37, 11645 (2004)

    work page 2004

  6. [6]

    A. Mostafazadeh, A physical realization of the general- ized pt-, c-, and cpt-symmetries and the position operator for klein–gordon fields, International Journal of Modern Physics A 21, 2553 (2006)

    work page 2006

  7. [7]

    Mostafazadeh, Quantum brachistochrone problem and the geometry of the state space¡? format?¿ in pseudo- hermitian quantum mechanics, Physical review letters 99, 130502 (2007)

    A. Mostafazadeh, Quantum brachistochrone problem and the geometry of the state space¡? format?¿ in pseudo- hermitian quantum mechanics, Physical review letters 99, 130502 (2007)

    work page 2007

  8. [8]

    Mostafazadeh, Pseudo-hermitian representation of quantum mechanics, International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics 7, 1191 (2010)

    A. Mostafazadeh, Pseudo-hermitian representation of quantum mechanics, International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics 7, 1191 (2010)

    work page 2010

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Mostafazadeh, Time-dependent pseudo-hermitian hamiltonians and a hidden geometric aspect of quantum mechanics, Entropy 22, 471 (2020)

    A. Mostafazadeh, Time-dependent pseudo-hermitian hamiltonians and a hidden geometric aspect of quantum mechanics, Entropy 22, 471 (2020)

    2020

  2. [10]

    R. F. Streater and A. S. Wightman,PCT, spin and statis- tics, and all that, Vol. 30 (Princeton University Press, 2000)

    2000

  3. [11]

    Neumark, Spectral functions of a symmetric operator, Izvestiya Rossiiskoi Akademii Nauk

    M. Neumark, Spectral functions of a symmetric operator, Izvestiya Rossiiskoi Akademii Nauk. Seriya Matematich- eskaya 4, 277 (1940)

    1940

  4. [12]

    Y. Wu, W. Liu, J. Geng, X. Song, X. Ye, C.-K. Duan, X. Rong, and J. Du, Observa- tion of parity-time symmetry breaking in a single-spin system, Science 364, 878 (2019), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.aaw8205

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    Ashida, Z

    Y. Ashida, Z. Gong, and M. Ueda, Non-hermitian physics, Advances in Physics 69, 249 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    C. M. Bender, D. C. Brody, H. F. Jones, and B. K. Meis- ter, Faster than hermitian quantum mechanics, Physical 6 Review Letters 98, 040403 (2007)

    2007

  7. [15]

    X. Zhan, K. Wang, L. Xiao, Z. Bian, Y. Zhang, B. C. Sanders, C. Zhang, and P. Xue, Experimental quantum cloning in a pseudo-unitary system, Physical Review A 101, 010302 (2020)

    2020

  8. [16]

    Turkeshi and M

    X. Turkeshi and M. Schir´ o, Entanglement and correlation spreading in non-hermitian spin chains, Physical Review B 107, L020403 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    Couvreur, J

    R. Couvreur, J. L. Jacobsen, and H. Saleur, Entangle- ment in nonunitary quantum critical spin chains, Physi- cal review letters 119, 040601 (2017)

    2017

  10. [18]

    Zhang, J

    Y. Zhang, J. Carrasquilla, and Y. B. Kim, Observa- tion of a non-hermitian supersonic mode, arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.15557 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Shibata and H

    N. Shibata and H. Katsura, Dissipative spin chain as a non-hermitian kitaev ladder, Physical Review B 99, 174303 (2019)

    2019

  12. [20]

    Martinez-Azcona, A

    P. Martinez-Azcona, A. Kundu, A. Saxena, A. del Campo, and A. Chenu, Quantum dynamics with stochastic non-hermitian hamiltonians, arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.07746 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    P. Lu, T. Liu, Y. Liu, X. Rao, Q. Lao, H. Wu, F. Zhu, and L. Luo, Realizing quantum speed limit in open system with a PT -symmetric trapped-ion qubit, New Journal of Physics 26, 013043 (2024)

    2024

  14. [22]

    J. C. Budich and E. J. Bergholtz, Non-hermitian topolog- ical sensors, Physical Review Letters 125, 180403 (2020)

    2020

  15. [23]

    McDonald and A

    A. McDonald and A. A. Clerk, Exponentially-enhanced quantum sensing with non-hermitian lattice dynamics, Nature communications 11, 5382 (2020)

    2020

  16. [24]

    Wiersig, Review of exceptional point-based sensors, Photonics Research 8, 1457 (2020)

    J. Wiersig, Review of exceptional point-based sensors, Photonics Research 8, 1457 (2020)

    2020

  17. [25]

    H. Schomerus, Nonreciprocal response theory of non- hermitian mechanical metamaterials: Response phase transition from the skin effect of zero modes, Physical Review Research 2, 013058 (2020)

    2020

  18. [26]

    H¨ ornedal, O

    N. H¨ ornedal, O. A. Pro´ sniak, A. del Campo, and A. Chenu, A geometrical description of non-hermitian dynamics: speed limits in finite rank density operators, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.13913 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Mostafazadeh, Time-dependent pseudo-hermitian hamiltonians and a hidden geometric aspect of quantum mechanics, Entropy 22, 10.3390/e22040471 (2020)

    A. Mostafazadeh, Time-dependent pseudo-hermitian hamiltonians and a hidden geometric aspect of quantum mechanics, Entropy 22, 10.3390/e22040471 (2020)

    2020 doi

  20. [28]

    D. C. Brody, Biorthogonal quantum mechanics, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 47, 035305 (2013)

    2013

  21. [29]

    Anandan and Y

    J. Anandan and Y. Aharonov, Geometry of quantum evo- lution, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 1697 (1990)

    1990

  22. [30]

    J. P. Provost and G. Vallee, Riemannian structure on manifolds of quantum states, Communications in Math- ematical Physics 76, 289 (1980)

    1980

  23. [31]

    D. C. Brody, Consistency of pt-symmetric quantum me- chanics, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theo- retical 49, 10LT03 (2016)

    2016

  24. [32]

    K. Sim, N. Defenu, P. Molignini, and R. Chitra, Quantum metric unveils defect freezing in non-hermitian systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 156501 (2023)

    2023

  25. [33]

    O. M. Shalit, Dilation theory: a guided tour, in Operator theory, functional analysis and applications (Springer,

  26. [34]

    K. Sim, N. Defenu, P. Molignini, and R. Chitra, Observ- ables in non-hermitian systems: A methodological com- parison, Physical Review Research 7, 013325 (2025)

    2025

  27. [35]

    Das, Pseudo-hermitian quantum mechanics, in Jour- nal of Physics: Conference Series, Vol

    A. Das, Pseudo-hermitian quantum mechanics, in Jour- nal of Physics: Conference Series, Vol. 287 (IOP Pub- lishing, 2011) p. 012002

    2011

  28. [36]

    Dogra, A

    S. Dogra, A. A. Melnikov, and G. S. Paraoanu, Quan- tum simulation of parity–time symmetry breaking with a superconducting quantum processor, Communications Physics 4, 26 (2021)

    2021

  29. [37]

    Beneduci, Notes on naimark’s dilation theorem, in Journal of Physics: Conference Series, Vol

    R. Beneduci, Notes on naimark’s dilation theorem, in Journal of Physics: Conference Series, Vol. 1638 (IOP Publishing, 2020) p. 012006

    2020

  30. [38]

    Zhang, Q.-h

    D.-J. Zhang, Q.-h. Wang, and J. Gong, Time-dependent pt-symmetric quantum mechanics in generic non- hermitian systems, Physical Review A 100, 062121 (2019)

    2019

  31. [39]

    Morales Gonzalez, K

    M. Morales Gonzalez, K. Sim, and R. Chitra, Supple- mental material, URL_will_be_inserted_by_publisher (2025), (and Ref. [40] therein)

    2025

  32. [40]

    Madden and A

    L. Madden and A. Simonetto, Best approximate quan- tum compiling problems, ACM Transactions on Quan- tum Computing 3, 1 (2022)

    2022

  33. [41]

    Paulsen, Completely bounded maps and operator alge- bras, Vol

    V. Paulsen, Completely bounded maps and operator alge- bras, Vol. 78 (Cambridge University Press, 2002)

    2002

  34. [42]

    Molignini, O

    P. Molignini, O. Arandes, and E. J. Bergholtz, Anoma- lous skin effects in disordered systems with a single non- hermitian impurity, Physical Review Research 5, 033058 (2023)

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.