Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Programmable simulation of high-order exceptional point with a trapped ion

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Programmable trapped-ion simulation reaches a fourth-order exceptional point.

desk verdict First trapped-ion EP4, but the observation leans on fitting to the model that contains the EP; still worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.09776 v1 pith:TOUI2YOO submitted 2024-12-13 quant-ph

Yue Li , Yang Wu , Yuqi Zhou , Mengxiang Zhang , Xingyu Zhao , Yibo Yuan , Xu Cheng , Yi Li
show 4 more authors
Xi Qin Xing Rong Yiheng Lin Jiangfeng Du
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81Q1281P68
keywords exceptionalpointsnon-HermitianHamiltoniantrappedionquantumsimulationopensystemsfourth-orderEPdissipativecontrol
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 reports an experiment in which a single trapped 40Ca+ ion is programmed to simulate a four-level non-Hermitian Hamiltonian with individually controlled coherent couplings and dissipation rates. The central claim is the observation of a fourth-order exceptional point (EP4), where all four eigenvalues and eigenstates coalesce, and of two second-order exceptional points merging into that EP4 as parameters are tuned. If correct, this is the first trapped-ion demonstration of an EP4 and a step toward scalable quantum simulation of high-dimensional open systems. High-order exceptional points matter because they offer sharper sensitivity for quantum sensing and richer topological behavior than second-order EPs, but they have been difficult to engineer in a controlled quantum platform.

What carries the argument

The central object is the spin-3/2 normalized operator pair $X_4$ and $Z_4$, which encode the coherent hopping and the level-dependent dissipation in $H_4 = g(J X_4 + i\gamma Z_4)$. Experimentally, the coherent part is realized by simultaneously applying three frequency-addressable radio-frequency drives that couple adjacent Zeeman sublevels, with degeneracy broken by AC Stark shifts from a far-detuned 729 nm laser. The dissipative part is realized by an 854 nm laser whose polarization components $\epsilon_{\sigma^+}, \epsilon_{\sigma^-}, \epsilon_\pi$ set the individual decay rates through Clebsch-Gordan coefficients; the constraint $\gamma_1 - 3\gamma_2 + 3\gamma_3 - \gamma_4 = 0$ enforced by dipole matrix elements happens to match the target dissipation profile. Adding a global loss $-i\alpha g\gamma I$ leaves the EP structure unchanged, which is what allows the population traces to be fit with $\gamma$ as the only free parameter and the eigen-energies to be extracted from the diagonalization of the reconstructed Hamiltonian.

What would settle it

Directly measure the four eigenstates at the claimed EP4 condition by preparing each eigenstate and performing full state tomography on all four Zeeman sublevels; if the eigenstates remain distinguishable at $\gamma = J$, or if the fitted $\gamma$ disagrees with independently measured per-level decay rates beyond the reported error bars, the central claim of a fourth-order exceptional point is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors construct the four-dimensional non-Hermitian Hamiltonian $H_4 = g(J X_4 + i\gamma Z_4)$ using Zeeman sublevels of the $^2D_{5/2}$ manifold of a single $^{40}$Ca$^+$ ion. Coherent radio-frequency drives provide the off-diagonal hopping terms $J$, while an 854 nm laser with tunable polarization imposes level-dependent loss rates $\gamma$. By fitting the measured population dynamics of the state $|2\rangle$ to the model $H_4 - i\alpha g\gamma I$ with $\gamma$ as the only free parameter, they extract the complex eigen-energies and find that they are purely real for $\gamma < 1$, purely imaginary for $\gamma > 1$, and coalesce at $\gamma = J = 1$, the signature of an EP4. They then tune the coherent strengths $J_1,J_2$ along surfaces of second-order EPs and observe pairs of EP2s converging to the EP4, demonstrating the coalescence experimentally. The paper thus claims a native, programmable method for simulating high-order non-Hermitian Hamiltonians in a trapped ion, with six independent parameters controlled in the four-level system.

Load-bearing premise

The result stands or falls on the assumption that every measured population trace is accurately captured by the four-level non-Hermitian model with only the loss rate $\gamma$ left free, so that unmodeled experimental imperfections do not masquerade as the exceptional point.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The same trapped-ion toolbox can be scaled to more levels by applying a higher magnetic field to address additional transitions, potentially simulating higher-order EPs or more complex EP geometries.
  • The demonstrated control over parameters along EP2 surfaces provides a platform for studying topological encirclement and the complex energy surface around high-order exceptional points.
  • The polarization-based dissipative control is not limited to calcium ions and could extend to superconducting circuits, quantum dots, and atom arrays, as the paper notes.
  • Combining this programmable non-Hermitian simulation with ion-ion coupling in chains or 2D crystals may enable studies of many-body open quantum systems and dissipative phase transitions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test that the paper does not report is measuring all four eigenstates at the purported EP4; if the eigenstates do not coalesce to a single state there, the observation would demonstrate eigenvalue degeneracy but not full exceptional-point coalescence.
  • Because the extraction treats $\gamma$ as the only free parameter, an independent calibration of each level's decay rate (for example by direct decay measurements on individually prepared states) would test whether unmodeled leakage is contaminating the fitted loss rates.
  • The Clebsch-Gordan constraint that currently limits the dissipation profile could be lifted with stronger magnetic fields, which would open the way to fully programmable dissipative control in larger Zeeman manifolds and to EPs of order higher than four.
  • The fitting method implicitly assumes that the repumping pathway through the $^2P_{3/2}$ manifold returns population to the ground state without re-entering the four-level system; verifying this assumption with time-resolved shelving measurements would strengthen the interpretation.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a trapped-ion experiment in which four Zeeman sublevels of the 2D5/2 manifold of a single 40Ca+ ion are used to simulate the non-Hermitian Hamiltonian H4 = g(JX4 + iγZ4). Coherent couplings are implemented with individually addressed radio-frequency drives, and dissipation is engineered through an 854 nm laser with polarization-controlled pump rates. The authors measure the population of state |2⟩ as a function of time for a range of γ values, fit these traces to the theoretical evolution under H4 − iαgγI with γ as the only free parameter, and diagonalize the fitted Hamiltonian to obtain complex eigen-energies. They report the coalescence of four eigen-energy bands at γ = J as evidence of a fourth-order exceptional point, and they track two families of second-order exceptional points that merge into this EP4 as the coherent couplings approach J1 = J2 = 1.

Significance. If the central claim is accepted, this would be the first trapped-ion observation of a fourth-order exceptional point and a useful step toward programmable simulation of high-dimensional non-Hermitian systems. The work has clear strengths: it demonstrates native, individually controllable coherent and dissipative elements in a single ion; it uses Clebsch-Gordan engineering to realize the required dissipation ratio; it explores two distinct parameter paths along which EP2s coalesce into an EP4; and it provides bootstrap error bars on the extracted eigenvalues. The main weakness is that the eigenvalue extraction is model-constrained: the Hamiltonian is constructed with the EP4 built in, and the fitting procedure with a single free parameter maps the data onto that same model. The reported observation is therefore more accurately a consistency check with the predicted EP4 than an independent observation of the degeneracy.

major comments (3)
  1. [Energy extraction and additional data (Supplemental Material); Fig. 3] The central claim that an EP4 is observed at γ = J rests on the fitting procedure described in the main text and supplement: the measured P|2⟩ data are fit to the theoretical population under H4 − iαgγI with γ as the only free parameter, and the plotted eigen-energies in Fig. 3(b) are obtained by diagonalizing that fitted Hamiltonian. Since H4 is constructed so that all four eigenvalues coalesce exactly at γ = J, the observed collapse of the four bands is a property of the ansatz rather than an independently measured property of the data. I recommend adding a fit-independent signature—for example, polynomial-in-time growth of the population at the EP, fourth-root scaling of eigenvalue splittings under a controlled perturbation, or a direct frequency-domain analysis of the measured oscillations—or explicitly reframing the claim as a demonstration that the observed dynamics are consistent with the predicted EP4 Hamiltonian.
  2. [Fig. 4 and accompanying text] The identification of EP2s in Fig. 4(b)-(d) suffers from the same model dependence as the EP4 extraction: the band crossings are located from eigenvalues obtained by fitting the same one-parameter model. The claim that two EP2s move closer and coalesce into an EP4 is therefore not an independent observation. To make the coalescence claim load-bearing, the paper should report the fitted γ values against the set values for each trace, show the residuals of the fits, and provide confidence intervals on the separation of the two EP2s as a function of (J1, J2). This would demonstrate that the approach of the two EP2s is not already enforced by the fitting ansatz.
  3. [Dissipative control implementation; main text after Eq. (2)] The measured dissipation rates, quoted as 0.4(3) kHz, 10.0(4) kHz, 20.4(1.7) kHz, and 30.3(1.8) kHz, deviate from the exact 0:1:2:3 ratio used in the fit. Because the fitting procedure assumes the ideal relative rates and treats only the overall scale γ as free, these systematic deviations are absorbed into γ and can shift the apparent EP location. The paper should quantify how the quoted calibration uncertainties propagate into the extracted eigen-energies and into the position of the EP4 condition γ = J.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Supplemental Material heading] The heading 'SUPPLEMENT AL MA TERIAL' contains obvious spacing typos and should be corrected.
  2. [Fig. 2] Several labels in Fig. 2 are garbled or incomplete (for example, '|?⟩', 'AC stark', and '3?5/2'). The figure should be regenerated with clean, complete labels for the energy levels and transitions.
  3. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption states 'The black line represents the parameter trajectory demonstrated in this work' but it is not clear which panel or trajectory is meant; please specify the panel and the exact parameter path.
  4. [Introduction] The claim that the system demonstrates '6 independent parameters' would benefit from a one-sentence counting argument, especially because the dissipation components are constrained by the Clebsch-Gordan relation γ1 − 3γ2 + 3γ3 − γ4 = 0 and by the irrelevance of a global identity loss term.
  5. [Introduction and Reference [47]] The text says that experimental demonstration of EPn remains elusive in trapped-ion systems, yet Reference [47] (arXiv:2412.05870) is cited as demonstrating a third-order EP in a dissipative trapped-ion system. Please clarify the relation between that work and the claim of first demonstration of high-order EPs in trapped ions.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

The claimed EP4 observation is the diagonalization of the fitted H4 ansatz: the eigenvalue coalescence is an input property of the model, though the population traces provide independent time-domain evidence.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Main text, section 'Experimental observation of the EP4' (Fig. 3); see also Supplemental 'Energy extraction and additional data'.]
    "To extract eigen-energies of H4 and observe the EP4, we adopt the technique in [22, 23] and apply numerical curve fitting to the measured P|2⟩ data with the theoretical population under H4 − iαgγI, where we treat γ as the only free parameter. We then diagonalize the extracted Hamiltonian H′4 and obtain the eigen-energies normalized to g."

    The plotted 'experimental' eigen-energies are obtained by diagonalizing H4 at the fitted γ′. But H4 = g(JX4 + iγZ4) was constructed with normalized spin operators X4 and Z4 such that all four eigenvalues coalesce exactly at γ = J. Diagonalizing this same Hamiltonian at any fitted γ′ returns the theoretical band structure by construction, so the four bands touching at γ′ = 1 is an input property of the ansatz, not a feature extracted from the data. The P|2⟩(t) traces are genuine measurements and can validate or falsify the model, but they do not independently determine eigenvalue coalescence or a defective Jordan block.

full rationale

The paper does not rely on load-bearing self-citations or imported uniqueness theorems: the cited EP2 and EP3 works are background or provide the generic fitting technique, not the EP4 claim. The central reduction is the eigenvalue extraction: the experimental eigen-energies in Figs. 3(b) and 4(b)-(d) are computed by fitting the measured population of |2⟩ to the theoretical population under H4 − iαgγI with γ as the only free parameter and then diagonalizing that same H4. Since H4 is defined so that its eigenvalues coalesce at γ = J, the displayed band collapse is a mathematical consequence of the model, not an independent measurement. The time-domain population data do carry independent content: a one-parameter fit reproduces oscillations and decay across multiple γ and J settings, which would fail if the model were wrong. That prevents the paper from being fully circular. However, the specific claim of observing a fourth-order exceptional point is not supported by a fit-independent signature (e.g., polynomial-in-time growth, Jordan-block defect, or controlled perturbation scaling); it is inferred from the model's own eigenvalue structure. This is a partial circularity: the central conclusion is model-constrained rather than directly observed, so a score of 5 is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard spin-3/2 algebra for the EP4 condition, a domain assumption that the four Zeeman sublevels are closed, a domain assumption that the 854 nm pump-out is a pure loss channel with no recycling, and a Clebsch-Gordan constraint that fixes the accessible dissipation ratios. The only free parameters in the final analysis are the per-trace dissipation strength γ and the hand-set global scales g and α; no new entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • γ (dissipation control parameter per data trace) = fitted per trace, scan range 0.00-2.59
    The population evolution of |2⟩ is fit to the theoretical H4 − iαgγI with γ as the only free parameter; the extracted eigenvalues are then functions of this fitted γ, so the apparent EP4 location is inherited from the fit rather than measured independently.
  • g (global Hamiltonian strength) = 2π × 2.3 kHz
    Set by the experimenter and used to normalize the extracted eigenvalues; the EP4 condition is scale invariant, so this does not change the location of the EP, only the energy units.
  • α (global dissipation offset) = 1
    Hand-set to fix the absolute scale of the loss rates via −g(γ − αI); it shifts all eigenvalues by a common imaginary constant and does not affect the EP condition.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The four Zeeman sublevels of 2D5/2 used for |1⟩ through |4⟩ form a closed four-level system with no unmodeled leakage.
    The model Hamiltonian Eq. (1) and the fitting both assume that all other levels do not participate except through the engineered 854 nm loss. This enters at 'The four-dimensional system in Eq. 1 is constructed with Zeeman sublevels of the 2D5/2 manifold.'
  • domain assumption The 854 nm pump-out to 2P3/2 followed by decay to 2S1/2 acts as irreversible loss from the four-level system, so the subspace evolution is non-Hermitian with no recycling.
    This justifies interpreting the decaying population curves as evolution under H4 − iαgγI. If population returned to the D5/2 subspace, a full Lindblad master equation with recycling would be needed. This appears at the description of the 854 nm laser pumping to 2P3/2 and decaying to 2S1/2.
  • domain assumption The Clebsch-Gordan relation γ1 − 3γ2 + 3γ3 − γ4 = 0 holds, and polarization ϵσ+ = 2/3, ϵσ− = 0, ϵπ = 1/3 realizes the required dissipation ratios.
    This maps the three desired dissipation parameters onto the experimentally adjusted laser intensities; any deviation enters the fitted Hamiltonian and shifts the extracted band structure. The constraint is stated in the main text near the dissipation control description.
  • standard math The normalized spin-3/2 operators X4 and Z4 have the matrix forms in Eqs. (3)-(4), and H4 = g(J X4 + iγ Z4) has an EP4 at γ = J.
    The theory of the EP4 location and the predicted band structure follow from standard angular momentum algebra; no new mathematical result is introduced. This is used in the supplemental Eqs. (3)-(4) and around Eq. (2).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Programmable simulation of high-order exceptional point with a trapped ion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TOUI2YOO

@misc{pith2026241209776,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Programmable simulation of high-order exceptional point with a trapped ion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TOUI2YOO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.09776}
}
read the original abstract

The nontrivial degeneracies in non-Hermitian systems, exceptional points (EPs), have attracted extensive attention due to intriguing phenomena. Compared with commonly observed second-order EPs, high-order EPs show rich physics due to their extended dimension and parameter space, ranging from the coalescence of EPs into higher order to potential applications in topological properties. However, these features also pose challenges in controlling multiple coherent and dissipative elements in a scaled system. Here we experimentally demonstrate a native programmable control to simulate a high-order non-Hermitian Hamiltonian in a multi-dimensional trapped ion system. We simulate a series of non-Hermitian systems with varied parameters and observe the coalescence of second-order EPs into a fourth-order EP. Our results pave the way for scalable quantum simulation of high-dimensional dissipative systems and can be beneficial for the application of high-order EPs in quantum sensing and quantum control.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.09776 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. The four-dimensional system in Eq. 1 is con￾structed with Zeeman sublevels of the 2D5/2 manifold [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Experimental observation of the EP4. (a) Evolution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. FIG. 5. Detail energy level structure of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The square of Clebsch-Gordan coefficients for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Population evolution corresponding to the coalescence of EP2s into EP4.(a)(b)(c) represent the population evolution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Experimental observation of the coalescence of EP2s into EP4. (a)(b)(c) Real and imaginary part of the eigenvalues [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]

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. Disorder-averaged Qudit Dynamics

    quant-ph 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Exact disorder-averaged dynamical maps are derived for periodic Hamiltonians, with decoherence functions set by the disorder distribution and the Hamiltonian's periodicity class.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [47]

    Y.-Y. Chen, K. Li, L. Zhang, Y.-K. Wu, J.-Y. Ma, H.-X. Yang, C. Zhang, B.-X. Qi, Z.-C. Zhou, P.-Y. Hou, Y. Xu, L.-M. Duan, arXiv:2412.05870 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    Z. Lin, H. Ramezani, T. Eichelkraut, T. Kottos, H. Cao, and D. N. Christodoulides, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 213901 (2011)

    work page 2011

  3. [2]

    Regensburger, C

    A. Regensburger, C. Bersch, M.-A. Miri, G. On- ishchukov, D. N. Christodoulides, and U. Peschel, Nature 488, 167–171 (2012)

    work page 2012

  4. [3]

    Feng, Y.-L

    L. Feng, Y.-L. Xu, W. S. Fegadolli, M.-H. Lu, J. E. B. Oliveira, V. R. Almeida, Y.-F. Chen, and A. Scherer, Na- 7 ture Mater 12, 108–113 (2013)

    work page 2013

  5. [4]

    A. Guo, G. J. Salamo, D. Duchesne, R. Morandotti, M. Volatier-Ravat, V. Aimez, G. A. Siviloglou, and D. N. Christodoulides, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 093902 (2009)

    2009

  6. [5]

    L. Feng, Z. J. Wong, R.-M. Ma, Y. Wang, and X. Zhang, Science 346, 972–975 (2014)

    work page 2014

  7. [6]

    Assawaworrarit, X

    S. Assawaworrarit, X. Yu, and S. Fan, Nature 546, 387–390 (2017)

    work page 2017

  8. [7]

    Z. Li, C. Li, Z. Xiong, G. Xu, Y. R. Wang, X. Tian, X. Yang, Z. Liu, Q. Zeng, R. Lin, Y. Li, J. K. W. Lee, J. S. Ho, and C.-W. Qiu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 227201 (2023)

    2023

Show all 47 references
  1. [8]

    G. Xu, X. Zhou, Y. Li, Q. Cao, W. Chen, Y. Xiao, L. Yang, and C.-W. Qiu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 266303 (2023)

    2023

  2. [9]

    Bergholtz, Jan Carl Budich, and Flore K

    Emil J. Bergholtz, Jan Carl Budich, and Flore K. Kunst, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 015005 (2021)

    2021

  3. [10]

    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, 1009–1012 (2018)

    2018

  4. [11]

    Cerjan, S

    A. Cerjan, S. Huang, M. Wang, K. P. Chen, Y. Chong, and M. C. Rechtsman, Nat. Photonics13, 623–628 (2019)

    2019

  5. [12]

    H. Hu, S. Sun, and S. Chen, Phys. Rev. Research 4, L022064 (2022)

    2022

  6. [13]

    Doppler, A

    J. Doppler, A. A. Mailybaev, J. B¨ ohm, U. Kuhl, A. Girschik, F. Libisch, T. J. Milburn, P. Rabl, N. Moiseyev, and S. Rotter, Nature 537, 76–79 (2016)

    2016

  7. [14]

    Zhong, M

    Q. Zhong, M. Khajavikhan, D. N. Christodoulides, and R. El-Ganainy, Nat Commun 9, 4808 (2018)

    2018

  8. [15]

    Zhang, S

    X.-L. Zhang, S. Wang, B. Hou, and C. T. Chan, Phys. Rev. X 8, 021066 (2018)

    2018

  9. [16]

    Yu, X.-L

    F. Yu, X.-L. Zhang, Z.-N. Tian, Q.-D. Chen, and H.-B. Sun, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 253901 (2021)

    2021

  10. [17]

    Y. Wu, W. Liu, J. Geng, X. Song, X. Ye, C.-K. Duan, X. Rong, and J. Du , Science 364, 878–880 (2019)

    2019

  11. [18]

    Bender, S

    N. Bender, S. Factor, J. D. Bodyfelt, H. Ramezani, D. N. Christodoulides, F. M. Ellis, and T. Kottos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 234101 (2013)

    2013

  12. [19]

    J. Li, A. K. Harter, J. Liu, L. de Melo, Y. N. Joglekar, and L. Luo, Nat Commun 10, 855 (2019)

    2019

  13. [20]

    Z. Ren, D. Liu, E. Zhao, C. He, K. K. Pak, J. Li, and G.-B. Jo, Nat. Phys. 18, 385–389 (2022)

    2022

  14. [21]

    Liang, Y

    C. Liang, Y. Tang, A.-N. Xu, and Y.-C. Liu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 263601

  15. [22]

    L. Ding, K. Shi, Q. Zhang, D. Shen, X. Zhang, and W. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 083604 (2021)

    2021

  16. [23]

    L. Ding, K. Shi, Y. Wang, Q. Zhang, C. Zhu, L. Zhang, J. Yi, S. Zhang, X. Zhang, and W. Zhang, Phys. Rev. A 105, L010204 (2022)

    2022

  17. [24]

    Yan, J.-W

    L.-L. Yan, J.-W. Zhang, M.-R. Yun, J.-C. Li, G.-Y. Ding, J.-F. Wei, J.-T. Bu, B. Wang, L. Chen, S.-L. Su, F. Zhou, Y. Jia, E.-J. Liang, and M. Feng, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 050603 (2022)

    2022

  18. [25]

    Wang, Y.-L

    W.-C. Wang, Y.-L. Zhou, H.-L. Zhang, J. Zhang, M.-C. Zhang, Y. Xie, C.-W. Wu, T. Chen, B.-Q. Ou, W. Wu, H. Jing, and P.-X. Chen, Phys. Rev. A 103, L020201 (2021)

    2021

  19. [26]

    M.-M. Cao, K. Li, W.-D. Zhao, W.-X. Guo, B.-X. Qi, X.-Y. Chang, Z.-C. Zhou, Y. Xu, and L.-M. Duan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 163001 (2023)

    2023

  20. [27]

    Mandal and E

    I. Mandal and E. J. Bergholtz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 186601 (2021)

    2021

  21. [28]

    W. Tang, X. Jiang, K. Ding, Y.-X. Xiao, Z.-Q. Zhang, C. T. Chan, and G. Ma, Science 370, 1077–1080 (2020)

    2020

  22. [29]

    Y. S. S. Patil, J. H¨ oller, P. A. Henry, C. Guria, Y. Zhang, L. Jiang, N. Kralj, N. Read, and J. G. E. Harris, Nature 607, 271–275 (2022)

    2022

  23. [30]

    Bai, J.-Z

    K. Bai, J.-Z. Li, T.-R. Liu, L. Fang, D. Wan, and M. Xiao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 266901 (2023)

    2023

  24. [31]

    Z. Xiao, H. Li, T. Kottos, and A. Al` u, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 213901 (2019)

    2019

  25. [32]

    K. Wang, L. Xiao, H. Lin, W. Yi, E. J. Bergholtz, and P. Xue, Sci. Adv. 9, eadi0732 (2023)

    2023

  26. [33]

    Y. Wu, Y. Wang, X. Ye, W. Liu, Z. Niu, C. K. Duan, Y. Wang, X. Rong, and J. Du, Nat. Nanotechnol. 19, 160–165 (2024)

    2024

  27. [34]

    C. Wang, N. Li, J. Xie, C. Ding, Z. Ji, L. Xiao, S. Jia, B. Yan, Y. Hu, and Y. Zhao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 253401 (2024)

    2024

  28. [35]

    Z. Tang, T. Chen, X. Tang, X. D. Zhang, Light Sci. Appl. 13, 167 (2024)

    2024

  29. [36]

    H¨ oller, N

    J. H¨ oller, N. Read, and J. G. E. Harris, Phys. Rev. A 102, 032216 (2020)

    2020

  30. [37]

    T. T. Shi, L. D. Zhang, S. N. Zhang, W. Zhang, Acta Phys. Sin. 71, 130303 (2022)

    2022

  31. [38]

    J. A. Sherman, M. J. Curtis, D. J. Szwer, D. T. C. All- cock, G. Imreh, D. M. Lucas, and A. M. Steane, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 180501 (2013)

    2013

  32. [39]

    X. Yuan, Y. Li, M. Zhang, C. Liu, M. Zhu, X. Qin, N. V. Vitanov, Y. Lin, and J. Du, Phys. Rev. A 106, 022412 (2022)

    2022

  33. [40]

    Zhang, X

    M. Zhang, X. Yuan, Y. Li, X.-W. Luo, C. Liu, M. Zhu, X. Qin, C. Zhang, Y. Lin, and J. Du, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 250501 (2022)

    2022

  34. [41]

    Ringbauer, M

    M. Ringbauer, M. Meth, L. Postler, R. Stricker, R. Blatt, P. Schindler, amd T. Monz, Nature Physics 18, 1053 (2022)

    2022

  35. [42]

    J. J. Sakurai and Jim Napolitano, Modern Quantum Me- chanics (Cambridge University Press,3rd edition, 2020)

    2020

  36. [43]

    See Supplementary materials for details about the model, the experimental setup, the detecting method, numerical simulation, and the analysis of experimental data

  37. [44]

    Gareth James, Daniela Witten, Trevor Hastie and Robert Tibshirani, An Introduction to Statistical Learning (2nd edition)

  38. [45]

    Anthony Kulesa, Martin Krzywinski, Paul Blainey, and Naomi Altman, Nature Methods 12, 477–478 (2015)

    2015

  39. [46]

    K. Ding, C. Fang, G. Ma, Nat. Rev. Phys. 4, 745–760 (2022)

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.