Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 43 references

Quasiparticle wavefunction and its equation of motion

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 Quasiparticles get a self-energy-free wavefunction that decays in time

desk verdict A clean, useful redefinition of the quasiparticle wavefunction, but the equation of motion rests on an unproven time-local Vxc and the norm-bound proof has a fixable gap. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.03418 v1 pith:ICA44STH submitted 2024-12-04 cond-mat.str-el

F. Aryasetiawan , K. Karlsson This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-el
keywords quasiparticleGreenfunctiondynamicalexchange-correlationpotentialwavefunctionplasmonsatellitesHubbarddimerhomogeneouselectrongas
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 proposes a new definition of a quasiparticle wavefunction that comes directly from the Green function, without the usual self-energy eigenvalue equation. The wavefunction is constructed by contracting the Green function onto a chosen set of one-particle orbitals, so it carries not only the main quasiparticle peak but also satellite modes from coupling to collective excitations like plasmons. In an interacting system this object has total probability less than one, so it naturally decays in time. Within the dynamical exchange-correlation potential formalism, it obeys a single-particle equation of motion with an effective q-dependent potential, giving a route to quasiparticle spectra that avoids computing the self-energy. The authors test the idea on the Hubbard dimer and on electron-gas-like metals, where a simple model reproduces the main features of Na and Al photoemission spectra.

What carries the argument

The key object is the time-dependent quasiparticle wavefunction $\psi^*_k(r',t)=\sum_{k'}G_{kk'}(t)\phi^*_{k'}(r')$, obtained by expanding the field operators in a complete one-particle basis and contracting the Green function onto that basis. The proof of decay rests on the inequality $\sum_{k'}|G_{kk'}(t)|^2\le1$, derived by diagonalizing the matrix $G_{kk'}(t)$ with a unitary transformation and using the Pauli-principle bound $\langle\Psi_0|\hat c_k^\dagger\hat c_k|\Psi_0\rangle\le1$ together with unitarity of time evolution. The effective potential $\Xi_q(r,t)=[\psi^*_q(r,t)]^{-1}\sum_k\Delta V_{qk}(r,t)\psi^*_k(r,t)$ then converts the coupled dynamical-xc equations of motion into a single one-body equation per quasiparticle, where $\Delta V_{qk}$ couples different quasiparticle channels through the dynamical xc potential.

What would settle it

Compute the exact Green function of a small correlated system (e.g., a Hubbard dimer or a small molecule in full configuration interaction) and check whether there exists a Hermitian or even non-Hermitian local-in-time potential $V_{xc}(r,r';t)$ satisfying Eq. (22) exactly at all times and all positions. If the residual of $[i\partial_t-h-V_{xc}]G-\delta$ cannot be made zero for any choice of $V_{xc}$ of this form, then Eqs. (30)-(35) and the interpretation of $\Xi_q$ as an effective field do not follow.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the object defined by $\psi^*_k(r',t)=\sum_{k'}G_{kk'}(t)\phi^*_{k'}(r')$ is a legitimate quasiparticle wavefunction. Because the matrix elements of the Green function in any orthonormal orbital basis satisfy $\sum_{k'}|G_{kk'}(t)|^2\le1$, the integrated density $\int dr|\psi_k(r,t)|^2\le1$, with equality only in noninteracting systems. This object therefore describes a quasiparticle that decays in time and contains the full excitation structure of the Green function rather than a single eigenmode. When the Green function obeys the dynamical exchange-correlation equation of motion $[i\partial_t-h-V_{xc}]G=\delta$, the quasiparticle wavefunction satisfies a one-body equation $[i\partial_t-\varepsilon_q-\Xi_q(r,t)]\psi^*_q(r,t)=0$, where $\Xi_q$ is an effective q-dependent, generally non-Hermitian potential built from dynamical $V_{xc}$ matrix elements. The decay follows from the imaginary part of $\Xi_q$, which is absent in the traditional self-energy eigenvalue equation. In the electron gas this reproduces the main quasiparticle peak plus plasmon satellites whose oscillator strengths match the cumulant expansion.

Load-bearing premise

The entire derivation of the quasiparticle equation of motion presupposes that an interacting many-electron system has a dynamical exchange-correlation potential $V_{xc}$ such that the exact Green function obeys $[i\partial_t-h-V_{xc}]G=\delta$ with $V_{xc}$ written as the Coulomb potential of an xc hole.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Quasiparticle wavefunctions and spectra can in principle be computed without constructing the self-energy, from the dynamical xc potential $V_{xc}$ alone.
  • The time-decay and satellite structure of a quasiparticle are built into the wavefunction itself, so satellite weights and quasiparticle renormalization are obtained at the wavefunction level rather than from poles of a self-energy expression.
  • The equation of motion is local in space and time for each quasiparticle channel, which suggests practical implementations can treat a subspace of relevant quantum numbers (e.g., a limited set of band indices) without solving the full problem.
  • If the simple form of $\Xi_q$ found in the Hubbard dimer and the electron gas holds generally, quasiparticle spectra of metals become expressible via a constant energy shift plus terms oscillating at collective-excitation frequencies.
  • A local-density approximation based on the model potential, with density-dependent band narrowing and lifetime parameters, is suggested as an implementable next step for realistic materials.
  • The proposed wavefunction is observable in principle: its time decay directly implies a finite quasiparticle lifetime, and its satellite modes correspond to the incoherent features seen in angle-resolved photoemission spectra.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the existence of the dynamical xc potential in the closed form of Eq. (22) holds beyond the tested models, the effective-potential route could be extended to nonequilibrium and finite-temperature dynamics, since the wavefunction definition itself is carried to those regimes in Appendix A.
  • The inequality $\int dr|\psi_k|^2\le1$ suggests a natural diagnostic for approximate Green functions: any approximation that violates this bound cannot correspond to a fermionic many-body system, so the condition could serve as a consistency check on new approximations.
  • The model's separation of $\Xi_q$ into a static renormalizing part and a dynamical plasmon part hints that the same structure might extend to systems with phonons or magnons, where the collective frequency would replace the plasmon frequency in the satellite pattern.
  • A testable extension is to compute $V_{xc}$ for real materials from first principles within the dynamical xc formalism and compare the resulting $\Xi_q$, spectra, and lifetimes against the present parametrized model, which would separate model errors from errors of the underlying formalism.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a new definition of a quasiparticle wavefunction directly from the time-dependent Green function, ψ*_k(r',t)=Σ_{k'} G_{kk'}(t) φ*_{k'}(r'), and argues that its total probability is bounded by unity and can decay for interacting systems. Within the authors' earlier dynamical exchange-correlation (xc) potential formalism, the paper derives a formally one-particle equation of motion for this object, with an effective q-dependent potential Ξ_q(r,t). Analytic results for the Hubbard dimer and a model for the homogeneous electron gas are presented, and the model is applied to Na and Al, with spectra compared to experiment and to cumulant-expansion and GW results. The central claim is that this yields a self-energy-free route to quasiparticle wavefunctions and spectra, with an effective potential that has a simple, approximately static-plus-plasmon form.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper offers an appealing new formulation of quasiparticles that bypasses the conventional self-energy eigenvalue equation and directly yields a time-dependent quasiparticle wavefunction with satellites. The analytic Hubbard-dimer solution is a concrete strength, and the HEG model reproduces the known cumulant-expansion satellite structure with parameters extracted from GW rather than fitted to experiment. The comparison with photoemission spectra for Na and Al is suggestive. However, the generality of the result is conditional on the existence of a time-local dynamical xc potential of the specific xc-hole form, and the proof of the norm bound contains a technical gap; these issues must be addressed before the paper can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II, Eqs. (18)-(20) and Appendix A] The proof of the norm bound rests on the assertion that G(t) is unitarily diagonalizable with eigenvalues bounded by 1. This is not justified: G(t) is not Hermitian or normal in general, and a nonnormal matrix need not be unitarily diagonalizable, nor are its eigenvalues bounded by 1 in modulus by the given argument. The conclusion of Eq. (20) is nevertheless correct and can be proved directly: for t<0, the row vector (G_{kk'})_{k'} is the projection of the state c_k(t)|Ψ0⟩ onto the subspace spanned by {c_{k'}|Ψ0⟩}, whose norm is at most ||c_k|Ψ0⟩|| ≤ 1 by the Pauli principle. The authors should replace the diagonalization argument in Sec. II and in Appendix A with a valid proof or otherwise provide a correct justification.
  2. [Section III, Eq. (22)] The quasiparticle equation of motion, Eqs. (31)-(36), is derived from the assumed existence of a time-local dynamical xc potential Vxc(r,r';t) satisfying Eq. (22) with the xc-hole representation of Eq. (24) and the sum rule of Eq. (26). This is a strong existence assumption imported from earlier work; the exact Green function generally satisfies Dyson's equation with a self-energy that is convolutional in time, and reducing it to the first-order time-local form of Eq. (22) is nontrivial. The manuscript does not prove or even state explicitly that this reduction is a postulate rather than a consequence of the definition of G. The abstract's claim that the quasiparticle wavefunction and its equation of motion are 'derived from the general definition of the Green function without reference to self-energy' is therefore too strong. The authors should either supply a derivation or precise conditions for Eq. (22), or clearly demarcate it as a foundational assumption of their dynamical xc formalism and qualify the abstract and conclusions accordingly.
  3. [Section III, Eqs. (30)-(32)] The derivation of the quasiparticle equation of motion is obscured by the notation in Eq. (30). In Eq. (22), Vxc(r,r';t) acts as a nonlocal integral kernel on the first coordinate of G(r,r';t), but Eq. (30) writes ∆V(r,r';t) as a multiplicative factor on the product φ_k(r)ψ*_k(r',t). The projection leading to Eq. (31) and the definition of ∆V_{qk}(r,t) in Eq. (32) are consequently not transparent. The authors should present the derivation either in the orbital-basis form of Eq. (27) (which is used in the Hubbard dimer) or with the correct integral-kernel notation, because the effective potential Ξ_q in Eq. (35) is the central object of the paper and its definition must be unambiguous.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section IV.B, Eqs. (75)-(79)] The expansion of G_q(t) into A0, A1, A2 is a truncation of the full exponential series e^{λ(e^{iω_p t}-1)} to second order in λ, not an exact result. This should be stated explicitly, along with the expected accuracy of the truncation for the parameters used.
  2. [Section IV.B, Eq. (80)] The formula λ = 1 - √(2Z-1) is real only for Z ≥ 1/2. The authors should note this domain of validity, since the plotted Z values are in this range but the condition is not stated.
  3. [Section II and Section VII] The quasiparticle wavefunction ψ*_k depends on the choice of the one-particle basis {φ_k}. The paper acknowledges this, but the practical consequences — e.g., how the norm bound and the effective potential transform under a change of basis — deserve a short discussion, since the wavefunction is not a gauge-invariant object.
  4. [Figure captions] The figure captions are too terse for a self-contained reading. For example, Fig. 4 does not state which parameters (rs, Z, γ) are used for the Na and Al curves, and Figs. 5-8 would benefit from a statement of the model parameters and the GW comparison details.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The new quasiparticle-wavefunction definition is self-contained, but the quasiparticle equation of motion is a formal recasting of an assumed dynamical-xc equation imported from same-author references.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section III, Eq. (22) (with Eq. (24)); justified by ref. 3]
    "In the dynamical xc potential formalism, the equation of motion of the Green function is given by 3 [i∂t − h(r) − Vxc(r, r′; t)] G(r, r′; t) = δ(r − r′)δ(t). Vxc is the dynamical xc potential which is the Coulomb potential of the xc hole ρxc."

    Every subsequent step of the central derivation, Eqs. (27)-(35), is an algebraic rewrite of this assumed equation. The equation itself is not proved or demonstrated here; it is imported from refs. 3-7, all of which involve the present authors or their immediate collaborators. The new quasiparticle equation of motion therefore inherits its entire physical content from a same-author assertion about the existence and xc-hole form of Vxc. If that prior formalism were not accepted, the claimed EOM has no independent foundation within this paper.

  2. self definitional [Section III, Eqs. (34)-(35)]
    "The quasiparticle equation of motion can be recast as [i∂t − εq − Ξq(r, t)] ψ∗q(r, t) = 0, where Ξq(r, t) = 1/ψ∗q(r,t) Σk ΔVqk(r,t)ψ∗k(r,t) is an effective q-dependent potential."

    Equation (35) defines Ξq to be precisely the ratio of the interaction term in Eq. (31) to ψ∗q. Substituting that definition into Eq. (34) returns Eq. (31) identically. Thus Eq. (34) is satisfied by construction for arbitrary ψ and ΔV; it is a formal recasting rather than a derived equation of motion. Any nontrivial physics must come from the assumed Vxc in Eq. (22), not from the 'effective field' Ξq, which merely names the ratio of the coupling terms.

full rationale

The conceptual core in Section II is not circular: ψ∗k is defined from the many-body Green function and the bound ∫dr |ψk(r,t)|² ≤ 1 is derived from fermionic occupation and unitarity, independent of any self-energy or self-citation. The circularity burden is concentrated in Section III. Equation (22) is a strong existence assumption about a time-local dynamical xc potential of the xc-hole form, justified only by refs. 3-7 from the same author group; all following equations, including the quasiparticle EOM, are rearrangements of this assumed input. Moreover, Eqs. (34)-(35) define Ξq so that the EOM holds identically, so the 'effective field' is a construction, not a prediction. The Na/Al model section uses GW-extracted Z, γ, and η1 as inputs and is honestly described as a model that reproduces spectra, so it does not add a separate circular step beyond the assumed formalism. Overall, the new quasiparticle-wavefunction definition has independent content, but the paper's main EOM claim reduces to a self-cited premise plus an identity, giving a moderate circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumed exactness of the dynamical xc potential equation of motion, on the completeness of the chosen mean-field orbital basis, and on several ad hoc modeling choices in the electron gas section. The norm-bound proof also relies on an unproven diagonalizability assumption.

free parameters (5)
  • Z (quasiparticle renormalization factor) = momentum-independent; extracted from one-shot GW, Fig. 2
    Appears in Eq. (74) and determines the quasiparticle weight A0=Z and the satellite coupling lambda via Eq. (80).
  • gamma (band-broadening factor) = momentum-independent; extracted from one-shot GW, Fig. 2
    Used in Xi^S_q = (1-gamma Z)(E_F - epsilon_q), Eq. (74).
  • eta1 (lifetime broadening) = extracted from one-shot GW, Fig. 3
    Sets the energy-dependent broadening in Eq. (81) for quasiparticle and plasmon peaks.
  • eta0 (broadening at k_F) = chosen for plotting
    The text says at q=k_F the broadening is taken to be eta0 rather than zero for the purpose of plotting curves.
  • Additional plasmon broadening = 0.55 eV for Na, 1.3 eV for Al (about ten percent of plasmon energy)
    Added to the model spectra in Figs. 5 and 7 to account for plasmon lifetime; not derived from the formalism.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The exact Green function satisfies [i dt - h - Vxc] G = delta with a dynamical xc potential Vxc defined as the Coulomb potential of an xc hole, Eq. (22).
    This is a strong assumption imported from refs. 3-7. The entire equation of motion derivation, including Eq. (35), is valid only if such a Vxc exists exactly.
  • standard math The chosen orbital set {phi_k} is complete and consists of mean-field orbitals satisfying h phi_k = epsilon_k phi_k.
    A standard basis assumption used to derive Eq. (30) from the equation of motion for G.
  • ad hoc to paper In the homogeneous electron gas, Xi_q(t<0) is well approximated by a static part plus a single plasmon-frequency oscillation, Eq. (72).
    This ansatz is not derived from first principles; it is introduced to produce the cumulant-type satellite structure.
  • ad hoc to paper gamma and Z are momentum independent, Eq. (74).
    Stated assumption used to construct Xi^S_q and the model spectrum.
  • ad hoc to paper For q <= k_F, the spectrum has no weight above the Fermi level.
    Explicit model assumption in Sec. IV.B that limits the spectral weight distribution.
  • ad hoc to paper G(t) is unitarily diagonalizable with eigenvalues bounded by 1, used in Eqs. (18)-(20).
    The norm-bound proof assumes S is unitary and |tilde G_k1| <= 1. This is not proven for a non-Hermitian, non-normal Green function matrix. The bound may be true by another argument, but as written the proof rests on this unproven assumption.
invented entities (1)
  • Time-dependent quasiparticle wavefunction psi*_k(r,t)
    purpose: Replaces the self-energy eigenfunction of Eq. (1) as the central one-particle object; defined as the projection of the Green function onto an orbital basis.
    It is a reinterpretation of the columns of G, not a new physical entity with an independent falsifiable handle. Its norm nonincrease is argued in the paper, but the proof has a gap.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quasiparticle wavefunction and its equation of motion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ICA44STH

@misc{pith2026241203418,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quasiparticle wavefunction and its equation of motion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ICA44STH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.03418}
}
read the original abstract

The quasiparticle wavefunction of a many-electron system is traditionally defined as the eigenfunction of the quasiparticle eigenvalue equation involving the self-energy. In this article a new concept of a quasiparticle wavefunction is derived from the general definition of the Green function without reference to self-energy. The proposed quasiparticle wavefunction can decay in time, and in contrast to the traditional one it contains not only the main quasiparticle mode but also other modes due to coupling to collective excitations in the system. In the recently developed dynamical exchange-correlation potential formalism, the new definition of a quasiparticle wavefunction leads to an equation of motion with an effective field, which appears to have a simple form expected to be amenable to realistic approximations. A simple model for the effective potential is proposed, which is suitable for electron-gas-like materials such as the alkali.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.03418 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: The real and imaginary parts of the self-energy and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. and the life-time broadening η1 is shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: The lifetime broadening factor ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The energy dispersion with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: The total spectral function of Na: experiment [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: The spectral function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: The total spectral function of Al calculated using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    L Fetter and J

    See, for example, A. L Fetter and J. D Walecka, Quantum Theory of Many-Particle Systems, (Dover, Mineola, New York, 2003)

    work page 2003

  2. [2]

    Hedin and S

    See, for example, L. Hedin and S. Lundqvist, in Solid State Physics, edited by H. Ehrenreich, F. Seitz and D. Turnbull (Academic, New York, 1969), Vol. 23, p. 1

    work page 1969

  3. [3]

    Aryasetiawan, Phys

    F. Aryasetiawan, Phys. Rev. B 105, 075106 (2022)

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Aryasetiawan and T

    F. Aryasetiawan and T. Sj\"ostrand, Phys. Rev. B 106, 045123 (2022)

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Karlsson and F

    K. Karlsson and F. Aryasetiawan, Phys. Rev. B 107, 115172 (2023)

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Aryasetiawan, Phys

    F. Aryasetiawan, Phys. Rev. B 108, 115110 (2023)

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Z. Zhao, C. Verdozzi, and F. Aryasetiawan, Phys. Rev. B 108, 235132 (2023)

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    See, for example, J. W. Negele and H. Orland, Quantum Many-Particle Systems, (Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, 1998)

    work page 1998

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Dvorak, arXiv:2101.00704 [cond-mat.str-el]

    M. Dvorak, arXiv:2101.00704 [cond-mat.str-el]

    arXiv

  2. [10]

    J. C. Slater, Phys. Rev. 81, 385 (1951)

    1951

  3. [11]

    J. C. Slater, Phys. Rev. 165, 658 (1968)

    1968

  4. [12]

    Hohenberg and W

    P. Hohenberg and W. Kohn,

  5. [13]

    Kohn and L

    W. Kohn and L. J. Sham, Phys. Rev. 140, A1133 (1965)

    1965

  6. [14]

    R. O. Jones and O. Gunnarsson, Rev. Mod. Phys. 61, 689 (1989)

    1989

  7. [15]

    A. D. Becke, J. Chem. Phys. 140, 18A301 (2014)

    2014

  8. [16]

    Hedin, Phys

    L. Hedin, Phys. Scr. 21, 477 (1980)

    1980

  9. [17]

    Almbladh and L

    C.-O. Almbladh and L. Hedin, in Handbook on Synchroton Radiation, edited by E. E. Koch (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1983) Vol. 1, p.686

    1983

  10. [18]

    Aryasetiawan, L

    F. Aryasetiawan, L. Hedin, and K. Karlsson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 2268 (1996)

    1996

  11. [19]

    Guzzo, G

    M. Guzzo, G. Lani, F. Sottile, P. Romaniello, M. Gatti,

  12. [20]

    J. J. Kas, J. J. Rehr, and L. Reining, Phys. Rev. B 90, 085112 (2014)

    2014

  13. [21]

    J. J. Kas, T. D. Blanton, and J. J. Rehr, Phys. Rev. B 100, 195144 (2019)

    2019

  14. [22]

    Hedin, Phys

    L. Hedin, Phys. Rev. 139, A796 (1965)

    1965

  15. [23]

    Steiner, H

    P. Steiner, H. Höchst, and S. Hüfner, in Photoemission in Solids II, edited by L. Ley and M. Cardona, Topics in Applied Physics Vol. 27 (Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg,1979)

    1979

  16. [24]

    Hedin, Int

    L. Hedin, Int. J. Quantum Chem. 56, 445 (1995)

    1995

  17. [25]

    Gunnarsson and B

    O. Gunnarsson and B. I. Lundqvist,

  18. [26]

    Runge and E

    E. Runge and E. K. U. Gross,

  19. [27]

    For a review, see, for example,

  20. [28]

    J. A. Alonso and L. A. Girifalco,

  21. [29]

    Gunnarsson, M

    O. Gunnarsson, M. Jonson, and B. I. Lundqvist,

  22. [30]

    L. J. Sham and W. Kohn,

  23. [31]

    D. C. Langreth and J. P. Perdew,

  24. [32]

    Stefanucci and R

    See, for example, G. Stefanucci and R. van Leeuwen,

  25. [33]

    J. P. Perdew, R. G. Parr, M. Levy, and J. L. Balduz,

  26. [34]

    Almbladh and L

    C.-O. Almbladh and L. Hedin,

  27. [35]

    N. W. Ashcroft and N. D. Mermin,

  28. [36]

    Aryasetiawan and O

    F. Aryasetiawan and O. Gunnarsson,

  29. [37]

    Georges, G

    A. Georges, G. Kotliar, W. Krauth, and M. J. Rozenberg,

  30. [38]

    Gatti, V

    M. Gatti, V. Olevano, L. Reining, and I. V. Tokatly,

  31. [39]

    W. E. Pickett and C. S. Wang,

  32. [40]

    L. J. Sham and M. Schl\"uter,

  33. [41]

    S. Y. Savrasov and G. Kotliar,

  34. [42]

    Z. Zhao, C. Verdozzi, and F. Aryasetiawan,

  35. [43]

    Karlsson and F

    K. Karlsson and F. Aryasetiawan,

Pith tools

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