Quantum Inspiration, Classical Advantage: Dequantized particle algorithm for the nonlinear Vlasov-Poisson system

Hong Qin; Jacob Molina; Michael Q. May

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 49 references

Quantum Inspiration, Classical Advantage: Dequantized particle algorithm for the nonlinear Vlasov-Poisson system

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper derives a 97-mode classical plasma algorithm by dequantizing the Coulomb Hamiltonian and shows it is a structure-preserving discretization of Schrödinger–Poisson that approximates Vlasov–Poisson via the Wigner transform.

desk verdict A clean derivation that the dequantized second-quantized Coulomb Hamiltonian is a spectral Schrödinger–Poisson discretization, with a plausible but under-supported claim that this approximates Vlasov–Poisson; worth refereeing for the derivation, not yet for the numerical claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.05151 v2 pith:MAC4ZOWT submitted 2025-07-07 physics.plasm-ph physics.comp-phquant-ph

Hong Qin , Michael Q. May , Jacob Molina This is my paper

classification physics.plasm-phphysics.comp-phquant-ph PACS 52.65.-y52.65.Ff

keywords Vlasov–PoissonsystemSchrödinger–PoissonequationsdequantizedparticlealgorithmWignertransformstructure-preservingalgorithmssecondquantizationtwo-streaminstabilityconfiguration-spacesimulation

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 tries to establish that a classical simulation algorithm for the nonlinear Vlasov–Poisson system can be built by dequantizing the underlying quantum many-body theory: replace the creation and annihilation operators in the second-quantized Coulomb Hamiltonian with ordinary complex numbers. The resulting finite-dimensional system is shown to be a structure-preserving discretization of the Schrödinger–Poisson equations, and through the Wigner transform it approximates Vlasov–Poisson dynamics when quantum effects are small. The payoff, if the claim holds, is a plasma kinetic algorithm that works in 3D configuration space rather than the conventional 6D phase space, with the same algebraic structure that can be mapped back to quantum algorithms. The numerical demonstration, a two-stream instability simulated with 97 modes, gives a measured growth rate that agrees well with theory and conserves energy, particle number, and momentum.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the truncated second-quantized Coulomb Hamiltonian (Eq. (12)), with creation and annihilation operators replaced by ordinary complex numbers (c-numbers) $a^*_\ell, a_\ell$ to give the finite-dimensional Hamiltonian system (16)–(18). The truncation keeps all quartets $\ell,n,\ell-\mathbf{g},n+\mathbf{g}\in J$ without requiring $\mathbf{g}\in J$, which preserves Hermiticity and the exact conservation of particle number, momentum, and energy. The identification with a Fourier-discretized Schrödinger–Poisson Hamiltonian is proven by discretizing the Hamiltonian functional (21) in Fourier modes, and the Vlasov–Poisson connection is carried by the Wigner transform (27) together with the cited coarse-graining results that yield non-negative phase-space distributions.

What would settle it

Run the same simulation with $\delta = 1.9\times 10^{-4}$ but a Fourier window $\{-40,\ldots,40\}$, so that the two-stream spectral peaks at $|j|\approx V_0/(2\pi\delta)\approx 40.7$ lie outside the window; if the instability still grows at the theoretical rate, the 97-mode truncation is not load-bearing, and if it does not, the reported success depends on an untested margin.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated on the paper's own terms, is that the c-number substitution in the truncated second-quantized Coulomb Hamiltonian yields a finite-dimensional Hamiltonian system that is exactly a structure-preserving discretization of the Schrödinger–Poisson equations, and hence—through the Wigner transform—an efficient approximation of the Vlasov–Poisson system in the regime where the quantum parameter is small. The paper proves the discretization claim by working backward from the Schrödinger–Poisson Hamiltonian functional, expanding in Fourier modes, and showing that the truncation condition preserves Hermiticity and the conservation of particle number, momentum, and energy. The two-stream instability test with $J=\{-48,\ldots,48\}$ (97 modes) measures a linear growth rate $\gamma = 0.3493$, compared with the theoretical $0.3536$ from the dispersion relation, and the invariants are conserved to high precision.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that when the quantum parameter $\delta$ is small, the Wigner-smoothed Schrödinger–Poisson solution stays close to the true Vlasov–Poisson solution over the full nonlinear evolution; no error bound or convergence study is given.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The dequantized particle algorithm gives a structure-preserving classical discretization of the Vlasov–Poisson system that lives in 3D configuration space rather than 6D phase space.
Energy, particle number, and total momentum are exact invariants of the discrete dynamics, not just approximate ones.
The one-step update reduces to convolution sums, so its cost is $O(M\log M)$ in the number of modes rather than the apparent $O(M^3)$.
Because the system is a dequantized quantum Hamiltonian, the same construction can be reversed to design quantum algorithms for nonlinear Vlasov–Poisson dynamics.
The two-stream test shows that 97 modes can reproduce the linear growth rate and nonlinear vortex formation, indicating modest mode counts suffice when the spectrum is concentrated.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper leaves open whether the 97-mode window is necessary; a natural extension is to repeat the two-stream run with smaller mode windows and measure the departure from the theoretical growth rate.
If the dequantized equations are themselves a truncated quantum Hamiltonian, the same construction can be run in reverse to load the classical simulation onto a quantum computer, giving a bidirectional route between quantum and classical plasma algorithms.
The 3D-versus-6D advantage is conditional: it will matter only when the number of Fourier modes needed stays small, since broad velocity-space support or strong turbulence would push the mode count up and erode the comparison against phase-space grids.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

The real content here is the derivation, and it is solid. The truncation rule (require l, n, l-g, n+g in J but not g) is the key move, and it does preserve Hermiticity, particle number, and momentum. Showing that the dequantized Hamiltonian is exactly a Fourier spectral discretization of Schrödinger–Poisson is a genuine, checkable result, and it is new relative to the cited work. That part deserves a serious referee.

What the paper does not do is establish the headline claim: that this is an efficient approximation of Vlasov–Poisson when δ is small. The SP-to-VP correspondence via Wigner functions is inherited from Refs. [32–39], and the paper gives no error bound, no convergence study in J or δ, and no comparison against a standard VP solver. The single 97-mode two-stream run is suggestive but not demonstrative. The stress-test note is right that V0/δ ≈ 255.47 is not a multiple of 2π, so the initial condition (31) is not periodic on the unit box; the simulation silently projects it onto the Fourier lattice. That is a mechanical flaw in the demo, not in the derivation. The measured growth rate 0.3493 versus 0.3536 is fine agreement but one number from one run does not carry the weight the abstract places on it.

The conservation plots are believable but under-specified: no time integrator, no step size, no code release. The paper also has an internal inconsistency in the text about negative f regions (first attributed to quantum effects, then the discussion after Eq. (27) says they are a trade-off for simplicity while citing that they arise from quantum effects). Minor, but should be cleaned up.

On the citation pattern: it is heavily self-referential, but the cited prior work on SP-VP correspondence is real and relevant; self-citation is not manufactured here. The complexity claim (M log M via convolution) is plausible and standard.

Bottom line: this is a worthwhile paper for the derivation and the bridge it builds. It is not yet a validated numerical method. The authors should either add a convergence study, a baseline VP comparison, and a periodicity fix for the initial condition, or soften the quantitative claims. I would send it to peer review, because the derivation is reproducible and the dequantization route is genuinely interesting to the kinetic-plasma and quantum-algorithms communities. I would not cite it yet as a numerical method, but I would cite the truncation-and-dequantization result once it is published.

Recommendation: accept for peer review, with the expectation of major revision focused on numerical support.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a "dequantized particle algorithm" for the Vlasov-Poisson (VP) system. Starting from a truncated second-quantized Hamiltonian for charged bosons with Coulomb interaction, the authors replace creation and annihilation operators by c-numbers and obtain a finite-dimensional Hamiltonian system (Eqs. (16)-(18)). They argue that this system is a structure-preserving discretization of the Schrödinger-Poisson (SP) equations, and through the Wigner/Husimi transformation it approximates the VP system when quantum effects are negligible. The central numerical demonstration is a 1D two-stream instability simulated with 97 dequantized particles (J = {-48,...,48}), reporting a linear growth rate of 0.3493 versus the theoretical 0.3536, and conservation of total energy, particle number, and momentum. The paper claims that this configuration-space approach may offer efficiency advantages over 6D phase-space VP solvers.

Significance. If the claims are correct, the paper provides a conceptual bridge between quantum many-body descriptions and classical kinetic plasma simulations, and it may lead to a class of structure-preserving configuration-space algorithms with O(M log M) per-step complexity. The analytic conservation proofs for the truncated system (Eqs. (14)-(15)) are explicit and valuable, as is the concrete connection to a spectral discretization of SP. However, the central claim that the dequantized system is an efficient and faithful approximation of the VP system is supported only by a single numerical run, and there are inconsistencies in the printed equations that need to be resolved. The paper is therefore promising but not yet established at the level it claims.

major comments (4)

[§3, Eqs. (17)-(18)] The dequantized Hamiltonian and equation of motion are inconsistent as written. Differentiating H1 in Eq. (17) with respect to a*_j produces two equal contributions (from the conditions l-g = j and n+g = j). Under the Poisson convention that gives the free-particle term in Eq. (18), i.e., \dot{a}_j = -i/ℏ ∂H_d/∂a*_j, the interaction term becomes (8π q²)/(iℏ L³) ∑ ... , which is four times larger than the coefficient 2π q²/(iℏ L³) stated in Eq. (18). Thus Eqs. (17) and (18) do not define the same Hamiltonian system; if the simulation used Eq. (18), it does not conserve the stated H_d. This discrepancy must be corrected or explained before the claimed correspondence with the SP Hamiltonian (Eqs. (21)-(26)) can be accepted.
[§4, numerical example] The central claim that the dequantized system efficiently approximates the VP system is supported by only one simulation with J = {-48,...,48} and δ = 1.9×10⁻⁴. There is no convergence study: no run with larger J, no run with smaller δ, and no comparison against a standard VP or PIC solver. The linear spectral peaks at |j| ≈ 41 lie inside the truncation window, so the chosen run does not test truncation error; nonlinear cascades beyond |j| = 48 are simply discarded. Without any error estimate or convergence test, the observed growth-rate agreement may be fortuitous, and the phrase "efficient approximation" is not justified.
[§4, Eq. (31)] The initial condition (31) is not periodic on the unit box. With V0/δ = 0.04854/1.9×10⁻⁴ = 255.47, the phase V0 x/δ is not an integer multiple of 2π at x = 1, so ψ(x,0) has a discontinuity at the boundary. The algorithm projects the state onto the Fourier lattice J, silently replacing the stated seed with its periodic spectral projection. This introduces boundary and Gibbs artifacts that are neither reported nor controlled. The authors should either choose V0/δ = 2πN for integer N, or explicitly project and quantify the resulting error.
[§3, after Eq. (27)] The SP-to-VP correspondence is invoked from Refs. [32-39] without a quantitative error bound. The Wigner function constructed from a solution of SP is not semi-positive definite, and negative values are visible in the numerical results (Fig. 2). The statement that quantum effects are negligible when δ ≪ 1 is never quantified. The paper needs at least a δ-dependence study, or a measure of the negative part of the Wigner function, or a direct comparison with a VP solver, to support the claim that the dequantized system approximates the VP system in the classical limit.

minor comments (4)

[§4, page 9] Typo: "By The time history of ψ(x,t) and φ(x,t) are shown" should read "The time history of ψ(x,t) and φ(x,t) is shown".
[§4, Fig. 5] The conservation plots in Fig. 5 do not report the absolute or relative errors. The y-axis of panel (d), labeled "P(t)/mHd", is unclear; please specify the exact normalized quantity and report the maximum drift for each invariant.
[§3, Fig. 1] The term "gauge photon" for the mediating boson of the Coulomb interaction is nonstandard and potentially misleading; consider using "Coulomb photon" or "Plasmon" or simply "interaction mediator".
[§4, Eq. (28)-(29)] The normalization leading to Eq. (29) is only sketched. In particular, the role of ℏ and the particle number N in the normalized variables is not fully specified; a reader cannot reproduce Eq. (29) from Eq. (18) without additional assumptions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the dequantized equations are derived from a stated many-body Hamiltonian and validated against an external dispersion relation.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. The finite-dimensional dequantized system (16)-(18) is obtained by explicit c-number substitution in the truncated second-quantized Hamiltonian (12)-(13), which is itself derived from the stated Coulomb boson Hamiltonian (6)-(9). The paper then proves by direct calculation that this same system is a structure-preserving Fourier discretization of the Schrödinger-Poisson equations (19)-(26); the 'working backward' construction is an explicit equivalence, not a prediction fed by the target. The connection from SP to VP is imported from Refs. [32-39], but those are independent prior works (Husimi, Moyal, Bertrand et al.), not self-citations, and the assumption that quantum effects are negligible is stated as an input condition (δ≪1) rather than hidden in the derivation. The numerical support uses a growth rate fitted from simulation only to compare against the analytically derived two-stream dispersion relation (32), γ=0.3536; no fitted parameter enters the benchmark, and the conservation laws are structural commutator identities proven in Eqs. (14)-(15). The absence of a convergence study and the periodicity issue of the initial condition are validity concerns, but they are not circularity: the central claim does not reduce by construction to its inputs. The self-citations present in the paper ([24,28,41-49]) are contextual references to prior quantum-algorithm work and are not load-bearing for the dequantization derivation.

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

The central derivation adds no fitted constants: the dequantized Hamiltonian follows from the stated many-body theory and matches a spectral SP discretization, and the growth-rate benchmark (32) is external. The main free choices are the test-problem parameters (V0, δ, k, ε), the mode count 97, and the unspecified integrator; none is fitted to the target output. The axioms are mostly standard many-body theory and standard linear Vlasov theory; the notable domain assumptions are the inherited SP-to-VP approximation and the benignity of Wigner negativity, neither of which is error-bounded. No new physical entity is postulated; the 'gauge photon' is an interpretive label for the Coulomb kernel.

free parameters (6)

V0 (two-stream beam velocity) = 0.04854
Hand-chosen initial-condition parameter for the benchmark. It sets the Wigner peaks at v = ±V0 and hence the Fourier support at |j| ≈ V0/(2πδ) ≈ 40.7, which must lie inside the 97-mode window. It is a test input, not fitted to the growth-rate target.
δ (dimensionless quantumness, Eq. (30)) = 1.9e-4
Chosen small so the system is in the classical regime and so the two-stream modes fall inside the truncation. The efficiency of the method depends directly on the relation between δ, the velocity support, and the mode count, but δ is not fitted to the output.
k (perturbation wavenumber) = 4π
Wavenumber of the seeded unstable perturbation; a standard benchmark input.
ε (perturbation amplitude) = 5e-4
Small amplitude seeding the instability; chosen small to stay in the linear regime initially.
Truncation set J (mode count) = j = -48 to 48, 97 modes
The number of dequantized particles is hand-chosen; the demonstration's accuracy depends on J covering the initial spectral peaks at |j| ≈ 40.7 with room for nonlinear broadening, a margin that is not tested by a convergence study.
Time integrator and step size = not stated
The energy and momentum conservation curves in Fig. 5 depend on the integrator and step, which are never named; this is effectively an unspecified hand-chosen numerical parameter.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The N-boson Coulomb system is governed by the second-quantized Hamiltonian (6)-(9) in a plane-wave basis.
Standard many-body quantum theory (Refs. [30,31]); this is the starting point of the dequantization derivation.
domain assumption The Schrödinger-Poisson system (19)-(20) approximates the Vlasov-Poisson system (4)-(5) through the Wigner transform (27) when quantum effects are negligible.
This is the load-bearing approximation of the paper; it is asserted with citations to Refs. [32-39] but is not proved or error-bounded in the present work.
domain assumption The negative values of the Wigner-reconstructed f are negligible artifacts of quantum effects in the classical regime and do not contaminate the simulated dynamics.
Invoked in the discussion after Eq. (27); unquantified, and the paper's own resolution argument about δ-scale oscillations is inconsistent with the 97-mode truncation.
ad hoc to paper The initial ansatz (31) realizes the desired two-stream distribution through its Wigner transform, including the seeded perturbation.
Adapted from Ref. [36]; the wave function form is constructed specifically so that its Wigner function peaks at v = ±V0.
standard math The linear two-stream dispersion relation (32) is the correct external benchmark for the growth rate.
Standard linear Vlasov theory for two cold beams; used as an external benchmark, not fitted.
standard math Replacing commutators by Poisson brackets and operators by c-numbers (dequantization) preserves the finite-dimensional system's conservation laws.
Standard classical limit of the truncated bosonic algebra; the paper proves the quantum analogs in Eqs. (14)-(15).

invented entities (1)

The 'gauge photon' that mediates the Coulomb interaction
purpose: Interpretive device: in Fig. 1 and the text near Eq. (13), the momentum ℏk_g exchanged in the interaction term is attributed to a gauge photon, illustrating the Coulomb kernel as photon exchange.
This is a standard interpretation of the Fourier-space Coulomb interaction, not a new physical entity; it is not load-bearing for the algorithm and has no falsifiable handle of its own.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Inspiration, Classical Advantage: Dequantized particle algorithm for the nonlinear Vlasov-Poisson system." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MAC4ZOWT

@misc{pith2026250705151,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Inspiration, Classical Advantage: Dequantized particle algorithm for the nonlinear Vlasov-Poisson system},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MAC4ZOWT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.05151}
}

read the original abstract

We present a dequantization algorithm for the Vlasov--Poisson (VP) system, termed the dequantized particle algorithm, by systematically dequantizing the underlying many-body quantum theory. Starting from the second-quantized Hamiltonian description, we derive a finite-dimensional dequantized system and show that it furnishes a structure-preserving discretization of the Schr\"odinger--Poisson (SP) equations. Through the Wigner or Husimi transformations, this discretization provides an efficient approximation of the VP system when quantum effects are negligible. Unlike conventional structure-preserving algorithms formulated in 6D phase space, this dequantized particle algorithm operates in 3D configuration space, potentially offering more compact and efficient representations of physical information under appropriate conditions. A numerical example of the classical nonlinear two-stream instability, simulated using merely 97 dequantized particles, demonstrates the efficiency, accuracy, and conservation properties of the algorithm and confirms its potential as a foundation for developing quantum and quantum-inspired classical algorithms for kinetic plasma dynamics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.05151 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Nonlinear two-stream instability simulated with 97 dequantized particles. Shown is the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The wave function ψ(x, t) at t = 0, 16, 20, 22, 23, and 25 is constructed from the 97 dequantized particles aj (−48 ≤ j ≤ 48). In the linear phase, the wave function is dominated by a small number of dequantized particles, whereas in the nonlinear phase, more dequantized particles participate in the dynamics. 10−4 , 4π, 5 × 10−4 ) with 97 dequantized particles, i.e., J = {n ∈ N| − 48 ≤ n ≤ 48} . The simulation was r… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The photon field ϕ(x, t) at t = 0, 16, 20, 22, 23, and 25 is constructed from the 97 dequantized particles aj (−48 ≤ j ≤ 48). In the linear phase, the potential energy H1 increases monotonically, while in the nonlinear phase, the mediating photon field deviates signifi…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Nonlinear two-stream instability simulated with 97 dequantized particles. (a) Growth [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

[1]

Cary and I

J. Cary and I. Doxas, Journal of Computational Physics107, 98 (1993)

work page 1993
[2]

Squire, H

J. Squire, H. Qin, and W. M. Tang, Physics of Plasmas19, 084501 (2012)

work page 2012
[3]

J. Xiao, J. Liu, H. Qin, and Z. Yu, Physics of Plasmas20, 102517 (2013). 11

work page 2013
[4]

J. Xiao, H. Qin, J. Liu, Y. He, R. Zhang, and Y. Sun, Physics of Plasmas22, 112504 (2015)

work page 2015
[5]

J. Xiao, J. Liu, H. Qin, Z. Yu, and N. Xiang, Physics of Plasmas22, 092305 (2015)

work page 2015
[6]

Y. He, H. Qin, Y. Sun, J. Xiao, R. Zhang, and J. Liu, Physics of Plasmas22, 124503 (2015)

work page 2015
[7]

Y. He, Y. Sun, H. Qin, and J. Liu, Physics of Plasmas23, 092108 (2016)

work page 2016
[8]

H. Qin, J. Liu, J. Xiao, R. Zhang, Y. He, Y. Wang, Y. Sun, J. W. Burby, L. Ellison, and Y. Zhou, Nuclear Fusion56, 014001 (2016)

work page 2016

Show all 49 references

[9]

Kraus, K

M. Kraus, K. Kormann, P. J. Morrison, and E. Sonnendrücker, Journal of Plasma Physics83, 905830401 (2017)

2017
[10]

J. W. Burby, Physics of Plasmas24, 032101 (2017)

2017
[11]

J. Xiao, H. Qin, J. Liu, and R. Zhang, Physics of Plasmas24, 062112 (2017)

2017
[12]

J. Xiao, H. Qin, and J. Liu, Plasma Science and Technology20, 110501 (2018)

2018
[13]

Xiao and H

J. Xiao and H. Qin, Nuclear Fusion59, 106044 (2019)

2019
[14]

Xiao and H

J. Xiao and H. Qin, Plasma Science and Technology23, 055102 (2021)

2021
[15]

A. S. Glasser and H. Qin, Journal of Plasma Physics86, 835860303 (2020)

2020
[16]

Z. Wang, H. Qin, B. Sturdevant, and C. Chang, Journal of Plasma Physics87, 905870406 (2021)

2021
[17]

Kormann and E

K. Kormann and E. Sonnendrücker, Journal of Computational Physics425, 109890 (2021)

2021
[18]

Perse, K

B. Perse, K. Kormann, and E. Sonnendrücker, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing43, B194 (2021)

2021
[19]

A. S. Glasser and H. Qin, Journal of Plasma Physics88, 835880202 (2022)

2022
[20]

Campos Pinto, K

M. Campos Pinto, K. Kormann, and E. Sonnendrücker, Journal of Scientific Computing91, 46 (2022)

2022
[21]

J. W. Burby, Scientific Reports13, 18286 (2023)

2023
[22]

Ye and N

E. Ye and N. F. G. Loureiro, Physical Review E106, 035208 (2022)

2022
[23]

Engel, G

A. Engel, G. Smith, and S. E. Parker, Phys. Rev. A100, 062315 (2019)

2019
[24]

Novikau, E

I. Novikau, E. A. Startsev, and I. Y. Dodin, Phys. Rev. A105, 062444 (2022)

2022
[25]

Ameri, E

A. Ameri, E. Ye, P. Cappellaro, H. Krovi, and N. F. Loureiro, Phys. Rev. A107, 062412 (2023)

2023
[26]

Toyoizumi, N

K. Toyoizumi, N. Yamamoto, and K. Hoshino, Phys. Rev. A109, 012430 (2024)

2024
[27]

Miyamoto, S

K. Miyamoto, S. Yamazaki, F. Uchida, K. Fujisawa, and N. Yoshida, Phys. Rev. Research6, 013200 (2024). 12

2024
[28]

M. Q. May and H. Qin 10.48550/arxiv.2506.01895 (2025)

2025 doi arXiv
[29]

Higuchi, J

H. Higuchi, J. W. Pedersen, K. Toyoizumi, K. Yoshikawa, C. Kiumi, and A. Yoshikawa 10.48550/arXiv.2408.11550 (2024)

2024 doi arXiv
[30]

A. L. Fetter and J. D. Walecka,Quantum Theory of Many-Particle Systems (Dover Publica- tions, Newburyport, 2012)

2012
[31]

G. D. Mahan,Many-Particle Physics (Springer US, 2000)

2000
[32]

Husimi, Proceedings of the Physico-Mathematical Society of Japan

K. Husimi, Proceedings of the Physico-Mathematical Society of Japan. 3rd Series22, 264 (1940)

1940
[33]

J. E. Moyal, Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society45, 99 (1949)

1949
[34]

M. R. Feix, in1970 Proceedings of the Fourth Conference on Numerical Simulation of Plasma (Naval Research Laboratory, Washington) (1970) p. 732

1970
[35]

Cartwright, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications83, 210 (1976)

N. Cartwright, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications83, 210 (1976)

1976
[36]

Bertrand, N

P. Bertrand, N. van Tuan, M. Gros, B. Izrar, M. Feix, and J. Gutierrez, J. Plasma Phys.23, 401 (1980)

1980
[37]

M. Kopp, K. Vattis, and C. Skordis, Phys. Rev. D96, 123532 (2017)

2017
[38]

Mocz and L

P. Mocz and L. Lancaster, Phys. Rev. D97, 083519 (2018)

2018
[39]

Cappelli, F

L. Cappelli, F. Tacchino, G. Murante, S. Borgani, and I. Tavernelli, Phys. Rev. Research6, 013282 (2024)

2024
[40]

J. P. Hansen, Physical Review A8, 3096 (1973)

1973
[41]

Y. Shi, J. Xiao, H. Qin, and N. J. Fisch, Physical Review E97, 053206 (2018)

2018
[42]

Shi, Plasma Physics in Strong Field Regimes , Ph.D

Y. Shi, Plasma Physics in Strong Field Regimes , Ph.D. thesis, Princeton University (2018)

2018
[43]

Joseph, Phys

I. Joseph, Phys. Rev. Research2, 043102 (2020)

2020
[44]

Y. Shi, H. Qin, and N. J. Fisch, Physics of Plasmas28, 042104 (2021)

2021
[45]

Y. Shi, A. R. Castelli, X. Wu, I. Joseph, V. Geyko, F. R. Graziani, S. B. Libby, J. B. Parker, Y. J. Rosen, L. A. Martinez, and J. L. DuBois, Phys. Rev. A103, 062608 (2021)

2021
[46]

Dodin and E

I. Dodin and E. Startsev, Phys. of Plasmas28, 092101 (2021)

2021
[47]

M. Q. May and H. Qin, Phys. Rev. A107, 062204 (2023)

2023
[48]

M. Q. May and H. Qin, J. Plasma Phys.90, 805900302 (2024)

2024
[49]

M. Q. May and H. Qin, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.57, 415304 (2024). 13

2024

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Cary and I

J. Cary and I. Doxas, Journal of Computational Physics107, 98 (1993)

work page 1993

[2] [2]

Squire, H

J. Squire, H. Qin, and W. M. Tang, Physics of Plasmas19, 084501 (2012)

work page 2012

[3] [3]

J. Xiao, J. Liu, H. Qin, and Z. Yu, Physics of Plasmas20, 102517 (2013). 11

work page 2013

[4] [4]

J. Xiao, H. Qin, J. Liu, Y. He, R. Zhang, and Y. Sun, Physics of Plasmas22, 112504 (2015)

work page 2015

[5] [5]

J. Xiao, J. Liu, H. Qin, Z. Yu, and N. Xiang, Physics of Plasmas22, 092305 (2015)

work page 2015

[6] [6]

Y. He, H. Qin, Y. Sun, J. Xiao, R. Zhang, and J. Liu, Physics of Plasmas22, 124503 (2015)

work page 2015

[7] [7]

Y. He, Y. Sun, H. Qin, and J. Liu, Physics of Plasmas23, 092108 (2016)

work page 2016

[8] [8]

H. Qin, J. Liu, J. Xiao, R. Zhang, Y. He, Y. Wang, Y. Sun, J. W. Burby, L. Ellison, and Y. Zhou, Nuclear Fusion56, 014001 (2016)

work page 2016