Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 43 references

Derivation of the time-dependent Hartree equations for strongly interacting dense fermionic systems

T0 review · 1 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 This paper proves that the time-dependent Hartree equations are the large-$N$ limit of the $N$-fermion Schr\"odinger dynamics in a dense, strongly interacting regime, and does so through a time-dependent gauge transformation that removes…

desk verdict Dense strongly-interacting fermionic mean-field derivation with a novel gauge method, but a systematic sign error in the displayed gauge dynamics must be corrected before the theorem as stated is proved. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.12390 v1 pith:7OAL3L2H submitted 2025-07-16 math-ph math.MP

Duc Viet Hoang , David Mitrouskas , Peter Pickl This is my paper
classification math-phmath.MP MSC 81V7035Q4181Q05
keywords time-dependentHartreeequationsfermionicmean-fielddynamicsdensestronglyinteractingfermionsgaugetransformationcountingfunctionalSchrodingerSlaterdeterminantapproximationmany-bodyquantum
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 aims to prove that the time-dependent Hartree equations\u2014the standard single-particle mean-field description of fermions in atoms, molecules, and nuclei\u2014follow rigorously from the microscopic Schr\"odinger dynamics of $N$ fermions in a regime where the interaction is strong, not weak. The setting is a dense gas: $N$ fermions in a volume of order one, governed by the rescaled Hamiltonian $\varepsilon H$ with $\varepsilon = N^{-2/3}$, on time scales on which each particle feels a force of order $N$ and moves a distance of order $N^{-1/3}$. Earlier derivations of fermionic mean-field dynamics required either weak coupling, where the interaction is subleading, or a semiclassical limit; here the pair potential is $N$-independent and contributes at leading order together with the kinetic energy. The central device is a time-dependent gauge transformation that removes the large interaction potential from both the Schr\"odinger and Hartree generators, yielding magnetic-type terms that are effectively of order one per particle. If the theorem is right, Hartree dynamics\u2014not free or Vlasov evolution\u2014is the correct effective theory on the natural short time scale of dense fermionic systems, including localized orbitals whose motion amounts to genuine macroscopic quantum transport.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a time-dependent gauge transformation: multiplying the Schr\"odinger wave function by the phase $\exp\bigl(i t \varepsilon \sum_{i<j} v(x_i-x_j)\bigr)$ removes the large potential from the microscopic Hamiltonian and replaces it with magnetic-type kinetic terms $(i\nabla_i + t\varepsilon \sum_{j\ne i} f_{ij})^2$, with $f = -\nabla v$, which carry extra factors of $\varepsilon$ and are effectively of order one per particle; the identical transformation is applied to the Hartree orbitals. Since the old counting-functional method would produce an $O(N^{1/3})$ growth rate, the proof introduces an auxiliary Hamiltonian $\widetilde{H}_g(t)$\u2014the quadratic approximation to the gauged generator obtained by discarding all terms with three or more $q$-projections\u2014and controls the number of 'bad' particles outside the Hartree orbitals via counting functionals with weight functions $m^{(\gamma)}(k)=\min\{1, k/N^\gamma\}$ and $w^{(\gamma)}=1-m^{(\gamma)}$. Diagonalization estimates, which express operators of the form $p_2 h_{12} p_2$ in a basis where they are diagonal and subtract the mean-field contribution, provide the cancellations needed for the zero- and one-excitation terms.

What would settle it

Run the microscopic Schr\"odinger evolution numerically for a dense system of $N$ fermions with a compactly supported, smooth radial pair potential, starting from an exact Slater determinant built from orbitals satisfying Assumption 1.2, and compare the one-particle density with the Hartree prediction at fixed rescaled time: the theorem predicts the difference of expectation values decays roughly like $N^{-1/24}$, so a clearly different decay rate or non-convergence would refute the claimed bound. A second, more targeted test uses a singular potential such as $v(x)=|x|^{-1/2}$, which satisfies $s=1/2<5/8$ and which the paper says the proof can handle with modifications; failure of convergence there would pinpoint where the $L^\infty$ force estimates are the load-bearing step.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim (Theorem 1.1) is quantitative: for a real-valued, radial pair potential $v \in C^2(\mathbb{R}^3)$ and initial data satisfying Assumptions 1.2 and (1.10), for all bounded multiplication operators $M$, $$\sup_{\|M\|\le 1} \left| \operatorname{Tr}(M\$gamma^{{\Phi_t}}$) - \frac{1}{N}\operatorname{Tr}(M $p^{{\varphi_t}}$) \right| \le \exp\bigl(C $e^{{(1+t)^2}}$\bigr) \max\bigl\{ $N^{{5/24-\delta_1/4}}$,\, $N^{{1/12-\delta_2/4}}$,\, $N^{{1/12-\delta_1/8}}$,\, $N^{{-1/24}}$ \bigr\},$$ which vanishes as $N\to\infty$ for fixed $t$, with $\gamma^{\Phi_t}$ the one-particle reduced density of the Schr\"odinger evolution and $p^{\varphi_t}$ the projector onto the Hartree orbitals. The orbitals solve the rescaled Hartree equations $i\partial_t \varphi_t^k = \varepsilon(-\Delta + v\ast \rho_t)\varphi_t^k$ with density $\rho_t = \sum_{k=1}^N |\varphi_t^k|^2$. The paper presents this as the first derivation of fermionic mean-field dynamics in which both quantum effects and inter-particle forces are leading order, with no $N$-dependent coupling constant. For exact Slater initial data the convergence rate becomes $N^{-1/24}$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the regularity of the pair potential: $v$ must be real-valued, radial, and twice continuously differentiable, so that the force $f=-\nabla v$ and its derivative are bounded; the diagonalization and cancellation estimates rely on that boundedness, which is why the Coulomb potential is explicitly excluded, with $|x|^{-s}$, $s<5/8$, noted as reachable only through technical modifications.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For dense fermionic systems with $C^2$ pair potentials, the true $N$-body state remains close to a Slater determinant of Hartree orbitals for times $t=O(1)$ in the rescaled variable, with error vanishing like $N^{-1/24}$ for exact Slater initial data.
  • The approximation holds for both delocalized orbitals, whose density varies on macroscopic scales, and localized orbitals, whose density varies on microscopic scales; in the localized case the Hartree dynamics produces observable macroscopic transport.
  • The strong-interaction regime is distinct from the semiclassical one: no small Planck constant and no weak coupling are needed, so the Hartree equations, rather than the Vlasov equation, are the correct leading-order effective dynamics.
  • The gauge transformation plus quadratic Hamiltonian provides a concrete analytic template that the authors indicate extends to singular potentials $|x|^{-s}$ with $s<5/8$, with the Coulomb potential flagged as future work.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the error bound carries a factor $\exp(C e^{(1+t)^2})$, the theorem guarantees convergence only for fixed $t$ as $N\to\infty$; an open question the paper does not address is whether the valid time interval can grow with $N$ while keeping the error small.
  • The theorem is deliberately restricted to multiplication operators, since these commute with the gauge transformation; an extension to trace-norm closeness of full density matrices would require controlling the gauged dynamics against momentum-sensitive observables, which the present estimates do not yet reach.
  • The regularity threshold is the most exposed boundary: the proof needs $L^\infty$ control of $f$ and $\nabla f$, so potentials with singularities in the range the paper says are reachable would cleanly test where the diagonalization machinery breaks down.
  • The gauge-elimination strategy is in principle model-agnostic: any strongly interacting Hamiltonian whose dominant potential can be absorbed by a phase is a candidate for the same treatment, provided the generated magnetic terms can be controlled.
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.

Referee Report

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper claims a rigorous derivation of the time-dependent Hartree equations for N fermions in a volume of order one with an N-independent, strongly interacting C^2 radial pair potential, on the rescaled time scale t = tau N^{-2/3}. The main result, Theorem 1.1, asserts that expectation values of bounded multiplication operators in the microscopic Schr\"odinger state are approximated by the corresponding expectation values in the Slater determinant of Hartree orbitals, up to an error of order exp(C e^{(1+t)^2}) times a vanishing power of N, provided the initial data satisfy Assumptions 1.2 and (1.10). The proof proceeds through time-dependent gauge transformations (2.11) and (2.14), an auxiliary quadratic Hamiltonian \tilde H_g, counting-functional and bad-particle kinetic estimates for the auxiliary dynamics, a norm approximation between the gauged and auxiliary evolutions, and a final reduction from counting estimates to one-particle reduced density estimates. The logical structure is clear and the technical machinery is substantial, but a sign inconsistency in the gauge transformation affects the central comparison and must be corrected before the theorem can be regarded as proved.

Significance. If the proof is repaired, the result would be a significant advance: it would provide the first derivation of fermionic mean-field dynamics in a dense, strongly interacting, non-semiclassical regime in which kinetic and interaction terms both contribute at leading order. The gauge-removal strategy and the auxiliary Bogoliubov-type quadratic approximation are original and appear well suited to the strong-coupling problem. The paper also gives explicit convergence rates and clearly identifies the physical restrictions: the pair potential must be C^2 and radial, the Coulomb potential is excluded, and the approximation is stated only for multiplication observables rather than in trace norm. The authors are also transparent about the fact that singular potentials |x|^{-s} with s<5/8 would require additional technical assumptions. These strengths are conditional, however, because the gauge sign error invalidates the comparison of the gauged and ungauged dynamics as written.

major comments (1)
  1. [§2.2, Eqs. (2.11)–(2.16)] The gauge transformation is sign-inconsistent, and the subsequent proof estimates the wrong dynamics. Direct differentiation of Ψ_t = exp(it ε Σ_{i<j} v(x_i-x_j)) Φ_t using i∂_t Φ_t = ε H Φ_t gives i∂_t Ψ_t = ε Σ_i (i∇_i - tε Σ_{j≠i} f_{ij})^2 Ψ_t, because ∇_i Σ_{j≠i} v(x_i-x_j) = -Σ_{j≠i} f_{ij} with f = -∇v. Equation (2.12) instead has (i∇_i + tε Σ_{j≠i} f_{ij})^2. Likewise, differentiating ψ_t^k = exp(it ε (v*ρ_t)) φ_t^k using (1.6) yields a gauged Hartree generator with (i∇ - tε \bar f)^2, not the plus sign in (2.16), and the identity (2.19) has the opposite sign as well. Since the auxiliary Hamiltonian (3.10), the counting-functional estimates in §3, and the norm approximation in §4 are all built on the generators (2.12) and (2.16), the bound (4.4) and the equality (4.33) are not established for the wave functions defined in (2.11) and (2.14). This is a load-bearing error rather than a typographical slip: the sign propagates through (2.19), (3.10), (3.70), and the estimates of Lemmas 3.3–3.7. The authors should correct the gauge convention consistently—for example by using the phase exp(-it ε V) in (2.11) and (2.14) or by changing the sign of f throughout—and re-verify all affected displayed identities and estimates.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.1, Eq. (3.20)] In the second displayed line of the computation, the term t²ε²(~w∇f)_ij should presumably be t²ε²(~wf)_ij; as printed it duplicates the preceding term and omits the f·f interaction term that appears in the definition of \tilde H_g in (3.10).
  2. [§4, proof of Lemma 4.1, Eq. (4.25)] The notation ⟨w^{(γ)}_{-1}Ψ_t, ...⟩ is missing the hat on the weight operator; the context indicates it should read ⟨\hat w^{(γ)}_{-1}Ψ_t, ...⟩.
  3. [§4, proof of Lemma 4.1, Eqs. (4.26)–(4.27)] The labels (IIIc1) and (IIIc1) are duplicated in the two successive estimates; the second should be labeled differently, for instance (IIIc2), to keep the enumeration consistent.
  4. [§1.2, Remark after Theorem 1.1] The restriction to C^2 radial pair potentials and the explicit exclusion of the Coulomb potential are important physical limitations; since the introduction emphasizes applications such as electrons in molecules and dense matter, the abstract or introduction should state clearly that the Coulomb case is not covered and that the paper only treats bounded forces.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Hartree equations are the target, not an input, and the proof's cited counting-functional lemmas are auxiliary tools with independent published proofs.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained with respect to circularity. Theorem 1.1 compares the microscopic Schrödinger evolution to a Slater determinant built from Hartree orbitals, and the Hartree equation is the object being derived rather than an assumed input. The proof explicitly constructs the gauged dynamics (2.11) and (2.14), the auxiliary Hamiltonian (3.10), and then proves the required control via a priori estimates, Grönwall arguments, and the counting-functional estimates of Section 5. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported to force a choice, and no ansatz is smuggled in solely by self-citation. The counting-functional and shift lemmas taken from Petrat–Pickl [35] (e.g., Lemmas 5.1 and 5.4) are auxiliary technical tools with published proofs and stated assumptions that do not include the target result; although Peter Pickl is a common author, these citations are real independent support and not load-bearing circularity. The sign mismatch highlighted in the reviewer's note is a potential mathematical correctness issue in the displayed gauge generators, not a circularity, and it does not change the circularity verdict.

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

The central claim rests on three model assumptions: C^2 regularity of the potential, the dense-fermion kinetic scaling of the initial orbitals, and an initial closeness condition to a Slater determinant. No free parameters are fitted to data, and no new physical entities are introduced. The gauge transformation and auxiliary Hamiltonian are mathematical tools, not invented physical objects.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Pair potential v is real-valued, radial, and C^2(R^3) (Assumption 1.1)
    Required for self-adjointness of H and for boundedness/regularity of the gauge interaction terms f = -∇v and ∇f throughout Sections 2-5; excludes Coulomb potentials.
  • domain assumption Initial orbitals satisfy N^{-5/3} Σ||∇φ_0^k||^2 ≤ C and N^{-7/3} Σ||Δφ_0^k||^2 ≤ C (Assumption 1.2)
    Sets the dense fermionic scaling; ensures the Hartree solution estimates D(t) ≤ e^{C(1+t)^2} in Lemma 2.4.
  • domain assumption Initial state is close to a Slater determinant in the sense of (1.10): N^{δ1} Tr(γ q) and N^{δ2} kinetic energy deviation finite, with δ1>5/6 and δ2>1/3
    Needed to initialize the counting-functional bounds (3.97)-(3.99) and the bad-particle kinetic energy bound; satisfied for exact Slater determinants.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Derivation of the time-dependent Hartree equations for strongly interacting dense fermionic systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7OAL3L2H

@misc{pith2026250712390,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Derivation of the time-dependent Hartree equations for strongly interacting dense fermionic systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7OAL3L2H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.12390}
}
abstract

The time-dependent Hartree and Hartree-Fock equations provide effective mean-field descriptions for the dynamics of large fermionic systems and play a fundamental role in many areas of physics. In this work, we rigorously derive the time-dependent Hartree equations as the large-$N$ limit of the microscopic Schr\"odinger dynamics of $N$ fermions confined to a volume of order one and interacting via strong pair potentials. A central step in our analysis is the implementation of time-dependent gauge transformations, which eliminate the dominant contribution from the interaction potential in both the Schr\"odinger and Hartree evolutions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.12390 by the authors.

Figure 1.1
Figure 1.1. Illustration of the mean-field evolution of the spatial density associated with N localized Hartree or￾bitals. Initially, the orbitals have disjoint support (left). Over time they evolve over distances of order O(N −1/3 ), resulting in a macroscopic change in the spatial density (right). The grey region represents the support of a multiplication observable M. The illustration is conceptual and does not depict the pr… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    V. Bach, S. Breteaux, S. Petrat, P. Pickl, and T. Tzaneteas,Kinetic energy estimates for the accuracy of the time-dependent Hartree–Fock approximation with Coulomb interaction, J. Math. Pures Appl.105(2016), no. 1, 1–30

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    Bardos, F

    C. Bardos, F. Golse, A.D. Gottlieb, and N.J. Mauser,Mean field dynamics of fermions and the time-dependent Hartree-Fock equation, J. Math. Pures Appl.82(2003), 665–683

    work page 2003

  3. [3]

    ,Accuracy of the time-dependent Hartree-Fock approximation for uncorrelated initial states, J. Stat. Phys.115(2004), 1037–1055

    work page 2004

  4. [4]

    Bender, P.-H

    M. Bender, P.-H. Heenen, and P.-G. Reinhard,Self-consistent mean-field models for nuclear structure, Rev. Mod. Phys75(2003)

    work page 2003

  5. [5]

    Benedikter, V

    N. Benedikter, V. Jakˇ si´ c, M. Porta, C. Saffirio, and B. Schlein,Mean-field evolution of fermionic mixed states, Commun. Pure Appl. Math.69(2024), no. 12

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Benedikter, M

    N. Benedikter, M. Porta, and B. Schlein,Mean–field evolution of fermionic systems, Commun. Math. Phys.331(2014), no. 3, 1087–1131

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    A. Bove, G. Da Prato, and G. Fano,On the Hartree–Fock time-dependent problem, Commun. Math. Phys.49(1976), no. 1, 25–33

    work page 1976

  8. [8]

    C´ ardenas,Norm convergence of confined fermionic systems at zero temperature, Lett

    E. C´ ardenas,Norm convergence of confined fermionic systems at zero temperature, Lett. Math. Phys.114(2024)

    work page 2024

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    ,The quantitative semi-classical limit of a large Fermi system at zero temperature, arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.24706 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  2. [10]

    C´ ardenas and L

    E. C´ ardenas and L. Lafleche,Commutator estimates and quantitative local Weyl’s law for Schr¨ odinger operators with non-smooth potentials, (2025), arXiv:2501.01381

    2025 arXiv

  3. [11]

    L. Chen, J. Lee, and M. Liew,Combined mean-field and semiclassical limits of large fermionic systems, J. Stat. Phys.182(2021), no. 2

    2021

  4. [12]

    Chong, L

    J.J. Chong, L. Lafleche, and C. Saffirio,On the L 2-rate of convergence in the limit from the Hartree to the Vlasov–Poisson equation, J. ´Ec. polytech. Math.10(2023), 703–726

    2023

  5. [13]

    Clayden, N

    J. Clayden, N. Greeves, S. Warren, and P. Wothers,Organic chemistry, 2nd ed., University Press, 2012. 52

    2012

  6. [14]

    Elgart, L

    A. Elgart, L. Erd˝ os, B. Schlein, and H.T. Yau,Nonlinear Hartree equation as the mean field limit of weakly coupled fermions, J. Math. Pures Appl.83(2003), no. 10, 1241–1273

    2003

  7. [15]

    Fock,N¨ aherungsmethode zur l¨ osung des quantenmechanischen mehrk¨ orperproblems, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik61(1930), no

    V. Fock,N¨ aherungsmethode zur l¨ osung des quantenmechanischen mehrk¨ orperproblems, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik61(1930), no. 1–2, 126–148

    1930

  8. [16]

    Fournais, M

    S. Fournais, M. Lewin, and J.P. Solovej,The semi-classical limit of large fermionic systems, Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations57(2018)

    2018

  9. [17]

    Fournais, B

    S. Fournais, B. Ruba, and J.P. Solovej,Ground state energy of dense gases of strongly interacting fermions, Ann. Henri Poincar´ e (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    Fresta, M

    L. Fresta, M. Porta, and B. Schlein,Effective dynamics of extended Fermi gases in the high- density regime, Commun. in Math. Phys.401(2023), no. 2, 1701–1751

    2023

  11. [19]

    ,Effective dynamics of local observables for extended Fermi gases in the high-density regime, (2024), arXiv:2409.14841

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Fr¨ ohlich and A

    J. Fr¨ ohlich and A. Knowles,A microscopic derivation of the time-dependent Hartree-Fock equa- tion with Coulomb two-body interaction, J. Stat. Phys.145, 23–50

  13. [21]

    Gogny and P.-L

    D. Gogny and P.-L. Lions,Hartree-Fock theory in nuclear physics, ESAIM: Math. Model. Numer. Anal.20(1986), no. 4, 571–637

    1986

  14. [22]

    Gottschling and P.T

    N. Gottschling and P.T. Nam,Convergence of Levy–Lieb to Thomas–Fermi density functional, Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations57(2018)

    2018

  15. [23]

    Helgaker, P

    T. Helgaker, P. Jørgensen, and J. Olsen,Molecular electronic-structure theory, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 2000

    2000

  16. [24]

    Kohn,Nobel lecture: Electronic structure of matter—wave functions and density functionals, Rev

    W. Kohn,Nobel lecture: Electronic structure of matter—wave functions and density functionals, Rev. Mod. Phys.71(1999)

    1999

  17. [25]

    S. R. Leone, C. W. McCurdy, et al.,What will it take to observe processes in ’real time’?, Nature Photon8(2014), 162–166

    2014

  18. [26]

    Leopold,Derivation of the Maxwell-Schr¨ odinger and Vlasov-Maxwell equations from non- relativistic QED, (2024), arXiv:2411.07085

    N. Leopold,Derivation of the Maxwell-Schr¨ odinger and Vlasov-Maxwell equations from non- relativistic QED, (2024), arXiv:2411.07085

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Lewin, P.T

    M. Lewin, P.T. Nam, and B. Schlein,Fluctuations around Hartree states in the mean-field regime, Amer. J. Math. (2015), no. 6, 1613–1650

    2015

  20. [28]

    Lions and T

    P.-L. Lions and T. Paul,Sur les mesures de wigner, Rev. Mat. Iberoam.9(1993), no. 3, 553–618

    1993

  21. [29]

    P. A. Markowich and N. J. Mauser,The classical limit of a self-consistent quantum-Vlasov equa- tion in 3d, Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci.03(1993), no. 01, 109–124

    1993

  22. [30]

    Mitrouskas, S

    D. Mitrouskas, S. Petrat, and P. Pickl,Bogoliubov corrections and trace norm convergence for the Hartree dynamics, Rev. Math. Phys.31, no. 08

  23. [31]

    Nam and M

    P.T. Nam and M. Napi´ orkowski,Fluctuations around Hartree states in the mean-field regime, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. (2017), no. 3, 683–738. 53

    2017

  24. [32]

    Narnhofer and G.L

    H. Narnhofer and G.L. Sewell,Vlasov hydrodynamics of a quantum mechanical model, Commun. Math. Phys.79(1981), no. 1, 9–24

    1981

  25. [33]

    Petrat,Derivation of mean-field dynamics for fermions, Ph.D

    S. Petrat,Derivation of mean-field dynamics for fermions, Ph.D. thesis, 2014

    2014

  26. [34]

    ,Hartree corrections in a mean-field limit for fermions with Coulomb interaction, Journ. Phys. A50(2017), no. 24, 244004

    2017

  27. [35]

    Petrat and P

    S. Petrat and P. Pickl,A new method and a new scaling for deriving fermionic mean-field dy- namics, Math. Phys. Anal. Geom.19(2016), no. 1

    2016

  28. [36]

    Porta, S

    M. Porta, S. Rademacher, C. Saffirio, and B. Schlein,Mean field evolution of fermions with Coulomb interaction, J. Stat. Phys.166(2017), no. 6, 1345–1364

    2017

  29. [37]

    Saffirio,Semiclassical limit to the Vlasov equation with inverse power law potentials, Commun

    C. Saffirio,Semiclassical limit to the Vlasov equation with inverse power law potentials, Commun. Math. Phys.373(2019), no. 2, 571–619

    2019

  30. [38]

    ,From the Hartree equation to the Vlasov–Poisson system: Strong convergence for a class of mixed states, SIAM J. Math. Anal.52(2020), no. 6, 5533–5553

    2020

  31. [39]

    Schmid and M

    J. Schmid and M. Griesemer,Well-posedness of non-autonomous linear evolution equations in uniformly convex spaces, Math. Nachr.290(2016), no. 2–3, 435–441

    2016

  32. [40]

    Spohn,On the Vlasov hierarchy, Math

    H. Spohn,On the Vlasov hierarchy, Math. Methods Appl. Sci.3(1981), no. 1, 445–455

    1981

  33. [41]

    Szabo and N.S

    A. Szabo and N.S. Ostlund,Modern quantum chemistry: Introduction to advanced electronic structure theory, Dover Publications, Mineola, NY, 2012

    2012

  34. [42]

    C. A. Ullrich,Time-dependent density-functional theory: Concepts and applications, Oxford Uni- versity Press, Oxford, 2012

    2012

  35. [43]

    Zewail,Femtochemistry: Atomic-scale dynamics of the chemical bond, J

    A.H. Zewail,Femtochemistry: Atomic-scale dynamics of the chemical bond, J. Phys. Chem. A 104(2000), no. 24, 5660–5694. 54

    2000

Pith tools

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