Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 113 references

Reweighting scheme for the calculation of grand-canonical expectation values in quantum Monte Carlo simulations with a fermion sign problem

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proposes a reweighting scheme that recovers grand-canonical expectation values in quantum Monte Carlo simulations from canonical-ensemble data at a single chemical potential.

desk verdict Clean reweighting identity and a useful compressibility application, but the abstract oversells the regime where full grand-canonical access works. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.18935 v1 pith:MGW2UJXG submitted 2025-08-26 physics.chem-ph

Paul Hamann , Jan Vorberger , Tobias Dornheim This is my paper
classification physics.chem-ph PACS 02.70.Ss05.30.Fk71.10.-w
keywords pathintegralMonteCarlofermionsignproblemgrand-canonicalensemblereweightingwarmdensematteruniformelectrongascompressibilityparticlenumberdistribution
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 proposes a reweighting procedure that converts the particle-number distribution sampled in a bosonic grand-canonical path-integral Monte Carlo simulation into the fermionic distribution at a different chemical potential. Combined with canonical-ensemble measurements within each particle-number sector, this yields grand-canonical expectation values without directly simulating the severe grand-canonical sign problem. The scheme is validated against exact results for the ideal Fermi gas and applied to the warm dense uniform electron gas, where it gives a thermodynamic-limit compressibility of nK = (5.65 ± 0.01) Ha⁻¹ at r_s = 4 and Θ = 2. The practical payoff is access to observables over a continuous range of chemical potentials, including the compressibility, from one simulation.

What carries the argument

The reweighting identity Eq. (10): P′(N) = P(N) e^{β(μ′−μ)N} / Σ_{N′} P(N′) e^{β(μ′−μ)N′}, applied to the bosonic particle-number histogram P(N) sampled in a worm-algorithm PIMC run. Together with Eq. (9), ⟨A⟩_GC = Σ_N P(N)⟨O⟩_N, it converts canonical-sector measurements into grand-canonical expectation values. The load-bearing quantities are the ratios of canonical partition functions Z(N)/Z(N+1), extracted from P(N) via Eq. (16); these encode the relative weights of neighbouring particle sectors with the chemical-potential and normalization dependence removed.

What would settle it

For the ideal Fermi gas at Θ = 1 with target ⟨N⟩_F = 10, take a simulation whose bosonic distribution peaks near N = 10 and check whether the reweighted P′(N) reproduces the exact recursion result and whether its normalization sum equals one; the paper's own Fig. 6 indicates the ratios fail above roughly N = 15, where P′(N) has decayed only about 20%, so this test should already expose the breakdown.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms: the grand-canonical expectation value of any observable can be written as the sum over particle numbers of the fermionic particle-number distribution P(N) times the canonical expectation value in each N-sector. The contribution is a simple exponential reweighting, P'(N) = P(N) e^{β(μ'−μ)N}/normalization, that recovers the fermionic P(N) at μ′ from a bosonic simulation at μ, provided the sampled distribution overlaps the range where the fermionic distribution carries significant weight. The authors demonstrate on the ideal Fermi gas that this reproduces exact distributions, and for the interacting uniform electron gas that restricting the grand-canonical ensemble wit

Load-bearing premise

The scheme works only when the bosonic simulation actually samples the particle-number range where the true fermionic distribution has significant weight, so that the ratios Z(N)/Z(N+1) can be estimated before the fermion sign problem turns them into noise.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Grand-canonical observables that become prohibitively expensive at strong degeneracy become accessible at the cost of canonical-sector simulations, as long as the relevant particle-number range is adequately sampled.
  • A single simulation at one chemical potential yields expectation values over a continuous range of μ-values without additional runs, which is directly useful for inverting the density–chemical-potential relation.
  • The compressibility, a second derivative of the free energy, can be extracted from the density response d⟨N⟩/dμ; the reported UEG value deviates from the GDSMFB parametrization by about 5%, pointing to a route for constraining equation-of-state fits.
  • The restricted grand-canonical ensemble, a harmonic bias in particle number, can concentrate sampling on the fermionic particle-number range and then be unbiased by the same reweighting procedure.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The overlap requirement implies the practical window of the scheme is set by how far the sign problem allows accurate sector ratios before P(N) decays; extrapolating Z(N)/Z(N+1) to larger N or stitching together several shifted simulations could extend the method to lower temperature.
  • The same reweighting logic should apply to any histogram over a configuration-space label, not just particle number, whenever the sampled and target distributions differ by a known exponential factor.
  • Because the density response is obtained from one simulation, the scheme could serve as a cheap consistency check for free-energy parametrizations that show spurious oscillations in second thermodynamic derivatives, such as the heat capacity.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a reweighting scheme for grand-canonical (GCE) fermionic path integral Monte Carlo (PIMC) simulations. Starting from the exact identity Eq. (10), the fermionic particle-number distribution P(N) measured at one chemical potential is reweighted to other chemical potentials, thereby allowing GCE expectation values to be expressed as sums over canonical-sector measurements via Eq. (9). The scheme is validated against exact analytic results for the non-interacting Fermi gas at several degeneracies and is then applied to the uniform electron gas (UEG), including a calculation of the isothermal compressibility at rs=4, Theta=2. The central algebraic identities are correct, and the ideal-gas tests are clean. However, the paper itself shows that at strong degeneracy (Theta=1) the fermion sign problem in the upper tail of P(N) prevents an accurate determination of the normalization, so that the advertised access to full GCE expectation values is not achieved in the regime where the GCE sign problem is most severe.

Significance. If the scheme worked as advertised, it would be a valuable practical tool for warm dense matter simulations, where the GCE fermion sign problem is a known bottleneck. The paper's exact reweighting identity and the use of a restricted grand-canonical ensemble to improve overlap between bosonic sampling and fermionic target distributions are conceptually useful and are supported by exact analytic tests. The open-source implementation and reproducible data are also positive features. Nevertheless, the main advertised advantage—retaining access to GCE expectation values at canonical cost in the strong-degeneracy regime—is not delivered. The method is better characterized as a way to improve the accuracy of canonical-sector observables and to extract chemical-potential dependence from a single simulation in regimes where the relevant particle-number tail can still be sampled.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract, Sec. 1, Sec. 3.2] The central claim that the reweighting scheme allows computation of grand-canonical expectation values at the cost of canonical PIMC simulations is not supported in the regime where the GCE sign problem is severe. Sec. 3.2 states: 'the fermion sign problem at the upper tail ... represents the limiting factor for determining the normalization. Without coming up with new strategies ... this limits the applicability of the reweighting scheme to larger temperatures, where direct grand-canonical simulations are often possible as well.' At Theta=1 (Sec. 3.1, Fig. 6), P_F(N) has decayed by only 20% at N=15 and reaches 1% only near N=20, while the average sign has already fallen below 1e-4. Equation (9) therefore cannot be evaluated without the normalization. The advertised scope is thus overstated.
  2. [Eq. (10), Sec. 3.1] The reweighting identity is exact only if the fermionic particle-number distribution P_F(N) at the reference chemical potential is known over its full support. The paper notes the overlap requirement, but the practical consequence is that the normalization sum in Eq. (10) cannot be computed unless the ratios Z_C(N)/Z_C(N+1) are estimated accurately up to the upper tail, exactly where the sign problem is exponential. This condition should be stated as a formal limitation in the abstract and introduction; otherwise Eq. (10) is presented as a general workaround rather than as a method that is useful only when the reference simulation has already sampled the relevant fermionic tail.
  3. [Sec. 2.3, Eq. (11)] The claim that the scheme operates 'at the cost of PIMC simulations in the canonical ensemble' is not substantiated by the actual protocol. The simulations are grand-canonical worm-algorithm runs, and the restricted ensemble Eq. (11) is used to concentrate sampling around a target particle number. No comparison of total computational cost to a set of canonical PIMC simulations is provided, and the cost of resolving the upper tail—where the sign decays exponentially—is not captured by the canonical-cost picture. The cost statement in the abstract and introduction should be revised or explicitly qualified.
  4. [Sec. 3.2.1, Fig. 8] The reported thermodynamic-limit compressibility nK=(5.65±0.01) Ha^-1 rests on a linear extrapolation in 1/N over N in {10,...,60}. Because the normalization problem limits the accuracy of P(N) at finite N, the statistical error bar does not include systematic bias from incomplete normalization or from the linear-fit model. The 5% discrepancy with GDSMFB may indeed be due to known derivative inaccuracies of GDSMFB, but the paper should at least examine the sensitivity of the intercept to the fit range and to truncation of the particle-number distribution.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (11)] The harmonic potential is written as e^{-(N-bar N)/(2 sigma^2)} but should be quadratic in N: e^{-(N-bar N)^2/(2 sigma^2)}. As printed, the equation is linear in N and does not describe a harmonic potential.
  2. [Sec. 2.2, Eq. (5)] The text says the denominator of Eq. (5) 'is usually denoted as the average sign S ≡ <S>_Fermi'. The denominator is actually <S>_Bose, and the average sign is Z_F/Z_B = <S>_Bose. Please correct this notation or clarify the convention.
  3. [Sec. 4] Typo: 'grandcanonical ensemblem' should be 'grandcanonical ensemble'.
  4. [References] Reference [103] says a data repository link 'will be made available upon publication'; for reproducibility, the link should be provided in the manuscript.
  5. [Fig. 3] The caption says the reweighted results are from the simulation at mu_2, but it would help to explicitly state that these are reweighted to mu_1. Minor clarity issue.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reweighting identity is self-contained and validated against independent analytic benchmarks.

full rationale

The central derivation is Eqs. (6)–(10): grand-canonical sector weights are Z_C(N)e^{βμN}, so changing the chemical potential multiplies each sector by e^{β(μ′−μ)N}, and renormalization yields Eq. (10). This is an exact algebraic identity, not a fit, and no parameter is calibrated to the quantities later called predictions. The ideal-gas validation is against exact recursion Eq. (13) and associated analytic results, which are external to the PIMC data. The UEG compressibility is compared with the GDSMFB parametrization, a literature benchmark, not used as a fitting target. Self-citations such as [50] motivate the grand-canonical sign problem but do not supply the load-bearing reweighting identity. The limitation admitted in Sec. 3.2—that the normalization cannot be determined when the sign decays before the fermionic P(N) has decayed—is an explicit statistical-overlap condition, not an imported assumption that makes the derivation circular. Thus the paper's central claim is self-contained and receives independent support from exact non-interacting results.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced. The central claim rests on standard statistical-mechanics identities plus a simulation-strategy assumption (overlap). The free parameters are simulation controls and the finite-size extrapolation, not fitted constants of the physics.

free parameters (5)
  • Restricted GCE target particle number Nbar = 10
    Hand-chosen center of the harmonic bias in Eq. (11) for the UEG example; concentration of sampling around this value affects which canonical ratios are well resolved.
  • Restricted GCE harmonic steepness sigma = 5
    Hand-chosen width parameter in Eq. (11); balances reduced variance against bias removal via reweighting.
  • Reference chemical potentials = mu1 for <N>F=20; mu2 peaks bosonic P(N) near N=20; UEG values mu=-0.186 and mu=0.2
    Simulation parameters selected by hand to align the sampled bosonic distribution with the target fermionic distribution; not fitted to the final result.
  • Thermodynamic-limit extrapolation slope = -4.70 +/- 0.23
    Least-squares slope of nK versus 1/N in Fig. 8, used to extract the intercept; fitted to the PIMC compressibility data.
  • Thermodynamic-limit intercept nK_infinity = 5.65 +/- 0.01 Ha^-1
    Fitted intercept of the linear extrapolation; the paper's headline compressibility value.
assumptions (8)
  • standard math Grand-canonical partition function decomposes as sum over canonical partition functions weighted by fugacity, Eq. (6).
    Definition of the GCE used throughout; unproved background.
  • standard math Canonical expectation values can be extracted inside a GCE simulation via delta_{N,N'} projectors, Eq. (7), and the particle-number histogram gives Z_C(N) e^{beta mu N} / Z_GC, Eq. (8).
    Standard projection identities.
  • standard math Reweighting formula Eq. (10) transforms a measured particle-number distribution under a change of chemical potential.
    Exact if the sampled distribution has support where the target distribution has mass; standard histogram reweighting.
  • domain assumption Fermionic expectation values can be recovered from a bosonic reference by sampling |W| and reweighting by the sign S(X)=W(X)/|W(X)|, Eq. (5).
    The basis of the fermion sign problem; relies on the standard PIMC mapping and antisymmetric density matrix.
  • domain assumption The PIMC Trotter factorization and Ewald pair potential give a computable weight W(X) for the UEG.
    Standard numerical approximation; exactness is conditional on Trotter convergence and the chosen interaction convention.
  • domain assumption Canonical-sector measurements made in a worm-algorithm GCE simulation are unbiased estimators of canonical expectation values.
    Assumed by the extraction of <O>_N from the grand-canonical Markov chain; standard but not proved here.
  • standard math Non-interacting Fermi/Bose partition functions follow the exchange-cycle recursion Eq. (13).
    Exact reference used for validation.
  • standard math The restricted GCE harmonic bias Eq. (11) can be removed by reweighting.
    Herdman et al. and Dornheim et al. cited; standard umbrella-type weighting.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reweighting scheme for the calculation of grand-canonical expectation values in quantum Monte Carlo simulations with a fermion sign problem." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MGW2UJXG

@misc{pith2026250818935,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reweighting scheme for the calculation of grand-canonical expectation values in quantum Monte Carlo simulations with a fermion sign problem},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MGW2UJXG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.18935}
}
abstract

Ab initio path integral Monte Carlo (PIMC) simulations constitute the gold standard for the estimation of a broad range of equilibrium properties of a host of interacting quantum many-body systems spanning conditions from ultracold atoms to warm dense quantum plasmas. A key practical limitation is given by the notorious fermion sign problem, which manifests as an exponential computational bottleneck with respect to system size and inverse temperature. In practice, the sign problem is particularly severe in the grandcanonical ensemble, where the bosonic and fermionic configuration spaces differ not only with respect to the symmetry of the thermal density matrix but, crucially, also with respect to the particle number distribution for a given chemical potential $\mu$ [T. Dornheim, J. Phys. A 54, 335001 (2021)]. Here, we present a simple reweighting scheme that basically allows one to retain access to grandcanonical expectation values at the cost of fermionic PIMC simulations in the canonical ensemble for the largest significant particle number in the fermionic sector. As a practical example, we consider the warm dense electron gas, which has attracted considerable recent attention due to its relevance, e.g., for the modeling of compact astrophysical objects and inertial fusion energy applications

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

113 extracted references · 78 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Anderson,Quantum Monte Carlo: Origins, Development, Applications, Oxford University Press, USA,2007

    J.B. Anderson,Quantum Monte Carlo: Origins, Development, Applications, Oxford University Press, USA,2007

    2007

  2. [2]

    W. M. C. Foulkes, L. Mitas, R. J. Needs, G. Rajagopal,Rev. Mod. Phys.2001, 73, 33–83

    2001

  3. [3]

    D. M. Ceperley,Rev. Mod. Phys1995, 67, 279

  4. [4]

    Lars Goerigk, Andreas Hansen, Christoph Bauer, Stephan Ehrlich, Asim Najibi, Stefan Grimme,Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.2017, 19, 32184–32215

    2017

  5. [5]

    M. F. Herman, E. J. Bruskin, B. J. Berne,The Journal of Chemical Physics1982, 76 (10), 5150–5155

  6. [6]

    Minoru Takahashi, Masatoshi Imada,Journal of the Physical Society of Japan1984, 53 (3), 963–974

  7. [7]

    E. L. Pollock, D. M. Ceperley,Phys. Rev. B1984, 30, 2555–2568

  8. [8]

    Boninsegni, N

    M. Boninsegni, N. V. Prokofev, B. V. Svistunov,Phys. Rev. E2006, 74, 036701

Show all 113 references
  1. [9]

    Kleinert, Path Integrals in Quantum Mechanics, Statistics, Polymer Physics, and Financial Markets, of EBL- Schweitzer, World Scientific,2009

    H. Kleinert, Path Integrals in Quantum Mechanics, Statistics, Polymer Physics, and Financial Markets, of EBL- Schweitzer, World Scientific,2009

    2009

  2. [10]

    Wolynes,The Journal of Chemical Physics1981, 74(7), 4078–4095

    David Chandler, Peter G. Wolynes,The Journal of Chemical Physics1981, 74(7), 4078–4095

  3. [11]

    Dornheim, S

    T. Dornheim, S. Groth, A. V. Filinov, M. Bonitz,J. Chem. Phys.2019, 151 (1), 014108

    2019

  4. [12]

    Boninsegni, N

    M. Boninsegni, N. V. Prokofev, B. V. Svistunov,Phys. Rev. Lett2006, 96, 070601

  5. [13]

    Moldabekov, Jan Vorberger, Panagiotis Tolias,J

    Tobias Dornheim, Sebastian Schwalbe, Zhandos A. Moldabekov, Jan Vorberger, Panagiotis Tolias,J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2024, 15 (5), 1305–1313

    2024

  6. [14]

    https: //arxiv.org/abs/2507.12960

    PontusSvensson,FotiosKalkavouras,UweHernandezAcosta,ZhandosA.Moldabekov,PanagiotisTolias,JanVorberger, Tobias Dornheim,Accelerated free energy estimation in ab initio path integral Monte Carlo simulations, 2025. https: //arxiv.org/abs/2507.12960. 15

    2025 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Klein, David M

    Philippe Sindzingre, Michael L. Klein, David M. Ceperley,Phys. Rev. Lett.1989, 63, 1601–1604

    1989

  8. [16]

    Tobias Dornheim,Phys. Rev. A2020, 102, 023307

  9. [17]

    Blume,Phys

    Yangqian Yan, D. Blume,Phys. Rev. Lett.2014, 112, 235301

    2014

  10. [18]

    Saccani, S

    S. Saccani, S. Moroni, M. Boninsegni,Phys. Rev. Lett.2012, 108, 175301

    2012

  11. [19]

    Filinov, M

    A. Filinov, M. Bonitz,Phys. Rev. A2012, 86, 043628

  12. [20]

    Filinov,Phys

    A. Filinov,Phys. Rev. A2016, 94, 013603

  13. [21]

    Dornheim, S

    T. Dornheim, S. Groth, J. Vorberger, M. Bonitz,Phys. Rev. Lett.2018, 121, 255001

    2018

  14. [22]

    Chuna, Jan Vorberger, Panagiotis Tolias, Alexander Benedix Robles, Michael Hecht, Phil-Alexander Hofmann, Zhandos A

    Thomas M. Chuna, Jan Vorberger, Panagiotis Tolias, Alexander Benedix Robles, Michael Hecht, Phil-Alexander Hofmann, Zhandos A. Moldabekov, Tobias Dornheim,The Journal of Chemical Physics2025, 163 (3), 034117

  15. [23]

    Ferré, J

    G. Ferré, J. Boronat,Phys. Rev. B2016, 93, 104510

  16. [24]

    Clark, Michele Casula, D

    Bryan K. Clark, Michele Casula, D. M. Ceperley,Phys. Rev. Lett.2009, 103, 055701

    2009

  17. [25]

    A. V. Filinov, M. Bonitz, Yu. E. Lozovik,Phys. Rev. Lett.2001, 86, 3851–3854

    2001

  18. [26]

    DyutiBhattacharya,AlexeiV.Filinov,AmitGhosal,MichaelBonitz, TheEuropeanPhysicalJournalB 2016,89(3),60

    2016

  19. [27]

    Massimo Boninsegni,Phys. Rev. A2013, 87, 063604

  20. [28]

    Troyer, U

    M. Troyer, U. J. Wiese,Phys. Rev. Lett2005, 94, 170201

  21. [29]

    E.Y.Loh,J.E.Gubernatis,R.T.Scalettar,S.R.White,D.J.Scalapino,R.L.Sugar, Phys.Rev.B 1990,41,9301–9307

    1990

  22. [30]

    Dornheim,Phys

    T. Dornheim,Phys. Rev. E2019, 100, 023307

  23. [31]

    Brown, Bryan K

    Ethan W. Brown, Bryan K. Clark, Jonathan L. DuBois, David M. Ceperley,Phys. Rev. Lett.2013, 110, 146405

    2013

  24. [32]

    Schoof, S

    T. Schoof, S. Groth, J. Vorberger, M. Bonitz,Phys. Rev. Lett.2015, 115, 130402

    2015

  25. [33]

    Schoof, S

    T. Schoof, S. Groth, M. Bonitz,Contributions to Plasma Physics2015, 55 (2-3), 136–143

  26. [34]

    N. S. Blunt, T. W. Rogers, J. S. Spencer, W. M. C. Foulkes,Phys. Rev. B2014, 89, 245124

  27. [35]

    FionnD.Malone,N.S.Blunt,JamesJ.Shepherd,D.K.K.Lee,J.S.Spencer,W.M.C.Foulkes, TheJournalofChemical Physics2015, 143 (4), 044116

  28. [36]

    FionnD.Malone,N.S.Blunt,EthanW.Brown,D.K.K.Lee,J.S.Spencer,W.M.C.Foulkes,JamesJ.Shepherd, Phys. Rev. Lett.2016, 117, 115701

    2016

  29. [37]

    Morales, Fionn D

    Joonho Lee, Miguel A. Morales, Fionn D. Malone,J. Chem. Phys.2021, 154 (6), 064109

    2021

  30. [38]

    Yilmaz, K

    A. Yilmaz, K. Hunger, T. Dornheim, S. Groth, M. Bonitz,The Journal of Chemical Physics2020, 153 (12), 124114

  31. [39]

    Tobias Dornheim, Simon Groth, Alexey Filinov, Michael Bonitz,New Journal of Physics2015, 17 (7), 073017

  32. [40]

    Barak Hirshberg, Michele Invernizzi, Michele Parrinello,The Journal of Chemical Physics2020, 152 (17), 171102

  33. [41]

    TobiasDornheim,MicheleInvernizzi,JanVorberger,BarakHirshberg, TheJournalofChemicalPhysics 2020,153(23), 234104

    2020

  34. [42]

    Moldabekov, Sebastian Schwalbe, Jan Vorberger,Phys

    Tobias Dornheim, Zhandos A. Moldabekov, Sebastian Schwalbe, Jan Vorberger,Phys. Rev. B2025, 111, L041114

  35. [43]

    Chin,Phys

    Siu A. Chin,Phys. Rev. E2015, 91, 031301

  36. [44]

    Rubenstein,The Journal of Chemical Physics2020, 153 (20), 204108

    Tong Shen, Yuan Liu, Yang Yu, Brenda M. Rubenstein,The Journal of Chemical Physics2020, 153 (20), 204108. 16

  37. [45]

    Dornheim, S

    T. Dornheim, S. Groth, T. Sjostrom, F. D. Malone, W. M. C. Foulkes, M. Bonitz,Phys. Rev. Lett.2016, 117, 156403

    2016

  38. [46]

    Yunuo Xiong, Hongwei Xiong,The Journal of Chemical Physics2022, 157 (9), 094112

  39. [47]

    https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.01569

    Tommaso Morresi, Giovanni Garberoglio,Normal liquid3He studied by Path Integral Monte Carlo with a parametrized partition function, 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.01569

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Yunuo Xiong, Hongwei Xiong,Phys. Rev. E2023, 107, 055308

  41. [49]

    Böhme, Luke B

    Tobias Dornheim, Tilo Döppner, Panagiotis Tolias, Maximilian P. Böhme, Luke B. Fletcher, Thomas Gawne, Frank R. Graziani, Dominik Kraus, Michael J. MacDonald, Zhandos A. Moldabekov, Sebastian Schwalbe, Dirk O. Gericke, Jan Vorberger,Nature Communications2025, 16 (1), 5103

  42. [50]

    Tobias Dornheim,J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.2021, 54 (33), 335001

    2021

  43. [51]

    Chi-Chun Zhou, Wu-Sheng Dai,Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment2018, 2018 (2), 023105

    2018

  44. [52]

    Giuliani, G

    G. Giuliani, G. Vignale,Quantum Theory of the Electron Liquid, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,2008

    2008

  45. [53]

    Dornheim, S

    T. Dornheim, S. Groth, M. Bonitz,Phys. Rep.2018, 744, 1–86

    2018

  46. [54]

    P.-F. Loos, P. M. W. Gill,Comput. Mol. Sci2016, 6, 410–429

  47. [55]

    Torben Ott, Hauke Thomsen, Jan Willem Abraham, Tobias Dornheim, Michael Bonitz,The European Physical Journal D 2018, 72 (5), 84

    2018

  48. [56]

    Jan Vorberger, Frank Graziani, David Riley, Andrew D. Baczewski, Isabelle Baraffe, Mandy Bethkenhagen, Simon Blouin,MaximilianP.Böhme,MichaelBonitz,MichaelBussmann,AlexisCasner,WitoldCayzac,PeterCelliers,Gilles Chabrier, Nicolas Chamel, Dave Chapman, Mohan Chen, Jean Clérouin,...

    2025

  49. [57]

    Tobias Dornheim, Travis Sjostrom, Shigenori Tanaka, Jan Vorberger,Phys. Rev. B2020, 101, 045129

  50. [58]

    Yasutami Takada,Phys. Rev. B2016, 94, 245106

  51. [59]

    Tolias, F

    P. Tolias, F. Lucco Castello, T. Dornheim,J. Chem. Phys.2021, 155 (13), 134115

    2021

  52. [60]

    Panagiotis Tolias, Federico Lucco Castello, Tobias Dornheim,J. Chem. Phys.2023, 158 (14), 141102

    2023

  53. [61]

    N. D. Drummond, Z. Radnai, J. R. Trail, M. D. Towler, R. J. Needs,Phys. Rev. B2004, 69, 085116

  54. [62]

    Sam Azadi, N. D. Drummond,Phys. Rev. B2022, 105, 245135

  55. [63]

    2022, 45, 101015

    Tobias Dornheim, Jan Vorberger, Zhandos Moldabekov, Gerd Röpke, Wolf-Dietrich Kraeft,High Energy Density Phys. 2022, 45, 101015

    2022

  56. [64]

    Röpke, T

    G. Röpke, T. Dornheim, J. Vorberger, D. Blaschke, B. Mahato,Phys. Rev. E2024, 109, 025202

  57. [65]

    https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.10410

    Panagiotis Tolias, Jan Vorberger, Tobias Dornheim,Exact series expansion for even frequency moments of the dynamic structure factor, 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.10410. 17

    2025 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Moldabekov, Jan Vorberger, Barak Hirshberg,J

    Tobias Dornheim, Panagiotis Tolias, Simon Groth, Zhandos A. Moldabekov, Jan Vorberger, Barak Hirshberg,J. Chem. Phys.2023, 159(16), 164113

    2023

  59. [67]

    TobiasDornheim,SebastianSchwalbe,MaximilianP.Böhme,ZhandosA.Moldabekov,JanVorberger,PanagiotisTolias, J. Chem. Phys.2024, 160 (16), 164111

    2024

  60. [68]

    Extrem.2024, 9 (5), 057401

    TobiasDornheim,SebastianSchwalbe,PanagiotisTolias,MaximilianP.Böhme,ZhandosA.Moldabekov,JanVorberger, Matter Radiat. Extrem.2024, 9 (5), 057401

    2024

  61. [69]

    https://arxiv.org/abs/2502

    Tobias Dornheim, Zhandos Moldabekov, Sebastian Schwalbe, Panagiotis Tolias, Jan Vorberger,Fermionic free energies from ab initio path integral Monte Carlo simulations of fictitious identical particles, 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2502. 15288

    2025

  62. [70]

    https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.10113

    Tommaso Morresi, Giovanni Garberoglio, Hongwei Xiong, Yunuo Xiong,Study of the uniform electron gas through parametrized partition functions, 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.10113

    2025 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Bo Yang, Hongsheng Yu, Shujuan Liu, Fengzheng Zhu,Entropy2025, 27 (5)

  64. [72]

    F.Graziani,M.P.Desjarlais,R.Redmer,S.B.Trickey(Eds:), FrontiersandChallengesinWarmDenseMatter ,Springer, International Publishing,2014

    2014

  65. [73]

    Scripta2014, T161, 014060

    Alessandra Benuzzi-Mounaix, Stéphane Mazevet, Alessandra Ravasio, Tommaso Vinci, Adrien Denoeud, Michel Koenig,NourouAmadou,ErikBrambrink,FlorianeFesta,AnnaLevy,MarionHarmand,StéphanieBrygoo,GaelHuser, Vanina Recoules, Johan Bouchet, Guillaume Morard, François Guyot, Thibaut d...

  66. [74]

    Becker, W

    A. Becker, W. Lorenzen, J. J. Fortney, N. Nettelmann, M. Schöttler, R. Redmer,Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser2014, 215, 21

  67. [75]

    Lazicki, D

    A. Lazicki, D. McGonegle, J. R. Rygg, D. G. Braun, D. C. Swift, M. G. Gorman, R. F. Smith, P. G. Heighway, A. Hig- ginbotham, M. J. Suggit, D. E. Fratanduono, F. Coppari, C. E. Wehrenberg, R. G. Kraus, D. Erskine, J. V. Bernier, J. M. McNaney, R. E. Rudd, G. W. Collins, J. H. ...

  68. [76]

    Kraus, A

    D. Kraus, A. Ravasio, M. Gauthier, D. O. Gericke, J. Vorberger, S. Frydrych, J. Helfrich, L. B. Fletcher, G. Schau- mann, B. Nagler, B. Barbrel, B. Bachmann, E. J. Gamboa, S. Göde, E. Granados, G. Gregori, H. J. Lee, P. Neumayer, W. Schumaker, T. Döppner, R. W. Falcone, S. H. ...

  69. [77]

    Ball, Valerio Cerantola, Stella Chariton, Jinhyuk Choi, Hyunchae Cynn, Matthew J

    MungoFrost,R.StewartMcWilliams,ElenaBykova,MaximBykov,RachelJ.Husband,LeonM.Andriambariarijaona, Saiana Khandarkhaeva, Bernhard Massani, Karen Appel, Carsten Baehtz, Orianna B. Ball, Valerio Cerantola, Stella Chariton, Jinhyuk Choi, Hyunchae Cynn, Matthew J. Duff, Anand Dwived...

  70. [78]

    S. X. Hu, B. Militzer, V. N. Goncharov, S. Skupsky,Phys. Rev. B2011, 84, 224109

  71. [79]

    Betti, O

    R. Betti, O. A. Hurricane,Nature Physics2016, 12 (5), 435–448

  72. [80]

    O. A. Hurricane, P. K. Patel, R. Betti, D. H. Froula, S. P. Regan, S. A. Slutz, M. R. Gomez, M. A. Sweeney,Rev. Mod. Phys.2023, 95, 025005

    2023

  73. [81]

    Plasmas2020, 27 (4), 042710

    M.Bonitz,T.Dornheim,Zh.A.Moldabekov,S.Zhang,P.Hamann,H.Kählert,A.Filinov,K.Ramakrishna,J.Vorberger, Phys. Plasmas2020, 27 (4), 042710

  74. [82]

    Moldabekov, Kushal Ramakrishna, Panagiotis Tolias, Andrew D

    Tobias Dornheim, Zhandos A. Moldabekov, Kushal Ramakrishna, Panagiotis Tolias, Andrew D. Baczewski, Dominik Kraus, Thomas R. Preston, David A. Chapman, Maximilian P. Böhme, Tilo Döppner, Frank Graziani, Michael Bonitz, Attila Cangi, Jan Vorberger,Phys. Plasmas2023, 30 (3), 032705. 18

  75. [83]

    Fraser, W

    Louisa M. Fraser, W. M. C. Foulkes, G. Rajagopal, R. J. Needs, S. D. Kenny, A. J. Williamson,Phys. Rev. B1996, 53, 1814–1832

  76. [84]

    Yakub, C

    E. Yakub, C. Ronchi,Journal of Low Temperature Physics2005, 139 (5), 633–643

  77. [85]

    Eugene Yakub, Claudio Ronchi,The Journal of Chemical Physics2003, 119 (22), 11556–11560

  78. [86]

    V. S. Filinov, V. E. Fortov, M. Bonitz, Zh. Moldabekov,Phys. Rev. E2015, 91, 033108

  79. [87]

    G S Demyanov, P R Levashov,Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical2022, 55 (38), 385202

  80. [88]

    G. S. Demyanov, A. S. Onegin, P. R. Levashov,Contributions to Plasma Physics2024, 64 (6), e202300164

  81. [89]

    Chuna, Hannah M

    Tobias Dornheim, Thomas M. Chuna, Hannah M. Bellenbaum, Zhandos Moldabekov, Panagiotis Tolias, Jan Vorberger, ApplicationofasphericallyaveragedpairpotentialinabinitiopathintegralMonteCarlosimulationsofthewarmdense electron gas, 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.00737

    2025 arXiv

  82. [90]

    A. V. Filinov, M. Bonitz,Phys. Rev. E2023, 108, 055212

  83. [91]

    Philipp Marienhagen, Karsten Meier,The Journal of Chemical Physics2025, 163 (7), 074116

  84. [92]

    Tobias Dornheim, Maximilian Böhme, Burkhard Militzer, Jan Vorberger,Phys. Rev. B2021, 103, 205142

  85. [93]

    Dornheim, S

    T. Dornheim, S. Groth, T. Schoof, C. Hann, M. Bonitz,Phys. Rev. B2016, 93, 205134

  86. [94]

    Hans De Raedt, Bart De Raedt,Phys. Rev. A1983, 28, 3575–3580

  87. [95]

    Moldabekov, Jan Vorberger, Tobias Dornheim,Phys

    Maximilian Böhme, Zhandos A. Moldabekov, Jan Vorberger, Tobias Dornheim,Phys. Rev. E2023, 107, 015206

  88. [96]

    Militzer,Computer Physics Communications2016, 204, 88–96

    B. Militzer,Computer Physics Communications2016, 204, 88–96

  89. [97]

    1953, 21 (6), 1087–1092

    NicholasMetropolis,AriannaW.Rosenbluth,MarshallN.Rosenbluth,AugustaH.Teller,EdwardTeller, J.Chem.Phys. 1953, 21 (6), 1087–1092

    1953

  90. [98]

    C. M. Herdman, A. Rommal, A. Del Maestro,Phys. Rev. B2014, 89, 224502

  91. [99]

    TobiasDornheim,MichaelBonitz,ZhandosA.Moldabekov,SebastianSchwalbe,PanagiotisTolias,JanVorberger, Phys. Rev. B2025, 111, 115149

  92. [100]

    Konstantin Glaum, Hagen Kleinert, Axel Pelster,Phys. Rev. A2007, 76, 063604

  93. [101]

    Schmidt, J

    H.-J. Schmidt, J. Schnack,Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications1998, 260 (3-4), 479–489

  94. [102]

    https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10497098

    Tobias Dornheim, Maximilian Böhme, Sebastian Schwalbe,ISHTAR - Imaginary-time Stochastic High- performance Tool for Ab initio Research, 2024. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10497098

    2024 doi

  95. [103]

    A link to a repository containing all PIMC results will be made available upon publication

  96. [104]

    Berg,Markov Chain Monte Carlo Simulations and Their Statistical Analysis, World Scientific,2004

    Bernd A. Berg,Markov Chain Monte Carlo Simulations and Their Statistical Analysis, World Scientific,2004

    2004

  97. [105]

    Groth, T

    S. Groth, T. Dornheim, T. Sjostrom, F. D. Malone, W. M. C. Foulkes, M. Bonitz,Phys. Rev. Lett.2017, 119, 135001

    2017

  98. [106]

    Karasiev, S

    Valentin V. Karasiev, S. B. Trickey, James W. Dufty,Phys. Rev. B2019, 99, 195134

  99. [107]

    Karasiev, Travis Sjostrom, James Dufty, S

    Valentin V. Karasiev, Travis Sjostrom, James Dufty, S. B. Trickey,Phys. Rev. Lett.2014, 112, 076403

    2014

  100. [108]

    Böhme, David M

    Michael Bonitz, Jan Vorberger, Mandy Bethkenhagen, Maximilian P. Böhme, David M. Ceperley, Alexey Filinov, Thomas Gawne, Frank Graziani, Gianluca Gregori, Paul Hamann, Stephanie B. Hansen, Markus Holzmann, S. X. Hu, Hanno Kählert, Valentin V. Karasiev, Uwe Kleinschmidt, Linda ...

  101. [109]

    V. V. Karasiev, L. Calderin, S. B. Trickey,Phys. Rev. E2016, 93, 063207

  102. [110]

    Chuna, Tobias Dornheim, Michael Hecht,Inverse two-sidedLaplacetransforminquantummany-bodytheory:generalizedframeworkandnumericalimplementation ,2025

    Alexander Benedix Robles, Phil-Alexander Hofmann, Thomas M. Chuna, Tobias Dornheim, Michael Hecht,Inverse two-sidedLaplacetransforminquantummany-bodytheory:generalizedframeworkandnumericalimplementation ,2025

    2025

  103. [111]

    Thomas Chuna, Nicholas Barnfield, Tobias Dornheim, Michael P Friedlander, Tim Hoheisel,Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical2025, 58 (33), 335203

  104. [112]

    Mishchenko, Lode Pollet, Nikolay Prokof’ev, Boris Svistunov,Phys

    Olga Goulko, Andrey S. Mishchenko, Lode Pollet, Nikolay Prokof’ev, Boris Svistunov,Phys. Rev. B2017, 95, 014102

  105. [113]

    Junya Otsuki, Masayuki Ohzeki, Hiroshi Shinaoka, Kazuyoshi Yoshimi,Physical Review E2017, 95 (6), 061302

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.