pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.06309 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-07 · ❄️ cond-mat.dis-nn · cs.NA· math.NA· physics.comp-ph

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

DYNAMITE: A high-performance framework for solving Dynamical Mean-Field Equations

Johannes Lang , Vincenzo Citro , Luca Leuzzi , Federico Ricci-Tersenghi
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 18:00 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.dis-nn cs.NAmath.NAphysics.comp-ph
keywords dynamical mean-field equationsglassy dynamicsnumerical solveraging phenomenaspin-glass modelshigh-performance computingintegral equationslong-time dynamics
0
0 comments X

The pith

Dynamite solves dynamical mean-field equations at times up to 10 million steps.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper develops a numerical framework called Dynamite to solve the coupled integral-differential equations that describe dynamics in disordered systems with rugged energy landscapes. It achieves this reach through non-uniform time interpolation, adaptive stepping, and a renormalization step for the memory integrals, delivering linear runtime scaling and sublinear memory use. This matters because earlier methods stopped reliably at times around 10^3 and relied on uncontrolled extensions or strong assumptions to go further. With these improvements the solver reproduces known short-time behavior while granting access to long-time aging and relaxation in models such as the mixed spherical p-spin glass.

Core claim

Dynamite solves the dynamical mean-field equations for two-time functions up to times of order 10^7 by combining non-uniform interpolation of the past, adaptive Runge-Kutta integration, and numerical renormalization of memory, yielding linear asymptotic runtime, sublinear memory scaling, and reproducible accuracy on both CPU and GPU hardware.

What carries the argument

Numerical renormalization of memory together with non-uniform interpolation to evaluate the history integrals that appear in the DMFE.

If this is right

  • Direct numerical access to aging and relaxation regimes in glassy mean-field models that were previously unreachable.
  • Orders-of-magnitude speedups over uniform-grid integrators while preserving accuracy across CPU and GPU platforms.
  • A reproducible platform that can test the range of validity of analytical approximations such as the Cugliandolo-Kurchan ansatz.
  • An extensible starting point for studying other long-memory dynamical systems governed by similar integral-differential equations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same scaling techniques could be adapted to accelerate solutions of integro-differential equations that arise in other areas of physics and applied mathematics.
  • Long-time data produced by the solver may help identify which models truly violate weak ergodicity breaking and why.
  • GPU-accelerated versions open the possibility of scanning wide parameter spaces in glassy systems at scales that were previously prohibitive.

Load-bearing premise

The renormalization and interpolation steps preserve the essential long-time physics of the memory integrals without introducing uncontrolled errors or artifacts.

What would settle it

A side-by-side run on the spherical p-spin model in which the solver's long-time two-time correlators deviate measurably from independent Monte Carlo trajectories or from an exactly solvable limiting case.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.06309 by Federico Ricci-Tersenghi, Johannes Lang, Luca Leuzzi, Vincenzo Citro.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The Dynamite time domain is defined by t ≥ t ′ ≥ 0. Black dots denote the time grid, which is adaptive in the t direction and uses a fixed, non￾equidistant grid in θ = t ′ /t ∈ [0, 1]. The grid is dense near the diagonal and at short times t ′ ≪ t, where the evolution is fast, and sparse in between. Typical integration contours are shown in orange. With the above choice, the two-time grid points are given … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Upper panel: Run time as a function of simulated time for quenches of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Estimated interpolation error of the default 9th-order Lagrange inter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The difference between the simulated and the exact energy of the pure 2-spin model following a quench from T = ∞ to T = 0. The blue dash-dotted curve was obtained with a reduced error bound -e 1e-12. 4.2. Accuracy The dynamics of aging systems slows down as the system ages, as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: For mixed spherical spin models, the energy typically relaxes much [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Upper panel: Integrated response χ(t, s) = R t s dτR(t, τ) versus cor￾relation C(t, s) for various t values, measured in the pure p = 3 spin model following a quench from T0 = ∞ to T = 1/2. For C > qEA ≈ 0.766911, the slope corresponds to the inverse bath temperature β = 1/T = 2 (dashed line). For C < qEA the slope converges to xth ≈ 0.607865 as predicted by the exact solution. Lower panel: The numerical e… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Understanding the dynamics of systems evolving in complex and rugged energy landscapes is central across physics, economics, biology, and computer science. Disordered mean-field models provide a powerful framework, as exact Dynamical Mean-Field Equations (DMFE) can be derived. However, solving the DMFE -- a set of coupled integral-differential equations for two-time functions -- remains a major numerical challenge. So far, large-time solutions of DMFE rely either on analytical approaches, such as the Cugliandolo--Kurchan ansatz based on assumptions like weak ergodicity breaking (which is known to fail in some cases), or on numerical integrations that reliably reach times $O(10^3)$ and extend further only via poorly controlled approximations. Consequently, no general method currently exists to solve DMFE at very long times, limiting the study of slow dynamics in complex landscapes. We present \textsc{Dynamite} (DYNAmical Mean-fIeld Time Evolution solver), a high-performance framework for solving DMFE up to unprecedented times $t=O(10^7)$. It combines non-uniform interpolation, adaptive time stepping, and numerical `renormalization' of memory, enabling accurate evaluation of history integrals. Its asymptotic runtime is linear, with sublinear memory scaling. Stability and precision are ensured via an adaptive Runge--Kutta scheme and periodic sparsification of the past. \textsc{Dynamite} achieves orders-of-magnitude speedups over uniform-grid methods while maintaining accuracy and reproducibility on CPU and GPU architectures. Benchmarks on glassy mean-field models, including the mixed spherical $p$-spin system, demonstrate access to aging and relaxation regimes previously out of reach. The framework provides a reproducible and extensible foundation for studying long-memory dynamical systems.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces DYNAMITE, a high-performance numerical framework for solving the coupled integro-differential Dynamical Mean-Field Equations (DMFE) that govern the two-time correlation and response functions in disordered mean-field models. It combines non-uniform interpolation, adaptive Runge-Kutta time stepping, numerical renormalization of memory integrals, and periodic sparsification to achieve linear asymptotic runtime, sublinear memory scaling, and solutions up to t = O(10^7) on CPU and GPU architectures. Benchmarks on glassy models, including the mixed spherical p-spin system, are used to illustrate access to aging and relaxation regimes.

Significance. If the accuracy claims hold, the framework would enable direct numerical exploration of long-time slow dynamics in complex landscapes that have been limited to analytic ansatzes (such as Cugliandolo-Kurchan) or short-time integrations. The reproducible implementation, linear scaling, and GPU support constitute a concrete advance for the community studying glassy mean-field dynamics.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4.2] §4.2 (Memory renormalization and sparsification): The description of the numerical renormalization step and periodic sparsification does not provide an explicit error bound, a proof of equivalence to the original Volterra history integral, or a quantitative overlap test against uniform-grid results at intermediate times (where both methods are feasible). This is load-bearing for the central claim that solutions at t = O(10^7) remain faithful to the DMFE without introducing artifacts in slowly decaying two-time functions.
  2. [§5] §5 (Benchmarks on the mixed spherical p-spin system): No quantitative error metrics (e.g., relative deviation from known short-time analytic limits or from uniform-grid runs), convergence tests with respect to adaptive tolerance, or direct comparison of aging exponents against established results are reported. The abstract's assertion of maintained accuracy therefore lacks the supporting data needed to substantiate access to new regimes.
minor comments (2)
  1. The notation for the renormalized memory kernel and the sparsification threshold parameters is introduced without a compact summary table; adding one would improve readability.
  2. Figure captions for the long-time benchmarks could explicitly state the adaptive tolerance values and sparsification intervals used, rather than leaving them in the main text.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. The points raised highlight important aspects of validation that will strengthen the presentation. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate additional quantitative tests and metrics.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4.2] §4.2 (Memory renormalization and sparsification): The description of the numerical renormalization step and periodic sparsification does not provide an explicit error bound, a proof of equivalence to the original Volterra history integral, or a quantitative overlap test against uniform-grid results at intermediate times (where both methods are feasible). This is load-bearing for the central claim that solutions at t = O(10^7) remain faithful to the DMFE without introducing artifacts in slowly decaying two-time functions.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript would benefit from more explicit validation of the approximation steps. The renormalization and sparsification are controlled numerical approximations that exploit the slow decay of memory kernels, rather than exact transformations. We do not provide a rigorous proof of equivalence because the method relies on interpolation and selective history retention, which introduce small, controllable errors. In the revised version we will add a new subsection with direct quantitative comparisons: we will compute solutions with both the full uniform-grid integrator and the sparsified/renormalized scheme up to times where the uniform grid remains feasible (t ≲ 10^4), and report relative L2 deviations in the two-time functions together with the dependence on sparsification parameters. This will supply the requested overlap test and empirical error characterization. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§5] §5 (Benchmarks on the mixed spherical p-spin system): No quantitative error metrics (e.g., relative deviation from known short-time analytic limits or from uniform-grid runs), convergence tests with respect to adaptive tolerance, or direct comparison of aging exponents against established results are reported. The abstract's assertion of maintained accuracy therefore lacks the supporting data needed to substantiate access to new regimes.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the current benchmark section focuses on demonstrating reach to long times and qualitative aging features without the quantitative accuracy diagnostics requested. We will revise §5 to include: (i) relative deviations of the short-time dynamics from known analytic expansions for the mixed p-spin model, (ii) convergence tests showing how the two-time functions stabilize as the adaptive Runge–Kutta tolerance is reduced, and (iii) extracted aging exponents compared against values available in the literature. These additions will directly support the accuracy claims. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • A rigorous mathematical proof of exact equivalence between the renormalized/sparsified memory integral and the original Volterra integral, because the procedure is a controlled numerical approximation rather than an identity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity in numerical DMFE solver framework

full rationale

This is a methods paper describing an algorithmic framework (non-uniform interpolation, adaptive Runge-Kutta, memory renormalization, sparsification) for numerically integrating pre-existing DMFE. No derivation of physical equations, no parameter fitting to target observables, and no self-citation chain that substitutes for independent validation. Benchmarks are presented as external checks rather than tautological outputs. The central claims reduce to implementation details and performance measurements, not to any input by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces a numerical solver; the main unverified premises concern the fidelity of the discretization and sparsification steps at long times. No new physical entities or fitted physical constants are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • adaptive tolerance thresholds
    Runge-Kutta adaptive stepping and sparsification thresholds are numerical parameters chosen for stability and accuracy.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Non-uniform interpolation and memory renormalization preserve the accuracy of history integrals for the DMFE without introducing artifacts at long times.
    This assumption underpins the claim of reaching t = O(10^7) while maintaining physical fidelity.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5640 in / 1286 out tokens · 51556 ms · 2026-05-10T18:00:37.129807+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bernaschi, A

    M. Bernaschi, A. Billoire, A. Maiorano, G. Parisi, F. Ricci-Tersenghi, Strong ergodicity breaking in aging of mean-field spin glasses, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117 (2020) 17522–17527.doi: 10.1073/pnas.1910936117

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1910936117 2020

  2. [2]

    Folena, S

    G. Folena, S. Franz, F. Ricci-Tersenghi, Rethinking mean- field glassy dynamics and its relation with the energy landscape: The surprising case of the spherical mixed p-spin model, Phys. Rev. X 10 (2020) 031045.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.10.031045

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.10.031045 2020

  3. [3]

    Folena, F

    G. Folena, F. Zamponi, On weak ergodicity breaking in mean-field spin glasses, SciPost Phys. 15 (2023) 109. doi:10.21468/SciPostPhys.15.3.109

    work page doi:10.21468/scipostphys.15.3.109 2023

  4. [4]

    Citro, F

    V . Citro, F. Ricci-Tersenghi, Strong ergodicity breaking in dynamical mean-field equations for mixed p-spin glasses, Physical Review Letters 135 (2025) 247102.doi:10. 1103/lvmp-pydk

    2025

  5. [5]

    J. Lang, S. Sachdev, S. Diehl, Numerical renormalization of glassy dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135 (2025) 247101. doi:10.1103/z64g-nqs6

    work page doi:10.1103/z64g-nqs6 2025

  6. [6]

    T. R. Kirkpatrick, D. Thirumalai, p-spin-interaction spin- glass models: Connections with the structural glass prob- lem, Phys. Rev. B 36 (1987) 5388–5397.doi:10.1103/ PhysRevB.36.5388

    1987

  7. [7]

    T. R. Kirkpatrick, D. Thirumalai, P. G. Wolynes, Scaling concepts for the dynamics of viscous liquids near an ideal glassy state, Phys. Rev. A 40 (1989) 1045–1054.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.40.1045

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.40.1045 1989

  8. [9]

    Effective Field Theory.Annu

    V . Lubchenko, P. G. Wolynes, Theory of structural glasses and supercooled liquids, Annual Review of Physical Chemistry 58 (2007) 235–266.doi:10.1146/annurev. physchem.58.032806.104653

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev 2007

  9. [10]

    Leuzzi, T

    L. Leuzzi, T. A. Nieuwenhuizen, Thermodynamics of the glassy state, Taylor & Francis, CRC Press, 2007.doi: 10.1201/9781420012439

    work page doi:10.1201/9781420012439 2007

  10. [11]

    Ricci-Tersenghi, Being glassy without being hard to solve, Science 330 (2010) 1639–1640.doi:10.1126/ science.1189804

    F. Ricci-Tersenghi, Being glassy without being hard to solve, Science 330 (2010) 1639–1640.doi:10.1126/ science.1189804

    2010

  11. [12]

    Crisanti, H.-J

    A. Crisanti, H.-J. Sommers, The spherical p-spin interac- tion spin glass model: the statics, Zeitschrift für Physik B Condensed Matter 87 (1992) 341–354.doi:10.1007/ BF01309287

    1992

  12. [13]

    Crisanti, H

    A. Crisanti, H. Horner, H.-J. Sommers, The spheri- cal p-spin interaction spin-glass model: the dynamics, Zeitschrift für Physik B Condensed Matter 92 (1993) 257– 271.doi:10.1007/BF01312184

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01312184 1993

  13. [14]

    Ferrari, L

    U. Ferrari, L. Leuzzi, G. Parisi, T. Rizzo, Two-step re- laxation next to dynamic arrest in mean-field glasses: Spherical and isingp-spin model, Phys. Rev. B 86 (2012) 014204.doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.86.014204

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.86.014204 2012

  14. [15]

    L. F. Cugliandolo, J. Kurchan, Analytical solution of the off-equilibrium dynamics of a long-range spin-glass model, Physical Review Letters 71 (1993) 173.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.71.173

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.71.173 1993

  15. [16]

    T. M. Nieuwenhuizen, Exactly solvable model of a quan- tum spin glass, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74 (1995) 4289–4292. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.74.4289. 12

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.74.4289 1995

  16. [17]

    Crisanti, L

    A. Crisanti, L. Leuzzi, Spherical 2+pspin-glass model: An analytically solvable model with a glass-to-glass tran- sition, Phys. Rev. B 73 (2006) 014412.doi:10.1103/ PhysRevB.73.014412

    2006

  17. [18]

    Crisanti, L

    A. Crisanti, L. Leuzzi, Equilibrium dynamics of spin- glass systems, Phys. Rev. B 75 (2007) 144301.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.75.144301

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.75.144301 2007

  18. [19]

    Crisanti, L

    A. Crisanti, L. Leuzzi, Amorphous-amorphous transition and the two-step replica symmetry breaking phase, Phys. Rev. B 76 (2007) 184417.doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.76. 184417

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.76 2007

  19. [20]

    Y . Sun, A. Crisanti, F. Krzakala, L. Leuzzi, L. Zdeborová, Following states in temperature in the spherical s+p- spin glass model, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: The- ory and Experiment 2012 (2012) P07002.doi:10.1088/ 1742-5468/2012/07/P07002

    2012

  20. [21]

    B. Kim, A. Latz, The dynamics of the spherical p- spin model: From microscopic to asymptotic, Euro- physics Letters 53 (2001) 660.doi:10.1209/epl/ i2001-00202-4

    work page doi:10.1209/epl/ 2001

  21. [22]

    Andreanov, G

    A. Andreanov, G. Biroli, J.-P. Bouchaud, Mode cou- pling as a landau theory of the glass transition, Europhys. Lett. 88 (2009) 16001.doi:10.1209/0295-5075/88/ 16001

    work page doi:10.1209/0295-5075/88/ 2009

  22. [23]

    Sarao Mannelli, G

    S. Sarao Mannelli, G. Biroli, C. Cammarota, F. Krza- kala, P. Urbani, L. Zdeborová, Marvels and pitfalls of the langevin algorithm in noisy high-dimensional infer- ence, Phys. Rev. X 10 (2020) 011057.doi:10.1103/ PhysRevX.10.011057

    2020

  23. [24]

    Folena, The mixed p-spin model: selecting, following and losing states, Phd thesis, Sapienza University of Rome (2020)

    G. Folena, The mixed p-spin model: selecting, following and losing states, Phd thesis, Sapienza University of Rome (2020)

    2020

  24. [25]

    Jonason, E

    K. Jonason, E. Vincent, J. Hammann, J. Bouchaud, P. Nordblad, Memory and chaos effects in spin glasses, Physical Review Letters 81 (1998) 3243.doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.81.3243

    1998

  25. [26]

    Picco, F

    M. Picco, F. Ricci-Tersenghi, F. Ritort, Chaotic, memory, and cooling rate effects in spin glasses: Evaluation of the edwards-anderson model, Physical Review B 63 (2001) 174412.doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.63.174412

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.63.174412 2001

  26. [27]

    Berthier, J.-P

    L. Berthier, J.-P. Bouchaud, Geometrical aspects of ag- ing and rejuvenation in the ising spin glass: A numeri- cal study, Physical Review B 66 (2002) 054404.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.66.054404

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.66.054404 2002

  27. [28]

    Takayama, K

    H. Takayama, K. Hukushima, Numerical study on aging dynamics in the 3d ising spin–glass model: Iii. cumulative memory and chaos effects in the temperature-shift proto- col, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 71 (2002) 3003–3010.doi:10.1143/JPSJ.71.3003

    work page doi:10.1143/jpsj.71.3003 2002

  28. [29]

    Scheie, P

    A. Maiorano, E. Marinari, F. Ricci-Tersenghi, Edwards- anderson spin glasses undergo simple cumulative aging, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 72 (2005) 104411.doi:10.1103/PhysRevB. 72.104411

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb 2005

  29. [30]

    Jimenez, V

    S. Jimenez, V . Martín-Mayor, S. Perez-Gaviro, Rejuve- nation and memory in model spin glasses in three and four dimensions, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 72 (2005) 054417.doi:10.1103/ PhysRevB.72.054417

    2005

  30. [31]

    Baity-Jesi, R

    M. Baity-Jesi, R. A. Baños, A. Cruz, L. A. Fernan- dez, J. M. Gil-Narvión, A. Gordillo-Guerrero, D. Iniguez, A. Maiorano, F. Mantovani, E. Marinari, et al., Janus ii: A new generation application-driven computer for spin- system simulations, Computer Physics Communications 185 (2014) 550–559.doi:/10.1016/j.cpc.2013.10. 019

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2013.10 2014

  31. [32]

    Baity-Jesi, E

    M. Baity-Jesi, E. Calore, A. Cruz, L. A. Fernández, J. M. Gil-Narvion, I. González-Adalid Pemartín, A. Gordillo- Guerrero, D. Iñiguez, A. Maiorano, E. Marinari, et al., Memory and rejuvenation effects in spin glasses are gov- erned by more than one length scale, Nature Physics 19 (2023) 978–985.doi:10.1038/s41567-023-02014-6

    work page doi:10.1038/s41567-023-02014-6 2023

  32. [33]

    Anous, F

    T. Anous, F. M. Haehl, The quantum p-spin glass model: a user manual for holographers, Journal of Statistical Me- chanics: Theory and Experiment 2021 (2021) 113101. doi:10.1088/1742-5468/ac2cb9

    work page doi:10.1088/1742-5468/ac2cb9 2021

  33. [34]

    L. M. Sieberer, M. Buchhold, S. Diehl, Keldysh field theory for driven open quantum systems, Reports on Progress in Physics 79 (2016) 096001.doi:10.1088/ 0034-4885/79/9/096001

    2016

  34. [35]

    L. V . Keldysh, Diagram Technique for Nonequilib- rium Processes, Journal of Experimental and The- oretical Physics 20 (1965) 1018.doi:10.1142/ 9789811279461_0007

    1965

  35. [36]

    P. C. Martin, E. D. Siggia, H. A. Rose, Statistical dynam- ics of classical systems, Phys. Rev. A 8 (1973) 423–437. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.8.423

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.8.423 1973

  36. [37]

    Janssen, On a lagrangean for classical field dy- namics and renormalization group calculations of dynam- ical critical properties, Z

    H.-K. Janssen, On a lagrangean for classical field dy- namics and renormalization group calculations of dynam- ical critical properties, Z. Phys. B 23 (1976) 377–380. doi:10.1007/BF01316547

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01316547 1976

  37. [38]

    De Dominicis, Techniques de renormalisation de la théorie des champs et dynamique des phénomènes cri- tiques, J

    C. De Dominicis, Techniques de renormalisation de la théorie des champs et dynamique des phénomènes cri- tiques, J. Phys. Colloques 37 (1976) 247–253.doi: 10.1051/jphyscol:1976138

    work page doi:10.1051/jphyscol:1976138 1976

  38. [39]

    De Dominicis, Dynamics as a substitute for replicas in systems with quenched random impurities, Phys

    C. De Dominicis, Dynamics as a substitute for replicas in systems with quenched random impurities, Phys. Rev. B 18 (1978) 4913–4919.doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.18. 4913. 13

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.18 1978

  39. [40]

    Crisanti, H

    A. Crisanti, H. Sompolinsky, Dynamics of spin systems with randomly asymmetric bonds: Langevin dynamics and a spherical model, Phys. Rev. A 36 (1987) 4922– 4939.doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.36.4922

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.36.4922 1987

  40. [41]

    Crisanti, H

    A. Crisanti, H. Sompolinsky, Dynamics of spin systems with randomly asymmetric bonds: Ising spins and glauber dynamics, Phys. Rev. A 37 (1988) 4865–4874.doi:10. 1103/PhysRevA.37.4865

    1988

  41. [42]

    Sompolinsky, A

    H. Sompolinsky, A. Crisanti, H. J. Sommers, Chaos in random neural networks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61 (1988) 259– 262.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.61.259

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.61.259 1988

  42. [43]

    Crisanti, H

    A. Crisanti, H. Sompolinsky, Path integral approach to random neural networks, Phys. Rev. E 98 (2018) 062120. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.98.062120

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.98.062120 2018

  43. [44]

    S. J. Fournier, P. Urbani, Statistical physics of learning in high-dimensional chaotic systems, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2023 (2023) 113301. doi:10.1088/1742-5468/ad082d

    work page doi:10.1088/1742-5468/ad082d 2023

  44. [45]

    Badalotti, C

    D. Badalotti, C. Baldassi, M. Mézard, M. Scardecchia, R. Zecchina, Dynamical learning in deep asymmetric re- current neural networks (2025).arXiv:2509.05041

    work page arXiv 2025

  45. [46]

    S. J. Fournier, P. Urbani, Generative modeling through in- ternal high-dimensional chaotic activity, Phys. Rev. E 111 (2025) 045304.doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.111.045304

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.111.045304 2025

  46. [47]

    Dynamical decoupling of generalization and overfitting in large two-layer networks,

    A. Montanari, P. Urbani, Dynamical decoupling of gen- eralization and overfitting in large two-layer networks (2025).arXiv:2502.21269

    work page arXiv 2025

  47. [48]

    S. S. Mannelli, F. Krzakala, P. Urbani, L. Zdeborova, Passed & spurious: Descent algorithms and local minima in spiked matrix-tensor models, in: International Confer- ence on Machine Learning, PMLR, 2019, pp. 4333–4342

    2019

  48. [49]

    Mignacco, F

    F. Mignacco, F. Krzakala, P. Urbani, L. Zdeborová, Dy- namical mean-field theory for stochastic gradient descent in gaussian mixture classification, Advances in Neural In- formation Processing Systems 33 (2020) 9540–9550

    2020

  49. [50]

    Rieger, M

    H. Rieger, M. Schreckenberg, J. Zittartz, Glauber dynam- ics of neural network models, Journal of Physics A: Math- ematical and General 21 (1988) L263.doi:10.1088/ 0305-4470/21/4/014

    1988

  50. [51]

    Bollé, T

    D. Bollé, T. M. Nieuwenhuizen, I. P. Castillo, T. Ver- beiren, A spherical hopfield model, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 36 (2003) 10269.doi: 10.1088/0305-4470/36/41/002

    work page doi:10.1088/0305-4470/36/41/002 2003

  51. [52]

    J. Lang, V . Citro, Dynamite: Dynamical mean-field time evolution solver, software release (2026). URL https://github.com/DMFT-evolution/DYNAMITE

    2026

  52. [53]

    High precision analytical description of the allowed beta spectrum shape

    A. Georges, G. Kotliar, W. Krauth, M. J. Rozenberg, Dy- namical mean-field theory of strongly correlated fermion systems and the limit of infinite dimensions, Rev. Mod. Phys. 68 (1996) 13–125.doi:10.1103/RevModPhys. 68.13

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys 1996

  53. [54]

    H. Aoki, N. Tsuji, M. Eckstein, M. Kollar, T. Oka, P. Werner, Nonequilibrium dynamical mean-field theory and its applications, Rev. Mod. Phys. 86 (2014) 779–837. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.86.779

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.86.779 2014

  54. [55]

    Kadanoff, G

    L. Kadanoff, G. Baym, Quantum statistical mechanics: Green’s function methods in equilibrium and nonequi- librium problems, Frontiers in physics, W.A. Benjamin, 1962

    1962

  55. [56]

    T. R. Kirkpatrick, D. Thirumalai, p-spin-interaction spin- glass models: Connections with the structural glass prob- lem, Physical Review B 36 (10) (1987) 5388.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.36.5388

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.36.5388 1987

  56. [57]

    M. S. Floater, K. Hormann, Barycentric rational inter- polation with no poles and high rates of approximation, Numerische Mathematik 107 (2007) 315–331.doi:10. 1007/s00211-007-0093-y

    2007

  57. [58]

    Martín-Vaquero, B

    J. Martín-Vaquero, B. Kleefeld, Extrapolated stabilized explicit Runge-Kutta methods, Journal of Computational Physics 326 (2016) 141–155.doi:https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jcp.2016.08.042

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2016.08.042 2016

  58. [59]

    Abdulle, Fourth order chebyshev meth- ods with recurrence relation, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 23 (2002) 2041–2054

    A. Abdulle, Fourth order chebyshev meth- ods with recurrence relation, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 23 (2002) 2041–2054. doi:10.1137/S1064827500379549

    work page doi:10.1137/s1064827500379549 2002

  59. [60]

    O’Sullivan, A class of high-order runge–kutta–chebyshev stability polynomials, Jour- nal of Computational Physics 300 (2015) 665–678

    S. O’Sullivan, A class of high-order runge–kutta–chebyshev stability polynomials, Jour- nal of Computational Physics 300 (2015) 665–678. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2015.07.050

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2015.07.050 2015

  60. [61]

    A. A. Medovikov, High order explicit methods for parabolic equations, BIT Numerical Mathematics 38 (1998) 372–390.doi:10.1007/BF02512373

    work page doi:10.1007/bf02512373 1998

  61. [62]

    Goodman and J

    D. Ketcheson, A. Ahmadia, Optimal stability polynomials for numerical integration of initial value problems, Com- munications in Applied Mathematics and Computational Science 7 (2012) 247–271.doi:10.2140/camcos. 2012.7.247

    work page doi:10.2140/camcos 2012

  62. [63]

    Dormand, P

    J. Dormand, P. Prince, A family of embedded runge-kutta formulae, Journal of Computational and Applied Math- ematics 6 (1980) 19–26.doi:https://doi.org/10. 1016/0771-050X(80)90013-3

    1980

  63. [64]

    D. I. Ketcheson, Highly efficient strong stability- preserving runge–kutta methods with low-storage imple- mentations, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 30 (2008) 2113–2136.doi:10.1137/07070485X. 14

    work page doi:10.1137/07070485x 2008

  64. [65]

    Fekete, S

    I. Fekete, S. Conde, J. N. Shadid, Embedded pairs for opti- mal explicit strong stability preserving runge–kutta meth- ods, Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics 412 (2022) 114325.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.cam.2022.114325

    work page arXiv 2022

  65. [66]

    Martín-Vaquero, B

    J. Martín-Vaquero, B. Janssen, Second-order stabilized explicit runge–kutta methods for stiffproblems, Computer Physics Communications 180 (2009) 1802–1810.doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2009.05.006

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2009.05.006 2009

  66. [67]

    L. F. Cugliandolo, J. Kurchan, On the out-of-equilibrium relaxation of the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick model, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 27 (1994) 5749. doi:10.1088/0305-4470/27/17/011

    work page doi:10.1088/0305-4470/27/17/011 1994

  67. [68]

    A. E. Alaoui, A. Montanari, Algorithmic thresholds in mean field spin glasses (2020).arXiv:2009.11481

    work page arXiv 2020

  68. [69]

    J. Lang, V . Citro, S. Diehl, S. Sachdev, L. Leuzzi, F. Ricci- Tersenghi, Long-time relaxation in mixed p-spin models, in preparation (2026)

    2026

  69. [70]

    Akima, A new method of interpolation and smooth curve fitting based on local procedures, J

    H. Akima, A new method of interpolation and smooth curve fitting based on local procedures, J. ACM 17 (1970) 589–602.doi:10.1145/321607.321609. 15

    work page doi:10.1145/321607.321609 1970