The semiclassical limit from Hartree to Vlasov at positive density: strong uniform-in-time convergence and scattering

Marnie Smith

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 31 references

The semiclassical limit from Hartree to Vlasov at positive density: strong uniform-in-time convergence and scattering

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proves that, near stable homogeneous steady states, the Wigner transform of the Hartree perturbation converges strongly to the Vlasov perturbation uniformly for all times, including the scattering profiles, at the rate O((ln ℏ⁻¹)

desk verdict Genuine progress on strong semiclassical limits at positive density; the finite-time core is solid, but the uniform-in-time theorem leans on imported estimates from the author's companion paper. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.22490 v1 pith:INQXOFSO submitted 2026-07-24 math.AP math-phmath.MP

Marnie Smith This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.APmath-phmath.MP MSC 35Q8335Q5581Q2035B40

keywords semiclassicallimitHartreeequationVlasovWignertransformPenrosestabilityscatteringpositivedensity

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper proves that the quantum Hartree equation converges strongly to the classical Vlasov equation near stable homogeneous steady states at positive density — an infinite-mass setting where previous results were only weak or finite-time. For regular integrable interactions, the Wigner transform of the Hartree perturbation and the Vlasov perturbation agree to O(ℏ²) on finite time intervals in weighted Sobolev spaces. For aligned initial data under a uniform Penrose stability condition, the convergence is extended uniformly over all times and includes the scattering profiles, with the explicit rate O((ln 1/ℏ)⁻¹/³). A sympathetic reader would care because this gives the first strong quantitative semiclassical limit at positive density and, as a by-product, derives global existence and scattering for the Vlasov equation from quantum dynamics rather than from classical Landau damping theory.

What carries the argument

The Wigner transform converts density matrices into phase-space functions and is isometric for the norms used, so quantum and classical perturbations are measured identically. Both evolutions are placed in the free-transport frame — the Vlasov perturbation composed with the free flow and the Hartree perturbation conjugated by the free Schrödinger group — where they share a common structure and the difference obeys the same linear and bilinear operators with error terms R_L and R_N. The uniform Penrose condition supplies the uniform-in-ℏ phase-mixing and scattering bounds from prior work, while a symmetric cancellation in the bilinear term avoids losing a derivative and lets the energy estima

What would settle it

Compute, for a Yukawa kernel K(x)=e^{-|x|}/|x| and a Gaussian μ, the quantum response D_ℏ(λ,k) in (1.7) and the classical D_0 in (5.4). If, for some sequence ℏ_n→0, inf_{Reλ≥0,k} |D_{ℏ_n}(λ,k)| ≤ κ/2 while inf_{Reλ≥0,k}|D_0(λ,k)| ≥ κ, then Lemma 5.3(ii) — and the uniform Penrose condition as stated — would be false. Alternatively, numerically integrate aligned initial data for small ℏ and measure the H^σ_2 distance between the framed Hartree and Vlasov solutions at times beyond the balancing horizon; if it ever exceeds a constant times (ln 1/ℏ)⁻¹/³, the main theorem is contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the distance between the Wigner transform of the framed Hartree perturbation, W^ℏ[P^ℏ(t)], and the framed Vlasov perturbation g(t) satisfies ∥W^ℏ[P^ℏ(t)]−g(t)∥_{H^σ_2} ≤ C∞ (ln ℏ⁻¹)⁻¹/³ for every t∈[0,∞], under the uniform Penrose condition and aligned initial data. In the author's own terms, this is 'strong uniform-in-time semiclassical convergence' including convergence of the quantum scattering profiles to the classical scattering profile. The finite-time estimate behind it has rate O(ℏ²), with the leading error arising from a centred difference quotient whose order-ℏ term cancels by symmetry.

Load-bearing premise

The central assumption is the uniform Penrose condition, which requires the ℏ-dependent response function to stay bounded away from zero uniformly for all ℏ∈(0,δ]; without it the uniform-in-ℏ Hartree phase-mixing and scattering bounds — and hence the transfer to Vlasov — collapse. The paper only proves equivalence with the classical Penrose condition under extra decay (r>4) of the background, so the condition is substantive.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A finite-time O(ℏ²) semiclassical convergence rate holds in weighted Sobolev spaces for integrable interaction kernels near Penrose-stable homogeneous states.
Global existence and scattering for the Vlasov equation near such states follow from the quantum estimates and the semiclassical limit, without invoking classical Landau damping theory.
For aligned initial data, the quantum and classical evolutions stay within C∞ (ln 1/ℏ)⁻¹/³ for all times, including the scattering limits, so the quantum scattering profile converges strongly to the classical one.
The uniform-in-ℏ Hartree phase-mixing and scattering bounds transfer to the Vlasov equation, yielding regularity bounds and scattering rates inherited from the quantum dynamics.
The equivalence between the uniform ℏ-dependent Penrose condition and the classical Penrose condition (under extra decay) means the main stability hypothesis is essentially a classical stability condition for small ℏ.

Reading between the lines

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

The logarithmic rate likely reflects the balancing argument rather than an intrinsic barrier; refining the finite-time estimate or the scattering decay could yield a polynomial rate in ℏ without changing the qualitative conclusions.
Because the convergence is strong in weighted Sobolev spaces, one may expect propagation of quantitative information about observables from quantum to classical dynamics, beyond the weak-convergence results previously available at positive density.
The same framework might extend to the Hartree–Fock equation with exchange terms or to long-range potentials, where the centred-difference cancellation persists but the low-frequency singularities would require a modified treatment; the O(ℏ) rate obtained by other methods for those interactions suggests the ℏ² rate here is specific to the regular kernel setting.
A testable extension: the alignment condition between quantum and classical initial data could be relaxed to allow an initial error of size ℏ^p; the rate would then degrade to ℏ^{min(2,p)} on finite times, but the uniform-in-time logarithmic rate would remain with the same balancing, suggesting the alignment assumption is not sharp.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Read it. The finite-time result (Theorem 1.10) is the real meat: O(ℏ^2) convergence in weighted Sobolev spaces from Hartree to Vlasov near homogeneous states, with no prior strong result at positive density. The proof is clearly structured — moving-frame formulation, weighted H^σ_2 estimates, the symmetric cancellation in Lemma 3.6, and Proposition 3.7's ℏ^2 error bounds. I checked the Grönwall step and the two regularity regimes; the estimates close. That alone is worth publishing.

The second half transfers the author's earlier uniform-in-ℏ scattering theory [28] to Vlasov, getting global existence, scattering, and uniform-in-time convergence at (ln ℏ^{-1})^{-1/3}. This is a solid argument — classical scattering obtained as an output of quantum scattering, no classical damping input. But the load-bearing input, Theorem 5.1, is imported wholesale from [28]. The present paper just applies it and checks the exponent bookkeeping. So Theorem 1.12 is only as solid as [28], and a referee would need to verify that the uniformity in ℏ and the specific rates (⟨t⟩^{-3/2} decay, ⟨t⟩^{5/2} growth) really hold. That's not circular — [28] is a separate derivation — but it is an external dependency. The paper would be stronger if it re-derived at least one key estimate or stated the imported bound as an explicit hypothesis.

Other soft spots are minor and mostly acknowledged: the kernels are integrable, so no Coulomb; the uniform Penrose condition is a real stability assumption, and the equivalence with the classical condition costs r>4 decay; the a priori bounds in Theorem 1.10 are conditional, though Appendix A supplies propagation criteria. The logarithmic rate is not claimed optimal.

I don't see any internal contradiction or fudged calculation. The alignment condition is what you'd expect. This deserves a serious referee: the finite-time part is self-contained, and the global part raises a concrete verification task ([28]) that referees can check. I'd accept it with the expectation that the [28] dependency gets scrutiny.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the semiclassical limit of the Hartree equation towards the Vlasov equation near homogeneous, positive-density steady states in R^3. In the free-transport frame, it proves a finite-time comparison theorem (Theorem 1.10) with an O(ℏ^2) rate in weighted Sobolev spaces H^σ_2, under conditional a priori regularity bounds. It then combines this with uniform-in-ℏ phase-mixing and scattering estimates for the Hartree equation taken from the author's companion paper [28] to derive global existence and scattering for the Vlasov equation (Proposition 5.4) and a uniform-in-time semiclassical estimate (Theorem 1.12) for aligned data near Penrose-stable states, including convergence of quantum scattering profiles to the classical scattering profile at rate O((ln ℏ^{-1})^{-1/3}). The paper also proves an equivalence between the uniform and classical Penrose conditions under additional decay (Lemma 5.3).

Significance. If correct, this is a substantial advance: it gives the first strong, quantitative, uniform-in-time semiclassical convergence result at positive density, and it transfers scattering information from the quantum to the classical dynamics. The finite-time part is self-contained and worked out in detail, with explicit constants and a clean symmetric-energy-cancellation argument (Lemma 3.6) that is a genuine technical contribution. The paper is candid about its main external input: the uniform-in-time and scattering conclusions are built directly on Theorem 5.1, imported from the companion paper [28]. Because of that dependence, the central claim is only as secure as the unverified companion estimates; nevertheless, the reasoning in this manuscript from Theorem 5.1 onward is internally consistent, and the log-rate balancing argument is explicit and checkable.

major comments (3)

[§5.1, Theorem 5.1 and Eqs. (5.2)–(5.3)] The central uniform-in-time result Theorem 1.12, and also Proposition 5.4, depend entirely on Theorem 5.1, whose proof is given as “Apply [28, Theorem 1.6]” with exponent matching. The uniform-in-ℏ scattering rate, the ⟨t⟩^{5/2} growth bound in H^{σ′}_2, and the ℏ-independent smallness threshold are not proved or even stated in detail here. If any of these estimates, or the uniformity in ℏ, fails, then the balancing argument in Section 6 collapses. This is not circularity, but it is a genuine verification gap: the manuscript’s headline result is only as reliable as an external companion result that is not independently verified in this paper. I recommend that the revision either include a proof or a precise, self-contained statement of the needed estimates from [28], with a detailed verification that all hypotheses (especially the uniform Penrose condition and the index relationships) ma
[Theorem 5.1, Proposition 5.4, Theorem 1.12] The exponent hierarchy is stated with the same symbol σ on both sides of an impossible inequality: “There exist exponents σ > σ0 > σ′ > σ” cannot hold if σ is fixed. This notational inconsistency appears in the statements of Theorem 5.1, Proposition 5.4, and Theorem 1.12, and its proof. It obscures which regularity exponent is used for the initial data, for the high-norm growth bound, and for the final comparison norm. In particular, Proposition 5.4 needs σ0 > σ and σ′ ≥ σ + 3, but the current notation makes it impossible to verify that the hypotheses on µ and h_in are sufficient. Please introduce distinct symbols (e.g., σ_hi, σ_0, σ′ in place of the ambiguous first σ) and consistently restate all three theorems and the proof of Theorem 1.12.
[§6, Step 2, Eq. (6.3)–(6.4)] The balance argument uses the finite-time estimate (6.3) with constants A, β that depend on C_b, ||µ||_{H^{σ+3}_2}, and C_0, and then chooses T(ℏ) ∼ (ln ℏ^{-1})^{2/9}. The calculation is internally consistent, but the displayed constants hide a large number of dependences, including on κ through the scattering constants. Since Theorem 1.12 claims explicit dependence C∞(σ, µ, K, κ, C0, p), it would be helpful to spell out that A and β depend only on these quantities and not on ℏ or T, and to state the precise sense in which C_b is uniform. This is a presentation issue rather than a mathematical error, but it matters for the advertised explicitness of the rate.

minor comments (4)

[§1.3, Definition 1.8 and Lemma 5.3] The uniform Penrose condition is a substantive assumption. Lemma 5.3 shows equivalence to the classical condition only for ℏ small and under additional decay r > 4 and [K]_2 < ∞. This should be stated prominently in the introduction, not only in Remark 1.9, to avoid the impression that the uniform condition is automatically equivalent to the classical Penrose condition in the main theorem.
[§2.3, Eq. (2.13)] The two decompositions in (2.13) are both useful, but the text could be clearer that in case (a) the remainder terms involve g^ℏ while in case (b) they involve g; this distinction is important for the choices of a priori regularity in Theorem 4.2 and is easy to miss.
[§3.3, Lemma 3.6] The proof of the Hartree part of Lemma 3.6 says the sine multiplier changes sign under the same change of variables as ℓ·(η−kt). This is correct, but the text truncates the argument (“sends ... to its negative”) and would benefit from the explicit display of the transformed integral for the sine case.
[References] The companion result [28] is cited as an arXiv preprint. Since so much of the paper rests on it, please update the reference to its published or accepted version if available, and state in the text whether the numbering of Theorem 1.6 and Proposition 1.22 in [28] has changed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No material circularity: the finite-time estimate is self-contained, and the uniform-in-time result imports the author's prior Hartree scattering theorem as legitimate independent input.

full rationale

The finite-time semiclassical limit (Theorem 1.10) is derived from the two moving-frame equations, the energy estimates of Lemmas 3.3–3.6, the O(hbar^2) error bounds of Proposition 3.7, and a Grönwall argument in Section 4. The alignment hypothesis is an assumption on initial data, not a consequence of the estimate, and the O(hbar^2) rate arises from a proved commutator expansion rather than from a fitted parameter. The uniform-in-time result (Theorem 1.12) and the transfer to Vlasov scattering (Proposition 5.4) do rely on the author's prior work [28], quoted here as Theorem 5.1 with the proof being 'Apply [28, Theorem 1.6]'. This is a genuine external dependency and a verification gap, but it is not circular: [28] is a separate theorem with its own stated assumptions, including the uniform Penrose condition, and it does not presuppose the Vlasov scattering result that the present paper derives. The paper explicitly treats classical scattering as an output rather than an input: 'Classical scattering... enters as an output rather than an input.' The uniform Penrose condition is an input, not an output, and Lemma 5.3 only compares it with the classical condition. No step in the derivation reduces to a definition, a fitted quantity, or a self-citation that already contains the conclusion. The self-citation is significant for the large-time proof, which justifies a small nonzero score for dependence, but the central finite-time comparison and the balancing argument are independent content.

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

No empirical fitting. The main input is the Penrose stability condition and the borrowed Hartree scattering theory from [28]. All other ingredients are standard functional analysis. No new entities are postulated.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Uniform Penrose condition (1.7) holds for (K, µ) with constants κ, δ.
Imported from [28]; essential for Theorem 5.1 and hence for Theorem 1.12.
domain assumption Results of [28]: uniform-in-ℏ phase mixing and scattering for Hartree (Theorem 5.1 in this paper), including bounds (5.2) and (5.3).
Borrowed theorem from prior work; not reproved here.
domain assumption Kernel regularity: K ∈ L¹ with [K]₁ < ∞ (finite-time case (a)) or [K]₂ < ∞ (case (b) and uniform-in-time).
Excludes Coulomb; needed for Fourier multiplier bounds in Propositions 3.7 and Lemmas 3.3–3.6.
domain assumption A priori regularity bounds (a) or (b) in Theorem 1.10: ∥g∥_{C([0,T];H^σ_2)} + sup_ℏ ∥P^ℏ∥_{C([0,T];H^{σ+3}_2)} ≤ M_T (or exchanged).
Conditional finite-time statement; Appendix A gives propagation criteria but the bound itself is assumed in the theorem. In Theorem 1.12 it is verified via [28].
standard math Sobolev embedding, Plancherel, Grönwall, Japanese bracket inequalities (Appendix B).
Standard background used throughout.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The semiclassical limit from Hartree to Vlasov at positive density: strong uniform-in-time convergence and scattering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/INQXOFSO

@misc{pith2026260722490,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The semiclassical limit from Hartree to Vlasov at positive density: strong uniform-in-time convergence and scattering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/INQXOFSO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.22490}
}

abstract

Strong semiclassical convergence from the Hartree equation to the Vlasov equation is established in three dimensions near Penrose-stable homogeneous steady states at positive density. For sufficiently regular integrable interaction kernels, an $O(\hbar^2)$ convergence rate in weighted Sobolev spaces is proved on finite time intervals. Combining this estimate with earlier uniform-in-$\hbar$ phase-mixing and scattering bounds for the Hartree equation yields global existence and scattering for the corresponding Vlasov solution through the semiclassical limit. If the quantum and classical initial perturbations are aligned, the semiclassical convergence is uniform for all times, and the Wigner transforms of the quantum scattering profiles converge to the classical scattering profile at the explicit rate $O((\ln\hbar^{-1})^{-1/3})$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.22490 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Semiclassical limit and scattering at positive density. The horizontal limits are taken along the free-transport flow, and the vertical limits at the level of Wigner transforms. The scheme is summarised in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

[28]

Marnie Smith.Phase mixing for the Hartree equation and Landau damping in the semiclassical limit
[1]

Strong semiclassical approximation of Wigner functions for the Hartree dynamics

Agissilaos Athanassoulis, Thierry Paul, Federica Pezzotti, and Mario Pulvirenti. “Strong semiclassical approximation of Wigner functions for the Hartree dynamics”. In:Rend. Lincei Mat. Appl.22.4 (2011), pp. 525–552.doi:10.4171/RLM/613

work page doi:10.4171/rlm/613 2011
[2]

Landau damping in finite regularity for unconfined systems with screened interactions

Jacob Bedrossian, Nader Masmoudi, and Clément Mouhot. “Landau damping in finite regularity for unconfined systems with screened interactions”. In:Comm. Pure Appl. Math.71.3 (2018), pp. 537–576. doi:10.1002/cpa.21730

work page doi:10.1002/cpa.21730 2018
[3]

Landau damping: paraproducts and Gevrey regularity

Jacob Bedrossian, Nader Masmoudi, and Clément Mouhot. “Landau damping: paraproducts and Gevrey regularity”. In:Ann. PDE2.1, 4 (2016).doi:10.1007/s40818-016-0008-2

doi:10.1007/s40818-016-0008-2 2016
[4]

Linearized wave-damping structure of Vlasov–PoissoninR 3

Jacob Bedrossian, Nader Masmoudi, and Clément Mouhot. “Linearized wave-damping structure of Vlasov–PoissoninR 3”.In:SIAM J. Math. Anal.54.4(2022),pp.4379–4406.doi:10.1137/20M1386141

work page doi:10.1137/20m1386141 2022
[5]

FromtheHartreedynamicsto the Vlasov equation

NielsBenedikter,MarcelloPorta,ChiaraSaffirio,andBenjaminSchlein.“FromtheHartreedynamicsto the Vlasov equation”. In:Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal.221.1 (2016), pp. 273–334.doi:10.1007/s00205- 015-0961-z. 28 REFERENCES

doi:10.1007/s00205- 2016
[6]

Antoine Borie, Sonae Hadama, and Julien Sabin.Scattering for the positive density Hartree equation
[7]

Thierry Cazenave.Semilinear Schrödinger Equations. Vol. 10. Courant Lecture Notes in Mathematics. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society, 2003.doi:10.1090/cln/010

doi:10.1090/cln/010 2003

Show all 31 references

[8]

On the scattering problem for infinitely many fermions in dimensionsd≥3at positive temperature

Thomas Chen, Younghun Hong, and Nataša Pavlović. “On the scattering problem for infinitely many fermions in dimensionsd≥3at positive temperature”. In:Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré C Anal. Non Linéaire 35.2 (2018), pp. 393–416.doi:10.1016/j.anihpc.2017.05.002

2018 doi
[9]

On theL 2 rate of convergence in the limit from the Hartree to the Vlasov–Poisson equation

Jacky J. Chong, Laurent Lafleche, and Chiara Saffirio. “On theL 2 rate of convergence in the limit from the Hartree to the Vlasov–Poisson equation”. In:J. Éc. polytech. Math.10 (2023), pp. 703–726. doi:10.5802/jep.230

2023 doi
[10]

Stability of equilibria for a Hartree equation for random fields

Charles Collot and Anne-Sophie de Suzzoni. “Stability of equilibria for a Hartree equation for random fields”. In:J. Math. Pures Appl. (9)137 (2020), pp. 70–100.doi:10.1016/j.matpur.2020.03.003

2020 doi
[11]

Stability of steady states for Hartree and Schrödinger equations for infinitely many particles

Charles Collot and Anne-Sophie de Suzzoni. “Stability of steady states for Hartree and Schrödinger equations for infinitely many particles”. In:Ann. H. Lebesgue5 (2022), pp. 429–490.doi:10.5802/ ahl.127

2022
[12]

Evans.Partial Differential Equations

Lawrence C. Evans.Partial Differential Equations. 2nd ed. Vol. 19. Graduate Studies in Mathematics. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society, 2010

2010
[13]

Landau damping for analytic and Gevrey data

Emmanuel Grenier, Toan T. Nguyen, and Igor Rodnianski. “Landau damping for analytic and Gevrey data”. In:Mathematical Research Letters(2020)

2020
[14]

Sonae Hadama and Younghun Hong.Semi-classical limit of quantum scattering states for the nonlinear Hartree equation. 2025. arXiv:2507.12627 [math.AP]

2025 arXiv
[15]

Nonlinear Landau damping for the Vlasov–Poisson system inR3: the Poisson equilibrium

Alexandru D. Ionescu, Benoit Pausader, Xuecheng Wang, and Klaus Widmayer. “Nonlinear Landau damping for the Vlasov–Poisson system inR3: the Poisson equilibrium”. In:Ann. PDE10.1, 2 (2024). doi:10.1007/s40818-023-00161-w

2024 doi
[16]

Strong semiclassical limits from Hartree and Hartree–Fock to Vlasov–Poisson equations

Laurent Lafleche and Chiara Saffirio. “Strong semiclassical limits from Hartree and Hartree–Fock to Vlasov–Poisson equations”. In:Anal. PDE16.4 (2023), pp. 891–926.doi:10.2140/apde.2023.16.891

2023 doi
[17]

On the vibrations of the electronic plasma

Lev D. Landau. “On the vibrations of the electronic plasma”. In:J. Phys. (USSR)10 (1946), pp. 25–34

1946
[18]

The Hartree and Vlasov equations at positive density

Mathieu Lewin and Julien Sabin. “The Hartree and Vlasov equations at positive density”. In:Comm. Partial Differential Equations45.12 (2020), pp. 1702–1754.doi:10.1080/03605302.2020.1803355

2020
[19]

The Hartree equation for infinitely many particles, I: Well-posedness theory

Mathieu Lewin and Julien Sabin. “The Hartree equation for infinitely many particles, I: Well-posedness theory”. In:Comm. Math. Phys.334.1 (2015), pp. 117–170.doi:10.1007/s00220-014-2098-6

2015 doi
[20]

The Hartree equation for infinitely many particles, II: Dispersion and scattering in 2D

Mathieu Lewin and Julien Sabin. “The Hartree equation for infinitely many particles, II: Dispersion and scattering in 2D”. In:Anal. PDE7.6 (2014), pp. 1339–1363.doi:10.2140/apde.2014.7.1339

2014 doi
[21]

Sur les mesures de Wigner

Pierre-Louis Lions and Thierry Paul. “Sur les mesures de Wigner”. In:Rev. Mat. Iberoam.9.3 (1993), pp. 553–618

1993
[22]

Majda and Andrea L

Andrew J. Majda and Andrea L. Bertozzi.Vorticity and Incompressible Flow. Vol. 27. Cambridge Texts in Applied Mathematics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002

2002
[23]

The classical limit of a self-consistent quantum-Vlasov equation in 3D

Peter A. Markowich and Norbert J. Mauser. “The classical limit of a self-consistent quantum-Vlasov equation in 3D”. In:Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci.3.1 (1993), pp. 109–124

1993
[24]

On Landau damping

Clément Mouhot and Cédric Villani. “On Landau damping”. In:Acta Math.207.1 (2011), pp. 29–201. doi:10.1007/s11511-011-0068-9

2011 doi
[25]

Nguyen and Chanjin You.Asymptotic Stability of Hartree–Fock Homogeneous Equilibria in Rd

Toan T. Nguyen and Chanjin You.Asymptotic Stability of Hartree–Fock Homogeneous Equilibria in Rd. 2026. arXiv:2604.18952 [math.AP]

2026 arXiv
[26]

Modified scattering for long-range Hartree equations of infinite rank near vacuum

Toan T. Nguyen and Chanjin You. “Modified scattering for long-range Hartree equations of infinite rank near vacuum”. In:SIAM J. Math. Anal.57.6 (2025), pp. 6486–6497.doi:10.1137/24M168903X

2025 doi
[27]

Plasmons for the Hartree equations with Coulomb interaction

Toan T. Nguyen and Chanjin You. “Plasmons for the Hartree equations with Coulomb interaction”. In:Probab. Math. Phys.6.3 (2025), pp. 913–960.doi:10.2140/pmp.2025.6.913

2025 doi
[29]

Chanjin You.Phase mixing estimates for the nonlinear Hartree equation of infinite rank. 2024. arXiv: 2408.15972 [math.AP]

2024 arXiv
[2024]

arXiv:2412.14842 [math.AP]

arXiv
[2025]

arXiv:2504.19552 [math.AP]

arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [28]

Marnie Smith.Phase mixing for the Hartree equation and Landau damping in the semiclassical limit

[2] [1]

Strong semiclassical approximation of Wigner functions for the Hartree dynamics

Agissilaos Athanassoulis, Thierry Paul, Federica Pezzotti, and Mario Pulvirenti. “Strong semiclassical approximation of Wigner functions for the Hartree dynamics”. In:Rend. Lincei Mat. Appl.22.4 (2011), pp. 525–552.doi:10.4171/RLM/613

work page doi:10.4171/rlm/613 2011

[3] [2]

Landau damping in finite regularity for unconfined systems with screened interactions

Jacob Bedrossian, Nader Masmoudi, and Clément Mouhot. “Landau damping in finite regularity for unconfined systems with screened interactions”. In:Comm. Pure Appl. Math.71.3 (2018), pp. 537–576. doi:10.1002/cpa.21730

work page doi:10.1002/cpa.21730 2018

[4] [3]

Landau damping: paraproducts and Gevrey regularity

Jacob Bedrossian, Nader Masmoudi, and Clément Mouhot. “Landau damping: paraproducts and Gevrey regularity”. In:Ann. PDE2.1, 4 (2016).doi:10.1007/s40818-016-0008-2

doi:10.1007/s40818-016-0008-2 2016

[5] [4]

Linearized wave-damping structure of Vlasov–PoissoninR 3

Jacob Bedrossian, Nader Masmoudi, and Clément Mouhot. “Linearized wave-damping structure of Vlasov–PoissoninR 3”.In:SIAM J. Math. Anal.54.4(2022),pp.4379–4406.doi:10.1137/20M1386141

work page doi:10.1137/20m1386141 2022

[6] [5]

FromtheHartreedynamicsto the Vlasov equation

NielsBenedikter,MarcelloPorta,ChiaraSaffirio,andBenjaminSchlein.“FromtheHartreedynamicsto the Vlasov equation”. In:Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal.221.1 (2016), pp. 273–334.doi:10.1007/s00205- 015-0961-z. 28 REFERENCES

doi:10.1007/s00205- 2016

[7] [6]

Antoine Borie, Sonae Hadama, and Julien Sabin.Scattering for the positive density Hartree equation

[8] [7]

Thierry Cazenave.Semilinear Schrödinger Equations. Vol. 10. Courant Lecture Notes in Mathematics. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society, 2003.doi:10.1090/cln/010

doi:10.1090/cln/010 2003