Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 54 references

Extreme values of a homogeneous polynomial can be estimated by diagonalizing a large quantum matrix instead of running nonlinear iterations.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 02:24 UTC pith:5H3ERYJ4

load-bearing objection Honest heuristics: §3's variational method is a solid contribution, but the new Biasi inequality is explicitly conjectural and rests on a thin numerical base. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.25445 v1 pith:5H3ERYJ4 submitted 2026-07-28 math-ph cond-mat.dis-nncs.NAmath.APmath.MPmath.NAquant-ph

Quantum estimates for classical polynomial optimization

Oleg Evnin This is my paper
classification math-ph cond-mat.dis-nncs.NAmath.APmath.MPmath.NAquant-ph MSC 15A6990C2681Q10
keywords polynomial optimizationtensor eigenvaluesZ-eigenvaluesquantum variational methodsemiclassical limitcoherent stateshomogeneous polynomialsglobal bounds
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper argues that finding the smallest and largest values of a multivariate homogeneous polynomial on the unit sphere—equivalently, the extreme Z-eigenvalues of its coefficient tensor—can be turned into a linear algebra problem. For Hermitian-type polynomials, the author replaces the polynomial with a bosonic many-body Hamiltonian and takes the ratio of its extreme eigenvalues to N^q in the large-particle limit. For ordinary real polynomials, the same end is achieved through a variational problem over a finite monomial basis on the sphere, solved as a generalized matrix eigenvalue problem. If these semiclassical limits hold, the method supplies global bounds directly, bypassing the capricious convergence of standard tensor power iterations, and can be used to guess new polynomial inequalities.

Core claim

The central claim is that the extreme eigenvalues of the coefficient tensor—equivalently the extrema of the polynomial on the unit sphere—can be recovered from the extreme eigenvalues of a quantized matrix. In the Hermitian case this is the limit (12): λ_min = lim_{N→∞} E_min^(N)/N^q and λ_max = lim_{N→∞} E_max^(N)/N^q, where E_min/max^(N) are the extreme eigenvalues of the bosonic Hamiltonian restricted to N particles. In the real case it is the generalized eigenvalue problem (42) built from integrals (45) in the truncated monomial basis (44), whose extreme eigenvalues converge to the Z-eigenvalues as the truncation rank R grows. The paper presents numerical evidence on standard test tensor

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are two quantum-replacement schemes. First, for Hermitian polynomials, the polynomial (4) is promoted to the normal-ordered bosonic Hamiltonian (7) acting on Fock states; the classical extreme values are read off from the N-particle sector via the scaling limit (12), justified heuristically by a coherent-state argument. Second, for real polynomials, the unit sphere is parametrized by angles, the extremization is recast as a variational problem over functions Ψ(Ω), and a truncated monomial basis (44) converts it into the linear generalized eigenvalue problem (42), with matrix elements computed in closed form from the monomial integral (45). The first machinery general

Load-bearing premise

The reasoning depends on the assumption that an arbitrary N-particle extremal state is well represented by coherent states, so that the extreme quantum eigenvalues divided by N^q converge to the classical extreme values as in Eq. (12); this is sketched, not proved, and if the error is not o(N^q) the estimates collapse.

What would settle it

Compute, for a Hermitian polynomial whose exact λ_min is known, the quantities E_min^(N)/N^q for increasing N; if they fail to approach λ_min within the claimed o(1) error as N grows, the central limit (12) is false. Concretely, take a degree-4 Hermitian polynomial with a known closed-form minimum, or run the real-variable construction on a polynomial whose extremum is attained on a measure-zero set (flat landscape) and check whether the generalized eigenvalue estimates converge to the true value.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • A new conjectured inequality (34) for a family of resonant polynomial Hamiltonians is derived from the quantum spectra, providing a target for analytic proof.
  • For standard test tensors, the estimates converge to the known extreme eigenvalues with error roughly 1/D in the real-variable case, suggesting a practical direct method.
  • The method gives global access to the configuration space, so it does not suffer from the local-extremum trapping that plagues nonlinear tensor iterations.
  • Sharp harmonic-analysis bounds for resonant Hamiltonians can be conjectured by inspecting quantum eigenvalues in fixed (N,M) sectors, without analytical work.
  • Extreme eigenvalues of large random tensors (data-analysis applications) can in principle be targeted with sparse-matrix eigensolvers on very large matrices.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the observed 1/D convergence is generic, the real-variable method could be turned into a certified bounding scheme by extrapolating two truncation levels, though the paper does not prove this.
  • The two constructions are unified by viewing both as truncated quantum variational families; the real case's basis (44) is a fuzzy-sphere algebraic structure, which suggests noncommutative geometry might offer a convergence-rate theory.
  • For polynomials with flat extremum landscapes, the variational wavevector may converge more slowly than the eigenvalue; a test would be to compare extremizer recovery on a polynomial with a flat top versus an isolated maximum.
  • Because the problem is recast as a matrix spectrum, quantum hardware (if usable for such dimensions) would directly accelerate the method, an option the paper mentions but does not develop.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents two quantum-inspired variational strategies for bounding homogeneous polynomials and finding extreme tensor eigenvalues. For Hermitian polynomials of degree 2q, it introduces a bosonic N-particle Hamiltonian and claims that the extreme eigenvalues in the N-particle sector, scaled by N^q, converge to the extreme values of the classical polynomial (Eqs. (7), (12)). For general real polynomials, it sets up a Rayleigh-Ritz problem on the unit sphere using a truncated basis of monomials (Eqs. (38)–(44)), yielding a standard generalized eigenvalue problem whose extreme eigenvalues approximate the Z-eigenvalue extrema. The methods are applied to the Motzkin polynomial, two tensors from the numerical literature, and a family of resonant Hamiltonians of Biasi. The paper's advertised new analytic output is the inequality (34), obtained by fitting the quantum eigenvalue formula (33) and applying the heuristic translation rule (24).

Significance. The real-polynomial section is a clean and useful observation: for any finite-dimensional subspace of L^2(S^{d-1}), the generalized eigenproblem gives systematic inner approximations to the extreme values, with guaranteed convergence as the basis degree grows because polynomials are dense on the sphere. This part is rigorous and reproducible, and the provided Python script makes the method immediately usable. The Hermitian section is more speculative but potentially valuable as a heuristic for guessing sharp polynomial inequalities; the paper correctly notes that similar heuristics have previously produced inequalities that were later proved (e.g., the yrast-line bound (29), proved in [22]). The numerical demonstrations and the explicit scripts are a strength, and the new conjectured bound (34) is a concrete, falsifiable target for future analytic work. The main weakness is that the semiclassical limit (12) and the translation rule (24) are not proved, and the new inequality (34) is therefore a conjecture, not a deduction, despite some wording in the Discussion.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.1, Eqs. (12)–(17)] The central semiclassical limit is asserted by heuristic coherent-state reasoning. The passage from the exact two-centre coherent-state expansion to the diagonal formula (16) assumes without proof that off-diagonal overlaps and Husimi fluctuations are negligible at the o(s^{2q}) level. No remainder estimate is given. This is load-bearing: the translation rule (24) and hence the new inequality (34) inherit this unproved step. The authors should either provide a rigorous proof (or a precise citation to a standard Toeplitz/semiclassical theorem) or explicitly reframe the Hermitian construction as a heuristic that generates conjectures, not established bounds.
  2. [§2.3 and Appendix A, Eq. (33)] The claimed exact formula E_{σ,max}^{(N,M)} = (N−1)(N+2σM)/2 is said to be obtained by fitting the linear dependence on M, but the provided code diagonalizes only the single sector N=15, M=30 and prints one eigenvalue against the formula. No fit, no range of M, and no other N are shown. Since (34) is derived from (33), the numerical evidence is insufficient. Please provide results for multiple (N,M) sectors, fit residuals, and preferably an independent consistency check (e.g., several σ values) before presenting (33) as an exact formula.
  3. [§2.2, Eq. (24)] The rule converting finite-sector eigenvalue bounds F(N,M), G(N,M) into classical inequalities via t→∞ is a heuristic. Even if (23) holds exactly, the limit lim_{t→∞} F(tN_c,tM_c)/t^q need not exist for arbitrary F, and for the specific formulas here it works only after an additional O(1/t) term is discarded. This step is not proved. Because (34) is the paper's main advertised new result, the manuscript must state clearly that (34) is a conjecture deduced by a non-rigorous rule, and should soften the Discussion's claim that the inequality was 'deduced.'
  4. [§4, first paragraph] The sentence 'a novel inequality (34) was deduced' is in tension with §2.3, where (34) is called 'conjectural' and it is said that 'there is no ironclad guarantee' of a sum-of-squares proof. This is not merely a wording issue: it concerns what the paper has actually established. The abstract and discussion should consistently describe the Hermitian part as producing conjectures and numerical estimates, with the real-polynomial part providing the only rigorous bounds.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.1, Eqs. (14)–(17)] Inequalities of the form 'X < O(s^{...})' are not well-formed; they should be 'X ≤ C s^{...} for large s' or 'X = O(s^{...})'. Also, the normalization constant A in the coherent-state expansion leading to (16) is never defined.
  2. [§3.1, Eqs. (36)–(40)] For clarity, state the direction of the approximation: the subspace minimum is an upper bound on λ_min (since every admissible Ψ gives an expectation ≥ λ_min), and the subspace maximum is a lower bound on λ_max. As R grows, the two families bracket the true values from the feasible side, which is a useful monotone inner approximation.
  3. [§3.2, Examples] The claim that the 'mistake decays roughly as 1/D' is based on three data points for the Motzkin polynomial and Example 1, and on only two points for Example 2. Please add more values of R and report errors in a small table, or phrase the decay statement as preliminary.
  4. [Appendix A] The parameter s=9.73 in the script is the σ of Eq. (30); using the same symbol as the coherent-state scale earlier in the paper is confusing. Also, the script only computes one (N,M) sector; a short loop over M would make the claimed linear fit reproducible.
  5. [References] Reference [52] has a typo: 'unit spere' should be 'unit sphere.' More substantively, the real-polynomial Rayleigh-Ritz method is closely connected to standard truncation hierarchies in polynomial optimization; a brief comparison with sum-of-squares/Lasserre approaches and a citation would help position the contribution.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the claimed estimates are computed directly from polynomial coefficients or from numerical diagonalization, and the advertised inequality (34) is explicitly conjectural rather than a fitted target.

full rationale

The derivation chain is input-output non-circular. In the Hermitian construction (§2.1), the extreme quantum eigenvalues are obtained by diagonalizing the matrix representation of (7), whose coefficients are exactly the polynomial's tensor C; the semiclassical limit (12) is argued from coherent states and the variational principle, not by inserting the desired λ_min/λ_max. In §2.3, formula (33) is fitted from eigenvalues of the quantum Hamiltonian H_σ in an (N,M)-sector (numerical script, N=15, M=30), and then the polynomial inequality (34) is 'expected' via the heuristic translation rule (24). No value of the target inequality (34) is fed into the diagonalization or the fit; the paper itself labels (34) 'conjectural' and notes 'there is no ironclad guarantee' of a sum-of-squares proof. The real-polynomial part (§3) is a Rayleigh-Ritz/Galerkin projection onto the monomial basis (44), with λ_min/λ_max estimated by the generalized eigenvalue problem (42); the examples in §3.2 are compared with independent known tensor eigenvalues and converge to them, so they are not used as inputs. The main weaknesses are rigor gaps: the coherent-state error o(N^q) in (12)-(17) is only sketched, and (24) is an unproved semiclassical extrapolation. These are correctness risks, not circular reductions. Self-citations [18]-[21], [29] and [46] are present, but the key prior inequality (29) was later proved externally [22], and the present paper's own text contains the heuristic derivation; none of the self-citations forces the central result by definition. Thus no circular step can be exhibited.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no new particles or forces; the 'quantum operator' is a computational device. The central claim depends on one fitted numerical law (the Biasi eigenvalue formula) and on several unproved semiclassical/coherent-state assumptions, which are the main sources of correctness risk.

free parameters (1)
  • linear coefficient of E_max versus M in Eq. (33) = σ(N−1) (inferred by numerical fit)
    In §2.3 the formula E_max^(N,M) = (N−1)(N+2σM)/2 is said to be extracted 'by fitting this dependence' from diagonalizations at finite N, M; the slope is not derived, though its value equals the known Hamiltonian parameter σ times (N−1).
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The N→∞ semiclassical limit (12) exists and E_min/max^(N)/N^q → λ_min/max with o(N^q) error.
    Invoked in §2.1; justified only by a coherent-state heuristic, not rigorous proof.
  • ad hoc to paper Any N-particle extremal eigenstate can be expanded in coherent states with negligible error, so Eq. (16) holds up to o(s^{2q}).
    Assumed in the derivation of (16) and not proven; it is a quantum-classical correspondence assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper The fitted finite-(N,M) eigenvalue formula (33) extends to all N,M and passes to the classical limit via (24), yielding (34).
    Used in §2.3; the inequality (34) is unsupported except by finite-size numerics.
  • standard math Polynomials are dense in C(S^{d-1}), so the truncated variational estimates converge as R→∞.
    Weierstrass approximation; implicit in §3.2.
  • standard math The integral identity (45) for monomials on the sphere.
    Quoted from [52]; used to compute A and M.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 15082 in / 13719 out tokens · 143014 ms · 2026-08-01T02:24:18.672939+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The problem of finding lower and upper bounds on multivariate homogeneous polynomials is both difficult and important given its applications to questions ranging from dynamical stability in complex potential landscapes to data analysis. From the standpoint of tensor eigenvalue theory, the question is equivalent to finding the smallest and the largest eigenvalues of the coefficient tensor corresponding to the given polynomial. Standard approaches outlined in the literature amount to running nonlinear iterations in search for the optimal rays along which the growth of the polynomial is fastest or slowest. Unlike the case of matrices (or their corresponding multivariate quadratic forms) convergence of such algorithms for higher-rank tensors is capricious due to the complex topography of polynomial objective functions. In this essay, a very different strategy, inspired by quantum-mechanical variational methods, is introduced for finding bounds on polynomials. The original polynomial is replaced by an operator acting in a suitably chosen (large) space of states, such that in an appropriate "classical" limit this operator approaches the original polynomial expression made of commutative variables. As a result, approximating the smallest and largest eigenvalues of the coefficient tensor, and thus finding bounds on polynomials, amounts to diagonalizing the resulting quantum operator, represented as a large matrix, and then inspecting the smallest and largest eigenvalues of this matrix. This approach is then successfully applied to standard test examples from tensor eigenvalue literature and other problems of interest in mathematical physics including Strichartz-type inequalities.

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 44 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Marshall,Positive polynomials and sums of squares(AMS, 2008)

    M. Marshall,Positive polynomials and sums of squares(AMS, 2008)

    2008

  2. [2]

    Y. V. Fyodorov,Complexity of random energy landscapes, glass transition, and absolute value of the spectral determinant of random matrices,Phys. Rev. Lett.92(2004) 240601, arXiv:cond-mat/0401287

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  3. [3]

    Auffinger, G

    A. Auffinger, G. Ben Arous and J. ˇCern´ y,Random matrices and complexity of spin glasses,Comm. Pur. App. Math.66(2013) 165, arXiv:1003.1129 [math.PR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  4. [4]

    L. Qi, H. Chen and Y. Chen,Tensor eigenvalues and their applications(Springer Nature Singapore, 2018)

    2018

  5. [5]

    Qi,Eigenvalues of a real supersymmetric tensor,J

    L. Qi,Eigenvalues of a real supersymmetric tensor,J. Symb. Comp.40(2005) 1302

    2005

  6. [6]

    Lim,Singular values and eigenvalues of tensors: a variational approach,in Pro- ceedings of CAMSAP ’051(2005) 129, arXiv:math/0607648

    L.-H. Lim,Singular values and eigenvalues of tensors: a variational approach,in Pro- ceedings of CAMSAP ’051(2005) 129, arXiv:math/0607648

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  7. [7]

    Dolotin and A

    V. Dolotin and A. Morozov,Introduction to non-linear algebra(World Scientific, 2007) arXiv:hep-th/0609022 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  8. [8]

    I. M. Gelfand, M. M. Kapranov and A. V. Zelevinsky,Discriminants, resultants and multidimensional determinants(Birkh¨ auser, 1994)

    1994

  9. [9]

    Cartwright and B

    D. Cartwright and B. Sturmfels,The number of eigenvalues of a tensor,Lin. Alg. Appl. 438(2013) 942, arXiv:1004.4953 [math.NA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  10. [10]

    Evnin,Melonic dominance and the largest eigenvalue of a large random tensor,Lett

    O. Evnin,Melonic dominance and the largest eigenvalue of a large random tensor,Lett. Math. Phys.111(2021) 66, arXiv:2003.11220 [math-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  11. [11]

    Sasakura,Signed distributions of real tensor eigenvectors of Gaussian tensor model via a four-Fermi theory,Phys

    N. Sasakura,Signed distributions of real tensor eigenvectors of Gaussian tensor model via a four-Fermi theory,Phys. Lett. B836(2023) 137618, arXiv:2208.08837 [hep-th]; Joint distributions of eigenvectors of symmetric random tensors,arXiv:2605.09804 [hep- th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  12. [12]

    Delporte and N

    N. Delporte and N. Sasakura,The edge of random tensor eigenvalues with deviation, JHEP01(2025) 071, arXiv:2405.07731 [hep-th]. 18

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    Kofidis and P

    E. Kofidis and P. A. Regalia, On the best rank-1 approximation of higher-order super- symmetric tensors, SIAM J. Matr. Anal. App.23(2002) 863

    2002

  14. [14]

    T. G. Kolda and J. R. Mayo,Shifted power method for computing tensor eigenpairs, SIAM J. Matr. Anal. App32(2011)1095, arXiv:1007.1267 [math.NA];An adaptive shifted power method for computing generalized tensor eigenpairs,SIAM J. Matr. Anal. App.35(2014) 1563, arXiv:1401.1183 [math.NA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  15. [15]

    Zhou, Sh

    G. Zhou, Sh. Wang and J. Huang,Computing tensor Z-eigenpairs via an alternating direction method,PeerJ Comp. Sci.9(2023) e1242

    2023

  16. [16]

    Pollock and Rh

    S. Pollock and Rh. Shroff,Accelerating the computation of tensor Z-eigenvalues,La Matematica4(2025) 925, arXiv:2307.11908 [math.NA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    A. R. Benson and D. F. Gleich,Computing tensor Z-eigenvectors with dynamical sys- tems,SIAM J. Matr. Anal. App.40(2019) 1311, arXiv:1805.00903 [math.NA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  18. [18]

    Evnin and W

    O. Evnin and W. Piensuk,Quantum resonant systems, integrable and chaotic, J. Phys. A52(2019) 025102, arXiv:1808.09173 [math-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  19. [19]

    Evnin,Resonant Hamiltonian systems and weakly nonlinear dynamics in AdS space- times,Class

    O. Evnin,Resonant Hamiltonian systems and weakly nonlinear dynamics in AdS space- times,Class. Quant. Grav.38(2021) 203001, arXiv:2104.09797 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  20. [20]

    De Clerck and O

    M. De Clerck and O. Evnin,Time-periodic quantum states of weakly interacting bosons in a harmonic trap,Phys. Lett. A384(2020) 126930, arXiv:2003.03684 [cond- mat.quant-gas]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  21. [21]

    Craps, M

    B. Craps, M. De Clerck and O. Evnin,Time-periodicities in holographic CFTs, JHEP09(2021) 030, arXiv:2103.12798 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  22. [22]

    Schwinte,An optimal minimization problem in the lowest Landau level and related questions,Comm

    V. Schwinte,An optimal minimization problem in the lowest Landau level and related questions,Comm. Math. Phys.405(2024) 98, arXiv:2303.03902 [math.AP]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    R. S. Strichartz,Restrictions of Fourier transforms to quadratic surfaces and decay of solutions of wave equations,Duke Math. J.44(1977) 705

    1977

  24. [24]

    Foschi,Maximizers for the Strichartz inequality,J

    D. Foschi,Maximizers for the Strichartz inequality,J. Eur. Math. Soc.9(2007) 739, arXiv:math/0404011

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  25. [25]

    Hundertmark and V

    D. Hundertmark and V. Zharnitsky,On sharp Strichartz inequalities in low dimensions, Int. Math. Res. Not.2006(2006) 34080

    2006

  26. [26]

    Carneiro,A sharp inequality for the Strichartz norm,Int

    E. Carneiro,A sharp inequality for the Strichartz norm,Int. Math. Res. Not.2009 (2009) 3127, arXiv:0809.4054 [math.AP]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  27. [27]

    Ni,Hermitian tensor and quantum mixed state,arXiv:1902.02640 [quant-ph]

    G. Ni,Hermitian tensor and quantum mixed state,arXiv:1902.02640 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1902

  28. [28]

    Nie and Z

    J. Nie and Z. Yang,Hermitian tensor decompositions,SIAM J. Matr. Anal. App.41 (2020) 1115, arXiv:1912.07175 [math.NA]. 19

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  29. [29]

    Craps, M

    B. Craps, M. De Clerck, O. Evnin and M. Pavlov,Phase-space localization at the lowest Landau level,Phys. Rev. A110(2024) 063325, arXiv:2407.07675 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    E. Faou, P. Germain and Z. Hani,The weakly nonlinear large box limit of the 2d cubic nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation,J. Amer. Math. Soc.29(2016) 915, arXiv:1308.6267 [math.AP]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  31. [31]

    Germain, Z

    P. Germain, Z. Hani and L. Thomann,On the continuous resonant equation for NLS: I. Deterministic analysis,J. Math. Pur. App.105(2016) 131 arXiv:1501.03760 [math.AP]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  32. [32]

    Germain and L

    P. Germain and L. Thomann,On the high frequency limit of the LLL equation, Quart. Appl. Math.74(2016) 633, arXiv:1509.09080 [math.AP]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  33. [33]

    Biasi, P

    A. Biasi, P. Bizo´ n, B. Craps and O. Evnin,Exact lowest-Landau-level solutions for vortex precession in Bose-Einstein condensates,Phys. Rev. A96(2017) 053615, arXiv:1705.00867 [cond-mat.quant-gas];Two infinite families of resonant solutions for the Gross-Pitaevskii equation,Phys. Rev. E98(2018) 032222, arXiv:1805.01775 [cond- mat.quant-gas]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  34. [34]

    G´ erard, P

    P. G´ erard, P. Germain and L. Thomann,On the cubic lowest Landau level equation, Arch. Rational Mech. Anal.231(2019) 1073, arXiv:1709.04276 [math.AP]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  35. [35]

    Fennell,Resonant Hamiltonian systems associated to the one-dimensional non- linear Schr¨ odinger equation with harmonic trapping, Comm

    J. Fennell,Resonant Hamiltonian systems associated to the one-dimensional non- linear Schr¨ odinger equation with harmonic trapping, Comm. PDE44(2019) 1299, arXiv:1804.08190 [math.AP]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  36. [36]

    Bizo´ n, O

    P. Bizo´ n, O. Evnin and F. Ficek,A nonrelativistic limit for AdS perturbations, JHEP12(2018) 113, arXiv:1810.10574 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  37. [37]

    Balasubramanian, A

    V. Balasubramanian, A. Buchel, S. R. Green, L. Lehner and S. L. Liebling, Holographic thermalization, stability of anti-de Sitter space, and the Fermi-Pasta-Ulam paradox,Phys. Rev. Lett.113(2014) 071601 arXiv:1403.6471 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  38. [38]

    Craps, O

    B. Craps, O. Evnin and J. Vanhoof,Renormalization group, secular term resummation and AdS (in)stability,JHEP10(2014) 48, arXiv:1407.6273 [gr-qc];Renormalization, av- eraging, conservation laws and AdS (in)stability,JHEP01(2015) 108, arXiv:1412.3249 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  39. [39]

    Bizo´ n, M

    P. Bizo´ n, M. Maliborski and A. Rostworowski,Resonant dynamics and the instability of anti-de Sitter spacetime,Phys. Rev. Lett.115(2015) 081103, arXiv:1506.03519 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  40. [40]

    Bizo´ n, B

    P. Bizo´ n, B. Craps, O. Evnin, D. Hunik, V. Luyten and M. Maliborski,Conformal flow onS 3 and weak field integrability in AdS 4,Comm. Math. Phys.353(2017) 1179, arXiv:1608.07227 [math.AP]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  41. [41]

    Craps, O

    B. Craps, O. Evnin and V. Luyten,Maximally rotating waves in AdS and on spheres, JHEP09(2017) 059, arXiv:1707.08501 [hep-th]. 20

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  42. [42]

    Biasi, P

    A. Biasi, P. Bizon and O. Evnin,Complex plane representations and stationary states in cubic and quintic resonant systems,J. Phys. A52(2019) 435201, arXiv:1904.09575 [math-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  43. [43]

    G. F. Bertsch and T. Papenbrock,Yrast line for weakly interacting trapped bosons, Phys. Rev. Lett.83(1999) 5412, arXiv:cond-mat/9908189

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  44. [44]

    A. D. Jackson and G. M. Kavoulakis,Analytical results for a trapped, weakly-interacting Bose-Einstein condensate under rotation,Phys. Rev. Lett. 85 (2000) 2854, arXiv:cond-mat/0005159

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  45. [45]

    A. L. Fetter,Rotating trapped Bose-Einstein condensates,Rev. Mod. Phys.81(2009) 647, arXiv:0801.2952 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  46. [46]

    Craps, M

    B. Craps, M. De Clerck, O. Evnin and S. Khetrapal,Energy level splitting for weakly in- teracting bosons in a harmonic trap,Phys. Rev. A100(2019) 023605, arXiv:1903.04974 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  47. [47]

    Viefers,Quantum Hall physics in rotating Bose-Einstein condensates,J

    S. Viefers,Quantum Hall physics in rotating Bose-Einstein condensates,J. Phys. Cond. Mat.20(2008) 123202, arXiv:0801.4856 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  48. [48]

    E. H. Lieb, R. Seiringer and J. Yngvason,The yrast line of a rapidly rotating Bose gas: Gross-Pitaevskii regime,Phys. Rev. A79(2009) 063626, arXiv:0904.1750 [cond- mat.quant-gas]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  49. [49]

    Biasi, P

    A. Biasi, P. Bizo´ n and O. Evnin,Solvable cubic resonant systems,Comm. Math. Phys. 369(2019) 433 arXiv:1805.03634 [nlin.SI]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  50. [50]

    Biasi,Exact solutions for a coherent phenomenon of condensation in conserva- tive Hamiltonian systems,Phys

    A. Biasi,Exact solutions for a coherent phenomenon of condensation in conserva- tive Hamiltonian systems,Phys. Rev. E110(2024) 034107, arXiv:2401.15083 [cond- mat.stat-mech]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  51. [51]

    Biasi and P

    A. Biasi and P. G´ erard,Energy cascades and condensation via coherent dynamics in Hamiltonian systems,Comm. Math. Phys.406(2025) 264, arXiv:2412.03663 [math- ph]

    arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

    C. P. Calderon and A. Torchinsky,Integration of monomials over the unit spere and unit ball inR n,arXiv:2501.08493 [math.CA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  53. [53]

    Y. C. He and W. Zhu,A fuzzy sphere journey in critical phenomena,Ann. Rev. Cond. Mat. Phys.17(2026) 1, arXiv:2607.01310 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  54. [54]

    Papachristodoulou and S

    A. Papachristodoulou and S. Prajna,A tutorial on sum of squares techniques for systems analysis,in proceedings of American Control Conference 2005. 21

    2005