Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 44 references

Iterative thresholding low-rank time integration for high-dimensional problems

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Under algebraic or exponential singular-value decay, the iterative soft-thresholding time integrator for hierarchical tensors produces ranks bounded by the best approximation ranks of the exact solution, up to polynomial-in-dimension and…

desk verdict Genuine extension of the matrix-level iterative thresholding analysis to hierarchical tensors with polynomial dimension dependence, but the quasi-optimality theorem is proved for an idealized variant of the algorithm and the paper is only partially clear about that. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.06905 v1 pith:3VAKZ6EU submitted 2026-08-07 math.NA cs.NA

Markus Bachmayr , Tianyu Jin , Polina Sachsenmaier , Federico Vismara This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.NAcs.NA MSC 65D4065F5565M1265Y2065L70
keywords low-rankapproximationhierarchicaltensorformatsoftthresholdingtime-dependentSchrödingerequationquasi-optimalranksfixed-pointiterationcollocationmethodscurseofdimensionality
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 analyzes a time-stepping method for high-dimensional linear Schrödinger-type equations in which the solution is kept in hierarchical tensor form and the tensor ranks are controlled by iterative soft thresholding. The central claim is that the ranks produced by the algorithm stay close to the minimal ranks needed to approximate the exact solution at the same accuracy: under algebraic or exponential decay of the matricization singular values, the computed ranks are bounded by the best approximation ranks up to factors polynomial in the dimension and linear in the number of time steps. This matters because it turns an otherwise heuristic rank-adaptation strategy into a provable balance between accuracy and complexity, extending to higher-order tensors what was previously known only for matrices. The practical payoff is a way to simulate high-dimensional quantum dynamics without the curse of dimensionality while retaining a priori rank control.

What carries the argument

The central object is the hierarchical tensor soft-thresholding operator $S_\alpha = S_{E,\alpha}\circ\cdots\circ S_{1,\alpha}$, which applies soft thresholding to each matricization associated with the nodes of the binary dimension tree in succession. Because this operator is non-expansive, the composed map $S_{\alpha_i}F$ is still a contraction whenever the fixed-point map $F$ (built from the Duhamel/twisted-variable integral formulation) has contraction ratio $\rho=C_G\Lambda_Q h<1$; each such map has a unique fixed point $v_{\alpha_i}$. The algorithm decreases the threshold geometrically ($\alpha_{i+1}=\theta\alpha_i$) only after the inner Picard iteration has converged to $v_{\alpha_i}$, and the analysis transfers the resulting bounds on the residual $\|Fv_{i,j}-v_{i,j}\|_Q$ into bounds on $\|u-S_{\alpha_i}u\|_Q$, the soft-thresholding error of the exact solution. Standard estimates then convert singular-value decay of $u$ into the quasi-optimal rank bounds.

What would settle it

Run Algorithm 3.1 on a high-dimensional Schrödinger-type problem with a known exact solution whose matricization singular values decay algebraically with a known exponent, and compare the maximum hierarchical rank of the computed endpoint approximations at error level $\varepsilon$ to the best approximation rank $r_{\mathrm{best}}(u,\varepsilon)$. If the observed rank grows faster than $\mathrm{poly}(d)\cdot (T/h)\cdot r_{\mathrm{best}}(u,\varepsilon)$ as $\varepsilon\to0$, or if the iteration diverges whenever $\rho\ge 1$, the quasi-optimality claim is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors prove that Algorithm 3.1—a Gauss-collocation integrator whose fixed-point equations are solved by Picard iteration with hierarchical-tensor soft thresholding—produces approximations whose hierarchical ranks are quasi-optimal. Theorem 5.7 and Corollary 5.8 state that if the exact solution's matricization singular values decay algebraically or exponentially, then for every subinterval the maximal rank of the computed iterates and endpoint approximations is bounded by a constant (depending only on the decay, the contraction ratio, and the threshold parameters) times $E^{C} r_{\mathrm{best}}(u,\varepsilon)$ with $C$ of order 2 to 3 and logarithmic corrections in the exponential case, up to a linear factor in the number of time steps. The proof works by relating the residual of the thresholded iteration to the soft-thresholding error of the exact solution, and by choosing the recompression tolerance at interval endpoints so that the endpoint ranks are controlled by best approximation ranks of the local fixed-point solution.

Load-bearing premise

The whole proof stands on the assumption that the time step is small enough for the fixed-point iteration to be a contraction; in the reported experiments, the chosen step is large enough that this condition is not guaranteed to hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With Gauss–Legendre nodes the step map is isometric, so the global error bound grows linearly in the final time $T$ instead of exponentially.
  • The rank bounds carry a linear factor in the number of time steps $N=T/h$; this is the price of the fixed-point formulation and it matches the general limitation identified in the cited step-truncation counterexamples.
  • The local error of a $Q$-stage Gauss–Legendre method is of order $h^{2Q+1}$, so taking a few large steps with moderate $Q$ keeps both error and rank growth small.
  • The constants in the rank bounds involve only low-degree polynomials in the dimension via $E=2d-3$, so the quasi-optimality does not deteriorate exponentially with the spatial dimension.
  • The arguments carry over to other evolution problems that admit a contractive fixed-point formulation, including parabolic equations and Lipschitz nonlinearities.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The reported stability of the iteration for parameters where $\rho\ge 1$ suggests that the contraction hypothesis may be stronger than necessary; a natural test is whether thresholding, rather than step-size restriction, is what keeps the iteration convergent for unbounded potentials.
  • Because the linear-in-$N$ factor appears unavoidable for comparisons with the exact solution, the method is best used with a small number of large time steps; combining it with step-truncation schemes on finer grids could give a practical two-level strategy.
  • A direct consequence not pursued in the paper is that the same soft-thresholded fixed-point iteration can be applied to nonlinear Schrödinger and parabolic problems, provided the generator admits a hierarchical low-rank application and a Lipschitz constant.
  • The two-tier rank comparison—against local fixed points and against the exact solution—provides a decomposition of rank growth into intrinsic solution complexity and error-propagation effects, which could be used as a diagnostic in numerical experiments.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes and analyzes a rank-adaptive time integrator for high-dimensional linear Schrödinger-type problems. The integrator advances the solution on each time subinterval by a Picard fixed-point iteration for a Gauss collocation formulation, applying hierarchical-tensor soft thresholding to control ranks. The main theoretical contribution is a set of error bounds and rank estimates: under algebraic or exponential decay of the matricization singular values of the exact solution, the ranks of the iterates and of the approximations at interval endpoints are claimed to be quasi-optimal relative to best approximation ranks of the exact solution, up to constants depending polynomially on the dimension and linearly on the number of time steps. Numerical experiments in four and sixty-four dimensions, using an analytic Gaussian reference solution, illustrate the practical behavior of the method, including tests explicitly acknowledged to lie outside the theoretical contraction regime.

Significance. If the advertised rank bounds were established for the implemented algorithm, this would be a valuable contribution to rank-adaptive time integration: it would provide a rigorous balance between accuracy and ranks for hierarchical tensor approximations, with dimension dependence that is only polynomial in the explicit constants. The paper is also commendably candid about its limitations, including the idealized assumptions in the global analysis and the heuristic choices in the numerical section. However, as written, the central quasi-optimality theorem is proved for an idealized variant of the scheme rather than for Algorithm 3.1 as implemented, and the numerical experiments do not operate in the regime of the theorem. These gaps are load-bearing for the paper's main claim, although they appear to be repairable within the manuscript's scope.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.3–5.4, Eq. (5.4), Prop. 5.4, Prop. 5.7, Cor. 5.8] The rank-quasi-optimality claim for Algorithm 3.1 is proved only for the idealized variant in which δ_n=0 and F_n is evaluated exactly. Section 5.3 explicitly sets δ_n=0 before Proposition 5.4, and the rank recursion for the endpoint values in Proposition 5.4 and Proposition 5.7 does not include the endpoint recompression R_{δ_n} of Algorithm 3.1, line 19. The implemented algorithm, however, uses δ_n>0 in the experiments, and Section 3.1.2 together with Section 6 recompresses inside every evaluation of F_n with a prescribed relative budget. These two features perturb the contraction map whose fixed point is approximated and introduce an additional error δ_n that is absent from the bound of Proposition 3.4 as used in Proposition 5.4. Consequently, Theorem 5.7 and Corollary 5.8 as stated do not establish quasi-optimality of the ranks produced by the implemented Algorithm 3.1 at the stated accuracy. The paper should either extend the perturbation analysis to cover inexact F_n and positive δ_n, or state the theorem explicitly for the algorithm without internal recompression and with δ_n=0, and describe the numerical experiments as beyond the theorem's scope.
  2. [§3.1.1, Lemma 4.1, Prop. 4.3, Algorithm 3.1 line 3] The text requires α_0 to be chosen so that v_{0,1}=S_{α_0}F(v_{0,0})=0, and the subsequent rank analysis uses v_{0,0}=v_{0,1}=0 and J_0=1. Algorithm 3.1 instead sets α_{0,n}=‖ũ_{n-1}‖/(2d-3). Since the hierarchical soft-thresholding operator S_α zeroes a tensor only if the threshold is at least the largest singular value of every matricization, and since F_n(0) has each stage equal to ũ_{n-1}, the choice α_{0,n}=‖ũ_{n-1}‖/(2d-3) does not in general make v_{0,1}=0. For rank-one initial data, for example, every matricization has singular value ‖ũ_{n-1}‖, so the threshold is too small by a factor of 2d−3. The equality v_{0,1}=0 is therefore not guaranteed by the stated initialization, and the base case of Lemma 4.1 and Proposition 4.3 may be invalid for the implemented algorithm. This discrepancy should be corrected, for instance by setting α_{0,n}=‖ũ_{n-1}‖ as a sufficient threshold, or by modifying the base-case analysis.
  3. [§2.2, §3.1.1, §6] The convergence theory for the outer and inner loops relies on the contraction estimate ρ=C_GΛ_Qh<1 in Eq. (2.9), and the inner stopping criterion (3.2) explicitly contains the factor (1−ρ)/(ρ(1+ρ)). Section 6 states that with h=1/10 and Q=10 contractivity is not ensured, and that in this regime the iteration parameters are chosen heuristically, with the threshold-decrease factor set to 3/5. The numerical experiments therefore do not test the theorem's assumptions and cannot be used to validate Prop. 5.7 or Cor. 5.8. The authors are transparent about this, but the abstract and conclusion should not imply that the experiments confirm the proven quasi-optimality bounds; the scope of the empirical evidence should be stated more precisely.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§5.1, §5.4] The cross-references to 'Theorem 5.7' and 'Theorem 5.8' in Section 5.1 and Section 5.4 do not match the displayed numbering, which is Proposition 5.7 and Corollary 5.8; please harmonize the references.
  2. [Algorithm 3.1, §3.1.2, §6] Algorithm 3.1 does not list the internal recompression tolerances described in Section 3.1.2 as input parameters, although these tolerances are needed to reproduce the numerical experiments in Section 6; the input list and the experiment description should be aligned.
  3. [§5.3, Eq. (5.4)] Equation (5.4) prescribes ε_n recursively in terms of κ_Q, κ_{2Q}, and η_0; the presentation would be clearer if a closed-form or explicit geometric choice satisfying the recursion were given, since the current formula already suggests exponential growth in n.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the rank and error bounds are derived from stated assumptions with fixed tolerances, and reliance on prior work is citation of independent results rather than a reduction by construction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The local accuracy statements (Lemmas 3.1 and 3.2) are proved in the paper; Lemmas 3.3 and Proposition 3.4 are explicitly described as direct adaptations of [6], and the soft-thresholding facts used later (non-expansiveness (2.13), [8, Lemma 4.3], [8, Prop. 3.6]) are quoted from published work by one of the authors and are independent of the present claims in the sense that they are parameter-free statements about S_alpha applied to arbitrary tensors. The stopping tolerances epsilon_n and recompression tolerances delta_n are set by the theory (Theorem 4.6 takes epsilon_n = h^{2Q} and delta_n = 2*kappa*rho/(1-rho) h^{2Q}; Proposition 5.4 defines epsilon_n recursively from h, rho, eta_0, kappa_Q, and kappa_{2Q}), and the numerical experiments use fixed tolerances without feeding back into the estimates, so no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. The rank bounds compare produced ranks with r_best of reference objects; they are consequences of the thresholding analysis, not identities imposed by the definitions. The main caveat is a scope gap, not circularity: the clean global bounds (Proposition 5.4 through Corollary 5.8) are proven in the idealized regime delta_n = 0 and with F_n evaluated exactly (Sections 3.1.3 and 5.3), whereas Algorithm 3.1 uses delta_n > 0 and recompressions inside evaluations of F_n; the paper is candid about this and about the h=1/10 experiments lying outside the contraction regime of Section 2.2. Such overstatement of proven scope is a correctness and rigor concern, not a circularity concern.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method's guarantees depend on standard low-rank compressibility assumptions (singular value decay) and on the contraction and isometry properties of the twisted Schrödinger operator. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Initial threshold α_{0,n} = ∥ũ_{n-1}∥/(2d-3)
    Initial soft-thresholding threshold in each subinterval; chosen so that the first iterate is zero (Section 3.1.1, Algorithm 3.1).
  • Threshold decay factor θ = 1/2 in experiments
    Threshold decay factor; theory only requires θ∈(0,1), experiments use θ=1/2 (Section 6).
  • Inner-loop parameter ν = not explicitly stated; heuristic factor 3/5 in non-contractive regime
    Inner-loop stopping parameter in (3.2); affects constant in rank bounds.
  • Stopping tolerance ε_n = h^{2Q} in Theorem 4.6; 1e-4 (4D), 5e-4 (64D) in experiments
    Fixed-point residual tolerance; chosen to balance local error and ranks.
  • Endpoint recompression tolerance δ_n = 2κρ/(1-ρ) h^{2Q} in Theorem 4.6; 7.07e-5 (4D), 1.77e-3 (64D) in experiments
    Endpoint recompression tolerance; controls rank truncation at time-step boundaries.
  • Gauss collocation order Q = 10 in experiments
    Number of Gauss collocation nodes; sets order 2Q of the integrator.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The exact solution u and the local fixed points bv have algebraically or exponentially decaying matricization singular values (σ_µ(u) ∈ ℓ^{p,∞} or σ_µ,j(u) ≤ C e^{-c j^β}).
    Invoked in Corollary 4.4 and Theorem 5.7 to convert soft-thresholding error bounds into quasi-optimal rank bounds; without such decay the ranks are not guaranteed to track optimal ranks.
  • domain assumption The twisted potential operator G_t = -i e^{-itΔ} V_t e^{itΔ} is uniformly bounded by C_G, so the fixed point map F is a contraction for ρ = C_G Λ_Q h < 1.
    Used in Section 2.2 and throughout; guarantees existence and uniqueness of fixed points and underpins all error and rank estimates.
  • domain assumption For the isometry-preserving error bounds, G_t is skew-Hermitian, i.e., the Hamiltonian is Hermitian (Section 3.2).
    Needed for Lemma 3.1 and Proposition 3.4; without it, Proposition 3.4 must be replaced by a Lipschitz version with error growth (1+hL)^n.
  • domain assumption The potential V_t admits an HT representation with ranks bounded by rank(V_t) (Section 3.1.2).
    Required for evaluating the fixed point map in HT format at tractable cost and for the rank factor Q rank(V) in Proposition 5.4.
  • domain assumption Sufficient temporal regularity: (∂_t - G_t)^m v uniformly bounded for 0≤m≤2Q+1 (Section 3.2).
    Needed for the local error bound in Lemma 3.2 and the finite constant κ_{2Q}.
  • standard math Background results from [6] and [8] on soft thresholding of matrices and hierarchical tensors: non-expansiveness, thresholding error bounds, and rank bounds (e.g., [8, Prop. 3.2, Lemma 4.3]).
    Used in Lemmas 4.1, 4.2, Propositions 4.3, 5.1 and Appendix A; these are published results, not derived in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Iterative thresholding low-rank time integration for high-dimensional problems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3VAKZ6EU

@misc{pith2026260806905,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Iterative thresholding low-rank time integration for high-dimensional problems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3VAKZ6EU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.06905}
}
read the original abstract

This work analyzes a method for time integration of high-dimensional linear Schr\"odinger-type problems based on hierarchical tensor approximations. In particular, this method provides a balance between error bounds and associated approximation ranks, using a scheme for iterative refinement with soft thresholding of tensors. The practical performance of the method is illustrated by numerical tests on coupled oscillators.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.06905 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic comparison over two time steps starting from the initial con￾dition u0. Lemma 4.1. For i = 1, 2, . . . , I and j = 0, 1, . . . , Ji, ∥vi,j − vb∥Q ≤ (1 + ρ j )∥vb − v αi∥Q + ρ j 1 − ν ∥vb − v αi−1 ∥Q. For i = 0, we have J0 = 1 and ∥v0,j − vb∥Q ≤ (1 + ρ j )∥vb − v α0 ∥Q for j = 0, 1. Proof. The proof is analogous to the derivation of equation (5.15) in [8]. If i = 0, then v0,0 = 0 and v0,1 = 0 because of the… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Rank evolution in 4D case for u0 as in (6.3). Blue lines, light to dark: ranks of matricizations corresponding to {1}, {2}, {3}, {4}; orange lines, light to dark: ranks of matricizations corresponding to {2, 3, 4}, {3, 4}. (a) Gauss–Legendre nodes; (b) Gauss–Lobatto nodes. (a) Legendre (b) Lobatto [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Error evolution in 4D case for u0 as in (6.3). Purple line, circle markers: Frobenius error of numerical solution; orange line, cross markers: norm deviation; green line, triangle markers: relative energy error. (a) Gauss–Legendre nodes; (b) Gauss–Lobatto nodes. energy error of 7.95×10−6 , and a maximum solution error of 2.72×10−4 . The corresponding values for the Gauss–Lobatto test are 1.12 × 10−3 , 1.03 × 10−4 , … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: 64D results for u0 as in (6.4). (a) Blue lines, light to dark: ranks of matricizations corresponding to {1}, {2}, . . . , {64}; orange lines, light to dark: ranks of matricizations corresponding to {2, . . . , 64}, {3, . . . , 64}, . . . , {63, 64}. (b) Purple line, ci…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Stegun, editors.Handbook of mathematical functions, with formulas, graphs, and mathematical tables

    Milton Abramowitz and Irene A. Stegun, editors.Handbook of mathematical functions, with formulas, graphs, and mathematical tables. Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1966

    work page 1966

  2. [2]

    Multilevel preconditioning and low-rank tensor iteration for space- time simultaneous discretizations of parabolic PDEs.Numer

    Roman Andreev and Christine Tobler. Multilevel preconditioning and low-rank tensor iteration for space- time simultaneous discretizations of parabolic PDEs.Numer. Linear Algebra Appl., 22(2):317–337, 2015

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    Robust implicit adaptive low rank time-stepping methods for matrix differential equations.J

    Daniel Appel¨ o and Yingda Cheng. Robust implicit adaptive low rank time-stepping methods for matrix differential equations.J. Sci. Comput., 102(3):81, 2025

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    Low-rank tensor methods for partial differential equations.Acta Numer., 32:1–121, 2023

    Markus Bachmayr. Low-rank tensor methods for partial differential equations.Acta Numer., 32:1–121, 2023

    2023

  5. [5]

    Adaptive near-optimal rank tensor approximation for high- dimensional operator equations.Foundations of Computational Mathematics, 15(4):839–898, 2015

    Markus Bachmayr and Wolfgang Dahmen. Adaptive near-optimal rank tensor approximation for high- dimensional operator equations.Foundations of Computational Mathematics, 15(4):839–898, 2015

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    Iterative thresholding low-rank time integration

    Markus Bachmayr, Matthieu Dolbeault, and Polina Sachsenmaier. Iterative thresholding low-rank time integration. arXiv Preprint arXiv:2507.15848, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    A space-time adaptive low-rank method for high-dimensional parabolic partial differential equations.J

    Markus Bachmayr and Manfred Faldum. A space-time adaptive low-rank method for high-dimensional parabolic partial differential equations.J. Complexity, 82:Paper No. 101839, 70, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Iterative methods based on soft thresholding of hierarchical tensors.Found

    Markus Bachmayr and Reinhold Schneider. Iterative methods based on soft thresholding of hierarchical tensors.Found. Comput. Math., 17:1037–1083, 2017

    work page 2017

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Projected exponential methods for stiff dynamical low-rank approximation problems

    Benjamin Carrel and Bart Vandereycken. Projected exponential methods for stiff dynamical low-rank approximation problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.00172, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    A rank-adaptive robust integrator for dynamical low-rank approximation.BIT, 62(4):1149–1174, 2022

    Gianluca Ceruti, Jonas Kusch, and Christian Lubich. A rank-adaptive robust integrator for dynamical low-rank approximation.BIT, 62(4):1149–1174, 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    An unconventional robust integrator for dynamical low-rank approximation.BIT, 62(1):23–44, 2022

    Gianluca Ceruti and Christian Lubich. An unconventional robust integrator for dynamical low-rank approximation.BIT, 62(1):23–44, 2022

    2022

  4. [12]

    Rank-adaptive time integration of tree tensor networks.SIAM J

    Gianluca Ceruti, Christian Lubich, and Dominik Sulz. Rank-adaptive time integration of tree tensor networks.SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 61(1):194–222, 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    Quadratic quantum hamiltonians revisited.Cubo, 8(1), 2006

    Monique Combescure and Didier Robert. Quadratic quantum hamiltonians revisited.Cubo, 8(1), 2006

    2006

  6. [14]

    An error analysis of the multi-configuration time-dependent Hartree method of quantum dynamics.M2AN Math

    Dajana Conte and Christian Lubich. An error analysis of the multi-configuration time-dependent Hartree method of quantum dynamics.M2AN Math. Model. Numer. Anal., 44(4):759–780, 2010

    2010

  7. [15]

    Rank-adaptive tensor methods for high-dimensional nonlinear PDEs.J

    Alec Dektor, Abram Rodgers, and Daniele Venturi. Rank-adaptive tensor methods for high-dimensional nonlinear PDEs.J. Sci. Comput., 88(2):article number 36, 2021. ITERATIVE THRESHOLDING LOW-RANK TIME INTEGRATION 27

    2021

  8. [16]

    Adaptive integration of nonlinear evolution equations on tensor manifolds.J

    Alec Dektor, Abram Rodgers, and Daniele Venturi. Adaptive integration of nonlinear evolution equations on tensor manifolds.J. Sci. Comput., 92: article number 39, 2022

    2022

  9. [17]

    Adaptive low-rank integration for ordi- nary differential equations

    Matthieu Dolbeault, Polina Sachsenmaier, and Fabio Zoccolan. Adaptive low-rank integration for ordi- nary differential equations. In preparation, 2026

    2026

  10. [18]

    Efficient bond-adaptive approach for finite-temperature open quan- tum dynamics using the one-site time-dependent variational principle for matrix product states.Phys

    Angus J Dunnett and Alex W Chin. Efficient bond-adaptive approach for finite-temperature open quan- tum dynamics using the one-site time-dependent variational principle for matrix product states.Phys. Rev. B, 104(21):214302, 2021

    2021

  11. [19]

    Low-complexity approximations with least- squares formulation of the time-dependent Schr¨ odinger equation

    Mi-Song Dupuy, Virginie Ehrlacher, and Cl´ ement Guillot. Low-complexity approximations with least- squares formulation of the time-dependent Schr¨ odinger equation. arXiv Preprint arXiv:2509.13005

  12. [20]

    A space-time variational formulation for the many-body electronic Schr¨ odinger evolution equation

    Mi-Song Dupuy, Virginie Ehrlacher, and Cl´ ement Guillot. A space-time variational formulation for the many-body electronic Schr¨ odinger evolution equation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.18094, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Hierarchical singular value decomposition of tensors.SIAM J

    Lars Grasedyck. Hierarchical singular value decomposition of tensors.SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl., 31(4):2029–2054, 2010

    2010

  14. [22]

    Springer, Cham, 2019

    Wolfgang Hackbusch.Tensor spaces and numerical tensor calculus, volume 56 ofSpringer Series in Computational Mathematics. Springer, Cham, 2019. Second edition

    2019

  15. [23]

    A new scheme for the tensor representation.J

    Wolfgang Hackbusch and Stefan K¨ uhn. A new scheme for the tensor representation.J. Fourier Anal. Appl., 15(5):706–722, 2009

    2009

  16. [24]

    Springer, Heidelberg, second edition, 2006

    Ernst Hairer, Christian Lubich, and Gerhard Wanner.Geometric numerical integration, volume 31 of Springer Series in Computational Mathematics. Springer, Heidelberg, second edition, 2006

    2006

  17. [25]

    Nørsett, and Gerhard Wanner.Solving Ordinary Differential Equations I, vol- ume 8 ofSpringer Series in Computational Mathematics

    Ernst Hairer, Syvert P. Nørsett, and Gerhard Wanner.Solving Ordinary Differential Equations I, vol- ume 8 ofSpringer Series in Computational Mathematics. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1993

    1993

  18. [26]

    Exponential integrators.Acta Numer., 19:209–286, 2010

    Marlis Hochbruck and Alexander Ostermann. Exponential integrators.Acta Numer., 19:209–286, 2010

    2010

  19. [27]

    Trefethen

    Aly-Khan Kassam and Lloyd N. Trefethen. Fourth-order time-stepping for stiff PDEs.SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 26(4):1214–1233, 2005

    2005

  20. [28]

    Dynamical low-rank approximation.SIAM J

    Othmar Koch and Christian Lubich. Dynamical low-rank approximation.SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl., 29(2):434–454, 2007

    2007

  21. [29]

    Dynamical tensor approximation.SIAM J

    Othmar Koch and Christian Lubich. Dynamical tensor approximation.SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl., 31(5):2360–2375, 2010

    2010

  22. [30]

    Rusconi, and Oriol Romero-Isart

    Katja Kustura, Cosimo C. Rusconi, and Oriol Romero-Isart. Quadratic quantum hamiltonians: General canonical transformation to a normal form.Phys. Rev. A, 99(2):022130, 2019

    2019

  23. [31]

    Randomized low-rank Runge–Kutta methods.SIAM J

    Hei Yin Lam, Gianluca Ceruti, and Daniel Kressner. Randomized low-rank Runge–Kutta methods.SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl., 46(2):1587–1615, 2025

    2025

  24. [32]

    Generalized Runge-Kutta processes for stable systems with large Lipschitz con- stants.SIAM J

    John Douglas Lawson. Generalized Runge-Kutta processes for stable systems with large Lipschitz con- stants.SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 4(3):372–380, 1967

    1967

  25. [33]

    Time integration in the multiconfiguration time-dependent Hartree method of molec- ular quantum dynamics.Appl

    Christian Lubich. Time integration in the multiconfiguration time-dependent Hartree method of molec- ular quantum dynamics.Appl. Math. Res. Express. AMRX, (2):311–328, 2015

    2015

  26. [34]

    Oseledets

    Christian Lubich and Ivan V. Oseledets. A projector-splitting integrator for dynamical low-rank approx- imation.BIT, 54(1):171–188, 2014

    2014

  27. [35]

    Oseledets, and Bart Vandereycken

    Christian Lubich, Ivan V. Oseledets, and Bart Vandereycken. Time integration of tensor trains.SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 53(2):917–941, 2015

    2015

  28. [36]

    Dynamical approx- imation by hierarchical Tucker and tensor-train tensors.SIAM J

    Christian Lubich, Thorsten Rohwedder, Reinhold Schneider, and Bart Vandereycken. Dynamical approx- imation by hierarchical Tucker and tensor-train tensors.SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl., 34(2):470–494, 2013

    2013

  29. [37]

    Cederbaum

    Hans-Dieter Meyer, Uwe Manthe, and Lorenz S. Cederbaum. The multi-configurational time-dependent Hartree approach.Chem. Phys. Lett., 165(1):73–78, 1990

    1990

  30. [38]

    Oseledets

    Ivan V. Oseledets. Tensor-train decomposition.SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 33(5):2295–2317, 2011

    2011

  31. [39]

    Calculating vibrational spectra of molecules using tensor train decomposition.J

    Maxim Rakhuba and Ivan Oseledets. Calculating vibrational spectra of molecules using tensor train decomposition.J. Chem. Phys., 145(12):124101, 09 2016

    2016

  32. [40]

    Implicit integration of nonlinear evolution equations on tensor manifolds.J

    Abram Rodgers and Daniele Venturi. Implicit integration of nonlinear evolution equations on tensor manifolds.J. Sci. Comput., 97(2):33, 2023

    2023

  33. [41]

    Implicit low-rank Riemannian schemes for the time integration of stiff partial differential equations.J

    Marco Sutti and Bart Vandereycken. Implicit low-rank Riemannian schemes for the time integration of stiff partial differential equations.J. Sci. Comput., 101(1):3, 2024

    2024

  34. [42]

    Thomas and Tucker Carrington Jr

    Phillip S. Thomas and Tucker Carrington Jr. Using nested contractions and a hierarchical tensor format to compute vibrational spectra of molecules with seven atoms.J. Phys. Chem. A, 119(52):13074–13091, 2015

    2015

  35. [43]

    Multilayer formulation of the multiconfiguration time-dependent Hartree theory.J

    Haobin Wang and Michael Thoss. Multilayer formulation of the multiconfiguration time-dependent Hartree theory.J. Chem Phys., 119(3):1289–1299, 2003

    2003

  36. [44]

    Mingru Yang and Steven R. White. Time-dependent variational principle with ancillary Krylov subspace. Phys. Rev. B, 102(9):094315, 2020. AppendixA.Properties of hierarchical tensor soft thresholding Lemma A.1.For0< α≤β, the bound(5.1)holds true. 28 ITERATIVE THRESHOLDING LOW-R...

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.