Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 60 references

Improved Approximations for Collective Neutrino Oscillations

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Truncating the neutrino many-body hierarchy at second order reproduces Trotterized dynamics about two orders of magnitude better than mean field, at polynomial classical cost.

desk verdict Promising second-order cumulant closure, but the large-N physics claims outrun the validation. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.28619 v2 pith:5ZLQGK6W submitted 2026-07-30 hep-ph

Matthew Riccio , A.B. Balantekin This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords collectiveneutrinooscillationsBBGKYhierarchymean-fieldapproximationmany-bodycorrelationsRényientropyinformationscramblingnon-stabilizermagicsu(n)algebras
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 tries to show that a systematic classical closure of the many-body equations can capture the quantum correlations that the mean-field approximation misses in collective neutrino oscillations. It constructs the full su(n) operator algebra of the N-neutrino system, writes the evolution of one- and two-body expectation values, and closes the BBGKY hierarchy by setting the three-body cumulant to zero. The resulting scheme costs O(N^3 n^6) on a classical computer, and for a small test case it reproduces Trotterized operator expectation values about two orders of magnitude better than mean field, with entropy, magic, and mana matching almost exactly. Using that accuracy, the paper reports dynamical phase transitions, momentum-space information delocalization, weak information scrambling, and persistent non-stabilizer magic for N=100 two-flavor and N=50 three-flavor systems. If the closure is faithful in that regime, it would establish that beyond-mean-field correlations in dense neutrino gases are accessible without exponential resources.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the BBGKY cumulant hierarchy on the product-structure basis of u(n^N): every operator is expanded in products of single-site su(n) generators Λ_Aμ, and the evolution of the one-body expectation value Φ_Aa and the two-body expectation value Γ_AaBb is closed by setting the third-order cumulant to zero. The resulting coupled ODEs (Eqs. 49 and 52) retain the antisymmetric part of Γ that drives entropy production, and the sparsity of the structure constants together with the (A,a)↔(B,b) symmetry of Γ gives polynomial scaling O(N^3 n^6).

What would settle it

Evolve a small system (say N≤8, n=2 or 3) exactly, compute the three-body cumulant ⟨δΛδΛδΛ⟩ along the trajectory, and compare its contribution in Eq. (52) with the one- and two-body terms; if it becomes comparable near μ(t)∼|B̄|, the closure—and with it the large-N phase-transition conclusions—fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the BBGKY hierarchy for a one- and two-body su(n) Hamiltonian can be closed at second order—neglecting the fully connected three-body cumulant, ⟨δΛ_Aa δΛ_Bb δΛ_Cc⟩ = 0 in Eq. (52)—without losing the physics that mean field throws away. Equations (49) and (52) then form a closed, finite set of ordinary differential equations for the one-body expectation values Φ_Aa = ⟨Λ_Aa⟩ and the two-body expectation values Γ_AaBb = ⟨Λ_Aa Λ_Bb⟩. The truncation keeps the antisymmetric part of Γ, which is precisely the term that drives one-body entropy production and is identically zero at mean-field level. The paper validates this against a Trotterized evolution for N=4, n=3, findin

Load-bearing premise

The hierarchy is closed by assuming that three-neutrino connected correlations are exactly zero, and the paper offers no independent check that this stays true for the large systems where its main conclusions live.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At mean-field level the one-body entropy production is identically zero; the second-order closure removes that artifact, so entropy growth becomes accessible classically.
  • The method reaches N=100 (two-flavor) and N=50 (three-flavor) with Monte Carlo angular averaging, sizes where exact evolution is impossible.
  • The order parameter changes sharply near μ(t)∼|B̄| in both su(2) and su(3), supporting a dynamical phase transition in both cases.
  • Two-body magic and mana stay nonzero at late times, indicating the post-transition neutrino state is not stabilizer-simulable and remains non-trivial.
  • Truncating at order m costs O((N choose m)(n^2−1)^m), so the scheme is systematically improvable toward the exponential exact limit.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's three-body entropy and mutual-information numbers are computed from one- and two-body data after the three-body cumulant has been set to zero, so the reported weak scrambling is a statement about what those lower-order operators carry, not a direct measurement of the neglected connected three-body correlation.
  • Because the algebraic closure applies to any quadratic su(n) all-to-all Hamiltonian, the same O(N^3 n^6) scheme could be run on spin, Hubbard, or SYK-type models; the paper notes the common algebraic class but does not carry out those applications.
  • A convergence test the paper does not perform—evolving a small N system exactly and monitoring the magnitude of the third-order cumulant—would map the regime where the large-N phase-transition and scrambling conclusions are safe.
  • The angular averaging is done by Monte Carlo; increasing the number of angle samples or using low-discrepancy sampling would sharpen the reported momentum-space heat maps and test whether the delocalization pattern is converged.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a polynomial-scaling classical method for one- and two-body expectation values of quadratic su(n)-type many-body Hamiltonians, with collective neutrino oscillations as the target. The authors exploit the product structure of u(n^N), express the density matrix, entropy, Wigner functions, and magic in terms of operator moments, and close the BBGKY hierarchy at second order by setting the three-body cumulant to zero in Eq. (52). This yields coupled ODEs for the one-body and two-body expectation values with claimed O(N^3 n^6) cost. A single N=4, n=3, mu(0)=5 Trotter comparison (Figs. 2-4) shows roughly two orders of magnitude improvement over mean field for the moments and close agreement for entropy and magic. The large-N simulations (N=100 for su(2), N=50 for su(3)) are then used to claim a dynamical phase transition, momentum-space information delocalization, weak information scrambling, and persistent non-stabilizer magic.

Significance. If the method is valid at large N, it is a useful and general tool: it is independent of fitted parameters, has explicit polynomial cost, and the single Trotter benchmark is a genuine external check. The algebraic construction of entanglement and magic measures in the su(n) basis is also a useful contribution. However, the central physical claims depend on an unvalidated closure and on a projection step. The paper's contribution is therefore conditional: the formalism is promising, but the evidence presented does not yet establish the reliability of the second-order truncation in the crossover regime where the N=100 and N=50 conclusions are drawn.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. V.B; Sec. III.B] The only exact validation is a single N=4, n=3, mu(0)=5 Trotter run (Figs. 2-4), far from the large-N crossover. The suppression estimate in Eqs. (60)-(61) is O(mu^2/N^2); at N=100 and mu~5 this is ~2.5e-3 before O(1) prefactors, not negligible, and the estimate is perturbative in a strong-coupling regime. The paper does not report the size of the neglected third cumulant <delta-Lambda delta-Lambda delta-Lambda> during the N=100/N=50 runs. Please add exact small-system benchmarks over a range of N, n, mu(0), and crossing parameters; a time-step convergence study; and diagnostics measuring the neglected cumulant, or a comparison with a third-order truncation, to show that the closure is accurate where the physical conclusions are drawn.
  2. [Sec. IV.A, Eqs. (64)-(65)] At each step the algorithm projects Phi and Gamma back to the nearest bound when inequalities (64)-(65) fail. This clamping can hide positivity violations introduced by the truncation. The manuscript gives no statistics on how often or by how much the bounds are violated, and no demonstration that observables are insensitive to the projection. Since the phase-transition and scrambling claims are made in a regime where the closure is least tested, the projection could be shaping those results. Please report violation frequency and magnitude and, where possible, results without projection or with a less invasive regularization.
  3. [Sec. V.C, Figs. 6-17] The large-N results average over sampled Pi_AB ('100 independent' for su(2), 'fifty different Pi_ABs a hundred times' for su(3)), but no error bars or convergence in the number of angle samples are shown. The identification of a sharp crossover in the order parameter and the negativity of the three-body mutual information need uncertainty quantification; without it, one cannot distinguish physical transitions from Monte Carlo sampling noise. Please provide standard errors, sample-size convergence, and a criterion for the phase-transition time.
  4. [Sec. II.C.1, Eq. (20); Sec. V.C, Figs. 10 and 16] Computing the three-body entropy in Eq. (20) requires three-body expectation values, but the evolution only tracks one- and two-body moments. Any S_3 used in the mutual-information estimator must be reconstructed by setting the third cumulant to zero in Eq. (47d). Thus the negative three-body mutual information is not an independent signature of scrambling; it is largely a restatement of the closure. Please state this reconstruction explicitly and validate it against exact small-N data or a higher-order closure before claiming weak information scrambling.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. II.C.1] Typo: 'weather' should be 'whether'. Also, the 'naive mutual information' is acknowledged not to be the formal Renyi mutual information; this caveat should be repeated whenever the estimator is used to claim scrambling.
  2. [Sec. III.B, Eq. (52)] The notation \bar{g} and the index contractions in Eq. (52) are not defined in the text. The terms involving Pi_AB, Pi_AC, and the xi factors need a clearer derivation or a supporting appendix.
  3. [Sec. IV.A, Eq. (66)] The expression lim_{delta t -> 0} ... is not an update rule as written. Please specify how the Lagrange-multiplier constraint is applied at finite time steps and how the limit is implemented in the RK4 scheme.
  4. [Fig. 1] The scaling plot reports only fitted curves from OLS. Please give the fitted beta_i values and run-to-run variability, and compare against actual Trotter runtimes for the same N, since 'sub-exponential' is a central complexity claim.
  5. [Sec. V] Please provide a table of initial conditions, mixing parameters, and all simulation parameters. Currently 'all electron neutrinos' and the mixing angles appear in text only, which makes reproducibility harder.
  6. [General] No data or code availability statement is included. For a numerical paper of this type, releasing the ODE solver and Trotter comparison code would strengthen reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central claim is benchmarked against an independent Trotter simulation, and no fitted parameters are disguised as predictions.

full rationale

The paper's central numerical claim is that second-order BBGKY truncation, obtained by setting the three-body cumulant to zero in Eq. (52), tracks the exact Trotter evolution of the one- and two-body operators about two orders of magnitude better than mean field. This is not circular: the Trotter result is an independent solution of the same Hamiltonian Eq. (41) for N=4, n=3, μ(0)=5, and the comparison quantities ΔΦ² and ΔΓ² are direct error metrics rather than parameters fitted to the benchmark. The closure assumption itself is an uncontrolled approximation, and the lack of large-N exact checks is a legitimate correctness/validation concern, but it is not a circularity because the closure is not derived from, or fitted to, the quantities it is used to predict. The authors do cite their own prior work, notably Refs. [6] and [40], for the algebraic product-structure framework and the stationary-phase connection to mean-field theory, but these citations provide background formalism and are not the load-bearing evidence for the new truncation result; the relevant equations are rederived in Sections II and III. No uniqueness theorem, no ansatz smuggled through self-citation, and no renaming of a known result forces the conclusions. The low score reflects only the presence of self-citations that are not load-bearing.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method rests mainly on the closure assumption and the forward-scattering Hamiltonian. No parameters are fitted to match the Trotter benchmark; mu(0) and r0 are simulation inputs that set the regime in which the reported phenomena occur.

free parameters (2)
  • Initial neutrino-neutrino coupling mu(0) = 5 (dimensionless, mu0 in Eq. (67))
    Chosen by hand for all simulations. The reported phase transition, entropy growth, and magic decay occur at this coupling; no scan in mu(0) is shown.
  • Bulb-model radius r0 = not specified; chosen such that mu-bar(0) is proportional to omega0
    Sets the time dependence of mu(t) in Eq. (67) and affects where the crossover occurs.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The forward-scattering collective neutrino oscillation Hamiltonian is of the form Eq. (41) with one- and two-body su(n) interactions.
    This is the standard simplification used throughout Sec. III.A; all evolution equations follow from this Hamiltonian.
  • standard math The Gell-Mann basis and structure constants f, d, g obey Eqs. (1)-(4) and Eq. (12).
    Used to construct u(n^N) and to contract indices in Secs. II and III.
  • ad hoc to paper The third-order cumulant <delta-Lambda_Aa delta-Lambda_Bb delta-Lambda_Cc> is set to zero to close the hierarchy.
    Introduced in Eq. (52) and used for all numerics; no estimate of the neglected term is provided.
  • domain assumption Angular degrees of freedom can be integrated by uniform Monte Carlo sampling over the 2-sphere using Eq. (68).
    Sec. V.A assumes the sampled Pi_AB distributions represent a physical neutrino angular distribution.
  • domain assumption Trotterized evolution with adaptive time step is an accurate benchmark for N=4, n=3.
    Sec. V.B relies on Trotter error being negligible, but no convergence check is shown.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Improved Approximations for Collective Neutrino Oscillations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5ZLQGK6W

@misc{pith2026260728619,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Improved Approximations for Collective Neutrino Oscillations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5ZLQGK6W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.28619}
}
abstract

A one- and two-body $\mathfrak{su}(n)$ Hamiltonian governing the dynamics of many systems, including collective neutrino oscillations, is investigated. We start by analyzing the algebraic structure($\mathfrak{u}(n^N)$), formulate a product structure of the algebra, and utilize this to construct generic expressions for operator expectation values, R\'{e}nyi Entropy, and Wigner Functions. Performing BBGKY hierarchy truncation we develop a systematic methodology for going beyond the mean field with polynomial scaling on a classical computer.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.28619 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. log10(∆tstep) for RK4 forward integration vs Trotter Expansion. Simulations performed on Apple MacBook Air (M3, 8-core CPU, 16 GB RAM), where we solve Eq. (49) and Eq. (52) together by direct Trotter expansion. Note directly the sub-exponential scaling of the Hierarchy truncation and that at second-order Truncation scales as O(N3n 6 ). The lines were fit to the mean time per step of using the equation ¯δtstep(N, n) … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of the mean-field, Trotter expansion, and hierarchy truncation for operator expectation values. For hierarchy truncation three-body cumulants are set to zero in Eq. 52. We use the definitions ∆Φ2 = P A,a(ΦTrotter Aa − Φ Estimator Aa ) 2 , ∆Γ2 = P A,a,B,b(ΓTrotter AaBb − Γ Estimator AaBb ) 2 , and the mean field estimator for ΓMFT AaBb = ΦAaΦBb. Note that the hierarchy truncation method matches the operato… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of the mean-field, Trotter expansion, and hierarchy truncation for entropy values. For hierarchy truncation three-body cumulants are set to zero at Eq. 52. The one- and two-body entropies are defined in Eq. (20). Notice that the entropies for truncation matches almost exactly that of the Trotter expansion. The mean field, as expected, has zero entropy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of the mean-field, Trotter expansion, and hierarchy truncation for magic and mana values. For hierarchy truncation three-body cumulants are set to zero at Eq. 52. In this figure we compare the non-stabilizer measures of magic and mana, defined in Eqs. (40) a…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Evolution of the von Neumann Entropy vs that of the α = 2 R´enyi Entropy. The evolution is found by solving Eqs. (49) and (52) simultaneously with N = 100, n = 2, and µ(0) = 5. To compute the von Neumann Entropy we construct the one-body reduced density matrix with ρA …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Evolution of the two-body entropy and mutual information estimator for two flavors. The evolution of the system is found by solving Eqs. (49) and (52) simultaneously with N = 100, n = 2, and µ(0) = 5. The two-body entropy is calculated using Eq. (20) and the two-body m…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Evolution of the three-body entropy and three-body mutual information estimator. Evolution of the system is found by solving Eqs. (49) and (52) together using N = 100, n = 2, µ(0) = 5. Entropy and mutual information estimator are calculated using Eqs. (20) and (23) wi…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Three-flavor evolution found by solving Eqs. (49) and (52) together with the parameters N = 50, n = 3, and µ(0) = 5. This figure depicts a dynamical phase transition around the crossover point (the dotted line) µ(t) ∼ |B¯|. The horizantal dashed line is indicates the …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Evolution of the one-body entropy, two-body magic and mana for two flavors. The evolution of the system is found by solving Eqs. (49) and (52) together with N = 100, n = 2, and µ(0) = 5. We calculate magic and mana using Eqs. (40) and (32), respectively. Both magic an…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Three-flavor evolution of the one-body relative populations ΦA3 = ⟨nAνe ⟩ − [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_13.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Evolution of the three-flavor three-body [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Evolution of the one-body entropy as well [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_17.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    [40]) we can decompose any arbitraryn N ×n N matrix in terms of them: O= 1 nN Tr(O) + 1 nN−1 2 Tr OΛAa ΛAa +

    Operator Decomposition, Completeness, Operator Transformations, and Operator Action Since all possible products of Λ AµA ’s are Hermi- tian matrices of the fundamental representation of theu(n N ) algebra (for an explicit illustration see Ref. [40]) we can decompose any arbitraryn N ×n N matrix in terms of them: O= 1 nN Tr(O) + 1 nN−1 2 Tr OΛAa ΛAa +... =...

    work page

  2. [2]

    To examine the entanglement structure, we introduce the R´ enyi En- tropy: Sα,{A} = 1 1−α ln Tr ρα {A} (19) Forα= 1 R´ enyi Entropy reduces to the von Neumann entropy

    R´ enyi Entropy & R´ enyi Mutual Information In many-body physics, the entanglement structure is often the primary lens through which we exam- ine the behavior of largeN-systems. To examine the entanglement structure, we introduce the R´ enyi En- tropy: Sα,{A} = 1 1−α ln Tr ρα {A} (19) Forα= 1 R´ enyi Entropy reduces to the von Neumann entropy. Forα= 2, U...

    work page

  3. [3]

    quantum- ness

    Discrete Phase Space and Mana Another fundamental characteristic of these many- body systems is their representation in phase space via the Wigner function. The Wigner function provides a quasi probability distribution that maps the many- body density matrix onto a discrete phase space, of- fering a direct visual and mathematical diagnostic of quantum non...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Pauli Symbol

    Mana to Magic The Gottesman-Knill theorem states that quantum systems that utilize only stabilizer resources, i.e. cir- cuits that only consist of gates from the Pauli or Clif- ford groups, can be efficiently simulated in polynomial time on a probabilistic classical computer [45]. Thus, it is important to have a measure for the amount of non-stabilizer re...

    work page

  5. [5]

    H. Duan, G. M. Fuller, and Y.-Z. Qian, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.60, 569 (2010), arXiv:1001.2799 [hep- ph]

    arXiv 2010

  6. [6]

    A. B. Balantekin, J. Phys. G45, 113001 (2018), arXiv:1809.02539 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

  7. [7]

    Tamborra and S

    I. Tamborra and S. Shalgar, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.71, 165 (2021), arXiv:2011.01948 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    Johns, S

    L. Johns, S. Richers, and M.-R. Wu, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.75, 399 (2025), arXiv:2503.05959 [astro- ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    M. C. Volpe, Rev. Mod. Phys.96, 025004 (2024), arXiv:2301.11814 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    A. B. Balantekin and Y. Pehlivan, J. Phys. G34, 47 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0607527

    2007 arXiv

  3. [11]

    M. J. Cervia, A. V. Patwardhan, A. B. Balantekin, ‡. S. N. Coppersmith, and C. W. Johnson, Phys. Rev. D100, 083001 (2019), arXiv:1908.03511 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  4. [12]

    M. J. Cervia, P. Siwach, A. V. Patwardhan, A. B. Balantekin, S. N. Coppersmith, and C. W. Johnson, Phys. Rev. D105, 123025 (2022), arXiv:2202.01865 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Lacroix, A

    D. Lacroix, A. B. Balantekin, M. J. Cervia, A. V. Pat- wardhan, and P. Siwach, Phys. Rev. D106, 123006 (2022), arXiv:2205.09384 [nucl-th]. 16

    2022 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Illa and M

    M. Illa and M. J. Savage, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 221003 (2023), arXiv:2210.08656 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    J. D. Martin, A. Roggero, H. Duan, J. Carlson, and V. Cirigliano, Phys. Rev. D105, 083020 (2022), arXiv:2112.12686 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  8. [16]

    J. D. Martin, D. Neill, A. Roggero, H. Duan, and J. Carlson, Phys. Rev. D108, 123010 (2023), arXiv:2307.16793 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Carlson, A

    J. Carlson, A. Roggero, and D. Neill, (2026), arXiv:2603.12192 [hep-ph]

    2026

  10. [18]

    Lacroix, A

    D. Lacroix, A. Bauge, B. Yilmaz, M. Mangin-Brinet, A. Roggero, and A. B. Balantekin, Phys. Rev. D110, 103027 (2024), arXiv:2409.20215 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Neill, H

    D. Neill, H. Liu, J. Martin, and A. Roggero, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 023157 (2025), arXiv:2406.18677 [hep- ph]

    2025 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Chernyshev, C

    I. Chernyshev, C. E. P. Robin, and M. J. Savage, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 023228 (2025), arXiv:2411.04203 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Bhaskar, A

    R. Bhaskar, A. Roggero, and M. J. Savage, Phys. Rev. C110, 045801 (2024)

    2024

  14. [22]

    Br¨ okemeier, S

    F. Br¨ okemeier, S. M. Hengstenberg, J. W. T. Keeble, C. E. P. Robin, F. Rocco, and M. J. Savage, Phys. Rev. C111, 034317 (2025), arXiv:2409.12064 [nucl- th]

    2025 arXiv

  15. [23]

    O. Kiss, I. Tavernelli, F. Tacchino, D. Lacroix, and A. Roggero, (2025), arXiv:2510.24841 [quant-ph]

    2025

  16. [24]

    Laraib and S

    Z. Laraib and S. Richers, Phys. Rev. D112, L101304 (2025), arXiv:2507.02040 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Laraib and S

    Z. Laraib and S. Richers, Phys. Rev. D112, 123045 (2025), arXiv:2511.16506 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Hite and P

    M. Hite and P. Siwach, (2026), arXiv:2605.23584 [quant-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Froustey, E

    J. Froustey, E. Rrapaj, Y. Liu, G. Li, C. Iancu, and V. Cirigliano, (2026), arXiv:2606.12404 [hep-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Yeter-Aydeniz, S

    K. Yeter-Aydeniz, S. Bangar, G. Siopsis, and R. C. Pooser, Quant. Inf. Proc.21, 84 (2022), arXiv:2104.03273 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Amitrano, A

    V. Amitrano, A. Roggero, P. Luchi, F. Turro, L. Vespucci, and F. Pederiva, Phys. Rev. D107, 023007 (2023), arXiv:2207.03189 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    B. Hall, A. Roggero, A. Baroni, and J. Carlson, Phys. Rev. D104, 063009 (2021), arXiv:2102.12556 [quant- ph]

    2021 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Siwach, K

    P. Siwach, K. Harrison, and A. B. Balantekin, Phys. Rev. D108, 083039 (2023), arXiv:2308.09123 [quant- ph]

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    A. B. Balantekin, M. J. Cervia, A. V. Patwardhan, E. Rrapaj, and P. Siwach, Eur. Phys. J. A59, 186 (2023), arXiv:2305.01150 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Turro, I

    F. Turro, I. A. Chernyshev, R. Bhaskar, and M. Illa, Phys. Rev. D111, 043038 (2025), arXiv:2407.13914 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Spagnoliet al., Phys

    L. Spagnoliet al., Phys. Rev. D111, 103054 (2025), arXiv:2503.00607 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  27. [35]

    D. J. Heimsoth, A. B. Balantekin, and P. Siwach, Three-flavor supernova neutrino simulation using a hybrid quantum-classical algorithm with qutrits (2026), arXiv:2605.01099 [hep-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Roggero, Phys

    A. Roggero, Phys. Rev. D104, 103016 (2021), arXiv:2102.10188 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Mangin-Brinet, A

    M. Mangin-Brinet, A. Bauge, and D. Lacroix, Phys. Rev. D113, 036026 (2026), arXiv:2507.18482 [hep- ph]

    2026 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Volpe, D

    C. Volpe, D. V¨ a¨ an¨ anen, and C. Espinoza, Phys. Rev. D87, 113010 (2013), arXiv:1302.2374 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  31. [39]

    V¨ a¨ an¨ anen and C

    D. V¨ a¨ an¨ anen and C. Volpe, Phys. Rev. D88, 065003 (2013), arXiv:1306.6372 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Serreau and C

    J. Serreau and C. Volpe, Phys. Rev. D90, 125040 (2014), arXiv:1409.3591 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Bossion and P

    D. Bossion and P. Huo, General formulas of the structure constants in thesu(n) lie algebra (2021), arXiv:2108.07219 [math-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Rosenhaus, J

    V. Rosenhaus, J. Phys. A52, 323001 (2019), arXiv:1807.03334 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Kitaev, Annals Phys.321, 2 (2006), arXiv:cond- mat/0506438

    A. Kitaev, Annals Phys.321, 2 (2006), arXiv:cond- mat/0506438

    2006

  36. [44]

    A. B. Balantekin and A. M. Suliga, Eur. Phys. J. A 60, 124 (2024), arXiv:2405.13862 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    ´A. M. Alhambra, PRX Quantum4, 040201 (2023), arXiv:2204.08349 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

    S. O. Scalet, ´A. M. Alhambra, G. Styliaris, and J. I. Cirac, Quantum5, 541 (2021), arXiv:2103.01709 [quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Seshadri, V

    A. Seshadri, V. Madhok, and A. Lakshminarayan, Phys. Rev. E98, 052205 (2018), arXiv:1806.00113 [quant-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  40. [48]

    G. Bjrk, A. B. Klimov, and L. L. Snchez-Soto (Else- vier, 2008) pp. 469–516

    2008

  41. [49]

    Gottesman, in22nd International Colloquium on Group Theoretical Methods in Physics(1998) pp

    D. Gottesman, in22nd International Colloquium on Group Theoretical Methods in Physics(1998) pp. 32– 43, arXiv:quant-ph/9807006

    1998 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Leone, S

    L. Leone, S. F. E. Oliviero, and A. Hamma, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 050402 (2022), arXiv:2106.12587 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Salasnich and C

    L. Salasnich and C. Vianello, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes117, 1 (2026)

    2026

  44. [52]

    R. Kubo, J. Phys. Soc. Jap.17, 1100 (1962)

    1962

  45. [53]

    M. E. Peskin and D. V. Schroeder,An Introduction to quantum field theory(Addison-Wesley, Reading, USA, 1995)

    1995

  46. [54]

    Cirigliano, S

    V. Cirigliano, S. Sen, and Y. Yamauchi, Phys. Rev. D 110, 123028 (2024), arXiv:2404.16690 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    M. J. Cervia, Phys. Rev. D113, 043010 (2026), arXiv:2510.22005 [hep-ph]

    2026

  48. [56]

    Kuehn, Moment closure—a brief review, inCon- trol of Self-Organizing Nonlinear Systems, edited by E

    C. Kuehn, Moment closure—a brief review, inCon- trol of Self-Organizing Nonlinear Systems, edited by E. Sch¨ oll, S. H. L. Klapp, and P. H¨ ovel (Springer In- ternational Publishing, Cham, 2016) pp. 253–271

    2016

  49. [57]

    H. Duan, G. M. Fuller, J. Carlson, and Y.-Z. Qian, Phys. Rev. D74, 105014 (2006), arXiv:astro- ph/0606616

    2006

  50. [58]

    Hilfer, B

    R. Hilfer, B. Biswal, H.-G. Mattutis, and W. Janke, Computer Physics Communications169, 230 (2005), proceedings of the Europhysics Conference on Com- putational Physics 2004

    2005

  51. [59]

    J. J. Wallman and S. D. Bartlett, Phys. Rev. A85, 062121 (2012), arXiv:1203.2652 [quant-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  52. [60]

    R. J. Garcia, K. Bu, and A. Jaffe, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.120, e2217031120 (2023), arXiv:2208.10477 [quant-ph]. 17

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

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