Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 79 references

Universality Emerging in a Universality: Derivation of the Ericson Transition in Stochastic Quantum Scattering and Experimental Validation

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that off-diagonal S-matrix elements in quantum chaotic scattering become Gaussian distributed in the Ericson regime, with explicit 1/Ξ corrections.

desk verdict A credible first derivation of the Ericson-regime Gaussian from the supersymmetry characteristic function; Eq. (15) needs a fix at n=1 but the main result holds. read the letter →

arxiv 2603.12068 v2 pith:6JBF7KZD submitted 2026-03-12 cond-mat.stat-mech nucl-thphysics.atom-ph

Simon Köhnes , Jiongning Che , Barbara Dietz , Thomas Guhr This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.stat-mechnucl-thphysics.atom-ph
keywords EricsonregimestochasticscatteringrandommatrixtheorysupersymmetryGaussianuniversalityquantumchaosmicrowavenetworks
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

At low energy, resonances in quantum scattering are isolated; as energy rises they overlap, and in the Ericson regime the cross section becomes a random function. For sixty years it was believed that in this regime the off-diagonal elements of the scattering matrix follow a universal Gaussian distribution, but no first-principles derivation existed. This paper derives that Gaussian analytically for time-reversal non-invariant (β=2) systems, starting from the exact supersymmetry integral representation of the characteristic function. An asymptotic expansion in powers of 1/Ξ — the ratio of average resonance width to mean level spacing — yields the Gaussian at leading order and explicit subleading corrections describing the transition. The results match microwave network experiments and Monte Carlo simulations, and the same method promises to extend to the time-reversal invariant cases.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the exact characteristic function R_s(k) of the off-diagonal S-matrix element distribution, expressed as a two-dimensional integral over hermitian/antisymmetric supermatrix variables. The derivation proceeds by (i) a change of variables that removes the q′−2 singularity associated with the supermatrix Berezin integration, (ii) replacing the channel factor F_U by exp(−πΞq′) in the limit of many channels with T_c ≈ 1/M, and (iii) applying Watson's lemma to convert the integrals into an asymptotic series in 1/Ξ. The leading term gives a Gaussian characteristic function exp(−k^2/[2πΞ(g_a^++1)(g_b^++1)]), whose inverse Fourier transform is the universal Gaussian.

What would settle it

Compute the fourth moment of Re S_21 from the exact supersymmetry integral (i.e., with F_U unapproximated) for a two-channel system with T_1 = T_2 = 0.967 at Ξ = 1.424, and compare to the paper's Eq. (15) with n = 2. A statistical deviation beyond the stated O(1/Ξ^2) would show that the exp(−πΞq′) replacement fails at subleading order.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that, in the Ericson regime, the rescaled real and imaginary parts ξ_s = √Ξ x_s of an off-diagonal scattering matrix element S_ab (a ≠ b) have the leading-order distribution P_s^(l)(ξ_s) = sqrt((g_a^+ + 1)(g_b^+ + 1)/2) exp(−π(g_a^+ + 1)(g_b^+ + 1) ξ_s^2/2), a zero-mean Gaussian whose variance is determined by the transmission coefficients through g_c^+ = 2/T_c − 1. This is not a central-limit argument; it follows from an asymptotic evaluation of the exact characteristic function integral obtained in the supersymmetry formulation of stochastic scattering. The next-order term P_s^(sl)(ξ_s) is a quartic polynomial times the same Gaussian divided by Ξ, with sign set by 1 −

Load-bearing premise

The derivation approximates the exact channel factor by exp(−πΞq′) in the limit of infinitely many weak channels, and then applies the resulting asymptotic formulas to finite systems with a few strong channels; if the neglected finite-channel corrections were comparable to the claimed subleading terms, the explicit correction formulas would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the Ericson regime, both real and imaginary parts of any off-diagonal S-matrix element are Gaussian with variance fixed by the transmission coefficients; the 1960 heuristic is now a proven consequence of the random-matrix/supersymmetry framework.
  • The explicit 1/Ξ corrections give the full transition: for Ξ ≈ 1 the distributions are visibly non-Gaussian, with a shift at zero proportional to 3(g_a^+ g_b^+ − g_a^+ − g_b^+ − 3)/(8πΞ) √(2(g_a^++1)(g_b^++1)).
  • The cross-section distribution is exponential in the Ericson regime, with a correction that explains observed deviations from the pure exponential at σ=0; normalization yields ⟨σ_ab⟩ = 2/(πΞ(g_a^++1)(g_b^+1)) + O(1/Ξ^2).
  • The convergence to the Ericson limit is fast: the subleading term suffices already at Ξ ≈ 1.4, as demonstrated by small deviations in Monte Carlo simulations using the full problem.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same asymptotic strategy applied to the β=1 (orthogonal) and β=4 (symplectic) cases would test whether the Gaussian Ericson distribution is common to all three Wigner-Dyson symmetry classes; the authors say the method carries over, but the technical work is left for future publications.
  • Because the channel-factor approximation exp(−πΞq′) is exact only for infinitely many weak channels, a careful numerical check of the subleading formulas against the exact F_U for few strong channels could sharpen the range of validity; this is a direct, testable extension of the paper's results.
  • The 'universality emerging in a universality' framing suggests that other statistics of the scattering matrix — such as Wigner-Smith time delays, conductance statistics, or shot-noise power — might be re-derived by the same asymptotic route, potentially revealing further universal layers.
  • The proof explicitly avoids a Central Limit Theorem mechanism, deriving the Gaussian from the analytic structure of the supersymmetry integral; that distinction may matter for physical intuition, since it implies the Gaussian is tied to the Ericson large-Ξ limit rather than to the addition of many independent contributions.
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 derives, within the Heidelberg supersymmetry approach for β=2 (GUE) stochastic scattering, an asymptotic expansion in powers of 1/Ξ of the characteristic function of the off-diagonal S-matrix element S_ab. From this expansion it obtains the universal Gaussian distribution for the Ericson regime, explicit subleading moment corrections, and the corresponding cross-section distribution. The results are compared with microwave-network data and Monte Carlo GUE simulations at Ξ=1.424 and Ξ=9.55.

Significance. If the derivation is correct, this is a significant advance: the sixty-year-old heuristic Ericson Gaussian becomes a consequence of the supersymmetry formalism, with explicit finite-Ξ corrections. The paper starts from the exact characteristic function Eq. (4) obtained in prior work, rather than assuming a Gaussian form, and it validates the subleading results against experiment and simulations. The explicit formulas for the moments and distributions are potentially useful for analyzing data in the onset of the Ericson regime.

major comments (3)
  1. [Transition and higher order corrections, Eq. (15)] The subleading moment formula is not valid as written. It contains Γ(n−1), which diverges at n=1, yet the formula is presented for all moments without restriction. Expanding Eq. (11) directly at n=1 gives a vanishing O(Ξ^{-2}) correction to ⟨x_s^2⟩: the relevant Watson coefficient is an integral whose leading r' contribution cancels. Thus Eq. (15) must be restricted to n≥2, and the n=1 case must be stated separately. The resummed characteristic function in Eq. (16) is consistent with a zero n=1 correction, so the leading Gaussian result Eq. (14) survives, but the claim of explicit moment formulas for all moments is inaccurate as printed.
  2. [Derivation of the Universal Gaussian, Eqs. (6)–(7)] The proof neglects the connected contribution R_s^{(c)}(k) with the statement that it is 'globally decaying with Ξ'. Since all later asymptotic results are obtained from the disconnected integral only, a bound or decay estimate for R_s^{(c)} is needed to justify the claim. In particular, the text should specify the order in Ξ at which the connected part first contributes, so that Eqs. (15)–(20) are not applied beyond their proven range.
  3. [Appendix A and Eq. (10)] The replacement F_U ≃ exp(−πΞ q') is derived in Appendix A in the limit of infinitely many channels with T_c ≃ 1/M. The experimental validation, however, uses a finite system (M=52) with two strong channels T_1=T_2=0.967. The paper asserts that additional terms in the channel-factor expansion contribute only at higher orders, but this is not demonstrated. Please give the first nonvanishing correction to Eq. (10) and show explicitly, e.g., by expanding the correction factor as 1+O(q'^2) and using the q'^{n-1} prefactor in Eq. (11), that it does not affect the orders quoted in Eqs. (15)–(20) for the parameters used in the experiment.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (11)] State explicitly that the moment formula applies for n≥1; the zeroth moment is treated separately.
  2. [After Eq. (12)] The sentence 'The explicit calculation is given in Appendix A' appears to refer to Appendix B, where the Gaussian derivation is carried out.
  3. [Connected part, Eqs. (6)–(7)] The phrase 'globally decaying with Ξ' should be quantified, e.g., as exponentially small in Ξ, rather than left qualitative.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Ericson Gaussian is a genuine asymptotic consequence of an independent supersymmetry integral representation; self-citations are not the load-bearing reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The starting point Eq. (4), taken from Refs [67,68], is an exact integral representation for the characteristic function containing a Bessel function; it does not assume the Gaussian result. The Gaussian emerges only after a Watson-lemma expansion in 1/Ξ and resummation of the leading moments (Eqs. (11)-(14)), so the output is not contained in the input by construction. The channel-factor replacement Eq. (10) is not an imported ansatz: Appendix A derives it from the exact F_U by a Taylor expansion in the many-small-channels limit. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction; the experimental and Monte Carlo comparisons are genuine tests of the analytically derived distributions. The only self-citations are to the group's earlier derivation of Eq. (4), which is independent support, not a circular premise. I also examined Eq. (15): as printed it contains Γ(n−1), which diverges at n=1, and the direct expansion of Eq. (11) indicates the O(Ξ^{−(n+1)}) second-moment correction vanishes instead. This is a technical consistency error in a subleading formula, not a circularity; the leading Gaussian Eq. (14) and the resummed correction Eq. (16) do not rely on the n=1 case of Eq. (15).

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation leans on the exact characteristic function Eq. (4) (prior work by the same group) and on the large-M channel-factor limit Eq. (10); neither assumes the Gaussian result. No new physical entities are introduced; the fictitious absorption channels used in the validation are a standard modeling device. The strongest load-bearing assumptions are the GUE ensemble, the neglect of the connected part, and the validity of Watson's lemma for the singular integrand.

free parameters (1)
  • Transmission coefficients T_a, T_b and absorption parameter τ_abs in the experimental validation = T_1 = T_2 = 0.967, τ_abs = 7.013 (modeled by 50 fictitious channels)
    These determine Ξ and g_c^+ and come from calibration of the microwave network experiment, not from fitting the measured distribution itself, but they are external inputs to the validation.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Hamiltonian H is drawn from the GUE (β=2) with variance ν²/N.
    Defines the stochastic ensemble; the paper explicitly treats only the time-reversal-non-invariant case.
  • domain assumption The exact characteristic function Eq. (4) from Refs. [67,68] is correct.
    This is the starting point for all moment calculations; it is not re-derived in this paper, though it was obtained by the same group using supersymmetry.
  • domain assumption The channel factor approximation F_U ≈ exp(-πΞ q') (Eq. (10)) is valid for the systems considered.
    Derived in the large-M limit with T_c ≃ 1/M, but applied to finite M with strong channels; central to the asymptotic expansion.
  • ad hoc to paper The connected part R_s^(c)(k) is negligible as Ξ→∞.
    The paper states it is 'globally decaying with Ξ' but gives no detailed bound; this neglect is needed for the final Gaussian and exponential forms.
  • standard math Watson's lemma and term-wise differentiation under the integral are applicable to the singular integrand.
    Standard asymptotic technique; the paper does not explicitly justify the smoothness/uniformity conditions for all n and m in Eq. (11).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Universality Emerging in a Universality: Derivation of the Ericson Transition in Stochastic Quantum Scattering and Experimental Validation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6JBF7KZD

@misc{pith2026260312068,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Universality Emerging in a Universality: Derivation of the Ericson Transition in Stochastic Quantum Scattering and Experimental Validation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6JBF7KZD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.12068}
}
read the original abstract

At lower energies, the resonances in scattering experiments are often isolated. In quantum chaotic many-body, disordered or generically stochastic systems, the resonances overlap at larger energies. Eventually, the Ericson regime is reached in which the cross section behaves like a random function. The scattering-matrix elements then follow a universal Gaussian distribution. For more than sixty years, the emergence of this robust additional universal behavior on top of the universal system stochasticity has awaited a concise analytical treatment. We derive the transition to the Ericson regime in the universal Heidelberg approach and prove the universal Gaussian distribution by a proper asymptotic expansion. We also obtain explicit formulae for the moments of the distributions. We compare with microwave experiments and numerical simulations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.12068 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Experimental and analytical results for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. To numerically test the subleading cor￾rections, we use the cumulative distribution func￾tion (CDF) F(ξs) = F (l) (ξs) + F (sl) (ξs) in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Experimental data and the subleading [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Full cumulative distribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Brink and R

    D. Brink and R. Stephen, Physics Letters5, 77 (1963)

    1963

  2. [2]

    Von Brentano, J

    P. Von Brentano, J. Ernst, O. H¨ ausser, T. Mayer- Kuckuk, A. Richter, and W. Von Witsch, Physics Letters9, 48 (1964)

    1964

  3. [3]

    C. E. Porter,Statistical Theories of Spectra: Fluc- tuations, 1st ed. (Academic, New York, 1965)

    1965

  4. [4]

    Harney, A

    H. Harney, A. H¨ upper, and A. Richter, Nuclear Physics A518, 35 (1990)

    1990

  5. [5]

    Main and G

    J. Main and G. Wunner, Phys. Rev. Lett.69, 586 (1992)

    1992

  6. [6]

    Feshbach,Nuclear Reactions, 1st ed

    H. Feshbach,Nuclear Reactions, 1st ed. (Wiley Classics Library, New York, 1993)

    1993

  7. [7]

    T. Guhr, A. M¨ uller-Groeling, and H. A. Wei- denm¨ uller, Physics Reports299, 189 (1998)

    1998

  8. [8]

    H. A. Weidenm¨ uller and G. E. Mitchell, Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 539 (2009)

    2009

Show all 79 references
  1. [9]

    G. E. Mitchell, A. Richter, and H. A. Wei- denm¨ uller, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 2845 (2010)

    2010

  2. [10]

    Frisch, M

    A. Frisch, M. Mark, K. Aikawa, F. Ferlaino, J. L. Bohn, C. Makrides, A. Petrov, and S. Ko- tochigova, Nature507, 475 (2014)

    2014

  3. [11]

    Kawano, P

    T. Kawano, P. Talou, and H. A. Weidenm¨ uller, Phys. Rev. C92, 044617 (2015)

    2015

  4. [12]

    Lombardi and T

    M. Lombardi and T. H. Seligman, Phys. Rev. A 47, 3571 (1993)

    1993

  5. [13]

    Gr´ emaud, D

    B. Gr´ emaud, D. Delande, and J. C. Gay, Phys. Rev. Lett.70, 1615 (1993). -2 -1 0 1 2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 FIG. 5: Analytical results and Monte Carlo simulations for the distributionsP(ξ 1),P(ξ 2) rescaled real and imaginary par...

    1993

  6. [14]

    Dupret, J

    K. Dupret, J. Zakrzewski, and D. Delande, Euro- physics Letters31, 251 (1995)

    1995

  7. [15]

    Schinke, H

    R. Schinke, H. M. Keller, M. Stumpf, and A. J. Dobbyn, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics28, 3081 (1995)

    1995

  8. [16]

    S. A. Reid and H. Reisler, The Journal of Physical Chemistry100, 474 (1996)

    1996

  9. [17]

    Stania and H

    G. Stania and H. Walther, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 194101 (2005)

    2005

  10. [18]

    Madro˜ nero and A

    J. Madro˜ nero and A. Buchleitner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 263601 (2005)

    2005

  11. [19]

    Mayle, G

    M. Mayle, G. Qu´ em´ ener, B. P. Ruzic, and J. L. Bohn, Phys. Rev. A87, 012709 (2013)

    2013

  12. [20]

    J. Che, X. Zhang, W. Zhang, B. Dietz, and G. Chai, Phys. Rev. E106, 014211 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    Kottos and U

    T. Kottos and U. Smilansky, Phys. Rev. Lett.79, 4794 (1997)

    1997

  14. [22]

    Gnutzmann and U

    S. Gnutzmann and U. Smilansky, Advances in Physics55, 527 (2006)

    2006

  15. [23]

    Lawniczak, S

    M. Lawniczak, S. Bauch, O. Hul, and L. Sirko, Physica Scripta2012, 014018 (2012)

    2012

  16. [24]

    G. L. Celardo, F. M. Izrailev, V. G. Zelevin- sky, and G. P. Berman, Phys. Rev. E76, 031119 (2007)

    2007

  17. [25]

    Sch¨ afer, T

    R. Sch¨ afer, T. Gorin, T. H. Seligman, and H.-J. 7 St¨ ockmann, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General36, 3289 (2003)

    2003

  18. [26]

    Doron, U

    E. Doron, U. Smilansky, and A. Frenkel, Phys. Rev. Lett.65, 3072 (1990)

    1990

  19. [27]

    H. Alt, H. D. Gr¨ af, H. L. Harney, R. Hofferbert, H. Lengeler, A. Richter, P. Schardt, and H. A. Weidenm¨ uller, Phys. Rev. Lett.74, 62 (1995)

    1995

  20. [28]

    U. Kuhl, M. Mart ´ ınez-Mares, R. A. M´ endez- S´ anchez, and H.-J. St¨ ockmann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 144101 (2005)

    2005

  21. [29]

    Hemmady, X

    S. Hemmady, X. Zheng, J. Hart, T. M. Antonsen, E. Ott, and S. M. Anlage, Phys. Rev. E74, 036213 (2006)

    2006

  22. [30]

    Dietz, T

    B. Dietz, T. Friedrich, H. L. Harney, M. Miski- Oglu, A. Richter, F. Sch¨ afer, and H. A. Wei- denm¨ uller, Phys. Rev. E81, 036205 (2010)

    2010

  23. [31]

    Dietz, H

    B. Dietz, H. Harney, A. Richter, F. Sch¨ afer, and H. Weidenm¨ uller, Physics Letters B685, 263 (2010)

    2010

  24. [32]

    U. Kuhl, R. H¨ ohmann, J. Main, and H.-J. St¨ ockmann, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 254101 (2008)

    2008

  25. [33]

    O. Hul, O. Tymoshchuk, S. Bauch, P. M. Koch, and L. Sirko, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General38, 10489 (2005)

    2005

  26. [34]

    Lawniczak, O

    M. Lawniczak, O. Hul, S. Bauch, P. Seba, and L. Sirko, Phys. Rev. E77, 056210 (2008)

    2008

  27. [35]

    Lawniczak, B

    M. Lawniczak, B. van Tiggelen, and L. Sirko, Phys. Rev. E102, 052214 (2020)

    2020

  28. [36]

    L. Chen, S. M. Anlage, and Y. V. Fyodorov, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 204101 (2021)

    2021

  29. [37]

    R. L. Weaver, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America85, 1005 (1989)

    1989

  30. [38]

    Ellegaard, T

    C. Ellegaard, T. Guhr, K. Lindemann, H. Q. Lorensen, J. Nyg ˚ ard, and M. Oxborrow, Phys. Rev. Lett.75, 1546 (1995)

    1995

  31. [39]

    J.-B. Gros, O. Legrand, F. Mortessagne, E. Richalot, and K. Selemani, Wave Motion51, 664 (2014)

    2014

  32. [40]

    C. W. J. Beenakker, Rev. Mod. Phys.69, 731 (1997)

    1997

  33. [41]

    P. A. Lee, A. D. Stone, and H. Fukuyama, Phys. Rev. B35, 1039 (1987)

    1987

  34. [42]

    Alhassid, Rev

    Y. Alhassid, Rev. Mod. Phys.72, 895 (2000)

    2000

  35. [43]

    M. R. Zirnbauer, Phys. Rev. Lett.69, 1584 (1992)

    1992

  36. [44]

    A. D. Mirlin, A. M¨ uller-Groeling, and M. R. Zirn- bauer, Annals of Physics236, 325 (1994)

    1994

  37. [45]

    J. A. Folk, S. R. Patel, S. F. Godijn, A. G. Huibers, S. M. Cronenwett, C. M. Marcus, K. Campman, and A. C. Gossard, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 1699 (1996)

    1996

  38. [46]

    V. N. Bringi and V. Chandrasekar,Polarimetric Doppler Weather Radar: Principles and Applica- tions(Cambridge University Press, 2001)

    2001

  39. [47]

    J.-H. Yeh, T. M. Antonsen, E. Ott, and S. M. Anlage, Phys. Rev. E85, 015202 (2012)

    2012

  40. [48]

    Ericson, Phys

    T. Ericson, Phys. Rev. Lett.5, 430 (1960)

    1960

  41. [49]

    Ericson, Advances in Physics9, 425 (1960)

    T. Ericson, Advances in Physics9, 425 (1960)

    1960

  42. [50]

    Ericson and T

    T. Ericson and T. Mayer-Kuckuck, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science16, 183 (1966)

    1966

  43. [51]

    H. A. Weidenm¨ uller, Nucl. Phys. A518, 1 (1990)

    1990

  44. [52]

    Sorathia, F

    S. Sorathia, F. M. Izrailev, G. L. Celardo, V. G. Zelevinsky, and G. P. Berman, Europhysics Let- ters88, 27003 (2009)

    2009

  45. [53]

    Bl¨ umel, Phys

    R. Bl¨ umel, Phys. Rev. A54, 5420 (1996)

    1996

  46. [54]

    Gr´ emaud and D

    B. Gr´ emaud and D. Delande, Europhysics Letters 40, 363 (1997)

    1997

  47. [55]

    Eiglsperger and J

    J. Eiglsperger and J. Madro˜ nero, Phys. Rev. A80, 022512 (2009)

    2009

  48. [56]

    Eiglsperger and J

    J. Eiglsperger and J. Madro˜ nero, Phys. Rev. A82, 033422 (2010)

    2010

  49. [57]

    Eiglsperger, T

    J. Eiglsperger, T. Kramer, and J. Madro˜ nero, New Journal of Physics13, 063033 (2011)

    2011

  50. [58]

    Mayle, B

    M. Mayle, B. P. Ruzic, and J. L. Bohn, Phys. Rev. A85, 062712 (2012)

    2012

  51. [59]

    S. Hunn, M. Hiller, D. Cohen, T. Kottos, and A. Buchleitner, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics45, 085302 (2012)

    2012

  52. [60]

    Pluhaˇ r and H

    Z. Pluhaˇ r and H. A. Weidenm¨ uller, Phys. Rev. E 88, 022902 (2013)

    2013

  53. [61]

    Mahaux and H

    C. Mahaux and H. A. Weidenm¨ uller,Shell-Model Approach To Nuclear Reactions(North Holland, Amsterdam, 1969)

    1969

  54. [62]

    Agassi, H

    D. Agassi, H. Weidenm¨ uller, and G. Mantzoura- nis, Physics Reports22, 145 (1975)

    1975

  55. [63]

    J. J. M. Verbaarschot, H. A. Weidenm¨ uller, and M. R. Zirnbauer, Physics Reports129, 367 (1985)

    1985

  56. [64]

    J. M. Blatt and V. F. Weisskopf,Theoretical Nu- clear Physics, 1st ed. (Springer New York, NY, 1979)

    1979

  57. [65]

    K. B. Efetov, Advances in Physics32, 53 (1983)

    1983

  58. [66]

    Efetov,Supersymmetry in Disorder and Chaos (Cambridge University Press, 1996)

    K. Efetov,Supersymmetry in Disorder and Chaos (Cambridge University Press, 1996)

    1996

  59. [67]

    Kumar, A

    S. Kumar, A. Nock, H.-J. Sommers, T. Guhr, B. Dietz, M. Miski-Oglu, A. Richter, and F. Sch¨ afer, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 030403 (2013)

    2013

  60. [68]

    A. Nock, S. Kumar, H.-J. Sommers, and T. Guhr, Annals of Physics342, 103 (2014)

    2014

  61. [69]

    Kumar, B

    S. Kumar, B. Dietz, T. Guhr, and A. Richter, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 244102 (2017)

    2017

  62. [70]

    J. J. M. Verbaarschot, Annals of Physics168, 368 (1986)

    1986

  63. [71]

    Kieburg, H

    M. Kieburg, H. Kohler, and T. Guhr, Journal of Mathematical Physics50, 013528 (2009)

    2009

  64. [72]

    Pluhar, H

    Z. Pluhar, H. A. Weidenm¨ uller, J. A. Zuk, C. H. Lewenkopf, and F. J. Wegner, Annals of Physics 243, 1 (1995)

    1995

  65. [73]

    Y. V. Fyodorov and H.-J. Sommers, J. Math. Phys.38, 1918 (1997)

    1918

  66. [74]

    Rozhkov, Y

    I. Rozhkov, Y. V. Fyodorov, and R. L. Weaver, Phys. Rev. E68, 016204 (2003)

    2003

  67. [75]

    Rozhkov, Y

    I. Rozhkov, Y. V. Fyodorov, and R. L. Weaver, Phys. Rev. E69, 036206 (2004)

    2004

  68. [76]

    E. T. Copson,Asymptotic Expansions, 1st ed. (Cambridge University Press, 1965)

    1965

  69. [77]

    Kaminski and R

    D. Kaminski and R. B. Paris, Philosophical Trans- actions: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences356, 583 (1998)

    1998

  70. [78]

    Kaminski and R

    D. Kaminski and R. B. Paris, Philosophical Trans- actions: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences356, 625 (1998)

    1998

  71. [79]

    Wong, Asymptotic approximations of integrals, inClassics in applied mathematics 34(Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 2001) 1st ed

    R. Wong, Asymptotic approximations of integrals, inClassics in applied mathematics 34(Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 2001) 1st ed. 8 Endmatter Appendix A: Channel factor expansion— We write the channel factor as exponential and identify the parametric dependen...

    2001

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.