Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 62 references

Riemannian optimisation methods for ground states of multicomponent Bose-Einstein condensates

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Energy-adaptive Riemannian descent is proven to converge to the unique ground state of multicomponent Bose-Einstein condensates.

desk verdict Strong infinite-dimensional convergence theory for multicomponent BEC ground states, with an honest but real gap between the global theorem and the finite-element implementation. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09617 v2 pith:BB7X4V6R submitted 2024-11-14 math.NA cs.NA

R. Altmann , M. Hermann , D. Peterseim , T. Stykel This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.NAcs.NA MSC 65N2581Q1035Q55
keywords RiemannianoptimisationmulticomponentBose-EinsteincondensatescoupledGross-Pitaevskiiequationsnonlineareigenvectorproblemgeneralisedobliquemanifoldenergy-adaptivemetricglobalconvergencefiniteelementdiscretisation
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 treats the ground state of a p-component Bose-Einstein condensate as the global minimiser of an energy functional on an infinite-dimensional generalised oblique manifold, the set of p-frames with prescribed component masses. It proves that under nonnegative external potentials and a positive definite interaction matrix, a ground state exists, is unique up to global signs of its components, and is the solution of the coupled Gross-Pitaevskii nonlinear eigenvector problem in which each component sits at the smallest eigenvalue of its shifted Hamiltonian. The central numerical claim is that a Riemannian gradient descent method using an energy-adaptive metric converges strongly in $H$ to that ground state from any nonnegative initial frame, with an energy decay uniform in the spatial discretisation, and converges linearly near the solution. This matters because it gives a globally convergent, discretisation-robust solver for the miscible regime, and the same manifold geometry supports efficient Newton-type accelerations.

What carries the argument

The central object is the infinite-dimensional generalised oblique manifold $OB_N(p,H)$, the set of p-frames $\varphi\in H=[H^1_0(\Omega)]^p$ with prescribed component masses $\langle\langle\varphi,\varphi\rangle\rangle=N$. The argument is carried by the energy-adaptive metric $g_{\varphi,a}(z,y)=\tilde a_\varphi(z,y)$, where $\tilde a_\varphi$ is the Gross-Pitaevskii bilinear form shifted to be coercive. Under this metric the Riemannian gradient of the energy is simply the projection $\mathrm{grad}_a E(\varphi)=P_{\varphi,a}(\varphi)$, so one eaRGD step is an inverse subspace iteration with adaptive damping. The machinery that converts energy decay into convergence to the ground state is the maximum-principle-type lemma (Lemma 6.2) that $\tilde A_\varphi^{-1}v\ge 0$ for $v\ge 0$, which preserves nonnegativity of all iterates.

What would settle it

Run the exact eaRGD iteration (5.2) on a two-component example with a positive definite interaction matrix $K$ that has at least one negative off-diagonal entry and a nonnegative initial frame, using step sizes within the Theorem 6.3 bounds; if the iterates lose nonnegativity or converge to a sign-changing constrained critical point, Theorem 6.4 is false. Alternatively, in the standard finite element implementation where the discrete maximum principle fails, search for a positive initial vector and step size for which the residual tends to zero at an excited state rather than the ground state; such an example would confirm the paper's stated limitation and show that the guarantee is genuinely lost in the discretised method.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is Theorem 6.4: the energy-adaptive Riemannian gradient descent iteration (5.2), with step sizes chosen as in Theorem 6.3 and a nonnegative starting frame, converges strongly in $H$ to the unique nonnegative ground state. The proof rests on preservation of positivity: the inverse of the shifted Gross-Pitaevskii operator maps nonnegative functions to nonnegative functions (Lemma 6.2), which prevents an energy-decreasing sequence from converging to a sign-changing excited state. Locally, the iteration is a contraction whose rate is controlled by the ratio of sums of the two smallest eigenvalues of the component Gross-Pitaevskii operators (Theorem 6.7). In the miscible regime, the paper also establishes existence, uniqueness up to global signs, and the characterisation of the ground state as the NLEVP eigenvector with minimal component-wise eigenvalues.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that nonnegativity is preserved at every iteration: the inverse of the shifted Gross-Pitaevskii operator must map nonnegative functions to nonnegative functions, which the proof uses to ensure that an energy-decreasing sequence cannot drift to a sign-changing excited state.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any nonnegative initial frame in the miscible regime, the energy-adaptive Riemannian gradient descent method with the step-size bounds of Theorem 6.3 converges strongly in $H$ to the unique nonnegative ground state.
  • The energy decay estimate is independent of the spatial discretisation, so mesh refinement does not degrade the qualitative global convergence guarantee.
  • Near the ground state, the iteration converges linearly with a rate determined by the spectral gap of the component Gross-Pitaevskii operators.
  • The Riemannian Newton and regularised Newton methods show fast local convergence in the experiments, and the reliably convergent eaRGD iteration is a suitable globalisation strategy for them.
  • The positivity-preservation argument does not transfer to standard finite elements; a stabilised discretisation is needed to retain the global convergence guarantee.

Reading between the lines

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

  • By the same positivity-preservation logic, the global convergence strategy should extend to other eigenvector nonlinearities such as Hartree-Fock and Kohn-Sham problems once a positivity-preserving discretisation is available.
  • The numerical failures of Newton-type methods on random potentials suggest that the practical bottleneck is the size of the basin of attraction rather than the local rate; a quantitative basin estimate for the regularised Newton method would be a natural next step.
  • All numerical experiments use interaction matrices with nonnegative entries, so the performance of eaRGD in the regime with negative off-diagonal couplings (where the shift becomes essential) remains an open test.
  • The alternating component-wise update offers easy parallelisation and, for strong interactions, appears more reliable than the simultaneous update; quantifying this advantage would be a direct experimental extension.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops Riemannian optimisation methods for computing ground states of multicomponent Bose-Einstein condensates, formulated as global minimisers of the energy functional (1.2) under component-wise mass constraints on the infinite-dimensional generalised oblique manifold (2.2). Under Assumptions A1 (nonnegative bounded potentials) and A2 (symmetric positive definite interaction matrix K), the authors prove existence of a ground state (Theorem 2.4), uniqueness up to component-wise sign (Theorem 3.3), and a second-order necessary optimality condition that is in fact positive definite on the tangent space (Theorem 3.5). Section 4 derives the manifold geometry, projections, and Riemannian gradients/Hessians for several metrics: the L2-metric, an energy-adaptive metric, and a Lagrangian-based metric. Section 5 presents the corresponding Riemannian gradient descent methods, an alternating variant, and Riemannian Newton methods. Section 6 contains the main convergence analysis: global convergence of the energy-adaptive Riemannian gradient descent (eaRGD) method to the unique nonnegative ground state (Theorem 6.4) and a local linear convergence rate (Theorem 6.7). Section 7 gives a finite element discretisation, and Section 8 reports 1D and 2D numerical experiments with reproducible Julia code. The infinite-dimensional results are carefully stated and the proofs are mostly self-contained, with some steps delegated to earlier works by the same authors and others.

Significance. If the central theorems are correct, the paper gives a substantial and useful framework: a rigorous infinite-dimensional Riemannian treatment of multicomponent BEC ground states, explicit convergence guarantees for a preconditioned gradient method, and a clean separation between the infinite-dimensional algorithm and its spatial discretisation. Strengths include the clearly stated assumptions, the absence of fitted parameters in the theoretical claims, the connection to the NLEVP formulation, and the availability of reproducible code. The advertised property of 'reliability and robustness with respect to the choice of the spatial discretisation' is, however, not supported for the implemented finite element method, because Section 7 explicitly concedes that the global convergence theorem does not transfer to the standard FEM. This gap is load-bearing for the paper's headline claim and should be fixed before publication.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 7; Abstract] The paper states in Section 7 that 'the global convergence results for the eaRGD method no longer hold in the finite-dimensional case because our particular choice of the finite element discretisation does not satisfy a discrete maximum principle.' This directly weakens the Abstract's claim of 'reliability and robustness with respect to the choice of the spatial discretisation.' The numerical experiments in Section 8 use exactly this FEM (bi-quadratic elements with tau_k = 1), so Theorem 6.4 does not apply to the implemented solver. In the infinite-dimensional proof, nonnegativity of the iterates is essential for ruling out convergence to sign-changing excited states; without a discrete maximum principle, no discrete analogue of that argument is available, and the experiments do not report any diagnostic such as minimum nodal values of the iterates. I request that the claims be restricted to the infinite-dimensional iteration, or that a positivity-preserving stabilised discretisation (e.g., the scheme of reference [38]) be analysed and used, or that the experiments explicitly monitor and report positivity of all iterates.
  2. [Theorem 6.4 proof] The final estimate of the proof, namely the bound on sum_j || |phi_{k,j}|^2 - |phi_{*,j}|^2 ||_{L^2}^2 tending to zero, is not by itself sufficient for the stated conclusion 'the whole sequence {phi_k} converges strongly to phi* in L and in H.' The L-convergence can be recovered from nonnegativity via the pointwise inequality |a-b|^2 <= |a^2-b^2| for a,b >= 0, and the H-convergence then follows by combining the energy identity with the Garding inequality (2.7) and the already established L^2 convergence of phi_k - phi*. Since Theorem 6.4 is the central global convergence result, these steps should be written out explicitly in the proof rather than left to the reader.
  3. [Section 8, first paragraph] The numerical experiments impose Neumann boundary conditions while the theory is developed on H_0^1(Omega) with homogeneous Dirichlet conditions. The statement that 'all values on the boundary are sufficiently close to zero' due to the trapping potentials is not quantified in the paper. This is a mismatch between the analysed setting and the computed setting; please either use homogeneous Dirichlet conditions in the experiments or report quantitative evidence (e.g., boundary values or residuals) that the Neumann modification is negligible.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 7, last paragraph] The sentence 'unless specifically triggered, a violation of the maximum principle and potential convergence to an excited state from a positive initial guess will typically not be observed' is an empirical claim that is not supported by data in the paper; either provide numerical evidence or remove the sentence.
  2. [Title page] The AMS subject classification '66N25' appears to be a typo; the intended code is probably '65N25' for numerical methods for eigenvalue problems.
  3. [Figure 8.2 caption] For the beta = 100 panel, the caption says the non-alternating versions are shown, but the legend entry does not identify which curves correspond to the non-alternating variants; please clarify the line styles or legend.
  4. [Table 8.1] The header row repeats 'outer iter.' and 'aver. matr.-vec. mult. per iter.' across the three beta columns; consider using a grouped header or a clearer table layout to avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No material circularity: the multicomponent convergence analysis extends published single-component proofs and contains no fitted-then-predicted reduction; the main caveat is the paper's own statement that global convergence does not transfer to the implemented FEM solver.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is self-contained against prior benchmarks. Existence (Theorem 2.4) follows by compact embedding and weak lower semicontinuity, using [24, Lem. 2] only for the coercivity argument; uniqueness (Theorem 3.3) is proved by strict convexity on densities via [48, Lem. A.1] and the maximum principle. The convergence Theorem 6.4 is built from Lemma 6.2 (inverse positivity, proved in-text by a convex minimisation argument), Theorem 6.3 (energy decay, proved in-text by induction), and an adaptation of the single-component subsequential-convergence argument from [42, Th. 4.9 & Th. 5.1], which is an independent published analysis for p = 1 and does not assume the multicomponent result. The local-rate Theorem 6.7 uses Ostrowski's theorem as stated in [6, Prop. 1], again an external published fact. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: the shift constants (S1)/(S2) are a priori bounds, and the step-size restriction is a sufficient condition, not a fit to the computed ground state. The numerical benchmarks from [15, 44] are used as test problems, not as inputs to the proof. The one notable weakness is stated by the paper itself in Section 7: "the global convergence results for the eaRGD method no longer hold in the finite-dimensional case because our particular choice of the finite element discretisation does not satisfy a discrete maximum principle." This means the abstract's 'robustness with respect to the choice of the spatial discretisation' is stronger than what is proved for the implemented FEM solver; this is a correctness or transfer gap, not a circular derivation. Self-citations occur (e.g., [9] for the energy-adaptive metric, [42] for the convergence template, and [6] for Ostrowski's theorem), but none of them presupposes the paper's conclusion, so they do not raise the circularity score above 2.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard functional-analytic tools, spectral theory of Schrodinger operators, and the explicit assumptions A1 and A2 on the physical model. No new physical entity is introduced. The only hand-chosen numerical parameters are algorithmic constants, not fitted to reproduce a target ground state.

free parameters (3)
  • Shift constant bc_phi for the energy-adaptive metric = Equation (S1) or (S2), depends on phi0 and problem constants
    Chosen to enforce coercivity of the shifted bilinear form ba_phi; not fitted to the target ground state, but it changes the metric and is needed for the convergence proof.
  • Step size tau_k = 1 in all reported experiments
    Constant step size used to compare methods transparently; the theory allows a range below a problem-dependent C_tau, which is not computed in the experiments.
  • Regularization parameter omega_k = 1 for LgrRGD, 0.99 for regRN
    Hand-selected values for the numerical experiments; the paper gives no systematic criterion for choosing them in general.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Sobolev and interpolation embeddings for H^1_0(Omega) into L^q(Omega) for q up to 6, and compactness into L^2(Omega).
    Used in the existence proof, the Garding inequality (2.7), and the energy estimates in Lemma 6.1.
  • standard math Spectral theory of the linear Schrodinger operator A_phi,j on a bounded domain: countably many real eigenvalues, simple smallest eigenvalue, positive first eigenfunction.
    Invoked in Lemma 3.1, Proposition 3.2, and Theorems 3.5 and 6.7; established by citations rather than proved in this paper.
  • standard math Preimage theorem for embedded submanifolds of Hilbert spaces.
    Used in Proposition 4.1 to prove that the generalized oblique manifold is an embedded submanifold of codimension p.
  • standard math Ostrowski's theorem for local linear convergence of fixed-point iterations.
    Used in Theorem 6.7 to convert the spectral radius bound into a local linear convergence rate.
  • domain assumption Assumption A1: external potentials V_j are in L^infty(Omega) and nonnegative almost everywhere.
    Physical modelling restriction used throughout; it ensures the energy is bounded below and supports the coercivity estimates.
  • domain assumption Assumption A2: the interaction matrix K is symmetric positive definite.
    Defines the miscible regime and is essential for uniqueness of the ground state and for the local convergence analysis.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Riemannian optimisation methods for ground states of multicomponent Bose-Einstein condensates." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BB7X4V6R

@misc{pith2026241109617,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Riemannian optimisation methods for ground states of multicomponent Bose-Einstein condensates},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BB7X4V6R}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09617}
}
read the original abstract

This paper addresses the computation of ground states of multicomponent Bose-Einstein condensates, defined as the global minimiser of an energy functional on an infinite-dimensional generalised oblique manifold. We establish the existence of the ground state, prove its uniqueness up to scaling, and characterise it as the solution to a coupled nonlinear eigenvector problem. By equipping the manifold with several Riemannian metrics, we introduce a suite of Riemannian gradient descent and Riemannian Newton methods. Metrics that incorporate first- or second-order information about the energy are particularly advantageous, effectively preconditioning the resulting methods. For a Riemannian gradient descent method with an energy-adaptive metric, we provide a qualitative global and quantitative local convergence analysis, confirming its reliability and robustness with respect to the choice of the spatial discretisation. Numerical experiments highlight the computational efficiency of both the Riemannian gradient descent and Newton methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.09617 by the authors.

Figure 8.1
Figure 8.1. Two-component BEC: potential and components of the ground state for β = 10, 100, 1000 (from left to right). The potential is rescaled by a factor of 0.0025 for plotting purposes. Together, these performance measures provide sufficient insight into the individual strengths of the different optimisation methods. Each optimisation step requires the assembly of the finite element matrices Mϕiϕj . In the eaRGD and LgrRGD… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. and Table 8.1 show that the regRN method converges in significantly fewer iterations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8.2
Figure 8.2. Two-component BEC: convergence history of the residuals for β = 10, 100, 1000 (from left to right). For β = 100, the non-alternating versions of the eaRGD and LgrRGD methods are shown as well [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_8_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 8.3
Figure 8.3. Figure 8.3: Three-component BEC: random and periodic potentials and compo￾nents of the ground states computed with the alternating eaRGD method. For the potentials, we do not depict the additional trapping potential that is used to enforce the homogeneous Dirichlet boundary cond…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [38]

    Positivity preserving finite element method for the Gross-Pitaevskii ground state: discrete uniqueness and global convergence

    M. Hauck, Y. Liang, and D. Peterseim , Positivity preserving finite element method for the Gross–Pitaevskii ground state: discrete uniqueness and global convergence , ArXiv e-print 2405.17090, (2024), https://doi.org/ 10.48550/arXiv.2405.17090

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.17090 2024

  2. [1]

    Haptic human-human interaction does not improve individual visuomotor adaptation

    P.-A. Absil and K. Gallivan, Joint diagonalization on the oblique manifold for independent component analysis, in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing, vol. 5, 2006, pp. V945–V948, https://doi.org/10.1109/ICASSP.2006.1661433

    work page Pith review arXiv 2006

  3. [2]

    Absil, R

    P.-A. Absil, R. Mahony, and R. Sepulchre , Optimization Algorithms on Matrix Manifolds , Princeton Uni- versity Press, Princeton, NJ, 2008

    2008

  4. [3]

    Alt , Linear Functional Analysis: An Application-Oriented Introduction , Springer, London, 2016, https: //doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-7280-2

    H. Alt , Linear Functional Analysis: An Application-Oriented Introduction , Springer, London, 2016, https: //doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-7280-2

    doi:10.1007/978-1-4471-7280-2 2016

  5. [4]

    Alt and K

    W. Alt and K. Malanowski , The Lagrange-Newton method for state constrained optimal control problems , Comput. Optim. Appl., 4 (1995), pp. 217–239, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01300872

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01300872 1995

  6. [5]

    Altmann, P

    R. Altmann, P. Henning, and D. Peterseim , Quantitative Anderson localization of Schr¨ odinger eigenstates under disorder potentials, Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci., 30 (2020), pp. 917–955, https://doi.org/10.1142/ S0218202520500190

    work page 2020

  7. [6]

    Altmann, P

    R. Altmann, P. Henning, and D. Peterseim , The J-method for the Gross–Pitaevskii eigenvalue problem , Numer. Math., 148 (2021), pp. 575–610, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00211-021-01216-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s00211-021-01216-5 2021

  8. [7]

    Altmann, P

    R. Altmann, P. Henning, and D. Peterseim , Localization and delocalization of ground states of Bose– Einstein condensates under disorder , SIAM J. Appl. Math., 82 (2022), pp. 330–358, https://doi.org/10.1137/ 20M1342434

    work page 2022

Show all 62 references
  1. [8]

    Altmann and D

    R. Altmann and D. Peterseim , Localized computation of eigenstates of random Schr¨ odinger operators, SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 41 (2019), pp. B1211–B1227, https://doi.org/10.1137/19M1252594

    2019 doi

  2. [9]

    Altmann, D

    R. Altmann, D. Peterseim, and T. Stykel, Energy-adaptive Riemannian optimization on the Stiefel manifold, ESAIM Math. Model. Numer. Anal., 56 (2022), pp. 1629–1653, https://doi.org/10.1051/m2an/2022036

    2022

  3. [10]

    Altmann, D

    R. Altmann, D. Peterseim, and T. Stykel , Riemannian Newton methods for energy minimization problems of Kohn–Sham type , J. Sci. Comput., 101 (2024), article number 6, https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10915-024-02612-3

    2024

  4. [11]

    Antoine and R

    X. Antoine and R. Duboscq, GPELab, a Matlab toolbox to solve Gross–Pitaevskii equations I: Computation of stationary solutions , Comput. Phys. Commun., 185 (2014), pp. 2969–2991, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc. 2014.06.026

    2014 doi

  5. [12]

    Antoine and R

    X. Antoine and R. Duboscq , Robust and efficient preconditioned Krylov spectral solvers for computing the ground states of fast rotating and strongly interacting Bose–Einstein condensates , J. Comput. Phys., 258 (2014), pp. 509–523, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2013.10.045

    2014 doi

  6. [13]

    Antoine, A

    X. Antoine, A. Levitt, and Q. Tang , Efficient spectral computation of the stationary states of rotating Bose–Einstein condensates by preconditioned nonlinear conjugate gradient methods, J. Comput. Phys., 343 (2017), pp. 92–109, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2017.04.040

    2017 doi

  7. [14]

    Bao, Ground states and dynamics of multicomponent Bose–Einstein condensates , Multiscale Model

    W. Bao, Ground states and dynamics of multicomponent Bose–Einstein condensates , Multiscale Model. Simul., 2 (2004), pp. 210–236, https://doi.org/10.1137/030600209

    2004 doi

  8. [15]

    Bao and Y

    W. Bao and Y. Cai , Ground states of two-component Bose–Einstein condensates with an internal atomic Josephson junction , East Asia J. Appl. Math., 1 (2011), pp. 49–81, https://doi.org/10.4208/eajam.190310. 170510a

    2011 doi

  9. [16]

    Bao and Y

    W. Bao and Y. Cai, Mathematical theory and numerical methods for Bose–Einstein condensation , Kinet. Relat. Mod., 6 (2013), pp. 1–135, https://doi.org/10.3934/krm.2013.6.1

    2013 doi

  10. [17]

    Bao and Y

    W. Bao and Y. Cai , Mathematical models and numerical methods for spinor Bose–Einstein condensates , Com- mun. Comput. Phys., 24 (2018), pp. 899–965, https://doi.org/10.4208/cicp.2018.hh80.14

    2018 doi

  11. [18]

    Bao, I.-L

    W. Bao, I.-L. Chern, and F. Y. Lim , Efficient and spectrally accurate numerical methods for computing ground and first excited states in Bose–Einstein condensates , J. Comput. Phys., 219 (2006), pp. 836–854, https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2006.04.019

    2006 doi

  12. [19]

    Bao, I.-L

    W. Bao, I.-L. Chern, and Y. Zhang , Efficient numerical methods for computing ground states of spin-1 Bose–Einstein condensates based on their characterizations , J. Comput. Phys., 253 (2013), pp. 189–208, https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2013.06.036

    2013 doi

  13. [20]

    Bao and Q

    W. Bao and Q. Du, Computing the ground state solution of Bose–Einstein condensates by a normalized gradient flow, SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 25 (2004), pp. 1674–1697, https://doi.org/10.1137/S1064827503422956

    2004 doi

  14. [21]

    Bao and W

    W. Bao and W. Tang , Ground-state solution of Bose–Einstein condensate by directly minimizing the energy functional, J. Comput. Phys., 187 (2003), pp. 230–254, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9991(03)00097-4

    2003 doi

  15. [22]

    Bouchard, B

    F. Bouchard, B. Afsari, J. Malick, and M. Congedo , Approximate joint diagonalization with Riemannian optimization on the general linear group , SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl., 41 (2020), pp. 152–170, https://doi. org/10.1137/18M1232838. 28 R. ALTMANN, M. HERMANN, D. PETERSEIM, AN...

    2020 doi

  16. [23]

    Caliari, A

    M. Caliari, A. Ostermann, S. Rainer, and M. Thalhammer , A minimisation approach for computing the ground state of Gross–Pitaevskii systems , J. Comput. Phys., 228 (2009), pp. 349–360, https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jcp.2008.09.018

    2009

  17. [24]

    Canc`es, R

    E. Canc`es, R. Chakir, and Y. Maday , Numerical analysis of nonlinear eigenvalue problems , J. Sci. Comput., 45 (2010), pp. 90–117, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10915-010-9358-1

    2010 doi

  18. [25]

    Canc`es, G

    E. Canc`es, G. Kemlin, and A. Levitt , Convergence analysis of direct minimization and self-consistent itera- tions, SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl., 42 (2021), pp. 243–274, https://doi.org/10.1137/20M1332864

    2021 doi

  19. [26]

    Chang, Y.-C

    S.-M. Chang, Y.-C. Kuo, W.-W. Lin, and S.-F. Shieh , A continuation BSOR-Lanczos–Galerkin method for positive bound states of a multi-component Bose–Einstein condensate, J. Comput. Phys., 210 (2005), pp. 439–458, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2005.04.019

    2005 doi

  20. [27]

    Chen and Y.-S

    G.-H. Chen and Y.-S. Wu, Quantum phase transition in a multicomponent Bose–Einstein condensate in optical lattices, Phys. Rev. A, 67 (2003), p. 013606, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.67.013606

    2003 doi

  21. [28]

    Z. Chen, J. Lu, Y. Lu, and X. Zhang , On the convergence of Sobolev gradient flow for the Gross–Pitaevskii eigenvalue problem, SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 62 (2024), pp. 667–691, https://doi.org/10.1137/23M1552553

    2024 doi

  22. [29]

    Z. Chen, J. Lu, Y. Lu, and X. Zhang, Fully discretized Sobolev gradient flow for the Gross–Pitaevskii eigenvalue problem, Math. Comp., (2024, to appear), https://doi.org/10.1090/mcom/4032

    2024 doi

  23. [30]

    Danaila and P

    I. Danaila and P. Kazemi , A new Sobolev gradient method for direct minimization of the Gross–Pitaevskii energy with rotation , SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 32 (2010), pp. 2447–2467, https://doi.org/10.1137/100782115

    2010 doi

  24. [31]

    Danaila and B

    I. Danaila and B. Protas , Computation of ground states of the Gross–Pitaevskii functional via Riemannian optimization, SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 39 (2017), pp. B1102–B1129, https://doi.org/10.1137/17M1121974

    2017 doi

  25. [32]

    C. M. Dion and E. Canc `es, Ground state of the time-independent Gross–Pitaevskii equation , Comput. Phys. Commun., 177 (2007), pp. 787–798, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2007.04.007

    2007 doi

  26. [33]

    Du and C.-S

    C.-E. Du and C.-S. Liu , Newton–Noda iteration for computing the ground states of nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equations, SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 44 (2022), pp. A2370–A2385, https://doi.org/10.1137/21M1435793

    2022 doi

  27. [34]

    Evans, Partial Differential Equations , AMS, Providence, R.I., 2 ed., 2010

    L. Evans, Partial Differential Equations , AMS, Providence, R.I., 2 ed., 2010

    2010

  28. [35]

    Gallistl, M

    D. Gallistl, M. Hauck, Y. Liang, and D. Peterseim , Mixed finite elements for the Gross-Pitaevskii eigen- value problem: a priori error analysis and guaranteed lower energy bound , IMA J. Numer. Anal., (drae048, 2024), https://doi.org/10.1093/imanum/drae048

    2024 doi

  29. [36]

    B. Gao, R. Peng, and Y. Yuan , Optimization on product manifolds under a preconditioned metric , ArXiv e-print 2306.08873, (2023), https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2306.08873

    2023 doi arXiv

  30. [37]

    J. J. Garc´ıa-Ripoll and V. M. P ´erez-Garc´ıa, Optimizing Schr¨ odinger functionals using Sobolev gradients: applications to quantum mechanics and nonlinear optics , SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 23 (2001), pp. 1316–1334, https://doi.org/10.1137/S1064827500377721

    2001 doi

  31. [39]

    Henning , The dependency of spectral gaps on the convergence of the inverse iteration for a nonlinear eigenvector problem, Math

    P. Henning , The dependency of spectral gaps on the convergence of the inverse iteration for a nonlinear eigenvector problem, Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci., 33 (2023), pp. 1517–1544, https://doi.org/10.1142/ S0218202523500343

    2023

  32. [40]

    Henning and E

    P. Henning and E. Jarlebring , The Gross–Pitaevskii equation and eigenvector nonlinearities: Numerical methods and algorithms , SIAM Review, (2025, to appear)

    2025

  33. [41]

    Henning, A

    P. Henning, A. M ˚alqvist, and D. Peterseim , Two-level discretization techniques for ground state compu- tations of Bose–Einstein condensates , SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 52 (2014), pp. 1525–1550, https://doi.org/10. 1137/130921520

    2014

  34. [42]

    Henning and D

    P. Henning and D. Peterseim , Sobolev gradient flow for the Gross–Pitaevskii eigenvalue problem: global convergence and computational efficiency , SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 58 (2020), pp. 1744–1772, https://doi.org/ doi:10.1137/18M1230463

    2020 doi

  35. [43]

    Henning and M

    P. Henning and M. Yadav , Convergence of a Riemannian gradient method for the Gross–Pitaevskii energy functional in a rotating frame , ESAIM Math. Model. Numer. Anal., (2025, to appear), https://doi.org/10. 1051/m2an/2025018

    2025

  36. [44]

    Huang and Q

    P. Huang and Q. Yang , Newton-based alternating methods for the ground state of a class of multicomponent Bose-–Einstein condensates, SIAM J. Optim., 34 (2024), pp. 3136–3162, https://doi.org/10.1137/23M1580346

    2024 doi

  37. [45]

    Jarlebring, S

    E. Jarlebring, S. Kvaal, and W. Michiels , An inverse iteration method for eigenvalue problems with eigenvector nonlinearities , SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 36 (2014), pp. A1978–A2001, https://doi.org/10.1137/ S1064827500366124

    2014

  38. [46]

    Kazemi and M

    P. Kazemi and M. Eckart , Minimizing the Gross–Pitaevskii energy functional with the Sobolev gradient – analytical and numerical results , Int. J. Comput. Methods, 7 (2010), pp. 453–475, https://doi.org/10.1142/ S0219876210002301

    2010

  39. [47]

    Kressner, M

    D. Kressner, M. Steinlechner, and B. V andereycken, Preconditioned low-rank Riemannian optimization for linear systems with tensor product structure , SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 38 (2016), pp. A2018–A2044, https: //doi.org/10.1137/15M1032909

    2016 doi

  40. [48]

    E. H. Lieb, R. Seiringer, and J. Yngvason , Bosons in a trap: A rigorous derivation of the Gross-Pitaevskii energy functional, Phys. Rev. A, 61 (2000), 043602, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.61.043602

    2000 doi

  41. [49]

    Lin and J

    T.-C. Lin and J. Wei , Spikes in two-component systems of nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equations with trapping potentials, J. Differential Equations, 229 (2006), pp. 538–569, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jde.2005.12.011. RIEMANNIAN OPTIMISATION METHODS FOR MULTICOMPONENT BEC 29

    2006 doi

  42. [50]

    Mishra and R

    B. Mishra and R. Sepulchre , Riemannian preconditioning, SIAM J. Optim., 26 (2016), pp. 635–660, https: //doi.org/10.1137/140970860

    2016 doi

  43. [51]

    Nguyen , Operator-valued formulas for Riemannian gradient and Hessian and families of tractable metrics in Riemannian optimization , J

    D. Nguyen , Operator-valued formulas for Riemannian gradient and Hessian and families of tractable metrics in Riemannian optimization , J. Optim. Theory Appl., 198 (2023), pp. 135–164, https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10957-023-02242-z

    2023

  44. [52]

    Payne, M

    M. Payne, M. Teter, D. Ailan, T. Arias, and J. Joannopouios , Iterative minimization techniques for ab initio total-energy calculations: molecular dynamics and conjugate gradients , Rev. Mod. Phys., 64 (1992), pp. 1045–1097, https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.64.1045

    1992 doi

  45. [53]

    Schneider, T

    R. Schneider, T. Rohwedder, A. Neelov, and J. Blauert , Direct minimization for calculating invariant subspaces in density functional computations of the electronic structure, J. Comput. Math., 27 (2009), pp. 360–387, http://global-sci.org/intro/article_detail/jcm/8577.html

    2009

  46. [54]

    S. E. Selvan, U. Amato, K. A. Gallivan, C. Qi, M. F. Carfora, M. Larobina, and B. Alfano , Descent algorithms on oblique manifold for source-adaptive ICA contrast , IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn. Syst., 23 (2012), pp. 1930–1947, https://doi.org/10.1109/TNNLS.2012.2218060

    2012

  47. [55]

    Shustin and H

    B. Shustin and H. A vron, Riemannian optimization with a preconditioning scheme on the generalized Stiefel manifold, J. Comput. Appl. Math., 423 (2023), 114953, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cam.2022.114953

    2023

  48. [56]

    T. Tian, Y. Cai, X. Wu, and Z. Wen , Ground states of spin- F Bose–Einstein condensates , SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 42 (2020), pp. B983–B1013, https://doi.org/10.1137/19M1271117

    2020 doi

  49. [57]

    Trippenbach, K

    M. Trippenbach, K. G ´oral, K. Rza ¸˙zewski, B. Malomed, and Y. Band , Structure of binary Bose–Einstein condensates, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys., 33 (2000), 4017,https://doi.org/10.1088/0953-4075/33/19/314

    2000 doi

  50. [58]

    Wen and W

    Z. Wen and W. Yin , A feasible method for optimization with orthogonality constraints , Math. Program., 142 (2013), pp. 397–434, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10107-012-0584-1

    2013 doi

  51. [59]

    X. Wu, Z. Wen, and W. Bao , A regularized Newton method for computing ground states of Bose–Einstein condensates, J. Sci. Comput., 73 (2017), pp. 303–329, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10915-017-0412-0

    2017 doi

  52. [60]

    Zeidler , Nonlinear Functional Analysis and its Applications IV: Applications to Mathematical Physics , Springer, New York, 1988, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4566-7

    E. Zeidler , Nonlinear Functional Analysis and its Applications IV: Applications to Mathematical Physics , Springer, New York, 1988, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4566-7

    1988 doi

  53. [61]

    Zhang and W

    H. Zhang and W. Hager , A nonmonotone line search technique and its application to unconstrained optimiza- tion, SIAM J. Optim., 14 (2004), pp. 1043–1056, https://doi.org/10.1137/S1052623403428208

    2004 doi

  54. [62]

    Zhao, Z.-J

    Z. Zhao, Z.-J. Bai, and X.-Q. Jin , A Riemannian Newton algorithm for nonlinear eigenvalue problems , SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl., 36 (2015), pp. 752–774, https://doi.org/10.1137/140967994. (R. Altmann) Institute of Analysis and Numerics, Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg,...

    2015 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.