Multiconfigurational time-dependent Hartree approaches for indistinguishable particles

Alexej I. Streltsov; Axel U. J. Lode; Camille L\'ev\^eque; Lars B. Madsen; Ofir E. Alon

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 16 references

Multiconfigurational time-dependent Hartree approaches for indistinguishable particles

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This review claims that MCTDH-X, a variational method with time-dependent orbitals and coefficients, solves the time-dependent many-body Schrödinger equation for indistinguishable particles with a well-controlled error.

desk verdict A developer-written Colloquium that is a solid entry point to MCTDH-X, but the 'well-controlled error' claim and the granulation validation both exceed what the evidence supports. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03578 v2 pith:IZISMZCG submitted 2019-08-09 cond-mat.quant-gas physics.atom-phquant-ph

Axel U. J. Lode , Camille Lévêque , Lars B. Madsen , Alexej I. Streltsov , Ofir E. Alon This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.quant-gasphysics.atom-phquant-ph

keywords multiconfigurationaltime-dependentHartreeMCTDH-BMCTDH-FSchrödingerequationBose-Einsteincondensatesphotoionizationrestrictedactivespacemany-bodycorrelations

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 Colloquium claims that the multiconfigurational time-dependent Hartree method for indistinguishable particles (MCTDH-X) solves the time-dependent many-body Schrödinger equation for interacting bosons and fermions from first principles, with errors controlled by increasing the number of time-dependent orbitals. The argument is that the time-dependent permanents or Slater determinants form an in-principle complete, orthonormal basis at every instant, so a converged calculation is an exact solution of the TDSE. The paper demonstrates convergence on the exactly solvable time-dependent harmonic interaction model and shows that the method reproduces measured photoionization cross sections and time delays as well as the granulation dynamics of Bose-Einstein condensates. A sympathetic reader would care because mean-field descriptions and lattice methods fail for these strongly correlated, continuously trapped systems, and MCTDH-X supplies correlated wavefunctions from which densities, coherences, single-shot images, and variances can be extracted.

What carries the argument

The central object is the MCTDH-X ansatz, Eq. (2): a time-dependent linear combination of permanents or Slater determinants built from time-dependent orthonormal single-particle orbitals. This ansatz carries the argument because the time-dependent configurations are at each instant an in-principle complete basis of the N-particle Hilbert space, so convergence in the number of orbitals M gives a controlled path to the exact TDSE solution. The working equations are the coupled orbital equations, Eq. (8), with the projector $\hat{Q} = 1 - \sum_i |\Phi_i\rangle\langle\Phi_i|$ enforcing orthonormality, and the linear coefficient equations, Eq. (13), coupled through the reduced one- and two-body density matrices of Eqs. (10) and (11). The restricted-active-space generalization, Eqs. (18) through (22), truncates the configuration space while adding explicit couplings between active subspaces through the gauge terms $\eta_{i'j''}$.

What would settle it

The claim would be falsified by an independent benchmark on a system with a known exact solution, such as two bosons with contact interactions in a harmonic trap, if increasing M drove MCTDH-X results away from the exact solution rather than toward it; alternatively, a measured observable such as the BEC granulation contrast or the neon photoionization time delay that falls outside the M-converged simulation band at experimental precision would count against the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper asserts that MCTDH-X is a general method for the solution of the time-dependent many-body Schrödinger equation for interacting indistinguishable particles that yields a well-controlled error. The approach rests on an ansatz in which the N-particle wavefunction is a time-dependent linear combination of all symmetrized (bosons) or antisymmetrized (fermions) products of N particles in M time-dependent, orthonormal single-particle orbitals, with the coefficients and orbitals both propagated by equations of motion obtained from a time-dependent variational principle. The unified equations of motion for bosons and fermions are Eqs. (8) and (13), and the restricted-active-space variant is Eqs. (18) through (22). The paper presents the benchmark against the exactly solvable time-dependent harmonic interaction model as evidence that the method is in principle exact and convergent with M, and it argues that agreement with experiments across ultracold-atom and photoionization settings shows the method transfers to systems where no exact solution exists.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that MCTDH-X yields well-controlled errors for real systems rests on the assumption that convergence of the variational ansatz in the orbital number M, demonstrated on the exactly solvable harmonic interaction model, transfers to the experimental systems in Sections III and IV, for which no exact solution exists.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A converged MCTDH-X run, defined by results that remain unchanged when more orbitals are added, is by the paper's claim an exact solution of the time-dependent Schrödinger equation for bosons and fermions alike.
Wavefunction-based access to reduced density matrices makes fragmentation, higher-order coherence, variances of observables, and simulated single-shot images available from one calculation, quantities that mean-field or density-only methods cannot deliver.
The restricted-active-space variant can bridge from time-dependent Hartree-Fock or Gross-Pitaevskii dynamics to the full MCTDH-X limit within one framework, so the same code can be tuned from cheap mean-field-like runs to correlated runs.
The experimental matches for Bose-Einstein condensate granulation and for neon photoionization cross sections and time delays indicate that the method captures the correlated many-body dynamics rather than merely reproducing mean-field behavior.

Reading between the lines

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

If the method is as general as claimed, a natural next step is a systematic catalog of Hamiltonians with known reference solutions beyond the harmonic interaction model, such as few-body contact-interacting bosons or dipolar gases, to quantify how the convergence rate in M depends on interaction strength and trapping geometry.
The absence of a general a posteriori error bound means that the practical convergence protocol remains empirical; an automated error-threshold scheme that adaptively adds orbitals or configurations would make the 'well-controlled error' claim testable without relying on user judgement.
The same time-dependent-orbital machinery could in principle be combined with the Lindblad-form density-matrix evolution mentioned in the paper, extending controlled-error many-body dynamics to dissipative and open quantum systems.
A direct consequence of the unified boson-fermion formulation is that algorithmic improvements, such as dynamical pruning or adaptive grids, developed for one statistics should transfer to the other with only the symmetry of the configurations changed.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The punchline: this is a useful, clearly written review of the MCTDH-X method family, but the advertised "well-controlled error" is not established in any general sense, and the granulation comparison is presented as validating correlations when it actually validates a density-based contrast parameter.

What's genuinely good: the paper gives a unified derivation of the full-space and RAS equations of motion in one place, with the right references. The benchmark against the time-dependent harmonic interaction model in Fig. 3 is a real check: MCTDH-B and RAS-MCTDH-B converge to the exact result as M increases, which is meaningful evidence. The review is also honest about open problems, notably the parameter complexity of the newer methods and the open question about the bivariational principle for restricted spaces in Sec. V.E. The experimental comparisons in Figs. 4 and 6 are drawn from peer-reviewed work, and the paper is careful to explain how observables are extracted.

Soft spots, in order of importance. First, the Sec. I claim that MCTDH-X "yields a well-controlled error" is supported only by convergence checks on specific benchmarks. The convergence criterion stated in Sec. II — results stop changing when more configurations are added — is necessary but not sufficient for a well-controlled error in general, because there is no a posteriori error bound and no proven convergence rate for the realistic systems the paper showcases. That is not fatal for a Colloquium, but the claim should be qualified.

Second, the granulation example in Sec. III.B. The paper itself states that correlations cannot be inferred from the density alone, then uses the contrast parameter D — which measures deviations of single-shot densities from Thomas-Fermi — to conclude that the agreement "heralds the reliability" of the wavefunction and its embedded quantum correlations. D is a test of the density and shot-to-shot fluctuations, not of the Glauber correlation functions introduced earlier. The eigenvalue growth in Fig. 4(d) is from simulation, not experiment. So the experimental validation of correlations is indirect, and the sentence overstates it.

Third, the self-referential character of much of the validation. That is common for a method-focused review written by the developers, and the underlying equations are standard, so I don't see it as a defect per se. But a reader should know that the main convergence benchmark and the key BEC experiment both involve the authors.

Verdict: this deserves a serious referee, and with modest revisions — qualify the error claim, temper the granulation conclusion — it would be a solid Colloquium. I'd point a student to it as an entry point, but I'd cite the original papers in my own work.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This Colloquium reviews wavefunction-based multiconfigurational time-dependent Hartree methods for indistinguishable particles (MCTDH-X), covering the unified equations of motion for MCTDH-F and MCTDH-B, the restricted-active-space generalization, benchmarks against the exactly solvable time-dependent harmonic interaction model, applications to Bose-Einstein condensate granulation and photoionization, and a survey of multilayer and coupled-cluster developments. The paper's central claim, stated in Sec. I, is that MCTDH-X is a general method for the time-dependent many-body Schrodinger equation that yields a well-controlled error, with the supporting technical core being Eqs. (8) and (13) and the RAS generalization in Eqs. (18) to (22).

Significance. If the central claim is accepted, this paper provides a useful authoritative reference for a widely used family of methods. The unified derivation of the MCTDH-F and MCTDH-B equations of motion is clearly organized, the TD-HIM benchmark in Fig. 3 gives nontrivial evidence of systematic convergence toward an exact solution, and the comparisons with experimental photoionization cross sections and granulation dynamics are valuable demonstrations of the method's practical reach. The paper also earns credit for a comprehensive and carefully referenced survey of the method's theoretical and numerical developments. However, the 'well-controlled error' claim is broader than the evidence presented, and the experimental validation of correlations in the BEC granulation application is somewhat overstated.

major comments (2)

[Section I, p. 3; Section II.C, Fig. 3] The paper's central claim that MCTDH-X 'yields a well-controlled error' is stronger than what the presented evidence establishes. The only exact benchmark discussed in detail is the time-dependent harmonic interaction model for N = 10 bosons (Fig. 3), and the convergence criterion stated in Section II, namely that results are unchanged when more configurations are included, is necessary but not sufficient for a well-controlled error: it does not provide an a posteriori error bound or a convergence-rate guarantee for the non-exactly-solvable applications in Sections III and IV. I recommend reformulating the claim as 'systematically improvable' or 'variationally converged' and explicitly stating that a general error certificate is not available.
[Section III.B and Fig. 4] The experimental validation of correlated quantum dynamics via the granulation experiment is overstated. The text correctly notes in Section III.B that correlations cannot be inferred from the density alone, but it then concludes from the agreement of the contrast parameter D that the comparison 'heralds the reliability' of the MCTDH-B wavefunction and 'the quantum correlations and fluctuations embedded in it.' The parameter D is constructed from deviations of single-shot density profiles from a Thomas-Fermi profile, so it directly tests density-level shot-to-shot fluctuations; the growth of the reduced-density-matrix eigenvalues in Fig. 4(d) is a prediction of the simulation, not an independently measured experimental observable. I suggest rephrasing the conclusion to say that the experiment validates the density-level observables and is consistent with the predicted correlation dynamics.

minor comments (4)

[Section II.B] There is a typo: 'arbitraryly' should be 'arbitrarily', and the spelling 'MacLachlan' is inconsistent with the cited 'McLachlan'.
[Section V.D.2] There are typos: 'distinguihsbale' should be 'distinguishable' and 'diﬀerernt' should be 'different'.
[Figure 3 caption] The figure as supplied contains raw plotting labels such as 'exact_NO_PR.out every 100 u 1:3' and '1Orb_NO_PR.out u 1:($3-15.311388301)'; if these are visible in the published figure, they should be removed.
[Abstract and Section VI] The abstract ends with 'are discussed' twice in the final sentence, and the concluding paragraph of Section VI is somewhat repetitive; a light edit would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the core EOM are derived from a variational principle and the validation rests on external benchmarks, not fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained. Equations (8) and (13) are obtained by demanding stationarity of the action in Eq. (6) with respect to orbitals and configurational coefficients, and the RAS equations (18)-(22) are derived analogously from a Lagrangian action; no equation is defined in terms of the quantity it is used to establish. The 'well-controlled error' claim in Sec. I is supported by convergence benchmarks against the exactly solvable time-dependent harmonic interaction model (Sec. II.C), whose exact solution is obtained by a mapping to a one-body Schrödinger equation, independent of the MCTDH-X ansatz; these are external mathematical benchmarks even though the papers are authored by the method's developers. The granulation comparison (Sec. III.B) uses experimentally specified Hamiltonian parameters and compares the simulated contrast parameter D with measured values, so the threshold omega_c is a genuine prediction rather than a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The MCTDH-F photoionization and time-delay comparisons (Sec. IV.B) are checked against independent experimental data. The absence of a general a posteriori error bound and the indirectness of D as a probe of correlation functions are limitations in evidential strength, but they are not circular reductions: no claim in the chain is equivalent by construction to its own input. Self-citation appears throughout, but the cited benchmarks and experiments are externally falsifiable and do not assume the target conclusion, so under the stated rules they count as real evidence rather than circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The review itself introduces no fitted parameters: the numbers that control the showcased calculations are the method's own truncation settings (M, M1, M2, Nmax) and experimental input values for the BEC modulation model. The axioms are standard variational principles and the benchmark assumption that convergence in orbital count indicates accuracy. No new entities are postulated. The authors themselves flag the growing complexity of user-tuned parameters in Sec. VI and identify the bivariational principle question as open in Sec. V.E.

free parameters (3)

Number of single-particle orbitals M in the MCTDH-X ansatz = M = 6 and 10 in the boson benchmark (Fig. 3); M = 9 for the HF molecule (Sec. IV.B)
The accuracy of the method is controlled by this user-chosen truncation; the review demonstrates convergence as M grows, but the values themselves are part of the method's configuration, not outputs.
RAS active-space parameters (M1, M2, Nmax) = e.g., (5,0) and (5,4) for neon time delays; (3,2) or (4,2) with Nmax = 2 or 4 for bosons
These user-chosen truncations determine the restricted configuration space in Eq. (17); the review notes in Sec. VI that such tunable parameters make the methods more complex to apply.
Modulation parameters beta1, beta2, beta3 in the BEC granulation model = beta1 = 3.10, with beta2 and beta3 derived from experimental magnetic-field values (Sec. III.B)
The time-dependent contact interaction in Eq. (35) is parameterized by experimental values, not fitted to the MCTDH-B output; listed for completeness because they enter the showcased comparison with experiment.

assumptions (4)

standard math The Dirac-Frenkel time-dependent variational principle applied to the MCTDH ansatz yields the working equations of motion
Invoked in Sec. II.A, Eqs. (6) and (7); the paper notes in Sec. II.B that the McLachlan and Lagrangian variational principles are inequivalent for restricted configuration spaces, citing Haxton and McCurdy (2015).
domain assumption Orbitals remain orthonormal at all times via Lagrange multipliers
Used to derive the projector Q in Eq. (8) from Eq. (6); the gauge freedom in eta_ij is noted in Eqs. (9) and (19).
domain assumption Convergence of results with increasing orbital number M is a valid proxy for accuracy of the variational truncation
Underlies the benchmark interpretation in Sec. II.C and the convergence statements throughout Secs. III and IV; no rigorous a posteriori error bound is given.
domain assumption The time-dependent harmonic interaction model is exactly solvable and a faithful test case
The benchmark in Sec. II.C relies on the mapping of Eq. (23) to a one-body Schrodinger equation; the review states this benchmark shows the method is, in principle, exact.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multiconfigurational time-dependent Hartree approaches for indistinguishable particles." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IZISMZCG

@misc{pith2026190803578,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multiconfigurational time-dependent Hartree approaches for indistinguishable particles},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IZISMZCG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03578}
}

read the original abstract

In this Colloquium, the wavefunction-based Multiconfigurational Time-Dependent Hartree approaches to the dynamics of indistinguishable particles (MCTDH-F for Fermions and MCTDH-B for Bosons) are reviewed. MCTDH-B and MCTDH-F or, together, MCTDH-X are methods for describing correlated quantum systems of identical particles by solving the time-dependent Schr\"odinger equation from first principles. MCTDH-X is used to accurately model the dynamics of real-world quantum many-body systems in atomic, molecular, and optical physics. The key feature of these approaches is the time-dependence and optimization of the single-particle states employed for the construction of a many-body basis set, which yields nonlinear working equations. We briefly describe the historical developments that have lead to the formulation of the MCTDH-X methods and motivate the necessity for wavefunction-based approaches. We sketch the derivation of the unified MCTDH-F and MCTDH-B equations of motion for complete and also specific restricted configuration spaces. The strengths and limitations of the MCTDH-X approach are assessed via benchmarks against an exactly solvable model and via convergence checks. We highlight some applications to instructive and experimentally-realized quantum many-body systems: the dynamics of atoms in Bose-Einstein condensates in magneto-optical and optical traps and of electrons in atoms and molecules. We discuss the current development and frontiers in the field of MCTDH-X: theories and numerical methods for indistinguishable particles, for mixtures of multiple species of indistinguishable particles, the inclusion of nuclear motion for the nonadiabatic dynamics of atomic and molecular systems, as well as the multilayer and second-quantized-representation approaches, and the orbital-adaptive time-dependent coupled-cluster theory are discussed.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

16 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

[1]

Analysis of a trapped Bose-Einstein condensate in terms of position, momentum, and angular-momentum variance

Alon, O. E., 2019a, Symmetry 11, 1344, URL http://arxiv. org/abs/1909.13616. Alon, O. E., 2019b, Mol. Phys. 117, 2108, URL https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/ 00268976.2019.1587533. Alon, O. E., and L. S. Cederbaum, 2018, Chem. Phys. 515, 287, URL https://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S0301010418307183? via{%}3Dihub{#}b0210. Alon, O...

work page Pith review arXiv 1909
[3]

Beinke, R., L. S. Cederbaum, and O. E. Alon, 2018, Phys. Rev. A 98, 053634, URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevA.98.053634. Beinke, R., S. Klaiman, L. S. Cederbaum, A. I. Streltsov, and O. E. Alon, 2015, Phys. Rev. A 92, 043627, URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.92.043627. Beinke, R., S. Klaiman, L. S. Cederbaum, A. I. Streltsov, an...

arXiv 2018
[73]

Attosecond photoionization dynamics in neon

Meyer, H. D., and H. Wang, 2018, J. Chem. Phys. 148, 124105, URL http://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/ 1.5024859. Mistakidis, S. I., G. C. Katsimiga, P. G. Kevrekidis, and P. Schmelcher, 2018, New J. Phys. 20, 043052, URL http://stacks.iop.org/1367-2630/20/i=4/a=043052? key=crossref.b9a912f32d60961bd88c3898c49536f6. Miyagi, H., and L. Bojer Madsen, 2014, ...

work page Pith review arXiv 2018
[265]

Bolsinger, S

Cao, L., V. Bolsinger, S. I. Mistakidis, G. M. Koutentakis, S. Kr¨ onke, J. M. Schurer, and P. Schmelcher, 2017, J. Chem. Phys. 147, 044106, URL http://aip.scitation. org/doi/10.1063/1.4993512. Cao, L., S. Kr¨ onke, O. Vendrell, and P. Schmelcher, 2013, J. Chem. Phys. 139, 134103. Castin, Y., and J. Dalibard, 1997, Phys. Rev. A 55, 4330, URL https://link....

work page doi:10.1063/1.4993512 2017
[358]

N., and A

Rescigno, T. N., and A. E. Orel, 1991, Phys. Rev. A 43, 1625, URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.43

doi:10.1103/physreva.43 1991
[453]

Alon, O. E., A. I. Streltsov, and L. S. Cederbaum, 2007c, J. Chem. Phys. 127, 154103. Alon, O. E., A. I. Streltsov, and L. S. Cederbaum, 2008, Phys. Rev. A 77, 033613. Alon, O. E., A. I. Streltsov, and L. S. Cederbaum, 2014, J. Chem. Phys. 140, 034108, URL http://aip.scitation. org/doi/10.1063/1.4860970. Anzaki, R., T. Sato, and K. L. Ishikawa, 2017, Phys...

doi:10.1063/1.4860970 2008
[576]

P., 1961, Sov

Pitaevskii, L. P., 1961, Sov. Phys. JETP 13, 451, URL http: //jetp.ac.ru/cgi-bin/dn/e{_}013{_}02{_}0451.pdf. Raab, A., and H. D. Meyer, 2000, Theor. Chem. Acc. 104,

work page 1961
[623]

I., and M

Yukalov, V. I., and M. D. Girardeau, 2005, Laser Phys. Lett. 2, 375, URL http://stacks. iop.org/1612-202X/2/i=8/a=001?key=crossref. 2f7dfffc34178842d9d4fa8c473ec0df. Yukalov, V. I., A. N. Novikov, and V. S. Bag- nato, 2014, Laser Phys. Lett. 11, 095501, URL http://stacks.iop.org/1612-202X/11/i=9/a=095501? key=crossref.9661811f562fd65fe5d2b646ea7f0d02. Yuk...

work page 2005

Show all 16 references

[765]

B., and S

Pedersen, T. B., and S. Kvaal, 2019, J. Chem. Phys. 150, 144106, URL http://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/ 1.5085390. Penrose, O., and L. Onsager, 1956, Phys. Rev. 104,

2019
[1064]

Vidal, 2004, Phys

Zwolak, M., and G. Vidal, 2004, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 207205, URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett. 93.207205

2004 doi
[1382]

Atherton, and M

Engels, P., C. Atherton, and M. A. Hoefer, 2007, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 095301, URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.98.095301. Erdmann, J., S. I. Mistakidis, and P. Schmelcher, 2018, Phys. Rev. A 98, 053614, URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevA.98.053614....

2007
[1625]

R¨ opke, G., 1999,Quantum Mechanics, Special Chapters , vol- ume 213 (Springer), ISBN 9783540600732

Rook, T., 2006, Essentials of Computational Chem- istry Theories and Models [Book Review] , vol- ume 73 (Wiley), ISBN 9780470091821, URL https://www.wiley.com/en-at/Essentials+of+ Computational+Chemistry{%}3A+Theories+and+ Models{%}2C+2nd+Edition-p-9780470091821. R¨ opke, G., ...

2006 arXiv
[3105]

Cosme, J. G., C. Weiss, and J. Brand, 2016, Phys. Rev. A 94, 043603, URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevA.94.043603. Dahlstr¨ om, J. M., T. Carette, and E. Lindroth, 2012, Phys. Rev. A 86, 061402, URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevA.86.061402. Dirac, P. A....

2016
[3199]

Weike, 2017, J

Manthe, U., and T. Weike, 2017, J. Chem. Phys. 146, 064117, URL http://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/ 1.4975662. Marchukov, O. V., and U. R. Fischer, 2019, Ann. Phys. 405, 274, URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S000349161930082X. Marr, G. V., and J. B. Wes...

2017
[3868]

I., 2013, Phys

Streltsov, A. I., 2013, Phys. Rev. A 88, 041602, URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.88.041602. Streltsov, A. I., O. E. Alon, and L. S. Cederbaum, 2007, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 030402. Streltsov, A. I., O. E. Alon, and L. S. Cederbaum, 2008, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 13040...

2013 doi
[4330]

Dum, 1998, Phys

Castin, Y., and R. Dum, 1998, Phys. Rev. A 57, 3008, URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.57.3008. Cederbaum, L. S., 2017, Phys. Rev. A96, 013615, URL http: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.96.013615. Chatterjee, B., and A. U. Lode, 2018, Phys. Rev. A 98, 053624. C...

1998 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Analysis of a trapped Bose-Einstein condensate in terms of position, momentum, and angular-momentum variance

Alon, O. E., 2019a, Symmetry 11, 1344, URL http://arxiv. org/abs/1909.13616. Alon, O. E., 2019b, Mol. Phys. 117, 2108, URL https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/ 00268976.2019.1587533. Alon, O. E., and L. S. Cederbaum, 2018, Chem. Phys. 515, 287, URL https://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S0301010418307183? via{%}3Dihub{#}b0210. Alon, O...

work page Pith review arXiv 1909

[2] [3]

Beinke, R., L. S. Cederbaum, and O. E. Alon, 2018, Phys. Rev. A 98, 053634, URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevA.98.053634. Beinke, R., S. Klaiman, L. S. Cederbaum, A. I. Streltsov, and O. E. Alon, 2015, Phys. Rev. A 92, 043627, URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.92.043627. Beinke, R., S. Klaiman, L. S. Cederbaum, A. I. Streltsov, an...

arXiv 2018

[3] [73]

Attosecond photoionization dynamics in neon

Meyer, H. D., and H. Wang, 2018, J. Chem. Phys. 148, 124105, URL http://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/ 1.5024859. Mistakidis, S. I., G. C. Katsimiga, P. G. Kevrekidis, and P. Schmelcher, 2018, New J. Phys. 20, 043052, URL http://stacks.iop.org/1367-2630/20/i=4/a=043052? key=crossref.b9a912f32d60961bd88c3898c49536f6. Miyagi, H., and L. Bojer Madsen, 2014, ...

work page Pith review arXiv 2018

[4] [265]

Bolsinger, S

Cao, L., V. Bolsinger, S. I. Mistakidis, G. M. Koutentakis, S. Kr¨ onke, J. M. Schurer, and P. Schmelcher, 2017, J. Chem. Phys. 147, 044106, URL http://aip.scitation. org/doi/10.1063/1.4993512. Cao, L., S. Kr¨ onke, O. Vendrell, and P. Schmelcher, 2013, J. Chem. Phys. 139, 134103. Castin, Y., and J. Dalibard, 1997, Phys. Rev. A 55, 4330, URL https://link....

work page doi:10.1063/1.4993512 2017

[5] [358]

N., and A

Rescigno, T. N., and A. E. Orel, 1991, Phys. Rev. A 43, 1625, URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.43

doi:10.1103/physreva.43 1991

[6] [453]

Alon, O. E., A. I. Streltsov, and L. S. Cederbaum, 2007c, J. Chem. Phys. 127, 154103. Alon, O. E., A. I. Streltsov, and L. S. Cederbaum, 2008, Phys. Rev. A 77, 033613. Alon, O. E., A. I. Streltsov, and L. S. Cederbaum, 2014, J. Chem. Phys. 140, 034108, URL http://aip.scitation. org/doi/10.1063/1.4860970. Anzaki, R., T. Sato, and K. L. Ishikawa, 2017, Phys...

doi:10.1063/1.4860970 2008

[7] [576]

P., 1961, Sov

Pitaevskii, L. P., 1961, Sov. Phys. JETP 13, 451, URL http: //jetp.ac.ru/cgi-bin/dn/e{_}013{_}02{_}0451.pdf. Raab, A., and H. D. Meyer, 2000, Theor. Chem. Acc. 104,

work page 1961

[8] [623]

I., and M

Yukalov, V. I., and M. D. Girardeau, 2005, Laser Phys. Lett. 2, 375, URL http://stacks. iop.org/1612-202X/2/i=8/a=001?key=crossref. 2f7dfffc34178842d9d4fa8c473ec0df. Yukalov, V. I., A. N. Novikov, and V. S. Bag- nato, 2014, Laser Phys. Lett. 11, 095501, URL http://stacks.iop.org/1612-202X/11/i=9/a=095501? key=crossref.9661811f562fd65fe5d2b646ea7f0d02. Yuk...

work page 2005