A perturbative microscopic derivation of the focusing $\Phi^6_1$ measure with rough cut-off

Andrew Rout; Shahnaz Farhat

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

A perturbative microscopic derivation of the focusing $\Phi^6_1$ measure with rough cut-off

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For the focusing quintic NLS on the circle, the Gibbs measure with an indicator cut-off at the optimal mass is recovered from many-body quantum Gibbs states in the semiclassical limit.

desk verdict A useful alternative proof method, but Lemma 3.15 is false and the main theorem is not fully proved as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.20400 v1 pith:LRXQO7LV submitted 2026-07-22 math-ph math.APmath.MPmath.PR

Shahnaz Farhat , Andrew Rout This is my paper · ORCID

classification math-phmath.APmath.MPmath.PR MSC 35Q5582B1046N5081Q20

keywords focusingnonlinearSchrödingerequationGibbsmeasuresemiclassicallimitWignermeasuresperturbativeexpansionroughcut-offbosonicFockspacequinticNLS

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

Focusing nonlinear Schrodinger equations need a mass cut-off, and the sharp indicator cut-off at the largest allowed mass is the case where the Gibbs measure barely exists. This paper proves that the classical focusing Gibbs measure on the circle arises as the semiclassical limit of bosonic quantum Gibbs states even with such a rough cut-off: quantum correlation functions converge to the classical ones and the quantum partition function converges to the classical value. The proof treats bounded interaction potentials first, then reaches the local delta interaction by an approximation, using a perturbative Duhamel expansion and a Wigner measure argument with an induction that bypasses cut-off smoothness. If correct, it shows that the classical focusing measure is the genuine mean-field limit of a many-body quantum problem, and it provides an independent route alongside a recent variational derivation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is the perturbative Duhamel expansion of the quantum Gibbs state, which writes its correlation functions as a power series in the interaction with nested time-integrals against the free Gibbs state. The proof identifies the Wigner measure — the semiclassical phase-space limit measure of the quantum state — of each truncated Duhamel term inductively: the Wigner measure of the truncated free state is the truncated classical free field, and each application of the quantum interaction pushes the Wigner measure to multiplication by the classical potential. Commutator estimates and the ability of these states to absorb small fractional powers of the free Hamiltonian replace t

What would settle it

Compute the first explicit Duhamel coefficient for a bounded interaction potential and the indicator cut-off chi=1_{[0,K]} at K=K_max, and check whether the bound from Lemma 4.3 holds with a constant independent of epsilon; a counterexample at the optimal cutoff would falsify Theorem 1.11.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that for every p, the quantum p-particle correlation functions converge in trace norm to the classical correlation functions of the focusing Gibbs measure, and the quantum relative partition function converges to the classical partition function, as the semiclassical parameter tends to zero. Theorem 1.11 establishes this for bounded interaction potentials with an indicator cut-off; Theorem 1.12 reaches the local delta potential through a sequence of approximating potentials whose width diverges with the semiclassical parameter, allowing the optimal classical mass cut-off. The main novelty is that the cut-off is not smoothed at any stage, and the proof replaces the previo

Load-bearing premise

The proof carries over, without proof, the uniform bounds on Duhamel coefficients from the smooth-cut-off setting and assumes they survive when the cut-off is an indicator function; if those bounds fail uniformly in the semiclassical parameter, the analytic-series argument for the main theorem collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For any bounded interaction potential, the quantum correlation functions converge in L1 to the classical focusing Gibbs correlation functions and the quantum relative partition function converges to the classical partition function (Theorem 1.11).
For the local delta interaction, the same convergence holds along a sequence of approximating potentials with diverging frequency scale, and the optimal classical mass cut-off is admissible (Theorem 1.12).
The method extends to the focusing cubic NLS and to time-dependent correlation functions on the torus, because smoothness of the cut-off is never used.
The derivation avoids bounds on the untruncated quantum explicit terms and the diagrammatic machinery previously required in perturbative derivations.
The optimal classical cut-off can be inserted directly into the quantum Hamiltonian rather than being approximated by smooth cut-offs.

Reading between the lines

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

The convergence is proved without a rate; extracting an explicit epsilon-dependence from the commutator estimates is a natural next step, and comparing it with the rate obtained by the recent variational route would clarify what each method gives up.
The Wigner-measure induction is not tied to the torus, so the same scheme might prove the corresponding statement in superharmonic traps once the classical Gibbs measure is known to be normalizable there.
The proof's main unverified input is the uniform Duhamel bound for indicator cut-offs; a direct check of that lemma would either close the proof or locate exactly where the rough cut-off breaks uniformity.
Because the diagrammatic bounds are avoided, the expansion may be adaptable to canonical ensembles once the necessary Wick-type identities for the free quantum state are established, an open problem the authors flag.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

Main thing you should know: the central convergence result for the delta potential is not new — Lü–Nam–Zhu already proved it — and the paper's own contribution is the method: Wigner measures plus an induction argument to handle indicator cutoffs, avoiding the diagrammatic bounds used in the earlier FKSS approach. That method is real and worth having; it is the first perturbative derivation to do without those diagrams and it treats the rough cutoff directly in the quantum model.

What the paper does well: the split into bounded potentials (Theorem 1.11) and the delta-potential limit (Theorem 1.12) is clean; the power-series bounds are quoted from [55] rather than reproved, which is acceptable if they really carry over; and the Wigner-measure strategy is a credible alternative to the variational route. The writing is mostly careful.

But there is a load-bearing error. Lemma 3.15 claims lim_{ε→0} Z_{aε,0}/Z_{ε,0} ≤ C(a). That is false. Since Z_{ε,0}=∏(1−e^{−ελ_k})^{-1}, log Z_{ε,0} ∼ C ε^{-1/2}, so log(Z_{aε,0}/Z_{ε,0}) ∼ C(a^{-1/2}−1)ε^{-1/2} → ∞. The monotonicity argument in the proof only shows each factor increases as ε decreases; it does not control the product. This lemma is used in Lemma 4.9 to get the uniform H^s bounds on ρ_{ε,m}(t), and those bounds are what convert Wigner-measure convergence into the uniform convergence of explicit terms in Lemma 4.16. So as written the proof of Theorems 1.11 and 1.12 has a gap. It may be repairable — for instance, one can try to prove Lemma 4.9 directly using χ(N_ε) ≤ K — but that argument is not supplied. The reader's concern about Lemma 4.3 is also fair: bounds from [55] are asserted to carry over verbatim for rough cutoffs without detailed verification, and the final duality step is delegated to [55]. Those are secondary; Lemma 3.15 is the concrete problem.

There is also a minor typo: Lemma 5.1 says N_ε → 0, which should be N_ε → ∞.

Who is this for? People working on many-body derivations of Gibbs measures and semiclassical limits. If the gap is fixed, the paper is a solid contribution to that subfield. It deserves peer review — the method is genuine and the result matters — but I would not accept it with Lemma 3.15 standing.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper develops a perturbative many-body derivation of the focusing Φ^6_1 Gibbs measure on the circle with an indicator (rough) cutoff. For bounded interaction potentials (Theorem 1.11), it proves convergence of the quantum p-particle correlation functions and relative partition function to the classical Gibbs state and normalization; for the delta potential (Theorem 1.12), it obtains the same convergence through an approximating sequence v_N. The proof uses the Fröhlich–Knowles–Schlein–Sohinger Duhamel expansion, but replaces the Helffer–Sjöstrand formula used in prior work with a Wigner-measure argument and an induction on the Duhamel terms, which is intended to handle the lack of cutoff smoothness. Several estimates for the free Gibbs state and lifted fractional Laplacians are also proved.

Significance. If correct, the results would extend the smooth-cutoff derivations of [54,55] to the optimal indicator cutoff, complementing the recent variational derivation of [42] and providing the first perturbative-expansion derivation that avoids the diagrammatic bounds of [27]. The Wigner-measure/induction strategy is a promising new tool. The paper is largely self-contained in its semiclassical lemmas, and the appendix gives a self-contained treatment of moments of the lifted fractional Laplacian. However, the stated proofs rely on a false lemma, so the central convergence claims are not currently established.

major comments (2)

[Lemma 3.15] For λ_k=4π²k²+1 one has log Z_{ε,0}=−Σ_k log(1−e^{−ε λ_k})∼C ε^{−1/2}. Therefore log(Z_{aε,0}/Z_{ε,0}) = Σ_k [log(1−e^{−ε λ_k})−log(1−e^{−aε λ_k})] ∼ C(a^{−1/2}−1)ε^{−1/2} → +∞ as ε→0, so the asserted uniform bound in Lemma 3.15 is false. The proof's monotonicity argument shows only that each factor is decreasing in ε; it does not control the infinite product near ε=0. This lemma is invoked in the proof of Lemma 4.9 ('using Corollary 3.13 and Lemma 3.15'), in Lemma 4.10, and in Lemma A.2. The resulting uniform H^s estimates for ρ_{ε,m}(t) are then used in Lemmas 3.7, 4.13 and 4.16 to obtain the uniform convergence of explicit terms. Hence Theorems 1.11 and 1.12 are not proved as written. A direct proof of Lemma 4.9 using χ(N_ε)≤K might repair the gap, but it is not supplied.
[Lemma 4.3] Lemma 4.3 states that the bounds on the quantum Duhamel expansion coefficients and remainders from [55, Lemmas 3.8, 3.10] 'follow verbatim' for the indicator cutoff, but no argument is given. These bounds are used for analyticity (Lemma 4.17) and for the dominated-convergence step in Lemma 4.16. Since the rough cutoff is the paper's main novelty, the authors should include at least a sketch explaining why the smoothness of the cutoff is not needed.

minor comments (6)

[Remark 1.9] The statement 'ρ_{ε,0}(N_ε)∼ε^{-1}' contradicts the scaling N_ε=ε dΓ(1); with φ_ε ~ √ε a, the expectation is O(1). This typo should be corrected.
[Lemma 2.4] The proof refers to 'Lemma 2.1'; it should be 'Proposition 2.1'.
[Lemma 4.10] The displayed bound 'ε Z_{ε,0}/Z_{ε,0}' is unclear; the intended ratio of partition functions with different effective parameters should be written out explicitly, and the use of Lemma 3.15 (which is false) must be removed.
[Lemma 4.16] In the final step, the convergence 'H^{-s}(T)' should be 'H^{-s}(T^{2p})', matching the earlier part of the proof.
[Lemma 5.1] The statement says 'N_ε tending to 0 as ε→0'; this should be 'tending to ∞'.
[Proof of Theorem 1.11] The final duality argument is delegated to [55, Section 3.7]. A brief sketch would make the paper more self-contained.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the rough-cutoff derivation is not forced by its inputs; self-citations are delegations to independent prior work.

full rationale

The target classical Gibbs measure and the quantum Gibbs state are constructed independently: the classical object is dµ = z^{-1} e^{V}χ(N)dµ0 with V built from v, while the quantum object is ρ_ε = Z_ε^{-1} e^{-H_ε}χ(N_ε) with H_ε = H_{ε,0} - V_ε. No parameter is fitted to the target, and the semiclassical limit is a genuine convergence statement rather than a definitional identity. The central new argument for the rough indicator cutoff is developed in the paper via Wigner measures, Lemmas 3.1-3.7, the inductive Proposition 4.12, and the equicontinuity/uniform-convergence Lemmas 4.14-4.16, using external tools [3,5,13]. The paper does delegate several bounds and final duality arguments to the authors' previous papers [54,55]: see Lemma 4.3 ('We now recall some bounds from [55], whose proof follows verbatim for the rough cut-off') and the proofs of Theorems 1.11-1.12 ('For full details, we direct the reader to [55, Section 3.7 and the proof of Theorem 1.4]'). These are proof delegations and omissions, not reductions to the paper's own inputs, and [55] is a peer-reviewed, independent derivation with stated assumptions that do not include the rough-cutoff target result; per the review rules it counts as real evidence and does not raise the circularity score. The skeptical concern about Lemma 3.15 is a correctness risk in an internal technical estimate used in Lemma 4.9, not a circularity: the target measure does not enter that lemma's statement, and the defect is a mathematical error rather than an input-output equivalence.

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

The derivation introduces no new physical entities or fitted parameters. It relies on standard semiclassical analysis, prior well-posedness of the classical measure, and the quantum/classical correspondence set by the same Hamiltonian. The main assumptions are that known bounds extend to the rough cutoff and that the Wigner measure framework handles the indicator cutoff.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption The classical Gibbs measure with cutoff χ is well-defined and normalisable for K up to the optimal value from [51] (Proposition 2.1, Lemma 2.3).
The proof takes this as a starting point; if the classical measure is not normalisable, the target object does not exist. This is a known result, not derived here.
domain assumption The quantum Gibbs state with rough cutoff χ(N_ε) is trace-class and satisfies the bounds from [55] uniformly in ε (Lemma 4.3).
The entire Duhamel expansion and remainder control rely on these bounds. The authors state they follow verbatim from [55] but do not reproduce the proof.
domain assumption Wigner measure theory from [3] and the cutoff-passing result [5, Corollary 3.8] apply to indicator functions of the number operator (Lemma 3.2).
This is used to identify the Wigner measure of the truncated free Gibbs state. The authors justify it by noting the Fourier transform of an indicator is bounded, but the precise conditions of [5] are not verified in the text.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A perturbative microscopic derivation of the focusing $\Phi^6_1$ measure with rough cut-off." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LRXQO7LV

@misc{pith2026260720400,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A perturbative microscopic derivation of the focusing $\Phi^6_1$ measure with rough cut-off},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LRXQO7LV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.20400}
}

read the original abstract

We give a derivation of the Gibbs measure for the focusing nonlinear Schr\"odinger equation (NLS) on the circle with rough cut-off. This extends earlier work by Sohinger and the second author, which proved analogous results for smooth cut-offs. Our proof is based on the perturbative expansion developed by Fr\"ohlich, Knowles, Schlein, and Sohinger (2017), and provides an alternative proof of the recent derivation given in L\"u, Nam, and Zhu (2026). To prove convergence of the explicit terms, we employ a Wigner measure approach and an inductive argument to overcome the lack of smoothness for the cut-off. In particular, we give a derivation of the Gibbs measure for the focusing quintic NLS with the optimal cut-off from Oh, Sosoe, and Tolomeo (2022).

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Nonlocal Cubic Density Gibbs Measures from Bosonic Gibbs States with Three-Body Interactions
math-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

In d=2,3, bosonic Gibbs states with renormalized nonlocal three-body interactions converge to a nonlinear classical Gibbs measure in the high-temperature mean-field limit, including all fixed-order reduced density matrices.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · cited by 1 Pith paper

[55]

,A microscopic derivation of Gibbs measures for the 1d focusing quintic nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation, SIAM J. Math. Anal.57(2025), no. 5, 4680–4755 (English)

2025
[42]

Lin L¨ u, Phan Th` anh Nam, and Rongchan Zhu,Derivation of the focusingΦ 6 1 measure in the optimal mass regime from many-body quantum Gibbs states, 2026

2026
[27]

J¨ urg Fr¨ ohlich, Antti Knowles, Benjamin Schlein, and Vedran Sohinger,Gibbs measures of nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equations as limits of many-body quantum states in dimensionsd⩽3, Commun. Math. Phys.356(2017), no. 3, 883–980 (English)

2017
[1]

Math.30(2025), no

Zied Ammari, Shahnaz Farhat, and S¨ oren Petrat,Expansion of the many-body quantum Gibbs state of the Bose-Hubbard model on a finite graph, Doc. Math.30(2025), no. 2, 475–496 (English)

2025
[2]

Math.453(2024), 61 (English)

Zied Ammari, Shahnaz Farhat, and Vedran Sohinger,Almost sure existence of global solutions for general initial value problems, Adv. Math.453(2024), 61 (English). Id/No 109805

2024
[3]

Henri Poincar´ e9(2008), no

Zied Ammari and Francis Nier,Mean field limit for bosons and infinite dimensional phase-space analysis, Ann. Henri Poincar´ e9(2008), no. 8, 1503–1574 (English)

2008
[4]

,Mean field propagation of infinite dimensional wigner measures with a singular two-body interaction potential, Annali della Scuola normale superiore di Pisa, Classe di scienze14(201111)
[5]

,Mean field propagation of Wigner measures and BBGKY hierarchies for general bosonic states, J. Math. Pures Appl. (9)95(2011), no. 6, 585–626 (English)

2011

Show all 59 references

[6]

Zied Ammari, Andrew Rout, and Vedran Sohinger,Gibbs measures as local equilibrium KMS states for focusing nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equations, 2024

2024
[7]

Zied Ammari and Vedran Sohinger,Gibbs measures as unique KMS equilibrium states of nonlinear Hamiltonian PDEs, Rev. Mat. Iberoam.39(2023), no. 1, 29–90 (English)

2023
[8]

Barashkov and M

N. Barashkov and M. Gubinelli,A variational method forΦ 4 3, Duke Math. J.169(2020), no. 17, 3339–3415 (English)

2020
[9]

Bourgain,Fourier transform restriction phenomena for certain lattice subsets and applications to nonlinear evolution equations

J. Bourgain,Fourier transform restriction phenomena for certain lattice subsets and applications to nonlinear evolution equations. I: Schr¨ odinger equations, Geom. Funct. Anal.3(1993), no. 2, 107–156 (English)

1993
[10]

,Periodic nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation and invariant measures, Commun. Math. Phys.166(1994), no. 1, 1–26 (English)

1994
[11]

Jean Bourgain,Invariant measures for the 2d-defocusing nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation, Commun. Math. Phys.176(1996), no. 2, 421–445 (English)

1996
[12]

,Invariant measures for the Gross-Pitaevskii equation, J. Math. Pures Appl. (9)76(1997), no. 8, 649–702 (English). 26 SHAHNAZ F ARHAT AND ANDREW ROUT

1997
[13]

Robinson,Operator algebras and quantum statistical mechanics

Ola Bratteli and Derek W. Robinson,Operator algebras and quantum statistical mechanics. II: Equilibrium states. Models in quantum statistical mechanics, Texts Monogr. Phys., Springer, New York, NY, 1981 (English)

1981
[14]

I: measures, Stoch

Bjoern Bringmann,Invariant Gibbs measures for the three-dimensional wave equation with a Hartree nonlin- earity. I: measures, Stoch. Partial Differ. Equ., Anal. Comput.10(2022), no. 1, 1–89 (English)

2022
[15]

II: Dynamics, J

,Invariant Gibbs measures for the three-dimensional wave equation with a Hartree nonlinearity. II: Dynamics, J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS)26(2024), no. 6, 1933–2089 (English)

2024
[16]

Nahmod, and Haitian Yue,Invariant Gibbs measures for the three dimensional cubic nonlinear wave equation, Invent

Bjoern Bringmann, Yu Deng, Andrea R. Nahmod, and Haitian Yue,Invariant Gibbs measures for the three dimensional cubic nonlinear wave equation, Invent. Math.236(2024), no. 3, 1133–1411 (English)

2024
[17]

Brydges and Gordon Slade,Statistical mechanics of the 2-dimensional focusing nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation, Commun

David C. Brydges and Gordon Slade,Statistical mechanics of the 2-dimensional focusing nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation, Commun. Math. Phys.182(1996), no. 2, 485–504 (English)

1996
[18]

Nicolas Burq, Laurent Thomann, and Nikolay Tzvetkov,Long time dynamics for the one dimensional non linear Schr¨ odinger equation, Ann. Inst. Fourier63(2013), no. 6, 2137–2198 (English)

2013
[19]

,Remarks on the Gibbs measures for nonlinear dispersive equations, Ann. Fac. Sci. Toulouse, Math. (6)27(2018), no. 3, 527–597 (English)

2018
[20]

Cristina Caraci, Antti Knowles, Alessio Ranallo, and Pedro Torres Giesteira,The Euclideanφ 4 2 theory as a limit of an inhomogeneous Bose gas, 2026

2026
[21]

Carlen, J¨ urg Fr¨ ohlich, and Joel Lebowitz,Exponential relaxation to equilibrium for a one-dimensional focusing non-linear Schr¨ odinger equation with noise, Commun

Eric A. Carlen, J¨ urg Fr¨ ohlich, and Joel Lebowitz,Exponential relaxation to equilibrium for a one-dimensional focusing non-linear Schr¨ odinger equation with noise, Commun. Math. Phys.342(2016), no. 1, 303–332 (English)

2016
[22]

Nahmod, and Haitian Yue,Random tensors, propagation of randomness, and nonlinear dispersive equations, Invent

Yu Deng, Andrea R. Nahmod, and Haitian Yue,Random tensors, propagation of randomness, and nonlinear dispersive equations, Invent. Math.228(2022), no. 2, 539–686 (English)

2022
[23]

,Invariant Gibbs measures and global strong solutions for nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equations in dimension two, Ann. Math. (2)200(2024), no. 2, 399–486 (English)

2024
[24]

Van Duong Dinh and Nicolas Rougerie,Invariant Gibbs measures for 1d NLS in a trap, 2023

2023
[25]

,From bosonic canonical ensembles to non-linear Gibbs measures, 2024

2024
[26]

Van Duong Dinh, Nicolas Rougerie, Leonardo Tolomeo, and Yuzhao Wang,Statistical mechanics of the radial focusing nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation in general traps, 2023

2023
[28]

Math.353(2019), 67–115 (English)

,A microscopic derivation of time-dependent correlation functions of the1Dcubic nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation, Adv. Math.353(2019), 67–115 (English)

2019
[29]

,A path-integral analysis of interacting Bose gases and loop gases, J. Stat. Phys.180(2020), no. 1-6, 810–831 (English)

2020
[30]

,The mean-field limit of quantum Bose gases at positive temperature, J. Am. Math. Soc.35(2022), no. 4, 955–1030 (English)

2022
[31]

Henri Poincar´ e24(2023), no

,Interacting loop ensembles and Bose gases, Ann. Henri Poincar´ e24(2023), no. 5, 1439–1503 (English)

2023
[32]

,The Euclideanϕ 4 2 theory as a limit of an interacting Bose gas, J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS)27(2025), no. 11, 4399–4468 (English)

2025
[33]

Spyros Garouniatis, Grega Saksida, and Vedran Sohinger,The large-mass limit of interacting quantum gases in the continuum, 2026

2026
[34]

A functional integral point of view, 1981 (English)

James Glimm and Arthur Jaffe,Quantum physics. A functional integral point of view, 1981 (English)

1981
[35]

Massimiliano Gubinelli and Martina Hofmanov´ a,A PDE construction of the EuclideanΦ4 3 quantum field theory, Commun. Math. Phys.384(2021), no. 1, 1–75 (English)

2021
[36]

Lucas Jougla and Nicolas Rougerie,ϕ 4 2 theory limit of a many-body bosonic free energy, 2025

2025
[37]

Rose, and Eugene Speer,Statistical mechanics of the nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation, J

Joel Lebowitz, Harvey A. Rose, and Eugene Speer,Statistical mechanics of the nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation, J. Stat. Phys.50(1988), no. 3-4, 657–687 (English)

1988
[38]

Mathieu Lewin, Phan Th` anh Nam, and Nicolas Rougerie,Classical field theory limit of 2D many-body quantum Gibbs states, 2015

2015
[39]

,Derivation of nonlinear Gibbs measures from many-body quantum mechanics, Journal de l’ ´Ecole poly- technique - Math´ ematiques2(2015), 65–115 (en)

2015
[40]

Math.224(2021), no

Mathieu Lewin, Phan Th` anh Nam, and Nicolas Rougerie,Classical field theory limit of many-body quantum Gibbs states in 2d and 3d, Invent. Math.224(2021), no. 2, 315–444 (English)

2021
[41]

Rui Liang and Yuzhao Wang,Gibbs measure for the focusing fractional NLS on the torus, SIAM J. Math. Anal.54(2022), no. 6, 6096–6118 (English)

2022
[43]

Nahmod and Gigliola Staffilani,Randomness and nonlinear evolution equations, Acta Math

Andrea R. Nahmod and Gigliola Staffilani,Randomness and nonlinear evolution equations, Acta Math. Sin., Engl. Ser.35(2019), no. 6, 903–932 (English)

2019
[44]

Phan Th` anh Nam, Rongchan Zhu, and Xiangchan Zhu,ϕ4 3 theory from many-body quantum Gibbs states, 2025

2025
[45]

,Derivation of Gibbs measure from Gibbs state with the fractional Bessel interaction in Two Dimen- sions, 2026

2026
[46]

Edward Nelson,The free Markoff field, J. Funct. Anal.12(1973), 211–227 (English)

1973
[47]

,Probability theory and Euclidean field theory, 1973 (English)

1973
[48]

DERIV ATION OF FOCUSING Φ6 1 WITH ROUGH CUT-OFF 27

Niko Nikov,Phase transitions for fractionalΦ 3 d on the torus, 2025. DERIV ATION OF FOCUSING Φ6 1 WITH ROUGH CUT-OFF 27

2025
[49]

Tadahiro Oh, Mamoru Okamoto, and Leonardo Tolomeo,FocusingΦ 4 3-model with a Hartree-type nonlinearity, Mem. Am. Math. Soc., vol. 1529, Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society (AMS), 2024 (English)

2024
[50]

Tadahiro Oh and Jeremy Quastel,On invariant Gibbs measures conditioned on mass and momentum, J. Math. Soc. Japan65(2013), no. 1, 13–35 (English)

2013
[51]

Math.227(2022), no

Tadahiro Oh, Philippe Sosoe, and Leonardo Tolomeo,Optimal integrability threshold for Gibbs measures asso- ciated with focusing NLS on the torus, Invent. Math.227(2022), no. 3, 1323–1429 (English)

2022
[52]

Partial Differ

Tadahiro Oh and Laurent Thomann,A pedestrian approach to the invariant Gibbs measures for the 2-ddefo- cusing nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equations, Stoch. Partial Differ. Equ., Anal. Comput.6(2018), no. 3, 397–445 (English)

2018
[53]

Tristan Robert, Kihoon Seong, Leonardo Tolomeo, and Yuzhao Wang,Focusing Gibbs measures with harmonic potential, Ann. Inst. Henri Poincar´ e, Probab. Stat.61(2025), no. 1, 571–598 (English)

2025
[54]

Partial Differ

Andrew Rout and Vedran Sohinger,A microscopic derivation of Gibbs measures for the 1d focusing cubic nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation, Commun. Partial Differ. Equations48(2023), no. 7-8, 1008–1055 (English)

2023
[56]

Phys., Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1974 (English)

Barry Simon,TheP(ϕ) 2 Euclidean (quantum) field theory., Princeton Ser. Phys., Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1974 (English)

1974
[57]

Vedran Sohinger,A microscopic derivation of Gibbs measures for nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equations with un- bounded interaction potentials, Int. Math. Res. Not.2022(2022), no. 19, 14964–15063 (English)

2022
[58]

Arnaud Triay and Fran¸ cois L. A. Visconti,Derivation of the 3D quintic Gross–Pitaevskii equation, 2026

2026
[59]

P. E. Zhidkov,On an invariant measure for a nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation, Sov. Math., Dokl.43(1991), no. 2, 431–434 (English). Department of Mathematics, University of T¨ubingen, 72076 T¨ubingen, Germany. Email address:shahnaz.farhat@uni-tuebingen.de Dipartimento di Matema...

1991

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [55]

,A microscopic derivation of Gibbs measures for the 1d focusing quintic nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation, SIAM J. Math. Anal.57(2025), no. 5, 4680–4755 (English)

2025

[2] [42]

Lin L¨ u, Phan Th` anh Nam, and Rongchan Zhu,Derivation of the focusingΦ 6 1 measure in the optimal mass regime from many-body quantum Gibbs states, 2026

2026

[3] [27]

J¨ urg Fr¨ ohlich, Antti Knowles, Benjamin Schlein, and Vedran Sohinger,Gibbs measures of nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equations as limits of many-body quantum states in dimensionsd⩽3, Commun. Math. Phys.356(2017), no. 3, 883–980 (English)

2017

[4] [1]

Math.30(2025), no

Zied Ammari, Shahnaz Farhat, and S¨ oren Petrat,Expansion of the many-body quantum Gibbs state of the Bose-Hubbard model on a finite graph, Doc. Math.30(2025), no. 2, 475–496 (English)

2025

[5] [2]

Math.453(2024), 61 (English)

Zied Ammari, Shahnaz Farhat, and Vedran Sohinger,Almost sure existence of global solutions for general initial value problems, Adv. Math.453(2024), 61 (English). Id/No 109805

2024

[6] [3]

Henri Poincar´ e9(2008), no

Zied Ammari and Francis Nier,Mean field limit for bosons and infinite dimensional phase-space analysis, Ann. Henri Poincar´ e9(2008), no. 8, 1503–1574 (English)

2008

[7] [4]

,Mean field propagation of infinite dimensional wigner measures with a singular two-body interaction potential, Annali della Scuola normale superiore di Pisa, Classe di scienze14(201111)

[8] [5]

,Mean field propagation of Wigner measures and BBGKY hierarchies for general bosonic states, J. Math. Pures Appl. (9)95(2011), no. 6, 585–626 (English)

2011