pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.02584 · v2 · pith:FJFXD2HUnew · submitted 2026-04-02 · ❄️ cond-mat.str-el · quant-ph

Fermionic mean-field dynamics for spin systems beyond free fermions

Rishab Dutta , Marc Illa , Niranjan Govind , Karol Kowalski This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 06:14 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.str-el quant-ph
keywords fermionic dynamicstime-dependent Hartree-FockJordan-Wigner transformationspin systemsmany-body localizationSchwinger modelmean-field approximationreal-time dynamics
0
0 comments X

The pith

The fermionized time-dependent Hartree-Fock method approximates real-time dynamics of spin systems mapped to fermions, matching exact results for free fermions and qualitative behavior in interacting cases with polynomial classical cost.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper introduces fTDHF, which maps spin-1/2 Hamiltonians to fermions via the Jordan-Wigner transformation and then evolves them under a time-dependent mean-field approximation. This method is exactly equivalent to the full dynamics when the fermions are non-interacting. It computes transition matrix elements between non-orthogonal Slater determinants to handle the non-local string operators that long-range interactions produce. The implementation on classical computers scales polynomially with the number of sites and linearly with the number of time steps. Benchmarks on three spin models show that the method reproduces the main qualitative features seen in exact simulations of adiabatic preparation, many-body localization, and the Schwinger model.

Core claim

fTDHF is formally equivalent to exact dynamics in the case of free fermions and can efficiently handle non-local string operators arising from long-range interactions via transition matrix elements between non-orthogonal Slater determinants. The method can be implemented on a classical computer with a cost that scales polynomially with system size and linearly with the time steps, while reproducing the qualitative dynamics of exact evolutions for three benchmark spin-1/2 models.

What carries the argument

The fTDHF ansatz, which represents the fermionic state as a single Slater determinant and evolves it under the time-dependent mean-field Hamiltonian obtained after the Jordan-Wigner mapping of the original spin operators.

If this is right

  • Larger spin chains become accessible to classical simulation than those treatable by exact methods.
  • The mean-field picture supplies orbital occupations that remain interpretable throughout the evolution.
  • Non-local string operators no longer incur exponential cost when their matrix elements are evaluated between Slater determinants.
  • Long-time simulations remain feasible because the per-step cost grows only linearly with the number of time steps.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same mapping-plus-mean-field strategy could be tested on spin models whose Jordan-Wigner strings couple to additional bosonic degrees of freedom.
  • Systematic addition of two-particle correlation corrections on top of the fTDHF reference might recover quantitative accuracy while preserving the polynomial scaling.
  • The method supplies a natural initial state and orbital basis for subsequent quantum-circuit or tensor-network refinements.

Load-bearing premise

The mean-field ansatz remains qualitatively accurate for the dynamics even though the benchmark systems contain long-range correlations, disorder, or gauge-field effects.

What would settle it

Numerical comparison of fTDHF observables against exact diagonalization results for one of the three benchmark Hamiltonians on a chain of 16–20 sites at late times, checking whether relative errors in local magnetizations or correlation functions stay below 10 percent.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.02584 by Karol Kowalski, Marc Illa, Niranjan Govind, Rishab Dutta.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Spin-spin correlation matrices Ξ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Spatially averaged spin-spin correlations Ξ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Expectation value of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Evolution of the particle density as a function of time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We introduce the fermionized time-dependent Hartree-Fock (fTDHF), a real-time quantum dynamics method for spin-1/2 Hamiltonians following their mapping to fermions via the Jordan-Wigner transformation. fTDHF is formally equivalent to exact dynamics in the case of free fermions and can efficiently handle non-local string operators arising from long-range interactions via transition matrix elements between non-orthogonal Slater determinants. We show that the fTDHF method can be implemented on a classical computer with a cost that scales polynomially with system size, and linearly with the time steps. We benchmark fTDHF against exact dynamics on three separate spin-1/2 models, representing adiabatic preparation of states with long-range correlations, disorder-driven observation of many-body localization, and particle production in the Schwinger model. For each of these systems, fTDHF is shown to reproduce the qualitative dynamics generated by the exact evolutions, while maintaining a simple physical picture due to its mean-field nature.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces the fermionized time-dependent Hartree-Fock (fTDHF) method for real-time dynamics of spin-1/2 systems after Jordan-Wigner mapping to fermions. It claims formal equivalence to exact dynamics for free fermions, efficient classical implementation with polynomial scaling in system size and linear scaling in time steps via handling of non-local strings through transition matrix elements between non-orthogonal Slater determinants, and qualitative reproduction of exact dynamics on three benchmark models (adiabatic preparation with long-range correlations, disorder-driven MBL, and Schwinger model particle production).

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work provides a computationally tractable mean-field method that is exactly equivalent for free fermions and extends to selected interacting cases with long-range or gauge terms while retaining a simple physical interpretation. The polynomial scaling and explicit treatment of non-orthogonal determinants for string operators are concrete strengths that could enable classical simulations where exact methods fail.

major comments (2)
  1. [Benchmark results (three models)] The extension beyond free fermions rests on the three benchmark comparisons (results section on the adiabatic, MBL, and Schwinger models). No quantitative error metrics (e.g., time-dependent fidelity, L2 deviation from exact observables, or convergence with bond dimension/time step) are reported, leaving the 'qualitative agreement' claim without a measurable threshold and undermining assessment of when the mean-field trajectory remains faithful.
  2. [Method applicability discussion] No derivation, error bound, or scaling analysis is supplied showing that correlations neglected by the single-Slater ansatz remain small under the long-range, disordered, or gauge-field terms present in the benchmarks. This is load-bearing for the claim that fTDHF applies 'beyond free fermions,' as the formal equivalence holds only for the free case.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states polynomial scaling but does not specify the leading power or the precise cost of the non-orthogonal determinant transitions; adding this would clarify the efficiency claim.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Benchmark results (three models)] The extension beyond free fermions rests on the three benchmark comparisons (results section on the adiabatic, MBL, and Schwinger models). No quantitative error metrics (e.g., time-dependent fidelity, L2 deviation from exact observables, or convergence with bond dimension/time step) are reported, leaving the 'qualitative agreement' claim without a measurable threshold and undermining assessment of when the mean-field trajectory remains faithful.

    Authors: We agree that quantitative metrics would strengthen the assessment of the method's performance. In the revised manuscript we will add time-dependent fidelity and L2 deviations between fTDHF and exact observables for all three benchmark models, together with a short discussion of the observed agreement levels and any visible thresholds. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Method applicability discussion] No derivation, error bound, or scaling analysis is supplied showing that correlations neglected by the single-Slater ansatz remain small under the long-range, disordered, or gauge-field terms present in the benchmarks. This is load-bearing for the claim that fTDHF applies 'beyond free fermions,' as the formal equivalence holds only for the free case.

    Authors: The manuscript already states that formal equivalence holds only for free fermions and that fTDHF is a mean-field approximation for the interacting benchmarks. General a-priori error bounds for time-dependent mean-field methods on these classes of models are not available in the literature and lie outside the scope of the present work; the benchmarks are offered as numerical evidence of qualitative fidelity in the chosen regimes. We will add an explicit limitations paragraph clarifying this scope. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; derivation and benchmarks are independent of inputs.

full rationale

The paper defines fTDHF via Jordan-Wigner mapping and mean-field approximation, derives formal equivalence to exact dynamics for free fermions from the method's structure, and reports polynomial-cost implementation plus qualitative reproduction on three benchmark models via direct comparison to exact dynamics. No equations reduce predictions to fitted parameters by construction, no self-citations bear the central claims, and no ansatz or uniqueness is smuggled via prior self-work. The derivation chain is self-contained against external exact benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review supplies no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the Jordan-Wigner mapping is treated as a standard tool and the mean-field approximation is the central modeling choice.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5707 in / 1235 out tokens · 41980 ms · 2026-05-25T06:14:14.694359+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

  • IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    fTDHF is formally equivalent to exact dynamics in the case of free fermions and can efficiently handle non-local string operators arising from long-range interactions via transition matrix elements between non-orthogonal Slater determinants.

  • IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    We benchmark fTDHF against exact dynamics on three separate spin-1/2 models, representing adiabatic preparation of states with long-range correlations, disorder-driven observation of many-body localization, and particle production in the Schwinger model.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Seniority Eigenstate Configuration Interaction

    cond-mat.str-el 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    A new configuration interaction method with fixed local seniority per orbital partition yields high accuracy for strongly correlated electrons, matching or exceeding zero-seniority performance on benchmarks.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

106 extracted references · 106 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Background Let us consider two SDs ofNspinless fermions |AN ⟩=a † 1 · · ·a † N |−⟩,(B1a) |BN ⟩=b † 1 · · ·b † N |−⟩,(B1b) where|−⟩is the physical vacuum, and⟨A N |BN ⟩ ̸= 0. The{a † j}and{b † j}are two sets of arbitrary creation op- erators with indices representing the one-particle states they create, with their corresponding Hermitian conju- gates, the ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    T ransition Matrix Elements The overlap can be written using Eq. (B3) as ⟨AN |BN ⟩=⟨−|a N · · · a1 b† 1 · · ·b † N |−⟩ =− ⟨−|a N · · · a2 b† 1 a1 b† 2 · · ·b † N |−⟩ +S 11 ⟨−|a N · · · a2 b† 2 · · ·b † N |−⟩,(B11) where the recursive relation above continues forNsteps until⟨−|b † 1 = 0. TheN= 1 case is already defined as S11. TheN= 2 case is shown below ⟨...

    work page

  3. [3]

    T ackling Zero Overlaps We have assumed so far that⟨A N |BN ⟩= det(S)̸=

    work page

  4. [4]

    (B21) is not applicable when det(S) =

    Thus, Eq. (B21) is not applicable when det(S) =

    work page

  5. [5]

    We may also encounter cases where det(S)≈0, which can lead to numerical issues in Eq

    This happens whenSis rank-deficient, e.g., when AandBshare some common columns, meaning|A N ⟩ and|B N ⟩have some common occupied states. We may also encounter cases where det(S)≈0, which can lead to numerical issues in Eq. (B20). The near-zero scenario can be diagnosed by the SVD of theSmatrix with an additionalO(N 3) cost. Recipes that tackle these zero ...

    work page

  6. [6]

    This is followed by a SVD ofSwith anO(N 3) cost

    Summary The first step for computing⟨A N |O|B N ⟩, withObe- ing any number-conserving fermionic operator, is to com- pute the overlap matrixS, which hasO(M N 2) cost. This is followed by a SVD ofSwith anO(N 3) cost. IfSis numerically full-rank, i.e., all singular values are above a numerical threshold, then the next step is to compute⟨A N |BN ⟩= det(S) wi...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Jordan and E

    P. Jordan and E. Wigner, Z. Phys.47, 631 (1928)

    work page 1928

  8. [8]

    O. Derzhko, Jordan-Wigner fermionization and the the- ory of low-dimensional quantum spin models: Dynamic properties, inCondensed Matter Physics in the Prime of the 21st Century(World Scientific, 2008) pp. 35–87

    work page 2008

  9. [9]

    C. D. Batista and G. Ortiz, Adv. Phys.53, 1 (2004)

    work page 2004

  10. [10]

    T. M. Henderson, G. P. Chen, and G. E. Scuseria, J. Chem. Phys.157, 194114 (2022)

    work page 2022

  11. [11]

    Grinberg, Phys

    H. Grinberg, Phys. Lett. A311, 133 (2003)

    work page 2003

  12. [12]

    Gebhard, K

    F. Gebhard, K. Bauerbach, and O. Legeza, Phys. Rev. B106, 205133 (2022)

    work page 2022

  13. [13]

    E. Lieb, T. Schultz, and D. Mattis, Ann. Phys. (N. Y.) 16, 407 (1961)

    work page 1961

  14. [14]

    Katsura, Phys

    S. Katsura, Phys. Rev.127, 1508 (1962)

    work page 1962

  15. [15]

    Yang, Phys

    C.-N. Yang, Phys. Rev. Lett.19, 1312 (1967)

    work page 1967

  16. [16]

    R. J. Baxter,Exactly solved models in statistical me- chanics(Academic Press, London, 1982)

    work page 1982

  17. [17]

    Jimbo, Int

    M. Jimbo, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A4, 3759 (1989)

    work page 1989

  18. [18]

    Sutherland,Beautiful models: 70 years of exactly solved quantum many-body problems(World Scientific Publishing Company, 2004)

    B. Sutherland,Beautiful models: 70 years of exactly solved quantum many-body problems(World Scientific Publishing Company, 2004)

    work page 2004

  19. [19]

    L. G. Valiant, inProceedings of the thirty-third annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing(2001) pp. 114–123

    work page 2001

  20. [20]

    Fermionic Linear Optics and Matchgates

    E. Knill, (2001), arXiv:quant-ph/0108033

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  21. [21]

    B. M. Terhal and D. P. DiVincenzo, Phys. Rev. A65, 032325 (2002)

    work page 2002

  22. [22]

    Yoshioka, T

    N. Yoshioka, T. Okubo, Y. Suzuki, Y. Koizumi, and W. Mizukami, npj Quantum Inf.10, 45 (2024)

    work page 2024

  23. [23]

    C. W. Bauer, Z. Davoudi, A. B. Balantekin, T. Bhat- tacharya, M. Carena, W. A. De Jong, P. Draper, A. El- Khadra, N. Gemelke, M. Hanada,et al., PRX Quantum 4, 027001 (2023)

    work page 2023

  24. [24]

    D. Beck, J. Carlson, Z. Davoudi, J. Formaggio, S. Quaglioni, M. Savage, J. Barata, T. Bhattacharya, M. Bishof, I. Cloet,et al.(2023) arXiv:2303.00113 [nucl- ex]

    work page arXiv 2023

  25. [25]

    C. W. Bauer, Z. Davoudi, N. Klco, and M. J. Savage, Nat. Rev. Phys.5, 420 (2023)

    work page 2023

  26. [26]

    Di Meglio, K

    A. Di Meglio, K. Jansen, I. Tavernelli, C. Alexandrou, S. Arunachalam, C. W. Bauer, K. Borras, S. Carrazza, A. Crippa, V. Croft,et al., PRX Quantum5, 037001 (2024)

    work page 2024

  27. [27]

    McArdle, S

    S. McArdle, S. Endo, A. Aspuru-Guzik, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Rev. Mod. Phys.92, 015003 (2020)

    work page 2020

  28. [28]

    Alexeev, V

    Y. Alexeev, V. S. Batista, N. Bauman, L. Bertels, D. Claudino, R. Dutta, L. Gagliardi, S. Godwin, N. Govind, M. Head-Gordon,et al., J. Chem. Theory Comput.21, 11335 (2025)

    work page 2025

  29. [29]

    Browaeys, D

    A. Browaeys, D. Barredo, and T. Lahaye, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys.49, 152001 (2016)

    work page 2016

  30. [30]

    Maier, T

    C. Maier, T. Brydges, P. Jurcevic, N. Trautmann, C. Hempel, B. P. Lanyon, P. Hauke, R. Blatt, and C. F. Roos, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 050501 (2019)

    work page 2019

  31. [31]

    L. Feng, O. Katz, C. Haack, M. Maghrebi, A. V. Gor- shkov, Z. Gong, M. Cetina, and C. Monroe, Nature623, 713 (2023)

    work page 2023

  32. [32]

    B. Yan, S. A. Moses, B. Gadway, J. P. Covey, K. R. A. Hazzard, A. M. Rey, D. S. Jin, and J. Ye, Nature501, 521 (2013)

    work page 2013

  33. [33]

    Asenjo-Garcia, M

    A. Asenjo-Garcia, M. Moreno-Cardoner, A. Albrecht, H. J. Kimble, and D. E. Chang, Phys. Rev. X7, 031024 (2017)

    work page 2017

  34. [34]

    Hauke, F

    P. Hauke, F. M. Cucchietti, A. M¨ uller-Hermes, M.-C. Ba˜ nuls, J. Ignacio Cirac, and M. Lewenstein, New J. Phys.12, 113037 (2010)

    work page 2010

  35. [35]

    K. R. A. Hazzard, S. R. Manmana, M. Foss-Feig, and A. M. Rey, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 075301 (2013)

    work page 2013

  36. [36]

    T. M. Henderson, F. Gao, and G. E. Scuseria, Mol. Phys.122, e2254857 (2024)

    work page 2024

  37. [37]

    T. M. Henderson, B. Harrison, I. Magoulas, J. Necaise, A. M. Projansky, F. A. Evangelista, J. D. Whitfield, and G. E. Scuseria, J. Chem. Phys.161, 234112 (2024)

    work page 2024

  38. [38]

    S. G. Tabrizi, T. M. Henderson, T. D. K¨ uhne, and G. E. Scuseria, J. Chem. Theory Comput.21, 10988 (2025)

    work page 2025

  39. [39]

    T. M. Henderson, G. P. Chen, and G. E. Scuseria, J. Chem. Theory Comput.22, 2324 (2025)

    work page 2025

  40. [40]

    S. G. Tabrizi, T. M. Henderson, T. D. K¨ uhne, and G. E. Scuseria, arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.13078 (2026)

    work page arXiv 2026

  41. [41]

    D. J. Thouless, Nucl. Phys.21, 225 (1960)

    work page 1960

  42. [42]

    Helgaker, P

    T. Helgaker, P. Jørgensen, and J. Olsen,Molecular Elec- tronic Structure Theory(John Wiley and Sons, 2000)

    work page 2000

  43. [43]

    Shavitt and R

    I. Shavitt and R. J. Bartlett,Many-Body Methods in Chemistry and Physics(Cambridge University Press, 2009)

    work page 2009

  44. [44]

    Wiebe, D

    N. Wiebe, D. W. Berry, P. Høyer, and B. C. Sanders, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.44, 445308 (2011)

    work page 2011

  45. [45]

    Y.-X. Yao, N. Gomes, F. Zhang, C.-Z. Wang, K.-M. Ho, T. Iadecola, and P. P. Orth, PRX Quantum2, 030307 (2021)

    work page 2021

  46. [46]

    K¨ okc¨ u, D

    E. K¨ okc¨ u, D. Camps, L. Bassman Oftelie, J. K. Freer- icks, W. A. de Jong, R. Van Beeumen, and A. F. Kem- per, Phys. Rev. A105, 032420 (2022)

    work page 2022

  47. [47]

    B. Peng, S. Gulania, Y. Alexeev, and N. Govind, Phys. Rev. A106, 012412 (2022)

    work page 2022

  48. [48]

    Bassman Oftelie, R

    L. Bassman Oftelie, R. Van Beeumen, E. Younis, E. Smith, C. Iancu, and W. A. de Jong, Mater. The- ory6, 13 (2022)

    work page 2022

  49. [49]

    Y. Kim, A. Eddins, S. Anand, K. X. Wei, E. Van Den Berg, S. Rosenblatt, H. Nayfeh, Y. Wu, M. Zaletel, K. Temme, and A. Kandala, Nature618, 500 (2023)

    work page 2023

  50. [50]

    Gulania, S

    S. Gulania, S. K. Gray, Y. Alexeev, B. Peng, and N. Govind, Electron. Struct.6, 045007 (2024)

    work page 2024

  51. [51]

    Pocrnic, M

    M. Pocrnic, M. Hagan, J. Carrasquilla, D. Segal, and N. Wiebe, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 013224 (2024)

    work page 2024

  52. [52]

    Gulania, Y

    S. Gulania, Y. Alexeev, S. K. Gray, B. Peng, and N. Govind, J. Chem. Theory Comput.21, 6280 (2025)

    work page 2025

  53. [53]

    R. W. Chien, M. Chiew, B. Harrison, J. Necaise, W. Wang, M. Mudassar, C. McLauchlan, T. M. Hender- son, G. E. Scuseria, S. Strelchuk, and J. D. Whitfield, Nat. Rev. Phys.8, 131 (2026)

    work page 2026

  54. [54]

    Hu, Z.-C

    Q.-L. Hu, Z.-C. Gao, and Y. S. Chen, Phys. Lett. B 734, 162 (2014)

    work page 2014

  55. [55]

    G. P. Chen and G. E. Scuseria, J. Chem. Phys.158, 231102 (2023)

    work page 2023

  56. [56]

    T. M. Henderson, S. G. Tabrizi, G. P. Chen, and G. E. Scuseria, J. Chem. Phys.160, 064103 (2024)

    work page 2024

  57. [57]

    G. C. Wick, Phys. Rev.80, 268 (1950)

    work page 1950

  58. [58]

    Blaizot and G

    J.-P. Blaizot and G. Ripka,Quantum Theory of Finite Systems(MIT Press, 1986)

    work page 1986

  59. [59]

    Ring and P

    P. Ring and P. Schuck,The Nuclear Many-Body Prob- lem(Springer-Verlag, 1980). 13

    work page 1980

  60. [60]

    L¨ owdin, Phys

    P.-O. L¨ owdin, Phys. Rev.97, 1474 (1955)

    work page 1955

  61. [61]

    L¨ owdin, Phys

    P.-O. L¨ owdin, Phys. Rev.97, 1490 (1955)

    work page 1955

  62. [62]

    Hendekovi´ c, M

    J. Hendekovi´ c, M. Pavlovi´ c, and F. Sokoli´ c, Chem. Phys. Lett.77, 382 (1981)

    work page 1981

  63. [63]

    C. A. Jim´ enez-Hoyos, R. Rodr´ ıguez-Guzm´ an, and G. E. Scuseria, Phys. Rev. A86, 052102 (2012)

    work page 2012

  64. [64]

    Utsuno, N

    Y. Utsuno, N. Shimizu, T. Otsuka, and T. Abe, Com- put. Phys. Commun.184, 102 (2013)

    work page 2013

  65. [65]

    Rodriguez-Laguna, L

    J. Rodriguez-Laguna, L. M. Robledo, and J. Dukelsky, Phys. Rev. A101, 012105 (2020)

    work page 2020

  66. [66]

    H. G. Burton, J. Chem. Phys.154, 144109 (2021)

    work page 2021

  67. [67]

    J. C. Butcher, Appl. Numer. Math.20, 247 (1996)

    work page 1996

  68. [68]

    Virtanen, R

    P. Virtanen, R. Gommers, T. E. Oliphant, M. Haber- land, T. Reddy, D. Cournapeau, E. Burovski, P. Peter- son, W. Weckesser, J. Bright,et al., Nat. Methods17, 261 (2020)

    work page 2020

  69. [69]

    J. R. McClean, N. C. Rubin, K. J. Sung, I. D. Kivlichan, X. Bonet-Monroig, Y. Cao, C. Dai, E. S. Fried, C. Gid- ney, B. Gimby,et al., Quantum Sci. Technol.5, 034014 (2020)

    work page 2020

  70. [70]

    Fermionic mean-field dynamics for spin sys- tems beyond free fermions

    R. Dutta, M. Illa, N. Govind, and K. Kowalski, Source code for “Fermionic mean-field dynamics for spin sys- tems beyond free fermions” (2026)

    work page 2026

  71. [71]

    Z.-X. Gong, M. F. Maghrebi, A. Hu, M. Foss-Feig, P. Richerme, C. Monroe, and A. V. Gorshkov, Phys. Rev. B93, 205115 (2016)

    work page 2016

  72. [72]

    M. F. Maghrebi, Z.-X. Gong, and A. V. Gorshkov, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 023001 (2017)

    work page 2017

  73. [73]

    P. W. Anderson, Phys. Rev.109, 1492 (1958)

    work page 1958

  74. [74]

    Nandkishore and D

    R. Nandkishore and D. A. Huse, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.6, 15 (2015)

    work page 2015

  75. [75]

    D. M. Basko, I. L. Aleiner, and B. L. Altshuler, Phys. Rev. B76, 052203 (2007)

    work page 2007

  76. [76]

    Smith, A

    J. Smith, A. Lee, P. Richerme, B. Neyenhuis, P. W. Hess, P. Hauke, M. Heyl, D. A. Huse, and C. Monroe, Nature Phys.12, 907 (2016)

    work page 2016

  77. [77]

    J. M. Deutsch, Phys. Rev. A43, 2046 (1991)

    work page 2046

  78. [78]

    Srednicki, Phys

    M. Srednicki, Phys. Rev. E50, 888 (1994)

    work page 1994

  79. [79]

    A. L. Burin, Phys. Rev. B92, 104428 (2015)

    work page 2015

  80. [80]

    Schwinger, Phys

    J. Schwinger, Phys. Rev.128, 2425 (1962)

    work page 1962

Showing first 80 references.