Momentum Distribution of a Fermi Gas with Coulomb Interaction in the Random Phase Approximation

Diwakar Naidu; Niels Benedikter; Sascha Lill

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 13 references

For a Coulomb-interacting Fermi gas in the mean-field scaling limit, the momentum distribution is a step profile corrected by the random phase approximation, with rigorous pointwise error bounds down to the Fermi surface.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 23:51 UTC pith:RDWOUZ5G

load-bearing objection Solid RPA momentum-distribution paper for a trial state; Section 7 bootstrap has a real but likely fixable gap. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2511.03654 v2 pith:RDWOUZ5G submitted 2025-11-05 math-ph cond-mat.quant-gasmath.MP

Momentum Distribution of a Fermi Gas with Coulomb Interaction in the Random Phase Approximation

Niels Benedikter , Sascha Lill , Diwakar Naidu This is my paper

classification math-ph cond-mat.quant-gasmath.MP MSC 81V7482D2081Q05

keywords momentum distributionFermi gasrandom phase approximationCoulomb interactionmean-field scalingbosonizationBogoliubov transformationFermi surface

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper proves that, in the mean-field scaling limit, a three-dimensional Fermi gas with Coulomb interaction has a trial state whose momentum distribution is the free Fermi-ball step profile corrected by the random phase approximation (RPA), with rigorous pointwise error bounds that remain valid arbitrarily close to the Fermi surface. The RPA correction, predicted by Daniel and Vosko on physical grounds, is shown to scale as k_F^{-1} e(q)^{-1}, where e(q) measures the distance of q to the Fermi surface; the deviation from this profile is controlled by k_F^{-1-1/6+ε} e(q)^{-1} for Coulomb-type potentials, improving to k_F^{-2+ε} e(q)^{-1} when the potential has summable Fourier transform. The result matters because the momentum distribution is the basic one-body observable of a Fermi liquid, and this analysis extends rigorous control of the interaction correction to the physically most relevant Coulomb case and to momenta closer to the Fermi surface than previous work. The proof uses a trial state built from approximate bosonic particle-hole pairs and a double bootstrap on the maximum of the momentum distribution.

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1.1: for a radial, decreasing, nonnegative potential with Fourier transform bounded by C|ℓ|^{-2} — which includes the Coulomb potential — there exists a sequence of trial states Ψ_N with energy within k_F^{1-1/6+ε} of the ground state, and such that for every momentum q, n(q)=n_RPA(q)+E(q) for |q|≥k_F and n(q)=1−n_RPA(q)+E(q) for |q|<k_F, with |E(q)| ≤ C_ε k_F^{-1-1/6+ε} e(q)^{-1}. If the Fourier transform is summable, the error improves to C_ε k_F^{-2+ε} e(q)^{-1}. Here n_RPA(q) is the explicit random phase approximation integral (1.9), and e(q) is the excitation energy measuring the distance of q to the Fermi surface. The paper also extracts a smaller exchange

What carries the argument

The trial state is Ψ_N = R e^{-S} Ω, where R is the particle-hole transformation and S is a Bogoliubov generator written as a sum over momentum transfers ℓ of kernels K(ℓ) acting on approximate pair creation operators b_p^*(ℓ) = a_p^* a_{p-ℓ}^*, with p in the 'lens' L_ℓ = B_F^c ∩ (B_F + ℓ). These pair operators obey approximate canonical commutation relations, so the Hamiltonian can be treated as a quasi-bosonic Bogoliubov Hamiltonian. The RPA momentum distribution emerges from a Duhamel expansion of e^S a_q^* a_q e^{-S}: the leading term is 1/2 Σ_ℓ 1_{L_ℓ}(q) (cosh(2K(ℓ))-1)_{q,q}, which is evaluated in closed form using the Sherman-Morrison formula; all remaining terms are controlled throu

Load-bearing premise

The theorem relies on previously proven bounds for the ground-state energy of the Coulomb gas, E_gs = E_FS + E_corr + O(k_F^{1-1/6+ε}) and ⟨Ψ_N,H_NΨ_N⟩ ≤ E_FS + E_corr + O(k_F^{1/2}); if either imported bound fails, the energy-closeness part of the theorem collapses.

What would settle it

Evaluate the momentum distribution of the explicit trial state (2.8)-(2.14) for a Coulomb potential on the torus at momenta q with e(q)=O(1) and compare it with n_RPA(q). The theorem predicts |n(q)-n_RPA(q)| ≤ C_ε k_F^{-1-1/6+ε}; observing a decay slower than k_F^{-1-1/6} for any fixed distance to the Fermi surface would disprove it. Alternatively, a counterexample to the imported energy lower bound E_gs ≥ E_FS + E_corr - C k_F^{1-1/6+ε} for Coulomb would falsify Theorem 1.1 even if the momentum formula itself remains true.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

For Coulomb potentials, the Daniel-Vosko RPA prediction for the momentum distribution is proven rigorously for a state energetically within k_F^{1-1/6+ε} of the true ground state.
The error bounds are pointwise in q and hold even when q is within a distance ~k_F^{-1} of the Fermi surface, where the excitation energy e(q) is of order one.
For potentials with summable Fourier transform, the error is k_F^{-2+ε} e(q)^{-1}, which is optimal in view of the leading RPA term scaling as k_F^{-1} e(q)^{-1}.
The same trial state reproduces the Gell-Mann-Brueckner correlation energy upper bound, so the energy and momentum distribution are derived from one consistent state.
The authors argue the same RPA momentum distribution should be expected for the true ground state, since two independent bosonization constructions now give consistent formulas.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

If a matching lower-bound energy estimate for the Coulomb gas becomes available, the same bootstrap proof would likely transfer the RPA momentum-distribution formula to the actual ground state; the only external input needed is the energy bound.
The bootstrap quantity Ξ and the e(q)^{-1} structure suggest that the shape of the momentum distribution near the Fermi surface is universal, determined by the pair-excitation spectrum rather than by the details of the interaction, so similar profiles should appear for other singular potentials with summable square.
The method's reliance on the summability lemma Σ_{r∈S} e(r)^{-1} ≤ C k_F^{1+ε} indicates the proof would break, or need modification, for potentials with slower decay than |ℓ|^{-2-α}, offering a concrete test of where the RPA description fails.
The explicit form of n_RPA(q) permits numerical checks of the bootstrap prediction for moderate k_F, and the sharp error exponents provide a benchmark for future many-body simulations of the interacting Fermi gas.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

Solid RPA momentum-distribution paper for a trial state; Section 7 bootstrap has a real but likely fixable gap.

read the letter

Short version: this is a serious paper, correct in its main idea, but the bootstrap argument in Section 7 has a genuine gap that needs repair before the proof closes.

The genuinely new content is the removal of the patch cutoffs from the earlier BL25 analysis, the handling of the Coulomb-class singularity |ell|^-2, and the pointwise bound e(q)^-1 near the Fermi surface. The trial state is the CHN23a state, and the proof works through a very detailed Duhamel expansion with all error terms organized and estimated. The leading-order calculation in Lemma 6.1 via Sherman-Morrison is clean, and the extraction of the exchange term is done carefully. This is honest, reproducible mathematics: no fitted constants, no hidden assumptions beyond those stated.

The soft spot is exactly the one in the stress-test note. In (7.2), the inequality Xi <= C k_F^-1 + C_eps k_F^(-1+eps) Xi^(1/2) is turned into Xi <= C k_F^-1 + o(1) Xi. That "o(1) Xi" is not justified from the previous line, because k_F^(-1+eps) Xi^(1/2) is not little-o of Xi unless you already know Xi >= k_F^(-2+2eps). The fix is straightforward: iterate the quadratic inequality, first getting Xi <= C_eps k_F^(-1+eps), then substituting back to get Xi <= C k_F^-1 for sufficiently small eps. The stress-test note is right that this is likely salvageable, but (7.2) as written is a real gap at the load-bearing point. The final error exponents could change if the iteration only gave a weaker bound, so this needs to be checked.

The other caveats are minor. The energy closeness (1.15) is imported from CHN24/CHN23a, not proven here; that's a legitimate black box. And the whole thing is about a trial state, not the true ground state; the authors are explicit about that, and the heuristic extension is clearly labeled.

Who should read it: researchers working on rigorous many-body perturbation theory for Fermi gases, bosonization, and RPA. It's a technical paper, but the proof is written in full and the bootstrap gap is fixable. I'd send it to a serious referee. With a corrected (7.2) it should be publishable.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper considers N spinless fermions on T^3 in the mean-field scaling H_N = -ΣΔ + k_F^{-1}ΣV(x_i-x_j). For the trial state Ψ_N = Re^{-S}Ω introduced in [CHN23a], it proves that the momentum distribution satisfies n(q) = n_RPA(q)+n_ex(q)+E(q) for |q|≥k_F, and the complementary formula inside the Fermi ball, with explicit pointwise error bounds. Under the Coulomb-class condition (1.14), the error is C_ε k_F^{-1-1/6+ε} e(q)^{-1}; under the stronger summability condition (1.18), it is C_ε k_F^{-2+ε} e(q)^{-1}. The proof uses a Duhamel expansion of e^S a_q^* a_q e^{-S}, an exact evaluation of the leading term via the Sherman–Morrison formula, normal ordering of the many-body errors, and a bootstrap on the global quantity Ξ = sup_{q,λ} ⟨e^{-λS}Ω, a_q^*a_q e^{-λS}Ω⟩. The energy closeness of the trial state is imported from [CHN24] and [CHN23a].

Significance. If the proof is completed, this is a substantial advance: it gives the first rigorous pointwise control of the random-phase-approximation correction to the momentum distribution for Coulomb-type potentials in the mean-field regime, including momenta arbitrarily close to the Fermi surface, thereby refining [BL25]. The trial state is explicit, the leading term n_RPA(q) is parameter-free and computed exactly, and the error analysis is highly detailed and checkable. No fitted constants or ad hoc assumptions are introduced beyond the cited energy bounds. The proof is long, but the organization is clear and the main technical estimates are stated separately. The result is likely correct, but the manuscript contains a load-bearing bootstrap step that needs repair before the theorem can be accepted as proven.

major comments (2)

[§7, Eq. (7.2)] The displayed bootstrap implication is not justified. From the preceding bound and the trivial bound Ξ≤1, the term C_ε k_F^{-1+ε} Ξ^{1/2} is only bounded by C_ε k_F^{-1+ε}, and k_F^{-1+ε} is not o(1)Ξ when Ξ is of order k_F^{-1}. Thus the displayed step 'Ξ ≤ Ck_F^{-1} + o(1)Ξ' does not follow. This step is load-bearing: it is used to obtain the pointwise bound (7.3) and hence the final exponents in (1.25)/(1.26). The gap is likely fixable by a two-step iteration: first use Ξ≤1 to get Ξ≤C_ε k_F^{-1+ε}; then, for fixed ε<1, k_F^{-1+ε}Ξ^{1/2}≤C_ε k_F^{-3/2+3ε/2}=o(k_F^{-1}), yielding Ξ≤Ck_F^{-1}. Please write out this iteration (or an equivalent argument) explicitly. As written, the proof of Proposition 1.2 is incomplete at this point.
[§6, Lemma 6.2 and proof of Prop. 1.2] Lemma 6.2 is stated for potentials with \g\V∈ℓ^1(Z^3), but it is used in the proof of Proposition 1.2 for all potentials satisfying (1.23), and Theorem 1.1 covers potentials with |\g\V(ℓ)|≤C|ℓ|^{-2}, which are not in ℓ^1 in three dimensions. The proof of (6.9) appears to need only boundedness of \g\V together with \sum_ℓ \g\V(ℓ)^2<∞, or a similar condition implied by (1.23). Please restate and prove Lemma 6.2 under the hypotheses actually used, or supply a reduction. As stated, the lemma does not cover the Coulomb case, and since the bootstrap (7.2) invokes this bound, this is a missing justification at a load-bearing point.

minor comments (4)

[Hypothesis (1.14)] The condition \g\V(ℓ)≤C|ℓ|^{-2} is stated for all ℓ∈Z^3, but |ℓ|^{-2} is undefined at ℓ=0. For the periodic Coulomb potential the zero mode is usually regularized or vanishes; please state the condition for ℓ≠0 or assume \g\V(0)=0.
[Abstract and Remark 1] The term 'optimal error bounds' is used without a matching lower bound. Since no lower bound is proved, 'sharp for the present method' or 'of the expected optimal order' would be more precise.
[§5.2, Lemma 5.6] The first displayed formula in the proof involves pulling number operators through a_q; the identity is correct after using [N,a_q^*a_q]=0 and a_q f(N+1)=f(N+2)a_q, but this should be made explicit to avoid confusion.
[Eq. (1.21)] The formal continuum limit on the right-hand side is heuristic and contains powers of 2π that are not derived in detail; please state explicitly that this is only a heuristic comparison and not part of the rigorous theorem.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the RPA momentum formula is an explicit function of \hat V and k_F, and the imported energy bounds are external theorems.

full rationale

The claimed momentum-distribution result is not an input renamed as an output. n_RPA(q) and n_ex(q) are explicit functions of the potential and k_F (Eqs. 1.9, 1.22), and the proof computes the leading Duhamel term as (cosh(2K)-1)_{q,q} (Lemma 6.1) and the exchange term by normal ordering (Lemma 3.6); no fitted parameter is introduced. The trial state is taken from CHN23a and the energy bounds from CHN24/CHN23a are external theorems by different authors, so the load-bearing energy input is not a self-citation. Self-citations to [BL25] are used only for comparison and for a similar estimation strategy, not as a black-box assumption of the momentum result. The bootstrap on \Xi is a self-consistent estimate: even though the displayed 'o(1)\Xi' step in Eq. (7.2) is terse, it can be justified via Young's inequality (k_F^{-1+\epsilon}\Xi^{1/2} \le \eta\Xi + C_\eta k_F^{-2+2\epsilon}), which closes the bootstrap for small \epsilon. This is an omitted technical detail, not a circular reduction. The derivation is therefore self-contained apart from external, non-circular inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

No fitted parameters appear. g_ℓ is fixed by \widehat V and k_F; n_RPA and n_ex are explicit functions of the potential. The optimized quantities γ and β are proof parameters, not data fits. Reliance on CHN results is external theorem use, not circular fitting. No new physical entities are introduced.

axioms (6)

standard math Canonical anticommutation relations and Fock-space representation for fermions on T^3.
Used throughout as the framework for creation/annihilation operators and the trial state, Section 2.
domain assumption Fermi ball nondegenerate: momenta exactly fill B_F={k∈Z^3: |k|≤k_F} with |B_F|=N.
Sets the particle number and the free reference state (1.4)–(1.5); used to define lenses L_ℓ and energies λ_{ℓ,p}.
domain assumption Mean-field scaling: Hamiltonian ⎛1.1⎜ with coupling k_F^{-1} on fixed torus T^3, limit k_F→∞.
Defines the asymptotic regime; the trial state and all estimates are adapted to this scaling.
domain assumption Potential hypotheses: ⎛1.14⎜ or ⎛1.23⎜: \widehat V≥0, even, with \widehat V(ℓ)≤C|ℓ|^{-2} or \sum \widehat V(ℓ)^2|ℓ|^α<∞.
Coulomb potentials \widehat V(ℓ)=4π/|ℓ|^2 satisfy these; the assumptions control the Bogoliubov kernel and the summability of error series.
domain assumption Energy bounds from [CHN24, Corr. 1.3] and [CHN23a, Thm. 1.1]: E_gs=E_FS+E_corr+O(k_F^{1−1/6+ε}) and ⟨Ψ_N,H_NΨ_N⟩≤E_FS+E_corr+O(k_F^{1−1/2}).
Used in the proof of Theorem 1.1 to establish energetic closeness (1.15); not re-proven in this paper.
domain assumption Summability lemmas from [CHN22, Prop. A.2] and [CHN24, Lemma 3.2]: Σ_{r∈L_ℓ} λ_{ℓ,r}^{-1}≤C k_F and Σ_{r∈S} e(r)^{-1}≤C_ε k_F^{1+ε}.
Imported in Lemma 4.1 and used repeatedly to bound matrix elements and to close the bootstrap.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 42197 in / 12775 out tokens · 113855 ms · 2026-08-03T23:51:28.969445+00:00 · methodology

0 comments

read the original abstract

We analyse the momentum distribution of a three-dimensional Fermi gas in the mean-field scaling regime in a trial state that was recently proven to reproduce the Gell-Mann-Brueckner correlation energy for Coulomb potentials. For a class of potentials including the Coulomb potential we show that the momentum distribution is given by a step profile corrected by a random phase approximation contribution. Moreover, for potentials with summable Fourier transform we provide optimal error bounds for the deviation from the random phase approximation. This refines a recent analysis by two of the authors to the physically most relevant potentials and to momenta closer to the Fermi surface. The proof relies on a double bootstrap method, improved over the earlier analysis to estimate the momentum distribution both globally over all momenta and pointwise. We argue that a similar result can be expected to hold also for the ground state.

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

13 extracted references · 11 linked inside Pith

[2]

[BNP+20] Niels Benedikter, Phan Th` anh Nam, Marcello Porta, Benjamin Schlein, and Robert Seiringer

arXiv:2310.02706. [BNP+20] Niels Benedikter, Phan Th` anh Nam, Marcello Porta, Benjamin Schlein, and Robert Seiringer. Optimal Upper Bound for the Correlation Energy of a Fermi Gas in the Mean-Field Regime.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 374(3):2097–2150,

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2097
[4]

Daniel and S

[DV60] E. Daniel and S. H. Vosko. Momentum Distribution of an Interacting Electron Gas.Physical Review, 120(6):2041–2044, December

2041
[5]

[GHNS24] Emanuela L

arXiv:2409.14841. [GHNS24] Emanuela L. Giacomelli, Christian Hainzl, Phan Th` anh Nam, and Robert Seiringer. The Huang-Yang formula for the low-density Fermi gas: Upper bound, September

Pith/arXiv arXiv
[6]

[GHNS25] Emanuela L

arXiv:2409.17914. [GHNS25] Emanuela L. Giacomelli, Christian Hainzl, Phan Th` anh Nam, and Robert Seiringer. The Huang-Yang conjecture for the low-density Fermi gas, May

Pith/arXiv arXiv
[7]

[Gia22a] Emanuela L

arXiv:2505.22340. [Gia22a] Emanuela L. Giacomelli. Bogoliubov theory for the dilute Fermi gas in three dimensions, July

Pith/arXiv arXiv
[9]

[Gia24] Emanuela L

arXiv:2212.11832. [Gia24] Emanuela L. Giacomelli. An optimal lower bound for the low density Fermi gas in three dimensions, October

Pith/arXiv arXiv
[10]

[GS94] Gian Michele Graf and Jan Philip Solovej

arXiv:2410.08904. [GS94] Gian Michele Graf and Jan Philip Solovej. A correlation estimate with applica- tions to quantum systems with coulomb interactions.Reviews in Mathematical Physics, 06(05a):977–997,

arXiv
[12]

[LS24b] Asbjørn Bækgaard Lauritsen and Robert Seiringer

arXiv:2402.17558. [LS24b] Asbjørn Bækgaard Lauritsen and Robert Seiringer. Ground state energy of the dilute spin-polarized Fermi gas: Upper bound via cluster expansion.Journal of Functional Analysis, 286(7):110320, April

Pith/arXiv arXiv
[13]

[NS81] Heide Narnhofer and Geoffrey L

arXiv:2407.05990. [NS81] Heide Narnhofer and Geoffrey L. Sewell. Vlasov hydrodynamics of a quantum mechanical model.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 79(1):9–24,

Pith/arXiv arXiv
[1994]

Strong semiclassical limit from Hartree and Hartree-Fock to Vlasov-Poisson equation.arXiv:2003.02926 [math-ph, physics:quant-ph], February

[LS21] Laurent Lafleche and Chiara Saffirio. Strong semiclassical limit from Hartree and Hartree-Fock to Vlasov-Poisson equation.arXiv:2003.02926 [math-ph, physics:quant-ph], February

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003
[2022]

[Gia22b] Emanuela L

arXiv:2207.13618. [Gia22b] Emanuela L. Giacomelli. An optimal upper bound for the dilute Fermi gas in three dimensions, December

Pith/arXiv arXiv
[2024]

[CLS24] Jacky J

arXiv:2405.01386. [CLS24] Jacky J. Chong, Laurent Lafleche, and Chiara Saffirio. From many-body quantum dynamics to the Hartree–Fock and Vlasov equations with singular potentials. Journal of the European Mathematical Society, 26(12):4923–5007, May

Pith/arXiv arXiv
[2025]

[Ben21] Niels Benedikter

arXiv:2503.16001. [Ben21] Niels Benedikter. Bosonic collective excitations in Fermi gases.Reviews in Math- ematical Physics, 33(1):2060009,

Pith/arXiv arXiv

[1] [2]

[BNP+20] Niels Benedikter, Phan Th` anh Nam, Marcello Porta, Benjamin Schlein, and Robert Seiringer

arXiv:2310.02706. [BNP+20] Niels Benedikter, Phan Th` anh Nam, Marcello Porta, Benjamin Schlein, and Robert Seiringer. Optimal Upper Bound for the Correlation Energy of a Fermi Gas in the Mean-Field Regime.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 374(3):2097–2150,

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2097

[2] [4]

Daniel and S

[DV60] E. Daniel and S. H. Vosko. Momentum Distribution of an Interacting Electron Gas.Physical Review, 120(6):2041–2044, December

2041

[3] [5]

[GHNS24] Emanuela L

arXiv:2409.14841. [GHNS24] Emanuela L. Giacomelli, Christian Hainzl, Phan Th` anh Nam, and Robert Seiringer. The Huang-Yang formula for the low-density Fermi gas: Upper bound, September

Pith/arXiv arXiv

[4] [6]

[GHNS25] Emanuela L

arXiv:2409.17914. [GHNS25] Emanuela L. Giacomelli, Christian Hainzl, Phan Th` anh Nam, and Robert Seiringer. The Huang-Yang conjecture for the low-density Fermi gas, May

Pith/arXiv arXiv

[5] [7]

[Gia22a] Emanuela L

arXiv:2505.22340. [Gia22a] Emanuela L. Giacomelli. Bogoliubov theory for the dilute Fermi gas in three dimensions, July

Pith/arXiv arXiv

[6] [9]

[Gia24] Emanuela L

arXiv:2212.11832. [Gia24] Emanuela L. Giacomelli. An optimal lower bound for the low density Fermi gas in three dimensions, October

Pith/arXiv arXiv

[7] [10]

[GS94] Gian Michele Graf and Jan Philip Solovej

arXiv:2410.08904. [GS94] Gian Michele Graf and Jan Philip Solovej. A correlation estimate with applica- tions to quantum systems with coulomb interactions.Reviews in Mathematical Physics, 06(05a):977–997,

arXiv

[8] [12]

[LS24b] Asbjørn Bækgaard Lauritsen and Robert Seiringer

arXiv:2402.17558. [LS24b] Asbjørn Bækgaard Lauritsen and Robert Seiringer. Ground state energy of the dilute spin-polarized Fermi gas: Upper bound via cluster expansion.Journal of Functional Analysis, 286(7):110320, April

Pith/arXiv arXiv

[9] [13]

[NS81] Heide Narnhofer and Geoffrey L

arXiv:2407.05990. [NS81] Heide Narnhofer and Geoffrey L. Sewell. Vlasov hydrodynamics of a quantum mechanical model.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 79(1):9–24,

Pith/arXiv arXiv

[10] [1994]

Strong semiclassical limit from Hartree and Hartree-Fock to Vlasov-Poisson equation.arXiv:2003.02926 [math-ph, physics:quant-ph], February

[LS21] Laurent Lafleche and Chiara Saffirio. Strong semiclassical limit from Hartree and Hartree-Fock to Vlasov-Poisson equation.arXiv:2003.02926 [math-ph, physics:quant-ph], February

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

[11] [2022]

[Gia22b] Emanuela L

arXiv:2207.13618. [Gia22b] Emanuela L. Giacomelli. An optimal upper bound for the dilute Fermi gas in three dimensions, December

Pith/arXiv arXiv

[12] [2024]

[CLS24] Jacky J

arXiv:2405.01386. [CLS24] Jacky J. Chong, Laurent Lafleche, and Chiara Saffirio. From many-body quantum dynamics to the Hartree–Fock and Vlasov equations with singular potentials. Journal of the European Mathematical Society, 26(12):4923–5007, May

Pith/arXiv arXiv

[13] [2025]

[Ben21] Niels Benedikter

arXiv:2503.16001. [Ben21] Niels Benedikter. Bosonic collective excitations in Fermi gases.Reviews in Math- ematical Physics, 33(1):2060009,

Pith/arXiv arXiv