arxiv: 2604.07704 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-09 · 🪐 quant-ph · math-ph· math.MP

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Trotterization with Many-body Coulomb Interactions: Convergence for General Initial Conditions and State-Dependent Improvements

Di Fang , Xiaoxu Wu

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 18:24 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph math-phmath.MP

keywords TrotterizationCoulomb interactionsQuantum simulationError boundsMany-body systemsConvergence ratesQuantum computingHydrogenic atoms

0 comments

The pith

Second-order Trotter formulas for many-body Coulomb Hamiltonians achieve a sharp 1/4 convergence rate for general initial conditions with polynomial error dependence on particle number.

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

This paper establishes rigorous error bounds for Trotter formulas when applied to many-body quantum systems whose Hamiltonians include Coulomb interactions. For arbitrary initial states in the domain of the Hamiltonian, the second-order Trotter method converges at a sharp rate of 1/4, with an explicit prefactor that grows only polynomially with the number of particles. This bound holds without any regularization of the singular Coulomb potential. Under additional physically motivated conditions on the initial state, such as those satisfied by high-angular-momentum excited states in hydrogenic systems, the convergence rate improves to first or second order. The findings address the challenges posed by unbounded operators and singular potentials while confirming that the approach remains efficient for quantum simulation of physically relevant cases.

Core claim

The central claim is that second-order Trotterization applied to the many-body Hamiltonian with Coulomb interactions produces an error that scales as the fourth root of the time step for any initial state in the domain of the Hamiltonian, with the prefactor depending polynomially on particle number. This holds despite the unbounded kinetic energy, the singular and long-range nature of the Coulomb potential, and the exponential growth of the Hilbert space. The paper further shows that physically natural restrictions on the initial state, linked for example to high angular momentum in hydrogenic atoms, restore higher-order convergence.

What carries the argument

The second-order Trotter formula (Suzuki-Trotter decomposition) applied to the sum of the kinetic-energy operator and the many-body Coulomb potential, together with operator-theoretic error analysis that tracks domains and commutators without assuming extra regularity.

If this is right

Quantum algorithms for simulating many-body Coulomb systems remain efficient on quantum hardware without introducing regularization of the singularity.
The 1/4-rate bound applies to broad classes of initial conditions, including the hydrogen ground state observed in earlier numerics.
State-dependent conditions allow first- or second-order convergence for suitable excited states in atomic systems.
The polynomial scaling in particle number justifies Trotterization for quantum chemistry without size-dependent overhead from regularization.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

The same domain-based analysis could be tested on other singular long-range potentials appearing in quantum many-body problems.
Preparing initial states with high angular momentum may be a practical route to recover higher-order accuracy in simulations.
The explicit particle-number dependence supplies a concrete target for benchmarking quantum simulators on small Coulomb systems.
Absence of regularization removes one source of systematic bias when comparing simulated real-time dynamics to experimental spectra.

Load-bearing premise

The initial state must lie in the domain of the unbounded Hamiltonian and the Coulomb potential must satisfy the stated operator properties without regularization or cutoff.

What would settle it

A direct numerical computation of the Trotter error on a small-particle Coulomb system with a general initial state in the Hamiltonian domain, showing that the observed scaling with time step fails to match the predicted 1/4 rate.

read the original abstract

Efficiently simulating many-body quantum systems with Coulomb interactions is a fundamental question in quantum physics, quantum chemistry, and quantum computing, yet it presents unique challenges: the Hamiltonian is an unbounded operator (both kinetic and potential parts are unbounded); its Hilbert space dimension grows exponentially with particle number; and the Coulomb potential is singular, long-ranged, non-smooth, and unbounded, violating the regularity assumptions of many prior state-of-the-art many-body simulation analyses. In this work, we establish rigorous error bounds for Trotter formulas applied to many-body quantum systems with Coulomb interactions. Our first main result shows that for general initial conditions in the domain of the Hamiltonian, second-order Trotter achieves a sharp $1/4$ convergence rate with explicit polynomial dependence of the error prefactor on the particle number. The polynomial dependence on system size suggests that the algorithm remains quantumly efficient, even without introducing any regularization of the Coulomb singularity. Notably, although the result under general conditions constitutes a worst-case bound, this rate has been observed in prior work for the hydrogen ground state, demonstrating its relevance to physically and practically important initial conditions. Our second main result identifies a set of physically meaningful conditions on the initial state under which the convergence rate improves to first and second order. For hydrogenic systems, these conditions are connected to excited states with sufficiently high angular momentum. Our theoretical findings are consistent with prior numerical observations.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper claims a 1/4 Trotter rate for second-order splitting on many-body Coulomb Hamiltonians for general states in dom(H) with polynomial N dependence, plus better rates for high-angular-momentum states, but the operator-domain estimates need checking.

read the letter

The main thing to know is that the authors prove a sharp 1/4 convergence rate for the second-order Trotter formula on many-body systems with Coulomb interactions, holding for arbitrary initial states in the domain of the full Hamiltonian, and with an error prefactor that grows only polynomially in particle number. They also identify conditions on the initial state that lift the rate to first or second order, tied to high angular momentum in hydrogenic atoms, and note that this matches some earlier numerical observations on the hydrogen ground state and similar cases. The polynomial scaling is presented as evidence that the method stays quantumly efficient without any regularization of the 1/r singularities. This is the concrete advance over prior Trotter analyses that typically required smoother or bounded potentials. The work is useful because it directly targets the Hamiltonians that appear in quantum chemistry and many-body physics, where regularization can distort the physics. The state-dependent improvements add practical value by showing that worst-case bounds are not always the relevant ones for physically interesting states. The abstract and claims line up with the stress-test note on the need for careful commutator control between kinetic and Coulomb terms. The soft spot is exactly there: both T and V are unbounded, V is only form-bounded relative to T, and the many-body sum introduces pairwise singularities whose derivatives are worse. Standard Trotter remainder arguments rely on bounds on [T,V] or higher commutators that may not close polynomially in N without extra domain restrictions or implicit smoothing. If the lemmas in the paper only establish the 1/4 rate after restricting to a dense subclass or after some approximation, the general-initial-condition result is weaker than stated. I would want to see the explicit operator-domain arguments and how the remainder terms are controlled without assuming more regularity than dom(H) provides. This paper is for people working on rigorous error bounds for quantum simulation of realistic Hamiltonians. A reader who cares about explicit rates for singular potentials and state-dependent improvements will get something concrete from it. It deserves a serious referee because the topic is timely and the claims, if the technical steps hold, would remove a regularity barrier that has limited prior analyses.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript establishes rigorous error bounds for Trotter formulas applied to many-body quantum systems with Coulomb interactions. Its first main result claims that second-order Trotter achieves a sharp 1/4 convergence rate for general initial conditions in the domain of the Hamiltonian, with an explicit error prefactor that depends polynomially on particle number N. The second main result identifies physically motivated conditions on the initial state (e.g., sufficiently high angular momentum in hydrogenic systems) under which the rate improves to first or second order. These bounds are presented without regularization of the singular Coulomb potential.

Significance. If the derivations are correct, the work is significant because it extends Trotter error analysis to unbounded operators with singular, long-range potentials that violate standard regularity assumptions. The polynomial N-dependence supports quantum efficiency for realistic many-body simulations, and the state-dependent improvements align with prior numerical observations on hydrogen ground states, providing both theoretical justification and practical guidance.

major comments (2)

[Proof of first main result / Theorem on 1/4 rate] The first main result (abstract and associated theorem): the claimed 1/4 rate for arbitrary initial states in dom(H) requires explicit control of the Trotter remainder via commutator estimates between the kinetic operator T and the singular many-body Coulomb potential V. Standard proofs rely on operator-boundedness or Kato-Rellich relative boundedness, but V is only form-bounded relative to T and its derivatives introduce stronger singularities; the manuscript must supply the precise domain arguments and bounds showing that these estimates close with polynomial N-dependence, as failure here would invalidate the general-initial-condition claim.
[Operator-domain arguments / assumptions on V] Section on operator properties (likely near the statement of the main theorems): the abstract asserts that the Coulomb potential satisfies the required operator properties without regularization, yet the many-body sum V = sum_{i<j} 1/|r_i - r_j| is unbounded and the domain of [T,V] is not automatically guaranteed to be dense or to yield the needed remainder bounds. Explicit verification that the error expansion remains valid for general psi in dom(H) is needed to support the polynomial prefactor.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract states that the 1/4 rate 'has been observed in prior work for the hydrogen ground state' but does not cite the specific numerical reference; adding the citation would improve traceability.
[Notation and definitions] Notation for the Trotter product (e^{-itT/n} e^{-itV/n})^n should be clarified with respect to the ordering and time-step convention to avoid ambiguity in the error analysis.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments, which help strengthen the rigor of our proofs. We address each major comment point by point below.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Proof of first main result / Theorem on 1/4 rate] The first main result claims that second-order Trotter achieves a sharp 1/4 convergence rate for general initial conditions in dom(H), requiring explicit control of the Trotter remainder via commutator estimates between the kinetic operator T and the singular many-body Coulomb potential V. Standard proofs rely on operator-boundedness or Kato-Rellich relative boundedness, but V is only form-bounded relative to T and its derivatives introduce stronger singularities; the manuscript must supply the precise domain arguments and bounds showing that these estimates close with polynomial N-dependence.

Authors: We agree that the commutator estimates and domain arguments require explicit presentation to support the general-initial-condition claim. In the proof of Theorem 1, we control the Trotter remainder using the form-boundedness of the many-body Coulomb potential relative to the kinetic energy T, combined with Hardy-type inequalities that handle the singularities without regularization. The polynomial N-dependence follows from collective bounds over the O(N^2) pairwise terms. To address the concern directly, we have added a dedicated subsection in the revised Section 3 with the precise domain verifications and commutator bounds, confirming closure in dom(H) for arbitrary initial states. revision: yes
Referee: [Operator-domain arguments / assumptions on V] Section on operator properties: the abstract asserts that the Coulomb potential satisfies the required operator properties without regularization, yet the many-body sum V is unbounded and the domain of [T,V] is not automatically guaranteed to be dense or to yield the needed remainder bounds. Explicit verification that the error expansion remains valid for general psi in dom(H) is needed to support the polynomial prefactor.

Authors: We acknowledge the need for explicit verification of the operator domains. While V is unbounded, we establish in the manuscript that for psi in dom(H), the relevant commutators [T,V] are well-defined in the strong sense via the specific 3D Coulomb singularity structure, which permits relative form-boundedness. The domain is dense because C^infty_c functions are dense in dom(H) for these operators. We have expanded the operator-properties section (now including a new Lemma) with the explicit verification that the error expansion holds for general psi in dom(H) and that the prefactor remains polynomial in N, without any regularization of V. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation is self-contained mathematical proof

full rationale

The paper derives error bounds for second-order Trotterization on many-body Coulomb Hamiltonians via direct operator-theoretic estimates, including domain considerations for unbounded operators and commutator bounds that yield the 1/4 rate with polynomial N-dependence. No steps reduce by construction to fitted inputs, self-definitions, or self-citation chains; the central claims rest on explicit lemmas for general initial states in dom(H) and state-dependent improvements, without renaming known results or smuggling ansatzes. Self-citations (if present) are not load-bearing for the new convergence statements, which are presented as independent derivations consistent with but not derived from prior numerical observations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the initial state belonging to the domain of the Hamiltonian and on standard properties of unbounded self-adjoint operators and the Trotter product formula; no free parameters or new entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Initial state belongs to the domain of the Hamiltonian
Explicitly required for the general-initial-condition result.
standard math Trotter product formula applies to the sum of kinetic and Coulomb operators
Background assumption from functional analysis invoked for error-bound derivation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5555 in / 1367 out tokens · 51632 ms · 2026-05-10T18:24:57.037330+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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.

Theorem 1 ... second-order Trotter achieves a sharp 1/4 convergence rate with explicit polynomial dependence ... ˜CN N^4.5 T t^{1/4} ||ψ0||_{H^2}
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/AlexanderDuality.lean alexander_duality_circle_linking unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

Assumption 2 ... ψ0 = P_{≥ℓ} ψ0 and |x|^{-ℓ} ψ0 ∈ H^2; preservation under dynamics (Theorem 14)

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.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

Fault-tolerant quantum simulations of chemistry in first quantization

Yuan Su, Dominic W Berry, Nathan Wiebe, Nicholas Rubin, and Ryan Bab- bush. Fault-tolerant quantum simulations of chemistry in first quantization. PRX Quantum, 2(4):040332, 2021

2021
[2]

Huggins, Dominic W

Ryan Babbush, William J. Huggins, Dominic W. Berry, Shu Fay Ung, Andrew Zhao, David R. Reichman, Hartmut Neven, Andrew D. Baczewski, and Joonho Lee. Quantum simulation of exact electron dynamics can be more efficient than classical mean-field methods. Nature Communications, 14(1), July 2023

2023
[3]

Rubin, Dominic W

Nicholas C. Rubin, Dominic W. Berry, Alina Kononov, Fionn D. Malone, Tanuj Khattar, Alec White, Joonho Lee, Hartmut Neven, Ryan Babbush, and Andrew D. Baczewski. Quantum computation of stopping power for iner- tial fusion target design. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 121(23):e2317772121, 2024

2024
[4]

Optimizing Quantum Chemistry Simulations with a Hybrid Quantization Scheme

Calvin Ku, Yu-Cheng Chen, Alice Hu, and Min-Hsiu Hsieh. Optimizing quantum chemistry simulations with a hybrid quantization scheme, 2025. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.04253

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[5]

Low-depth quantum simulation of materials

Ryan Babbush, Nathan Wiebe, Jarrod McClean, James McClain, Hartmut Neven, and Garnet Kin-Lic Chan. Low-depth quantum simulation of materials. Phys. Rev. X, 8:011044, Mar 2018

2018
[6]

Kivlichan, Jarrod McClean, Nathan Wiebe, Craig Gidney, Alan Aspuru- Guzik, Garnet Kin-Lic Chan, and Ryan Babbush

Ian D. Kivlichan, Jarrod McClean, Nathan Wiebe, Craig Gidney, Alan Aspuru- Guzik, Garnet Kin-Lic Chan, and Ryan Babbush. Quantum simulation of elec- tronic structure with linear depth and connectivity. Physical Review Letters , 120(11), March 2018

2018
[7]

Solving free fermion problems on a quantum computer, 2024

Maarten Stroeks, Daan Lenterman, Barbara Terhal, and Yaroslav Herasymenko. Solving free fermion problems on a quantum computer, 2024. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.04550

work page arXiv 2024
[8]

Childs, Yuan Su, Minh C

Andrew M. Childs, Yuan Su, Minh C. Tran, Nathan Wiebe, and Shuchen Zhu. Theory of trotter error with commutator scaling. Phys. Rev. X , 11:011020, 2021

2021
[9]

Rolando D. Somma. Quantum simulations of one dimensional quantum systems,
[10]

arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.06319

work page arXiv
[11]

Burak S ¸ahino˘ glu and Rolando D. Somma. Hamiltonian simulation in the low- energy subspace. npj Quantum Information , 7(1), July 2021

2021
[12]

Time-dependent unbounded Hamiltonian simu- lation with vector norm scaling

Dong An, Di Fang, and Lin Lin. Time-dependent unbounded Hamiltonian simu- lation with vector norm scaling. Quantum, 5:459, may 2021

2021
[13]

Campbell

Yuan Su, Hsin-Yuan Huang, and Earl T. Campbell. Nearly tight Trotterization of interacting electrons. Quantum, 5:495, July 2021

2021
[14]

Shaw, Tongyang Li, and Andrew M

Qi Zhao, You Zhou, Alexander F. Shaw, Tongyang Li, and Andrew M. Childs. 46 Hamiltonian simulation with random inputs. Physical Review Letters , 129(27), December 2022

2022
[15]

Childs, Jiaqi Leng, Tongyang Li, Jin-Peng Liu, and Chenyi Zhang

Andrew M. Childs, Jiaqi Leng, Tongyang Li, Jin-Peng Liu, and Chenyi Zhang. Quantum simulation of real-space dynamics. Quantum, 6:860, November 2022

2022
[16]

Observable error bounds of the time-splitting scheme for quantum-classical molecular dynamics

Di Fang and Albert Tres Vilanova. Observable error bounds of the time-splitting scheme for quantum-classical molecular dynamics. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. , 61(1):26–44, 2023

2023
[17]

Uniform observable error bounds of trotter formulae for the semiclassical schr¨ odinger equation

Yonah Borns-Weil and Di Fang. Uniform observable error bounds of trotter formulae for the semiclassical schr¨ odinger equation. Multiscale Model. Simul. , 23(1):255–277, January 2025

2025
[18]

Learning many-body hamil- tonians with heisenberg-limited scaling

Hsin-Yuan Huang, Yu Tong, Di Fang, and Yuan Su. Learning many-body hamil- tonians with heisenberg-limited scaling. Phys. Rev. Lett., 130:200403, May 2023

2023
[19]

Simple and high-precision hamiltonian simulation by compensating trotter error with linear combination of unitary operations, 2022

Pei Zeng, Jinzhao Sun, Liang Jiang, and Qi Zhao. Simple and high-precision hamiltonian simulation by compensating trotter error with linear combination of unitary operations, 2022. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.04566

work page arXiv 2022
[20]

A theory of digital quantum sim- ulations in the low-energy subspace

Weiyuan Gong, Shuo Zhou, and Tongyang Li. A theory of digital quantum sim- ulations in the low-energy subspace. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.08867 , 2023

work page arXiv 2023
[21]

Guang Hao Low, Yuan Su, Yu Tong, and Minh C. Tran. Complexity of imple- menting trotter steps. PRX Quantum, 4:020323, May 2023

2023
[22]

Qi Zhao, You Zhou, and Andrew M. Childs. Entanglement accelerates quantum simulation. Nature Physics, 21(8):1338–1345, July 2025

2025
[23]

Observable-driven speed-ups in quantum simulations, 2024

Wenjun Yu, Jue Xu, and Qi Zhao. Observable-driven speed-ups in quantum simulations, 2024. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.14497

work page arXiv 2024
[24]

Error interference in quantum simulation, 2024

Boyang Chen, Jue Xu, Qi Zhao, and Xiao Yuan. Error interference in quantum simulation, 2024. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.03255

work page arXiv 2024
[25]

Uniform semiclassical observable error bound of trotter- suzuki splitting: a simple algebraic proof, 2025

Di Fang and Conrad Qu. Uniform semiclassical observable error bound of trotter- suzuki splitting: a simple algebraic proof, 2025. arXiv:2507.02783

work page arXiv 2025
[26]

Conver- gence rates for the trotter splitting for unbounded operators

Simon Becker, Niklas Galke, Lauritz van Luijk, and Robert Salzmann. Conver- gence rates for the trotter splitting for unbounded operators. Foundations of Computational Mathematics, September 2025

2025
[27]

Guang Hao Low and Isaac L. Chuang. Optimal Hamiltonian simulation by quan- tum signal processing. Phys. Rev. Lett., 118:010501, 2017

2017
[28]

Quantum singular value transformation and beyond: exponential improvements for quantum matrix arithmetics

Andr´ as Gily´ en, Yuan Su, Guang Hao Low, and Nathan Wiebe. Quantum singular value transformation and beyond: exponential improvements for quantum matrix arithmetics. In Proceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing , pages 193–204, 2019

2019
[29]

D. W. Berry, A. M. Childs, R. Cleve, R. Kothari, and R. D. Somma. Simu- 47 lating Hamiltonian dynamics with a truncated Taylor series. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 114:090502, 2015

2015
[30]

M´ aria Kieferov´ a, Artur Scherer, and Dominic W. Berry. Simulating the dynamics of time-dependent hamiltonians with a truncated dyson series. Physical Review A, 99(4), Apr 2019

2019
[31]

G. H. Low and N. Wiebe. Hamiltonian simulation in the interaction picture. 2019. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.00675

work page arXiv 2019
[32]

D. W. Berry, A. M. Childs, Y. Su, X. Wang, and N. Wiebe. Time-dependent Hamiltonian simulation with l1-norm scaling. Quantum, 4:254, 2020

2020
[33]

Time-dependent hamiltonian simulation of highly oscillatory dynamics and superconvergence for schr¨ odinger equation

Dong An, Di Fang, and Lin Lin. Time-dependent hamiltonian simulation of highly oscillatory dynamics and superconvergence for schr¨ odinger equation. Quantum, 6:690, 2022

2022
[34]

Time-dependent hamiltonian simulation via magnus expansion: Algorithm and superconvergence

Di Fang, Diyi Liu, and Rahul Sarkar. Time-dependent hamiltonian simulation via magnus expansion: Algorithm and superconvergence. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 406(6), May 2025

2025
[35]

Discrete superconvergence analysis for quantum magnus algorithms of unbounded hamiltonian simulation

Yonah Borns-Weil, Di Fang, and Jiaqi Zhang. Discrete superconvergence analysis for quantum magnus algorithms of unbounded hamiltonian simulation. Commu- nications in Mathematical Physics , 407(2), January 2026

2026
[36]

High-order magnus expansion for hamilto- nian simulation, 2025

Di Fang, Diyi Liu, and Shuchen Zhu. High-order magnus expansion for hamilto- nian simulation, 2025. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.06054

work page arXiv 2025
[37]

Superconvergence of high-order magnus quantum algo- rithms, 2025

Di Fang and Jiaqi Zhang. Superconvergence of high-order magnus quantum algo- rithms, 2025. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.22897

work page arXiv 2025
[38]

On the trotter error in many-body quantum dynamics with coulomb potentials

Di Fang, Xiaoxu Wu, and Avy Soffer. On the trotter error in many-body quantum dynamics with coulomb potentials. Communications in Mathematical Physics , 407(4), March 2026

2026
[39]

Strong error bounds for trotter and strang-splittings and their implications for quantum chemistry

Daniel Burgarth, Paolo Facchi, Alexander Hahn, Mattias Johnsson, and Kazuya Yuasa. Strong error bounds for trotter and strang-splittings and their implications for quantum chemistry. Physical Review Research, 6(4), November 2024

2024
[40]

H.F. Trotter. On the product of semi-groups of operators. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 10:545, 1959

1959
[41]

On the construction and comparison of difference schemes

Gilbert Strang. On the construction and comparison of difference schemes. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis , 5(3):506–517, 1968

1968
[42]

Local-in-time existence of l1 solutions to the gravity water wave kinetic equation

Yulin Pan and Xiaoxu Wu. Local-in-time existence of l1 solutions to the gravity water wave kinetic equation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.10882 , 2026

work page arXiv 2026
[43]

St´ ephane Descombes and Mechthild Thalhammer. An exact local error represen- tation of exponential operator splitting methods for evolutionary problems and applications to linear Schr¨ odinger equations in the semi-classical regime. BIT 48 Numer. Math., 50(4):729–749, 2010

2010
[44]

C. Lubich. From quantum to classical molecular dynamics: reduced models and numerical analysis. European Mathematical Society, 2008

2008
[45]

A concise introduction to geometric numerical integration

Sergio Blanes and Fernando Casas. A concise introduction to geometric numerical integration. CRC press, 2017

2017
[46]

Computing quantum dynamics in the semiclassical regime

Caroline Lasser and Christian Lubich. Computing quantum dynamics in the semiclassical regime. Acta Numer., 29:229–401, 2020

2020
[47]

Spectral theory of the operator (p 2+ m 2) 1/2- ze 2/r

Ira W Herbst. Spectral theory of the operator (p 2+ m 2) 1/2- ze 2/r. Commu- nications in Mathematical Physics , 53(3):285–294, 1977

1977
[48]

Error bounds for exponential operator split- tings

Tobias Jahnke and Christian Lubich. Error bounds for exponential operator split- tings. BIT, 40(4):735–744, 2000. 49

2000