Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 60 references

Second-order BBGKY truncation of the su(n) neutrino Hamiltonian matches exact many-body dynamics far better than mean field while scaling only polynomially on a classical computer.

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 · grok-4.5

2026-07-31 01:58 UTC pith:5ZLQGK6W

load-bearing objection Solid algebraic packaging of second-order BBGKY for quadratic su(n) with clean small-N gains over mean field; large-N physics claims ride an unquantified truncation whose error is only checked at N=4. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.28619 v1 pith:5ZLQGK6W submitted 2026-07-30 hep-ph

Improved Approximations for Collective Neutrino Oscillations

Matthew Riccio , A.B. Balantekin This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords collective neutrino oscillationsBBGKY hierarchysu(n) algebramean-field truncationRényi entropymagicmanamany-body quantum dynamics
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.

Collective neutrino oscillations are a many-body problem whose exact treatment grows exponentially with neutrino number, so almost all large-scale work uses mean field. This paper builds a product structure for the full u(n^N) algebra of N n-level systems, writes every operator expectation value, Rényi entropy, Wigner function, mana and magic in terms of multi-point correlators, and then closes the BBGKY hierarchy by setting three-body cumulants to zero. The resulting coupled equations for one- and two-body operators scale as O(N^3 n^6). For N=4 the truncated dynamics reproduce Trotter evolution of those operators and quantum-information measures roughly two orders of magnitude better than mean field. At N=50–100 the same equations reveal a dynamical crossover, growth of multipartite entanglement, and weak information scrambling that mean field cannot see. The method therefore supplies a systematically improvable, classically tractable window into the quantum dynamics of dense neutrino gases and other quadratic su(n) systems.

Core claim

Closing the BBGKY hierarchy of the forward-scattering one- and two-body su(n) Hamiltonian at second order—by setting the connected three-body cumulant identically to zero—yields one- and two-point functions, Rényi entropies, mana and magic that agree with exact Trotter evolution far more closely than mean field, while remaining polynomially scalable and exposing a dynamical phase transition plus weak scrambling at astrophysically relevant particle numbers.

What carries the argument

The product structure of the u(n^N) algebra together with second-order BBGKY cumulant truncation. Every operator and every quantum-information measure expands in multi-point expectation values of the local generators; setting the three-body connected correlator to zero then closes the Heisenberg equations into a finite, polynomial set of ODEs for the one- and two-body operators.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that three-body connected correlations can be set exactly to zero for all time; if those correlations grow and feed back into the lower equations, the large-N entropy and scrambling results lose their foundation.

What would settle it

Evolve N=6–10 neutrinos (two or three flavors) with exact Trotter or tensor-network methods and test whether the one- and two-body operators, Rényi entropies and magic still track the second-order truncation to the accuracy reported at N=4; a clear, systematic deviation would falsify the closure.

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

If this is right

  • Collective-neutrino simulations at N~100 become feasible on classical hardware without exponential cost.
  • Mean-field and standard fast-flavor treatments miss multipartite correlations that survive into the dilute regime.
  • Mana and magic leak from one-body into higher-body operators across the dynamical crossover, so late-time states need not be classically simulable in the Gottesman–Knill sense.
  • The same truncation applies at once to other quadratic su(n) models (Hubbard, Heisenberg, nuclear shell models, etc.).
  • Angular averaging by Monte-Carlo sampling of the geometric factors can be combined with the hierarchy equations without spoiling the polynomial scaling.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Because the neglected three-body diagrams are O(μ²/N²), the truncation may stay accurate even at realistic supernova densities once the gas dilutes, giving a controlled late-time window into scrambling.
  • The observed negativity of tripartite mutual information suggests supernova neutrino gases naturally generate multipartite entanglement that could serve as a benchmark for quantum-simulation platforms.
  • Pushing the closure to fourth order would supply a direct numerical convergence test and quantify residual three-body feedback at N=50–100.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a product-algebra formulation of u(n^N) for systems with one- and two-body su(n) Hamiltonians, with collective neutrino oscillations in the forward-scattering limit as the primary application. From this structure it derives compact expressions for multipoint operator expectations, Rényi entropies, Wigner functions, mana, and magic. Dynamics are obtained from the Heisenberg equation, closed by second-order BBGKY truncation (connected three-body cumulants set to zero), yielding coupled ODEs for one- and two-point functions that scale as O(N^3 n^6). For N=4, n=3 the truncated evolution is compared to Trotterized exact dynamics and improves on mean field by roughly two orders of magnitude in Φ and Γ, while reproducing entropy, mana, and magic. The same ODEs are then integrated at N=100 (two flavor) and N=50 (three flavor) with Monte-Carlo angular sampling, and used to report a dynamical crossover near μ(t)∼|B̄|, growth of multipartite Rényi quantities, weak information scrambling, and leakage of non-stabilizer resources into many-body operators.

Significance. If the truncation remains controlled at the N where the physics is extracted, the work supplies a practically useful classical route beyond mean field for all-to-all neutrino Hamiltonians and related quadratic su(n) models, with transparent access to entanglement and non-stabilizerness diagnostics that mean-field and pure phase-space methods do not furnish. The algebraic bookkeeping (product structure, generic Rényi/Wigner formulae, sparse structure-constant contractions) is reusable and clearly presented. The small-system Trotter benchmark is clean and demonstrates a genuine improvement over mean field. Polynomial scaling is a real practical gain relative to exact classical evolution. These strengths make the methodological core worth publishing once the large-N accuracy claim is either better controlled or more carefully delimited.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III.B, Eq. (52); Sec. V.B–V.D, Figs. 2–4 vs. 6–17] The central physics claims (dynamical crossover, entropy/mutual-information growth, weak scrambling, magic leakage) are drawn from N=50–100 runs of the second-order closure ⟨δΛ_Aa δΛ_Bb δΛ_Cc⟩→0 in Eq. (52). The only quantitative fidelity check against independent dynamics is the single Trotter comparison at N=4, n=3, μ(0)=5 (Figs. 2–4). At that size the Hilbert space is 3^4=81 and the neglected connected diagrams (Eqs. 56–61) are not parametrically small. The text argues those diagrams are O(μ²/N²) and “exceedingly small for N∼10^57,” but does not measure residual truncation error at the N actually simulated (~10^{-3}–10^{-4} suppression). Without a higher-order closure, a small-N convergence series in truncation order, or another independent large-N reference, the accuracy of the large-N entropy/mana/magic interpretations remains uncontrolled. Either supply such a check or reframe Sec.
  2. [Sec. V.C.1, Fig. 6; Sec. V.D, Fig. 12] The identification of a “dynamical phase transition” (Figs. 6, 12 and surrounding text) rests on a rapid change of the site-averaged order parameter Φ̄_a near μ(t)∼|B̄|. No finite-size scaling, susceptibility peak, or order-parameter distribution is given, and the same qualitative drop appears already in mean field. The language should be tightened to “dynamical crossover” unless a sharper diagnostic is provided, and it should be stated explicitly which features (e.g. two-body cumulant growth, entropy production) are absent in mean field and therefore truncation-dependent.
  3. [Sec. IV.A, Eqs. (64)–(65)] Positivity and purity bounds (Eqs. 64–65) are enforced by projecting n-point functions onto the nearer bound after each step. This is a nonlinear intervention not implied by the truncated Heisenberg flow. The manuscript should quantify how often and how strongly the projection fires in the N=50–100 runs, and whether entropy, mana, and magic time series change when the projection is disabled or replaced by a softer constraint. Without that, part of the reported late-time behavior could be an artifact of the stabilizer rather than of the BBGKY closure.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. II.C.1; Figs. 10, 16] The naïve Rényi mutual information I^Naive_α (Eqs. 21, 23) is used extensively; the text correctly notes subadditivity holds only for α=1, but several figure captions still read as if negativity of I_3 is unambiguous evidence of scrambling. A short clarifying sentence in the captions of Figs. 10 and 16 would help.
  2. [Throughout; References] Typos and notation: “Hierarchy T runcation” / “COMPUT A TIONAL” (Sec. III.B, IV titles); “adoptive” → “adaptive” (Sec. IV.A); “Tructating” → “Truncating” (Sec. V.B); “weather or not” → “whether or not” (Sec. II.C.1); “ban be written” → “can be written” (Sec. II.B). arXiv IDs in the reference list with years 2026 look like placeholders and should be checked.
  3. [Sec. IV.B, Fig. 1] Fig. 1 caption states second-order truncation scales as O(N^3 n^6); the main text sometimes writes the same and sometimes the binomial form. State one consistent leading-order expression and note the sparse-contraction prefactor actually used.
  4. [Sec. V.A, V.C–V.D] Monte-Carlo angular integration: number of Π_AB samples (100 for su(2), 50×100 wording for su(3)) and the momentum discretization δ|p| should be stated once in a single “numerical parameters” paragraph so runs are reproducible.
  5. [Sec. II.C.3, Eq. (40)] Eq. (40) for magic mixes a Pauli-symbol Rényi with S_2; a one-line check that the reported one-body magic vanishes on stabilizer states in the n=2 numerics would reassure readers unfamiliar with the definition.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: BBGKY truncation is an explicit ansatz validated against independent Trotter evolution, not a quantity forced by its own inputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: (i) product structure of u(n^N) from the su(n) structure constants (Eqs. 11–16); (ii) Heisenberg EOM for n-point operators yielding the BBGKY hierarchy (Eq. 48); (iii) explicit closure by setting the connected three-body cumulant to zero (Eq. 52 and surrounding text); (iv) numerical integration of the closed 1- and 2-body ODEs; (v) comparison to independent Trotter evolution of the same Hamiltonian at N=4, n=3. Nothing in steps (i)–(iv) defines the target observables (Φ, Γ, Rényi entropies, mana, magic) in terms of a fit to those same observables. Mixing angles, Δm², and the bulb-model μ(t) are external inputs. Self-citations (prior Balantekin path-integral/mean-field work, Volpe BBGKY reviews) supply background and motivation but are not used as uniqueness theorems or as the sole justification of the truncation; the truncation is stated as an ansatz and checked against an external benchmark. Large-N physics claims inherit uncontrolled truncation error (a correctness issue), but that is not circularity under the stated criteria. Score 0; steps empty.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard Lie-algebra and many-body machinery plus two domain modeling choices (forward scattering; second-order cumulant closure) and a handful of phenomenological scales. No new particles or forces are postulated. Free parameters are the usual supernova-bulb and oscillation inputs plus numerical controls; none are fitted to the beyond-mean-field observables being claimed.

free parameters (5)
  • μ0 (initial interaction strength) = μ(0)=5 in benchmark and large-N runs
    Sets overall neutrino-neutrino coupling in the bulb model; chosen O(1–5) in units of ω0 for the reported runs rather than taken from a specific progenitor profile.
  • ω0 (energy unit) = Δ01/(4E0), E0~10 MeV
    Overall time/energy rescaling ω0=Δm²01/(4E0) with E0~10 MeV; conventional but chosen by hand for the plots.
  • Monte-Carlo angular sample size = 100 (su(2)); 50 angles × 100 samples (su(3))
    Number of independent Π_AB draws (100 for su(2), 50×100 for su(3)) controls the angular average; not converged in the text.
  • δtmax / ε adaptive-step controls
    Adaptive RK4 step δt=min(ε/μ(t), δtmax) is a numerical knob that affects integration error.
  • Momentum magnitude discretization δ|p| and N = N=4 (benchmark), 100 (su(2)), 50 (su(3))
    Finite grid of neutrino momenta and particle number are IR/UV cutoffs of the many-body model.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Forward-scattering (angle-dependent but momentum-exchange-free) two-body neutrino Hamiltonian of the form H=B·Λ+(μ/2N)Π_AB Λ_A·Λ_B
    Stated in Sec. III A; standard in the collective-oscillation literature but omits non-forward and inelastic channels that the paper itself notes can revive discarded diagrams.
  • ad hoc to paper Three-body connected cumulants vanish identically, closing the BBGKY hierarchy at the two-body level
    Explicit closure used to obtain Eq. (52); justified by large-N diagram counting but not controlled for the simulated N.
  • standard math su(n) / u(n^N) product algebra and completeness of the generalized Gell-Mann (and clock/Pauli) bases for operator decomposition
    Secs. II A–B; standard representation theory used to expand ρ, entropies and Wigner functions.
  • domain assumption Phenomenological neutrino bulb model for μ(t) and vacuum mixing angles/mass splittings taken from global fits
    Sec. V A; external astrophysical and experimental inputs.
  • ad hoc to paper Naïve Rényi mutual information I_α=S_A+S_B−S_AB remains a useful probe even though subadditivity holds only for α=1
    Sec. II C 1 explicitly warns the estimator need not be positive; later scrambling claims still rely on it.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-daily-grok45 · 26217 in / 3841 out tokens · 73691 ms · 2026-07-31T01:58:39.700553+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

A one- and two-body $\mathfrak{su}(n)$ Hamiltonian governing the dynamics of many systems, including collective neutrino oscillations, is investigated. We start by analyzing the algebraic structure($\mathfrak{u}(n^N)$), formulate a product structure of the algebra, and utilize this to construct generic expressions for operator expectation values, R\'{e}nyi Entropy, and Wigner Functions. Performing BBGKY hierarchy truncation we develop a systematic methodology for going beyond the mean field with polynomial scaling on a classical computer.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.28619 by A.B. Balantekin, Matthew Riccio.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: log10(∆tstep) for RK4 forward integration vs Trotter Expansion. Simulations performed on Apple MacBook Air (M3, 8-core CPU, 16 GB RAM), where we solve Eq. (49) and Eq. (52) together by direct Trotter expansion. Note directly the sub-exponential scaling of the Hierarchy truncation and that at second-order Truncation scales as O(N3n 6 ). The lines were fit to the mean time per step of using the equation ¯δts… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Comparison of the mean-field, Trotter expansion, and hierarchy truncation for operator expectation values. For hierarchy truncation three-body cumulants are set to zero in Eq. 52. We use the definitions ∆Φ2 = P A,a(ΦTrotter Aa − Φ Estimator Aa ) 2 , ∆Γ2 = P A,a,B,b(ΓTrotter AaBb − Γ Estimator AaBb ) 2 , and the mean field estimator for ΓMFT AaBb = ΦAaΦBb. Note that the hierarchy truncation method matches t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Comparison of the mean-field, Trotter expansion, and hierarchy truncation for entropy values. For hierarchy truncation three-body cumulants are set to zero at Eq. 52. The one- and two-body entropies are defined in Eq. (20). Notice that the entropies for truncation matches almost exactly that of the Trotter expansion. The mean field, as expected, has zero entropy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of the mean-field, Trotter expansion, and hierarchy truncation for magic and mana values. For hierarchy truncation three-body cumulants are set to zero at Eq. 52. In this figure we compare the non-stabilizer measures of magic and mana, defined in Eqs. (40) and (32), respectively. Notice that hierarchy truncation matches almost exactly that of the Trotter expansion, whereas the mean field diverge… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Evolution of the von Neumann Entropy vs that of the α = 2 R´enyi Entropy. The evolution is found by solving Eqs. (49) and (52) simultaneously with N = 100, n = 2, and µ(0) = 5. To compute the von Neumann Entropy we construct the one-body reduced density matrix with ρA = 1 n 1 + 1 2ΦAaλ a , we then compute the von Neumann entropy numerically for the case of the n flavor system. Of course in the 2-flavor sys… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Evolution of the two-body entropy and mutual information estimator for two flavors. The evolution of the system is found by solving Eqs. (49) and (52) simultaneously with N = 100, n = 2, and µ(0) = 5. The two-body entropy is calculated using Eq. (20) and the two-body mutual information estimator is calculated using Eq. (21) with α = 2. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Evolution of the three-body entropy and three-body mutual information estimator. Evolution of the system is found by solving Eqs. (49) and (52) together using N = 100, n = 2, µ(0) = 5. Entropy and mutual information estimator are calculated using Eqs. (20) and (23) with α = 2, respectively. We can see the growth of three-body mutual information and entropy, indicating the growth of the information content… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Three-flavor evolution found by solving Eqs. (49) and (52) together with the parameters N = 50, n = 3, and µ(0) = 5. This figure depicts a dynamical phase transition around the crossover point (the dotted line) µ(t) ∼ |B¯|. The horizantal dashed line is indicates the value of |B¯|. The order parameter is given by Φ¯ a = 1 N P A ΦAa. a relatively large number of neutrinos, as high as N ∼ 100 and higher. Ho… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Evolution of the one-body entropy, two-body magic and mana for two flavors. The evolution of the system is found by solving Eqs. (49) and (52) together with N = 100, n = 2, and µ(0) = 5. We calculate magic and mana using Eqs. (40) and (32), respectively. Both magic and mana indicate that density matrix contains non-stabilizer states. non-stabilizer, yet Wigner-positive. This arises be￾cause the density op… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Three-flavor evolution of the one-body relative populations ΦA3 = ⟨nAνe ⟩ − [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Evolution of the three-flavor three-body [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Evolution of the one-body entropy as well [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_17.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 44 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    [40]) we can decompose any arbitraryn N ×n N matrix in terms of them: O= 1 nN Tr(O) + 1 nN−1 2 Tr OΛAa ΛAa +

    Operator Decomposition, Completeness, Operator Transformations, and Operator Action Since all possible products of Λ AµA ’s are Hermi- tian matrices of the fundamental representation of theu(n N ) algebra (for an explicit illustration see Ref. [40]) we can decompose any arbitraryn N ×n N matrix in terms of them: O= 1 nN Tr(O) + 1 nN−1 2 Tr OΛAa ΛAa +... =...

  2. [2]

    To examine the entanglement structure, we introduce the R´ enyi En- tropy: Sα,{A} = 1 1−α ln Tr ρα {A} (19) Forα= 1 R´ enyi Entropy reduces to the von Neumann entropy

    R´ enyi Entropy & R´ enyi Mutual Information In many-body physics, the entanglement structure is often the primary lens through which we exam- ine the behavior of largeN-systems. To examine the entanglement structure, we introduce the R´ enyi En- tropy: Sα,{A} = 1 1−α ln Tr ρα {A} (19) Forα= 1 R´ enyi Entropy reduces to the von Neumann entropy. Forα= 2, U...

  3. [3]

    quantum- ness

    Discrete Phase Space and Mana Another fundamental characteristic of these many- body systems is their representation in phase space via the Wigner function. The Wigner function provides a quasi probability distribution that maps the many- body density matrix onto a discrete phase space, of- fering a direct visual and mathematical diagnostic of quantum non...

  4. [4]

    Pauli Symbol

    Mana to Magic The Gottesman-Knill theorem states that quantum systems that utilize only stabilizer resources, i.e. cir- cuits that only consist of gates from the Pauli or Clif- ford groups, can be efficiently simulated in polynomial time on a probabilistic classical computer [45]. Thus, it is important to have a measure for the amount of non-stabilizer re...

  5. [5]

    H. Duan, G. M. Fuller, and Y.-Z. Qian, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.60, 569 (2010), arXiv:1001.2799 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  6. [6]

    A. B. Balantekin, J. Phys. G45, 113001 (2018), arXiv:1809.02539 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  7. [7]

    Tamborra and S

    I. Tamborra and S. Shalgar, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.71, 165 (2021), arXiv:2011.01948 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    Johns, S

    L. Johns, S. Richers, and M.-R. Wu, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.75, 399 (2025), arXiv:2503.05959 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    M. C. Volpe, Rev. Mod. Phys.96, 025004 (2024), arXiv:2301.11814 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  10. [10]

    A. B. Balantekin and Y. Pehlivan, J. Phys. G34, 47 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0607527

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  11. [11]

    M. J. Cervia, A. V. Patwardhan, A. B. Balantekin, ‡. S. N. Coppersmith, and C. W. Johnson, Phys. Rev. D100, 083001 (2019), arXiv:1908.03511 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  12. [12]

    M. J. Cervia, P. Siwach, A. V. Patwardhan, A. B. Balantekin, S. N. Coppersmith, and C. W. Johnson, Phys. Rev. D105, 123025 (2022), arXiv:2202.01865 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  13. [13]

    Lacroix, A

    D. Lacroix, A. B. Balantekin, M. J. Cervia, A. V. Pat- wardhan, and P. Siwach, Phys. Rev. D106, 123006 (2022), arXiv:2205.09384 [nucl-th]. 16

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  14. [14]

    Illa and M

    M. Illa and M. J. Savage, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 221003 (2023), arXiv:2210.08656 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  15. [15]

    J. D. Martin, A. Roggero, H. Duan, J. Carlson, and V. Cirigliano, Phys. Rev. D105, 083020 (2022), arXiv:2112.12686 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  16. [16]

    J. D. Martin, D. Neill, A. Roggero, H. Duan, and J. Carlson, Phys. Rev. D108, 123010 (2023), arXiv:2307.16793 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  17. [17]

    Carlson, A

    J. Carlson, A. Roggero, and D. Neill, (2026), arXiv:2603.12192 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  18. [18]

    Lacroix, A

    D. Lacroix, A. Bauge, B. Yilmaz, M. Mangin-Brinet, A. Roggero, and A. B. Balantekin, Phys. Rev. D110, 103027 (2024), arXiv:2409.20215 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  19. [19]

    Neill, H

    D. Neill, H. Liu, J. Martin, and A. Roggero, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 023157 (2025), arXiv:2406.18677 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    Chernyshev, C

    I. Chernyshev, C. E. P. Robin, and M. J. Savage, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 023228 (2025), arXiv:2411.04203 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    Bhaskar, A

    R. Bhaskar, A. Roggero, and M. J. Savage, Phys. Rev. C110, 045801 (2024)

    2024

  22. [22]

    Br¨ okemeier, S

    F. Br¨ okemeier, S. M. Hengstenberg, J. W. T. Keeble, C. E. P. Robin, F. Rocco, and M. J. Savage, Phys. Rev. C111, 034317 (2025), arXiv:2409.12064 [nucl- th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    O. Kiss, I. Tavernelli, F. Tacchino, D. Lacroix, and A. Roggero, (2025), arXiv:2510.24841 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    Laraib and S

    Z. Laraib and S. Richers, Phys. Rev. D112, L101304 (2025), arXiv:2507.02040 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Laraib and S

    Z. Laraib and S. Richers, Phys. Rev. D112, 123045 (2025), arXiv:2511.16506 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    Hite and P

    M. Hite and P. Siwach, (2026), arXiv:2605.23584 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  27. [27]

    Froustey, E

    J. Froustey, E. Rrapaj, Y. Liu, G. Li, C. Iancu, and V. Cirigliano, (2026), arXiv:2606.12404 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  28. [28]

    Yeter-Aydeniz, S

    K. Yeter-Aydeniz, S. Bangar, G. Siopsis, and R. C. Pooser, Quant. Inf. Proc.21, 84 (2022), arXiv:2104.03273 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  29. [29]

    Amitrano, A

    V. Amitrano, A. Roggero, P. Luchi, F. Turro, L. Vespucci, and F. Pederiva, Phys. Rev. D107, 023007 (2023), arXiv:2207.03189 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  30. [30]

    B. Hall, A. Roggero, A. Baroni, and J. Carlson, Phys. Rev. D104, 063009 (2021), arXiv:2102.12556 [quant- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  31. [31]

    Siwach, K

    P. Siwach, K. Harrison, and A. B. Balantekin, Phys. Rev. D108, 083039 (2023), arXiv:2308.09123 [quant- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  32. [32]

    A. B. Balantekin, M. J. Cervia, A. V. Patwardhan, E. Rrapaj, and P. Siwach, Eur. Phys. J. A59, 186 (2023), arXiv:2305.01150 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  33. [33]

    Turro, I

    F. Turro, I. A. Chernyshev, R. Bhaskar, and M. Illa, Phys. Rev. D111, 043038 (2025), arXiv:2407.13914 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    Spagnoliet al., Phys

    L. Spagnoliet al., Phys. Rev. D111, 103054 (2025), arXiv:2503.00607 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    D. J. Heimsoth, A. B. Balantekin, and P. Siwach, Three-flavor supernova neutrino simulation using a hybrid quantum-classical algorithm with qutrits (2026), arXiv:2605.01099 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  36. [36]

    Roggero, Phys

    A. Roggero, Phys. Rev. D104, 103016 (2021), arXiv:2102.10188 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  37. [37]

    Mangin-Brinet, A

    M. Mangin-Brinet, A. Bauge, and D. Lacroix, Phys. Rev. D113, 036026 (2026), arXiv:2507.18482 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  38. [38]

    Volpe, D

    C. Volpe, D. V¨ a¨ an¨ anen, and C. Espinoza, Phys. Rev. D87, 113010 (2013), arXiv:1302.2374 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  39. [39]

    V¨ a¨ an¨ anen and C

    D. V¨ a¨ an¨ anen and C. Volpe, Phys. Rev. D88, 065003 (2013), arXiv:1306.6372 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  40. [40]

    Serreau and C

    J. Serreau and C. Volpe, Phys. Rev. D90, 125040 (2014), arXiv:1409.3591 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  41. [41]

    Bossion and P

    D. Bossion and P. Huo, General formulas of the structure constants in thesu(n) lie algebra (2021), arXiv:2108.07219 [math-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  42. [42]

    Rosenhaus, J

    V. Rosenhaus, J. Phys. A52, 323001 (2019), arXiv:1807.03334 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  43. [43]

    Kitaev, Annals Phys.321, 2 (2006), arXiv:cond- mat/0506438

    A. Kitaev, Annals Phys.321, 2 (2006), arXiv:cond- mat/0506438

    arXiv 2006

  44. [44]

    A. B. Balantekin and A. M. Suliga, Eur. Phys. J. A 60, 124 (2024), arXiv:2405.13862 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  45. [45]

    ´A. M. Alhambra, PRX Quantum4, 040201 (2023), arXiv:2204.08349 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  46. [46]

    S. O. Scalet, ´A. M. Alhambra, G. Styliaris, and J. I. Cirac, Quantum5, 541 (2021), arXiv:2103.01709 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  47. [47]

    Seshadri, V

    A. Seshadri, V. Madhok, and A. Lakshminarayan, Phys. Rev. E98, 052205 (2018), arXiv:1806.00113 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  48. [48]

    G. Bjrk, A. B. Klimov, and L. L. Snchez-Soto (Else- vier, 2008) pp. 469–516

    2008

  49. [49]

    Gottesman, in22nd International Colloquium on Group Theoretical Methods in Physics(1998) pp

    D. Gottesman, in22nd International Colloquium on Group Theoretical Methods in Physics(1998) pp. 32– 43, arXiv:quant-ph/9807006

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  50. [50]

    Leone, S

    L. Leone, S. F. E. Oliviero, and A. Hamma, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 050402 (2022), arXiv:2106.12587 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  51. [51]

    Salasnich and C

    L. Salasnich and C. Vianello, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes117, 1 (2026)

    2026

  52. [52]

    R. Kubo, J. Phys. Soc. Jap.17, 1100 (1962)

    1962

  53. [53]

    M. E. Peskin and D. V. Schroeder,An Introduction to quantum field theory(Addison-Wesley, Reading, USA, 1995)

    1995

  54. [54]

    Cirigliano, S

    V. Cirigliano, S. Sen, and Y. Yamauchi, Phys. Rev. D 110, 123028 (2024), arXiv:2404.16690 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  55. [55]

    M. J. Cervia, Phys. Rev. D113, 043010 (2026), arXiv:2510.22005 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  56. [56]

    Kuehn, Moment closure—a brief review, inCon- trol of Self-Organizing Nonlinear Systems, edited by E

    C. Kuehn, Moment closure—a brief review, inCon- trol of Self-Organizing Nonlinear Systems, edited by E. Sch¨ oll, S. H. L. Klapp, and P. H¨ ovel (Springer In- ternational Publishing, Cham, 2016) pp. 253–271

    2016

  57. [57]

    H. Duan, G. M. Fuller, J. Carlson, and Y.-Z. Qian, Phys. Rev. D74, 105014 (2006), arXiv:astro- ph/0606616

    arXiv 2006

  58. [58]

    Hilfer, B

    R. Hilfer, B. Biswal, H.-G. Mattutis, and W. Janke, Computer Physics Communications169, 230 (2005), proceedings of the Europhysics Conference on Com- putational Physics 2004

    2005

  59. [59]

    J. J. Wallman and S. D. Bartlett, Phys. Rev. A85, 062121 (2012), arXiv:1203.2652 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  60. [60]

    R. J. Garcia, K. Bu, and A. Jaffe, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.120, e2217031120 (2023), arXiv:2208.10477 [quant-ph]. 17

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023