Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 38 references

Discrete Painleve equation, Miwa variables, and string equation in 5d matrix models

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper establishes that the Fourier-transformed 5d conformal matrix model is a Toda tau-function whose shifted ratios satisfy the discrete Painlevé q-PVI equations, with the non-Hirota bilinear identities acting as the string equation.

desk verdict Honest and useful reinterpretation of q-PVI as string equation in 5d conformal matrix models, but the general-N claim rests on four unproved bilinear identities--by the paper's own admission it is an observation, not a derivation. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01278 v2 pith:EY2HD6WR submitted 2019-08-04 hep-th math-phmath.MP

A. Mironov , A. Morozov , Z. Zakirova This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thmath-phmath.MP
keywords discretePainlevéq-PVIconformalmatrixmodelMiwavariablesTodachaintau-functionstringequationHirotabilinearidentitiesq-VirasoroblocksNekrasovfunctions
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper aims to show that discrete Painlevé equations of q-PVI type are not an exotic add-on to matrix models but the natural form the string equation takes in the Miwa-variable description of a 5d conformal matrix model. Its central claim is that the q-Virasoro conformal block, after a Fourier transform in the matrix size, is a Toda-chain $\tau$-function, and that two ratios built from its shifted tau-functions satisfy the q-PVI equations with explicit parameters. If this is correct, the measure-dependent Ward identities that select the conformal block among all tau-functions reduce to four bilinear difference equations, and Painlevé transcendents appear as concrete Hankel determinants of q-hypergeometric moments. The paper derives the Hirota half of the bilinear system from Toda integrability, identifies the other half with the string equation, and checks the mechanism explicitly at $N=1$.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the conversion of matrix-model couplings into Miwa variables, $t_k = \frac{1}{k}\sum_a 2\alpha_a z_a^{-k}$, which turns the Ward identities into finite-difference equations in shifts $\alpha \to \alpha \pm 1/2$. The tau-function is represented as a determinant $Z_N^{(5d)}=\det_{i,j}G(i+j-2)$ whose moments are q-hypergeometric functions; from eight shifted tau-functions (43) one forms the double ratios $w_1,w_2$ in (44). The central identity is that, whenever the eight bilinear relations (46)-(53) hold, these ratios solve q-PVI (13) with parameters (45). The first four relations are measure-independent Hirota identities from Toda integrability; the remaining four are the measure-dependent string equation that selects the hypergeometric solution.

What would settle it

Evaluate the determinant (39) at $N=2$ with generic $q,z,\alpha_i$, form the eight shifted tau-functions (43), substitute into the four measure-dependent identities (50)-(53), and check whether each left-hand side vanishes identically as a power series in $z$; a single non-zero coefficient would refute the q-PVI solution. A simpler variant is to set $\mu_2=0$ and compare the resulting q-hypergeometric determinant with the known solution from [14].

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery claimed is that the 5d conformal matrix model, which is not itself a $\tau$-function, becomes one after a discrete Fourier transform in the matrix size: the generating function $Z_N^{(5d)}$ has the determinant representation (39). Writing its couplings as Miwa variables converts the Virasoro constraints into finite-difference equations, and the lowest ones are not enough; one must use the full set. The paper's central statement is that the functions $w_1(z)$ and $w_2(z)$ defined in (44) as ratios of eight suitably shifted tau-functions satisfy the q-PVI equations (13), with parameters (45), whenever the tau-function obeys the eight bilinear identities (46)-(53). Four of these identities are measure-independent Hirota relations derivable from the Toda hierarchy; the other four depend on the hypergeometric measure and act as the string equation. The paper verifies this interpretation in detail for $N=1$ and states that the general proof is analogous to the derivation in [14], which it does not repeat.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's conclusion rests on the unproved assertion that all eight bilinear identities (46)-(53) hold for the 5d CMM $\tau$-function at every $N$: the first four are derived from Toda integrability, but the last four, which carry the measure dependence and act as the string equation, are taken from [14] and verified explicitly only at $N=1$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The $c=1$ q-Virasoro conformal block becomes an explicit q-PVI solution, with the two Painlevé functions given by Hankel determinants built from q-hypergeometric moments.
  • The string equation for this matrix model is not the lowest $L_{-1}$ constraint but a finite set of bilinear identities in Miwa variables, so the same pattern may identify string equations in other q-deformed and logarithmic models.
  • The continuous limit $q\to 1$ should reproduce differential Painlevé VI once the Miwa variables acquire non-unit multiplicities; the paper announces this as a separate derivation.
  • The split of the eight identities into a measure-independent Hirota half and a measure-dependent string-equation half gives a concrete criterion for which Toda-hierarchy tau-functions can be matrix-model partition functions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The decisive missing check is $N=2$: since the general proof is asserted by analogy with [14] and only $N=1$ is worked out, numerical verification of (50)-(53) at $N=2$ for generic parameters would either complete the argument or locate its breakdown.
  • The same Hirota-versus-string-equation split may hold for other hypergeometric tau-functions with few Miwa variables, giving a general recipe: a Toda tau-function plus one measure-dependent bilinear identity yields a discrete Painlevé solution.
  • If the identities hold, the determinant representation gives an efficient numerical route to q-PVI transcendents by evaluating finite Hankel determinants instead of solving nonlinear difference equations.
  • The discrete string equation may also explain why Painlevé equations appear in double-scaling limits of Hermitian matrix models: the finite-difference string equation survives the scaling limit as a differential Painlevé equation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the 5d (q-deformed) conformal matrix model (CMM), defined as a generating function of q-Virasoro conformal blocks. It claims that (i) the Fourier-transformed partition function has a determinant representation and is a Toda-chain tau-function; (ii) the ratios w1(z) and w2(z) of shifted tau-functions in eq. (44) satisfy the discrete Painleve q-PVI equations (13) with parameters (45); and (iii) this follows from a combination of measure-independent Hirota bilinear identities and a measure-dependent string equation encoded in four additional bilinear identities. The paper derives the determinant representation, derives four of the eight bilinear identities from Hirota identities, argues heuristically that the remaining four follow from Virasoro constraints, and verifies the N=1 case in detail.

Significance. If fully established, the suggested identification of q-PVI with the string equation in the Miwa-variable setting would be a conceptually valuable unification of integrable hierarchies, Virasoro constraints, and Painleve equations. The paper makes a useful and explicit separation between measure-independent Hirota identities and measure-dependent string-equation data, and the N=1 calculation showing how L_{-1}, L_0, and L_1 constraints produce one non-Hirota identity is concrete and instructive. However, as the authors themselves state in the Introduction, the full system of eight bilinear identities is not derived from the CMM in this paper; the central q-PVI claim is therefore best viewed as a well-motivated conjecture with a nontrivial check, not as a demonstrated theorem. Supplying the missing general-N derivations would turn this into a strong result.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 4.3 and Sec. 5, Eqs. (44)-(53)] The central claim that w1 and w2 solve q-PVI is not demonstrated for generic N. The Introduction explicitly says the authors 'do not actually derive the 8 equations of [14] from CMM' and only 'confirm an observation that they are true'; in Sec. 5.1 only the first four identities, (46)-(49), are derived from Hirota identities, while the measure-dependent identities (50)-(53) are asserted. Sec. 5.2 argues in words that Virasoro constraints provide the missing identities, and Sec. 5.3 verifies only N=1. Since the q-PVI statement follows from all eight identities, this is a load-bearing gap. Please either provide a general-N derivation of (50)-(53) from the Virasoro/string equations, or explicitly state the q-PVI claim as a conjecture supported by the N=1 check.
  2. [Sec. 5.1, Eq. (54)] The derivation of the four Hirota identities assumes integer values of 2*alpha_2 and 2*alpha_3, because it uses Miwa variables with unit multiplicities over the finite ranges i = 0,...,2*alpha_2 - 1 and i = 0,...,2*alpha_3 - 1. The final parameters (45) and the tau-functions (43) are written for arbitrary complex alpha_i, and no analytic-continuation or q-Pochhammer argument is supplied to extend the derivation beyond integer exponents. Thus even the measure-independent half of the identities is proven only on a restricted set of parameters.
  3. [Sec. 5.3, Eqs. (55)-(68)] The N=1 illustration does not test the generic nonlinear claim. At N=1 the bilinear identities (59)-(62) become linear, and the simplified equations (56)-(58) are fractional-linear relations rather than the full nonlinear q-PVI system (13). Identifying (62) with the string equation at N=1 is useful evidence, but it does not establish that (50)-(53) hold for the determinant representation (39) at N>1. A verification at N=2 or a direct derivation from the Virasoro constraints for general N is required.
  4. [Sec. 5, after Eq. (53)] The step from the eight bilinear identities to the q-PVI equations (13) is not shown in the manuscript; the text says 'From these identities, one can derive...' and cites reference [14]. Since this implication is part of the paper's main claim, it should be presented in a self-contained way, at least in an appendix, or stated as a theorem with a proof reference that is explicitly validated for the present tau-function.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 2.1.1] In the sentence introducing the Gaussian Hermitian matrix model, 'Ii is given' should read 'It is given'.
  2. [Sec. 2.1.2, after Eq. (12)] 'Panlevé I equation' should be 'Painlevé I equation'.
  3. [Sec. 4.2, Eq. (40)] The notation in the exponents such as z^{2*alpha_12+k+1} and q^{2*alpha_12+k+2} is hard to parse; it would help to parenthesize the exponents explicitly and to define alpha_23 when it first appears in the second term of Eq. (40).
  4. [Sec. 5.3, Eqs. (67)-(68)] The shifted or barred tau-functions used in Eqs. (67) and (68) are not fully specified; the convention introduced before Eq. (46) should be restated for each symbol and subscript appearing in those equations.
  5. [Sec. 4.2] The statement that Eq. (39) 'follows from the eigenvalue representation' is made without proof; a few sentences indicating the argument, or a precise reference, would improve the exposition.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No definitional or fitted-input circularity; the central q-PVI claim is independent of the construction, though the paper explicitly leaves half of the bilinear identities unproven.

full rationale

The claimed chain is: Fourier transform gives determinant representation (39); Toda tau-function gives Hirota identities; Sec.5.1 derives the first four bilinear identities (46)-(49) from (20)-(24); w1,w2 are defined by the shifted-tau ratios (44); the eight bilinear identities imply q-PVI (13) via the external theorem [14]; parameters are fixed by (45). None of these entries is equivalent to the conclusion by construction: (44) does not assume (13), the Hirota derivation does not assume q-PVI, and q-PVI is not an input to the determinant representation. The Introduction explicitly concedes 'we do not actually derive the 8 equations of [14] from CMM, we just confirm an observation that they are true', and later says the derivation of the remaining four equations is 'completely analogous to the derivation of [14]'. This is an acknowledged proof gap or correctness risk, not a circular reduction. The self-citations ([9], [10], [36]) supply prior lemmas for determinant/Fourier/Virasoro facts; the present central claim that the 5d CMM determinant solves q-PVI remains externally checkable and is not a renaming of those lemmas. Score 2 reflects the substantial reliance on self-cited prior work and the unproved measure-dependent identities, not a finding that the derivation is tautological.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No fitted free parameters appear; all constants are expressed through physical conformal dimensions, q, z, and N. No new physical entities are postulated. The central claim rests heavily on imported equations, especially the eight bilinear identities whose non-Hirota half is not derived here.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math The CMM tau-function, after Fourier transform, is a Toda chain tau-function and satisfies Hirota bilinear identities (20)-(24).
    Standard integrable hierarchy facts from [22-26]; used in Sec.3.1 and Sec.5.1.
  • domain assumption The q-Virasoro conformal block is represented by the 5d CMM integral (35), and the Fourier transform (38) has determinant representation (39).
    Imported from [28-30] and [9]; the paper refers to prior work rather than proving these representations.
  • ad hoc to paper The eight bilinear relations (46)-(53) hold for the shifted tau-functions; in particular the four non-Hirota relations encode the string equation and are true for the CMM solution.
    Explicitly admitted in the Introduction: 'we do not actually derive the 8 equations of [14] from CMM, we just confirm an observation that they are true.' This is the load-bearing unproven input.
  • standard math The q-PVI system (13) is equivalent to the eight bilinear relations (46)-(53), as established in [14].
    Prior result by Sakai; used to conclude q-PVI from the identities.
  • domain assumption The Miwa variable set (54) uses integer 2*alpha2 and 2*alpha3; the extension to non-integer values is immediate via the q-Pochhammer definition.
    Footnote 1 asserts immediate extension without proof; relevant because conformal dimensions are generically continuous.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Discrete Painleve equation, Miwa variables, and string equation in 5d matrix models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EY2HD6WR

@misc{pith2026190801278,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Discrete Painleve equation, Miwa variables, and string equation in 5d matrix models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EY2HD6WR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01278}
}
abstract

The modern version of conformal matrix model (CMM) describes conformal blocks in the Dijkgraaf-Vafa phase. Therefore it possesses a determinant representation and becomes a Toda chain $\tau$-function only after a peculiar Fourier transform in internal dimensions. Moreover, in CMM Hirota equations arise in a peculiar discrete form (when the couplings of CMM are actually Miwa time-variables). Instead, this integrability property is actually independent on the measure in the original hypergeometric integral. To get hypergeometric functions, one needs to pick up a very special $\tau$-function satisfying an additional "string equation". Usually, its role is played by the lowest $L_{-1}$ Virasoro constraint, but, in the Miwa variables, it turns into a finite-difference equation with respect to the Miwa variables. One can get rid of these differences by rewriting the string equation in terms of some double ratios of the shifted $\tau$-functions, and then these ratios satisfy more sophisticated equations equivalent to the discrete Painlev\'e equations by M. Jimbo and H. Sakai ($q$-PVI equation). They look much simpler in the $q$-deformed ($"5d"$) matrix model, while in the "continuous" limit $q\longrightarrow 1$ to $4d$ one should consider the Miwa variables with non-unit multiplicities, what finally converts the simple discrete Painlev\'e $q$-PVI into sophisticated differential Painlev\'e VI equations, which will be considered elsewhere.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [14]

    Sakai, Nonlinearity, 11 (1998) 823-833

    H. Sakai, Nonlinearity, 11 (1998) 823-833

    work page 1998

  2. [33]

    M.Jimbo, H.Nagoya, H.Sakai, arXiv:1706.01940

    arXiv

  3. [1]

    A $q$-anaolg of the sixth Painlev\'e equation

    M. Jimbo, H. Sakai, chao-dyn/9507010

    work page Pith review arXiv

  4. [2]

    On the Continuum Limit of the Conformal Matrix Models

    A. Marshakov, A. Mironov, A. Morozov, Phys. Lett. B265 (1991) 99 A. Mironov, S. Pakuliak, Theor.Math.Phys. 95 (1993) 604-625, hep-th/9209100 S. Kharchev, A. Marshakov, A. Mironov, A. Morozov, S. Pakuliak, Nucl. Phys. B404 (1993) 717-750, hep-th/9208044 H. Awata, Y. Matsuo, S. Odake, J. Shiraishi, Phys.Lett. B347 (1995) 49, hep-th/9411053; Soryushiron Kenk...

    work page Pith review arXiv 1991

  5. [3]

    Dijkgraaf, C

    R. Dijkgraaf, C. Vafa, arXiv:0909.2453; H. Itoyama, K. Maruyoshi, T. Oota, Prog.Theor.Phys. 123 (2010) 957-987, arXiv:0911.4244 11 T. Eguchi, K. Maruyoshi, arXiv:0911.4797; arXiv:1006.0828 R. Schiappa, N. Wyllard, arXiv:0911.5337 A. Mironov, A. Morozov, Sh. Shakirov, JHEP02 (2010) 030, arXiv:0911.5721; Int.J.Mod.Phys. A25 (2010) 3173-3207, arXiv:1001.0563...

    arXiv 2010

  6. [4]

    Alday, D

    L. Alday, D. Gaiotto, Y. Tachikawa, Lett. Math. Phys. 91 (2010) 167–197, arXiv:0906.3219 N. Wyllard, JHEP 0911 (2009) 002, arXiv:0907.2189 A. Mironov, A. Morozov, Nucl.Phys. B825 (2009) 1–37, arXiv:0908.2569

    arXiv 2010

  7. [5]

    Belavin, A

    A. Belavin, A. Polyakov, A. Zamolodchikov, Nucl.Phys. B241 (1984) 333-380 A. Zamolodchikov, Al. Zamolodchikov, Conformal field theory and critical phenomena in 2d systems , 2009 (in Russian) G. Moore, N. Seiberg, Commun.Math.Phys. 123 (1989) 177-254 L. Alvarez-Gaume, Helvetica Physica Acta, 64 (1991) 361 P. Di Francesco, P. Mathieu, D. Senechal, Conformal ...

    work page 1984

  8. [6]

    Nekrasov, Adv

    N. Nekrasov, Adv. Theor.Math.Phys. 7 (2004) 831-864, hep-th/0206161 R. Flume, R. Pogossian, Int.J.Mod.Phys. A18 (2003) 2541 N. Nekrasov, A. Okounkov, hep-th/0306238

    arXiv 2004

Show all 38 references
  1. [7]

    Morozov, Phys.Usp.(UFN) 35 (1992) 671-714; 37 (1994) 1; hep-th/9502091; hep-th/0502010 A

    A. Morozov, Phys.Usp.(UFN) 35 (1992) 671-714; 37 (1994) 1; hep-th/9502091; hep-th/0502010 A. Mironov, Int.J.Mod.Phys. A9 (1994) 4355; Phys.Part.Nucl. 33 (2002) 537; hep-th/9409190

    1992 arXiv

  2. [8]

    David, Mod.Phys.Lett

    F. David, Mod.Phys.Lett. A5 (1990) 1019 A. Mironov, A. Morozov, Phys.Lett. B252 (1990) 47-52 J. Ambjørn, Yu. Makeenko, Mod.Phys.Lett. A5 (1990) 1753 H. Itoyama, Y. Matsuo, Phys.Lett. 255B (1991) 20

    1990

  3. [9]

    Mironov, A

    A. Mironov, A. Morozov, Z. Zakirova, Phys.Lett. B711 (2012) 332-335, arXiv:1202.6029

    2012 arXiv

  4. [10]

    B773 (2017) 34-46, arXiv:1707.02443

    A.Mironov, A.Morozov, Phys.Lett. B773 (2017) 34-46, arXiv:1707.02443

    2017 arXiv

  5. [11]

    Gamayun, N

    O. Gamayun, N. Iorgov, O. Lisovyy, JHEP 10 (2012) 038, arXiv:1207.0787 N. Iorgov, O. Lisovyy, Yu. Tykhyy, JHEP 12 (2013) 029, arXiv:1308.4092 See also: H. Nagoya, arXiv:1611.08971 G. Bonelli, F. Del Monte, P. Gavrylenko, A. Tanzini, arXiv:1901.10497

    2012 arXiv

  6. [12]

    Bonelli, A

    G. Bonelli, A. Grassi, A. Tanzini, arXiv:1710.11603

    arXiv

  7. [13]

    Grassi, J

    A. Grassi, J. Gu, arXiv:1803.02320

    arXiv

  8. [15]

    Steklov Inst.Math.251 (2005) 254, hep-th/0506075 A.Alexandrov, A.Mironov and A.Morozov, Int.J.Mod.Phys

    L.Chekhov, A.Marshakov, A.Mironov, D.Vasiliev, Proc. Steklov Inst.Math.251 (2005) 254, hep-th/0506075 A.Alexandrov, A.Mironov and A.Morozov, Int.J.Mod.Phys. A21 (2006) 2481-2518, hep-th/0412099; Fortsch.Phys. 53 (2005) 512-521, hep-th/0412205

    2005 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Mironov, Theor.Math.Phys

    A. Mironov, Theor.Math.Phys. 146 (2006) 63-72, hep-th/0506158

    2006 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Dijkgraaf, C

    R. Dijkgraaf, C. Vafa, hep-th/0206255; hep-th/0207106; hep-th/0208048

    arXiv

  11. [18]

    A24 (2009) 4939-4998, arXiv:0811.2825

    A.Alexandrov, A.Mironov, A.Morozov, P.Putrov, Int.J.Mod.Phys. A24 (2009) 4939-4998, arXiv:0811.2825

    2009 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Kharchev, A

    S. Kharchev, A. Marshakov, A. Mironov, A. Morozov, A. Zabrodin, Nucl.Phys. B380 (1992) 181-240, hep-th/9201013; Phys.Lett. B275 (1992) 311-314, hep-th/9111037

    1992 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Fukuma, H

    M. Fukuma, H. Kawai, R. Nakayama, Int.J.Mod.Phys. A6 (1991) 1385

    1991

  14. [21]

    Kajiwara, M

    K. Kajiwara, M. Noumi, Y. Yamada, J.Phys. A: Math.Theor. 50 (2017) 073001, arXiv:1509.08186 Ya. Yamada, talk at the VII Workshop on Geometric Correspondences of Gauge Theories, Trieste, 2017 12

    2017 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Gerasimov, A

    A. Gerasimov, A. Marshakov, A .Mironov, A. Morozov, A. Orlov, Nucl.Phys. B357 (1991) 565 S. Kharchev, A. Marshakov, A. Mironov, A .Orlov, A. Zabrodin, Nucl.Phys. B366 (1991) 569-601

    1991

  16. [23]

    Miwa, Proceedings of the Japan Academy , 58 (1982)

    T. Miwa, Proceedings of the Japan Academy , 58 (1982)

    1982

  17. [24]

    Kharchev, A

    S. Kharchev, A. Marshakov, A. Mironov, A. Morozov, Nucl.Phys. B397 (1993) 339-378, hep-th/9203043

    1993 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Kharchev, hep-th/9810091

    S. Kharchev, hep-th/9810091

    arXiv

  19. [26]

    Alexandrov, A

    A. Alexandrov, A. Zabrodin, J.Geom.Phys. 67 (2013) 37-80, arXiv:1212.6049

    2013 arXiv

  20. [27]

    E. Date, M. Jimbo, T. Miwa, J.Phys.Soc.J. 52 (1983) 388-393

    1983

  21. [28]

    Mironov, A

    A. Mironov, A. Morozov, S. Shakirov, A. Smirnov, Nucl. Phys. B855 (2012) 128, arXiv:1105.0948

    2012 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Itoyama, T.Oota, R

    H. Itoyama, T.Oota, R. Yoshioka, J.Phys. A: Math.Theor. 49 (2016) 345201, arXiv:1602.01209

    2016 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Nedelin, M

    A. Nedelin, M. Zabzine, arXiv:1511.03471

    arXiv

  24. [31]

    Bershtein, P

    M. Bershtein, P. Gavrylenko, A. Marshakov, JHEP 1802 (2018) 077, arXiv:1711.02063

    2018 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Gasper, M

    G. Gasper, M. Rahman, Basic hypergeometric series, Cambridge University Press, 1990

    1990

  26. [34]

    Tsuda, T

    T. Tsuda, T. Masuda, Comm. Math.Phys. 262 (2006) 595-609

    2006

  27. [35]

    Mironov, A

    A. Mironov, A. Morozov, L. Vinet, Teor.Mat.Fiz. 100 (1994) 119-131, hep-th/9312213

    1994 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Mironov, A

    A. Mironov, A. Morozov, Phys.Lett. B785 (2018) 207-210, arXiv:1708.07479

    2018 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Brezin, V

    E. Brezin, V. Kazakov, Phys.Lett. B236 (1990) 144 M. Douglas, S. Shenker, Nucl.Phys. B335 (1990) 635 D. Gross, A. Migdal, Phys.Rev.Lett. 64 (1990) 127

    1990

  30. [38]

    Ablowitz, H

    M.J. Ablowitz, H. Segur, Solitons and the inverse scattering transform , SIAM (1981) J. Weiss, M. Tabor, G. Carnevale, J.Math.Phys. 24 (1983) 522526 13

    1981

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.