Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 62 references

On Complex Gamma-Function Integrals

T0 review · 3 major / 3 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 Two multidimensional Gamma-function integrals are evaluated directly by residue summation, giving explicit Gamma-function products.

desk verdict The first integral gets a real proof; the second rests on an unverified 'one can show' for T_N=1, so treat (2.3b) as conditional. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01530 v2 pith:TVRL3HKL submitted 2019-08-05 math-ph hep-thmath.MP

Sergey E. Derkachov , Alexander N. Manashov This is my paper · ORCID
classification math-phhep-thmath.MP MSC 33C7081R12
keywords Mellin-BarnesintegralscomplexGammafunctionstar-trianglerelationSL(2C)spinchainsseparationofvariablesmultidimensionalbetahypergeometricsummationquasi-classicallimit
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

This paper sets out to prove two multidimensional integral identities by direct residue summation. The integrals are complex analogues, built from the Gamma function of the complex field, of a known family of Mellin–Barnes integrals, and their right-hand sides are explicit products of Gamma functions divided by one Gamma function of the sum of parameters. The proof matters because the identities had previously been obtained only through separation-of-variables reasoning that depends on an unproved completeness statement; a direct derivation removes that reliance. The paper also shows that the same identities reproduce known star-triangle relations for the lowest nontrivial cases and reduce, in the quasi-classical limit, to a known power-function duality.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the complex Gamma function $\Gamma(u,\bar u)=\Gamma(u)/\Gamma(1-\bar u)$ for variables of the form $u=n/2+\nu$, together with the combined discrete-continuous measure $\sum_n\int d\nu/(2\pi i)$. The proof rewrites each integral as a determinant of Mellin moments of a one-variable kernel, evaluates those moments by residues, and exploits a factorization of the double sum into holomorphic and antiholomorphic parts. The multiple residue sums are then evaluated by a $U(n)$ Gauss summation formula, and the final trigonometric sum collapses through a lemma from the earlier summation literature. For the second identity the same route yields an extra factor $T_N$, which the paper asserts equals 1 by a $q\to 1$ limit of earlier identities.

What would settle it

Compute the residue sum for $I_N^{(2)}$ at $N=1$ for generic parameter values and compare with the claimed Gamma-function product; a mismatch would refute the identity. Alternatively, carry out the $q\to1$ limit of equations (7.11) and (7.12) of the cited work and check directly whether the factor $T_N$ becomes 1 under the normalization used here.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, for a discrete variable $n$ and continuous variable $\nu$ with $u=n/2+\nu$ and $\bar u=-n/2+\nu$, the integrals $I_N^{(1)}$ and $I_N^{(2)}$ in equations (2.3) equal the displayed Gamma products, such as $I_N^{(1)} = \prod_{k,j=1}^{N+1}\Gamma(z_k+w_j)/\Gamma(\sum_{k=1}^{N+1}(z_k+w_k))$. The proof closes contours, sums residues, factorizes the resulting double sums, and applies a root-system Gauss summation formula; auxiliary convergence conditions are then removed by analytic continuation. The same residue calculus produces companion integrals, shows that the $N=1$ and $N=2$ cases give chain and star-triangle relations, and in the quasi-classical limit recovers a special case of a known duality for power-function integrals. The paper further conjectures quantized versions of that duality.

Load-bearing premise

The proof of the second identity depends on the assertion that the factor $T_N$ equals 1, imported from a $q\to1$ limit of earlier identities that the paper does not actually perform.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The identities stand independently of separation-of-variables completeness, so they can serve as an ingredient in proving completeness of the SoV representation for SL(2,C) spin chains.
  • For $N=1$ and $N=2$ the integrals reproduce the chain relation and the star-triangle relation, connecting the identities to integrable lattice models.
  • In the quasi-classical limit the identities reduce to a known power-function duality, so the Gamma integrals can be viewed as its quantized version.
  • The companion integrals obtained by residue comparison are intrinsically linked to the two main integrals only in the complex setting, exposing relations hidden in the real case.
  • The conjectured dualities (6.6) and (6.7) would extend the main identities to families with unequal numbers of integration variables, with the $m=0$ cases being exactly (2.3).

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension is to apply the same determinant-and-residue strategy to integrals with more general Gamma weights; the deciding step is whether the double-sum factorization still holds.
  • If the $T_N=1$ assertion is confirmed, the analytic-continuation argument for the second identity becomes self-contained, strengthening the completeness application.
  • The equivalence, visible only in the complex case, between integral families that are distinct in the real case suggests that completeness statements might be transferred from one family to the other.
  • The conjectured quantized dualities, if valid, would likely have counterparts in two-dimensional conformal field theory correlation functions, where similar power-function dualities are standard tools.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies multidimensional Mellin-Barnes integrals with SL(2,C) gamma functions that were previously obtained by the authors in [16, 17] through separation-of-variables considerations. The central claim is that two families of integrals, I_N^(1) in (2.3a) and I_N^(2) in (2.3b), equal explicit products of SL(2,C) gamma functions. Section 2 gives a determinant representation and then a residue-summation proof. The proof of I_N^(1) is carried out in detail using Milne's U(n) summation and a lemma of Gustafson. The proof of I_N^(2) is sketched and reduced to a finite trigonometric sum T_N asserted to equal 1 via an unspecified q to 1 limit of [28, equations (7.11) and (7.12)]. Sections 3 through 6 derive corollaries: new Barnes-type integrals, star-triangle relations (4.5) and (4.6), and the quasi-classical reduction to Dotsenko-Fateev duality; Section 6 proves the classical DF duality and conjectures quantized analogues.

Significance. The first family is proved convincingly, and the paper contains a useful direct, residue-based method that does not rely on SoV completeness; this is an important step toward an independent foundation of complex Gustafson integrals. The derivations of the star-triangle relations and the quasi-classical limit are natural and give the paper wide applicability. However, the proof of the second family, which is part of the abstract's claim of 'two such integrals', is incomplete at the decisive point T_N = 1, so the significance of the paper currently rests on an unverified identity.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.3, equation (2.3b)] The proof is reduced to the equality T_N = 1, but that equality is not proved. After displaying the finite trigonometric sum T_N, the text states 'One can show that T_N = 1 by taking the limit q to 1 of the identities in [28, equations (7.11) and (7.12)]', but the limit is not exhibited and no matching of normalization, parity, or half-integer conventions is given. Because every earlier step only reduces (2.3b) to this factor, the identity (2.3b) is exactly as strong as the unproved assertion T_N = 1. The downstream uses of (2.3b), including the chain relation and equation (4.6), inherit this gap. Please supply a direct proof of T_N = 1 or carry out the q to 1 limit explicitly in the conventions of this paper.
  2. [Sections 2.3 and 3] The text relaxes the convergence assumptions (2.12) and (2.16) to (2.8) by 'analytic continuation in the nu_k' without giving an argument. Since the contours, the separated pole series, and the residues depend on the parameters, a continuation step needs to specify the domain in which the integrals are meromorphic and explain why the contours can be kept admissible during the continuation. Without this, the stated range of validity of both identities is not fully established.
  3. [Section 2.3, after equation (2.14)] The phrase 'Using (6.5) we obtain the following representation' appears to cite the wrong equation: the displayed identity used to obtain the representation of I_N^(1) is the Milne U(n) Gauss summation (2.14), whereas equation (6.5) is a different identity from Section 6. Please correct the reference or clarify the logical dependence.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section 1] The first paragraph contains a typo: 'spin chin' should be 'spin chain'.
  2. [Section 3, equations (3.5)-(3.8)] The derivations of the limiting integrals by comparing residues are only sketched; since the estimate (3.3) is central to (3.5), a few more details about uniformity of the residue comparison and the vanishing of the finite contributions would improve readability.
  3. [Section 4, equations (4.4)-(4.6)] The parity and integer/half-integer conditions are stated verbally for the propagator S_alpha and D_alpha, but the correspondence with the conditions on n_r, m_j, and l_j in (2.3) is not tabulated; a short table would make the four cases in (4.6) easier to verify.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the two integral evaluations are carried out by residue calculus plus external summation identities; prior self-citations are historical, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central derivations are self-contained reductions of the integral definitions (2.3a) and (2.3b) to known external summation theorems. For (2.3a), the Mellin-moment computation, factorization of the double sum in (2.13), Milne's U(n) Gauss summation, and Gustafson's Lemma 5.10 are cited and applied; none of these inputs is the target product formula itself, and no parameter is fitted. For (2.3b), the residue evaluation is reduced to a hypergeometric summation from [26,28] and then to the factor T_N = 1, asserted in Section 2.3 by 'taking the limit q→1 of the identities in [28, equations (7.11) and (7.12)]'. That assertion is an omitted external verification and a correctness risk, but it is not circular: the identity is attributed to Gustafson, not to the present authors' prior work or to the target integral. The prior papers [16,17] are cited only as the source of the integral statements and as the earlier SoV-based derivation; the new proof does not use [16,17] as evidence for the gamma-function products. The star-triangle and quasi-classical/DF results are derived from the evaluated integrals rather than assumed. There is no fitted parameter called a prediction, no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors, and no ansatz disguised as a citation. The missing q→1 computation of T_N should be weighed as an incompleteness in the proof of (2.3b), not as a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's argument rests on standard contour integration, external hypergeometric summation theorems, and an analytic continuation step; none of these are empirically fitted. The only load-bearing imported input not fully derived in the text is the q→1 identity giving T_N=1 for the second integral.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Contour deformation and the residue theorem produce convergent sums over the pole sequences (2.4).
    Used throughout Section 2.3 to evaluate the ν-integrals; absolute convergence conditions (2.8) are stated to justify the exchange of summation and integration.
  • standard math The complex gamma function defined in Section 2.1 satisfies the functional relations (2.2).
    These relations are used repeatedly to simplify integrands and to convert products of gamma functions into polynomials in the integration variables.
  • standard math Milne's U(n) Gauss summation formula (2.14) evaluates the p-sums arising in the I_N^(1) proof.
    Invoked after equation (2.13); accepted as an external theorem from [42] and related references.
  • standard math The hypergeometric series summation formula from [26,28] evaluates the y-sums arising in the I_N^(2) proof.
    Used in Section 2.3 for the second integral; the paper does not derive the summation formula itself.
  • standard math Gustafson's Lemma 5.10 and equations (7.11),(7.12) of [28], including a q→1 limit, give T_N=1 and finalize the proof of the second integral.
    The q→1 limit is not shown in this paper; this is the weakest external input and the main reason for the conditional verdict.
  • domain assumption Analytic continuation in ν_k from the stronger convergence conditions (2.12)/(2.16) to the milder condition (2.8) preserves the identities.
    Stated at the end of the proofs in Section 2.3; the detailed meromorphic continuation argument is not exhibited.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On Complex Gamma-Function Integrals." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TVRL3HKL

@misc{pith2026190801530,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On Complex Gamma-Function Integrals},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TVRL3HKL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01530}
}
abstract

It was observed recently that relations between matrix elements of certain operators in the ${\rm SL}(2,\mathbb R)$ spin chain models take the form of multidimensional integrals derived by R.A. Gustafson. The spin magnets with ${\rm SL}(2,\mathbb C)$ symmetry group and ${\rm L}_2(\mathbb C)$ as a local Hilbert space give rise to a new type of $\Gamma$-function integrals. In this work we present a direct calculation of two such integrals. We also analyse properties of these integrals and show that they comprise the star-triangle relations recently discussed in the literature. It is also shown that in the quasi-classical limit these integral identities are reduced to the duality relations for Dotsenko-Fateev integrals.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    71, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999

    Andrews G.E., Askey R., Roy R., Special functions, Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications , Vol. 71, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999

    work page 1999

  2. [2]

    B 532 (1998), 567–587, arXiv:hep-th/9906010

    Baseilhac P., Fateev V.A., Expectation values of local fields for a two-parameter family of integrable models and related perturbed conformal field theories, Nuclear Phys. B 532 (1998), 567–587, arXiv:hep-th/9906010

    arXiv 1998

  3. [3]

    Baxter R.J., Exactly solved models in statistical mechanics, Academic Press, Inc., London, 1982. 18 S. ´E. Derkachov and A.N. Manashov

    work page 1982

  4. [4]

    Bazhanov V.V., Kels A.P., Sergeev S.M., Quasi-classical expansion of the star-triangle relation and integrable systems on quad-graphs, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 49 (2016), 464001, 44 pages, arXiv:1602.07076

    work page Pith review arXiv 2016

  5. [5]

    Bazhanov V.V., Mangazeev V.V., Sergeev S.M., Exact solution of the Faddeev–Volkov model, Phys. Lett. A 372 (2008), 1547–1550, arXiv:0706.3077

    work page Pith review arXiv 2008

  6. [6]

    Bazhanov V.V., Sergeev S.M., A master solution of the quantum Yang–Baxter equation and classical discrete integrable equations, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 16 (2012), 65–95, arXiv:1006.0651

    work page Pith review arXiv 2012

  7. [7]

    et al., Review of AdS/CFT integrability: an overview, Lett

    Beisert N., Ahn C., Alday L.F. et al., Review of AdS/CFT integrability: an overview, Lett. Math. Phys. 99 (2012), 3–32, arXiv:1012.3982

    arXiv 2012

  8. [8]

    Belitsky A.V., Braun V.M., Gorsky A.S., Korchemsky G.P., Integrability in QCD and beyond, Internat. J. Modern Phys. A 19 (2004), 4715–4788, arXiv:hep-th/0407232

    work page Pith review arXiv 2004

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    B 882 (2014), 303–351, arXiv:1401.7307

    Belitsky A.V., Derkachov S.E., Manashov A.N., Quantum mechanics of null polygonal Wilson loops, Nuclear Phys. B 882 (2014), 303–351, arXiv:1401.7307

    2014 arXiv

  2. [10]

    High Energy Phys

    Cavagli` a A., Gromov N., Levkovich-Maslyuk F., Separation of variables and scalar products at any rank, J. High Energy Phys. 2019 (2019), no. 0, 052, 28 pages, arXiv:1907.03788

    2019 arXiv

  3. [11]

    High Energy Phys

    Derkachov S., Kazakov V., Olivucci E., Basso–Dixon correlators in two-dimensional fishnet CFT, J. High Energy Phys. 2019 (2019), no. 4, 032, 31 pages, arXiv:1811.10623

    2019 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Derkachov S.E., Korchemsky G.P., Manashov A.N., Noncompact Heisenberg spin magnets from high- energy QCD. I. Baxter Q-operator and separation of variables, Nuclear Phys. B 617 (2001), 375–440, arXiv:hep-th/0107193

    2001 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Henri Poincar´ e20 (2019), 2623–2670, arXiv:1806.04487

    Derkachov S.E., Kozlowski K.K., Manashov A.N., On the separation of variables for the modular XXZ magnet and the lattice sinh-Gordon models, Ann. Henri Poincar´ e20 (2019), 2623–2670, arXiv:1806.04487

    2019 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Derkachov S.E., Manashov A.N., Iterative construction of eigenfunctions of the monodromy matrix for SL(2, C) magnet, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 47 (2014), 305204, 25 pages, arXiv:1401.7477

    2014 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Derkachov S.E., Manashov A.N., Spin chains and Gustafson’s integrals, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 50 (2017), 294006, 20 pages, arXiv:1611.09593

    2017 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Derkachov S.E., Manashov A.N., Valinevich P.A., Gustafson integrals for SL(2, C) spin magnet, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 50 (2017), 294007, 12 pages, arXiv:1612.00727

    2017 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Derkachov S.E., Manashov A.N., Valinevich P.A., SL(2 , C) Gustafson integrals, SIGMA 14 (2018), 030, 16 pages, arXiv:1711.07822

    2018 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Surveys 68 (2013), 1027–1072, arXiv:1205.3520

    Derkachov S.E., Spiridonov V.P., Yang–Baxter equation, parameter permutations, and the elliptic beta integral, Russian Math. Surveys 68 (2013), 1027–1072, arXiv:1205.3520

    2013 arXiv

  11. [19]

    B 251 (1985), 691–734

    Dotsenko V.S., Fateev V.A., Four-point correlation functions and the operator algebra in 2D conformal invariant theories with central charge C ≤ 1, Nuclear Phys. B 251 (1985), 691–734

    1985

  12. [20]

    Faddeev L.D., How the algebraic Bethe ansatz works for integrable models, in Sym´ etries quantiques (Les Houches, 1995), North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1998, 149–219, arXiv:hep-th/9605187

    1995 arXiv

  13. [21]

    and Math

    Fateev V.A., Litvinov A.V., Multipoint correlation functions in Liouville field theory and minimal Liouville gravity, Theoret. and Math. Phys. 154 (2008), 454–472, arXiv:0707.1664

    2008 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Forrester P.J., Warnaar S.O., The importance of the Selberg integral, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.) 45 (2008), 489–534, arXiv:0710.3981

    2008 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Surveys 59 (2004), 831–905

    Gel’fand I.M., Graev M.I., Retakh V.S., Hypergeometric functions over an arbitrary field, Russian Math. Surveys 59 (2004), 831–905

    2004

  16. [24]

    High Energy Phys

    Gromov N., Levkovich-Maslyuk F., New compact construction of eigenstates for supersymmetric spin chains, J. High Energy Phys. 2018 (2018), no. 9, 085, 23 pages, arXiv:1805.03927

    2018 arXiv

  17. [25]

    High Energy Phys

    Gromov N., Levkovich-Maslyuk F., Sizov G., New construction of eigenstates and separation of variables for SU(N) quantum spin chains, J. High Energy Phys. 2017 (2017), no. 9, 111, 40 pages, arXiv:1610.08032

    2017 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Gustafson R.A., The Macdonald identities for affine root systems of classical type and hypergeometric series very-well-poised on semisimple Lie algebras, in Ramanujan International Symposium on Analysis (Pune, 1987), Macmillan of India, New Delhi, 1989, 185–224

    1987

  19. [27]

    Gustafson R.A., Some q-beta and Mellin–Barnes integrals with many parameters associated to the classical groups, SIAM J. Math. Anal. 23 (1992), 525–551

    1992

  20. [28]

    Gustafson R.A., Some q-beta and Mellin–Barnes integrals on compact Lie groups and Lie algebras, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 341 (1994), 69–119. On Complex Gamma-Function Integrals 19

    1994

  21. [29]

    Gustafson R.A., Some q-beta integrals on SU(n) and Sp(n) that generalize the Askey–Wilson and Nasrallah– Rahman integrals, SIAM J. Math. Anal. 25 (1994), 441–449

    1994

  22. [30]

    Ismagilov R.S., On Racah operators, Funct. Anal. Appl. 40 (2006), 222–224

    2006

  23. [31]

    Ismagilov R.S., On Racah operators for representations of the principal series of the group SL(2 , C), Sb. Math. 198 (2007), 77–90

    2007

  24. [32]

    Kels A.P., A new solution of the star-triangle relation, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 47 (2014), 055203, 7 pages, arXiv:1302.3025

    2014 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Kels A.P., New solutions of the star-triangle relation with discrete and continuous spin variables, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 48 (2015), 435201, 19 pages, arXiv:1504.07074

    2015 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Kitanine N., Maillet J.M., Niccoli G., Terras V., The open XXX spin chain in the SoV framework: scalar product of separate states, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 50 (2017), 224001, 35 pages, arXiv:1606.06917

    2017 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Kitanine N., Maillet J.M., Niccoli G., Terras V., The open XXZ spin chain in the SoV framework: scalar product of separate states, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 51 (2018), 485201, 46 pages, arXiv:1807.05197

    2018 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Kozlowski K.K., Unitarity of the SoV transform for the Toda chain, Comm. Math. Phys. 334 (2015), 223–273, arXiv:1306.4967

    2015 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Kulish P.P., Reshetikhin N.Y., Sklyanin E.K., Yang–Baxter equations and representation theory. I, Lett. Math. Phys. 5 (1981), 393–403

    1981

  30. [38]

    Recent developments, in Integrable Quan- tum Field Theories (Tv¨ arminne, 1981),Lecture Notes in Phys., Vol

    Kulish P.P., Sklyanin E.K., Quantum spectral transform method. Recent developments, in Integrable Quan- tum Field Theories (Tv¨ arminne, 1981),Lecture Notes in Phys., Vol. 151, Springer, Berlin – New York, 1982, 61–119

    1981

  31. [39]

    Litvinov A.V., Lectures on conformal field theory, Lecture 6, available at http://www.mathnet.ru/rus/ person27650

  32. [40]

    Maillet J.M., Niccoli G., On quantum separation of variables, J. Math. Phys. 59 (2018), 091417, 47 pages, arXiv:1807.11572

    2018 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Milne S.C., A q-analog of hypergeometric series well-poised in SU(n) and invariantG-functions, Adv. Math. 58 (1985), 1–60

    1985

  34. [42]

    Milne S.C., A q-analog of the Gauss summation theorem for hypergeometric series in U( n), Adv. Math. 72 (1988), 59–131

    1988

  35. [43]

    Molchanov V.F., Neretin Yu.A., A pair of commuting hypergeometric operators on the complex plane and bispectrality, arXiv:1812.06766

    arXiv

  36. [44]

    Neretin Yu.A., An analog of the Dougall formula and of the de Branges–Wilson integral, arXiv:1812.07341

    arXiv

  37. [45]

    Neretin Yu.A., Barnes–Ismagilov integrals and hypergeometric functions of the complex field, arXiv:1910.10686

    1910 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Pasquetti S., Sacchi M., 3d dualities from 2d free field correlators: recombination and rank stabilization, arXiv:1905.05807

    1905 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Rains E.M., Spiridonov V.P., Determinants of elliptic hypergeometric integrals, Funct. Anal. Appl. 43 (2009), 297–311, arXiv:0712.4253

    2009 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Rosengren H., Elliptic hypergeometric series on root systems, Adv. Math. 181 (2004), 417–447, arXiv:math.CA/0207046

    2004

  41. [49]

    Ryan P., Volin D., Separated variables and wave functions for rational gl(N) spin chains in the companion twist frame, J. Math. Phys. 60 (2019), 032701, 23 pages, arXiv:1810.10996

    2019 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Schlosser M.J., Hypergeometric and basic hypergeometric series and integrals associated with root systems, available at https://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~schlosse/AB-mbhs.html

  43. [51]

    Schrader G., Shapiro A., On b-Whittaker functions, arXiv:1806.00747

    arXiv

  44. [52]

    Sklyanin E.K., Boundary conditions for integrable quantum systems, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 21 (1988), 2375–2389

    1988

  45. [53]

    Selected topics, in Quantum Group and Quan- tum Integrable Systems, Nankai Lectures Math

    Sklyanin E.K., Quantum inverse scattering method. Selected topics, in Quantum Group and Quan- tum Integrable Systems, Nankai Lectures Math. Phys. , World Sci. Publ., River Edge, NJ, 1992, 63–97, arXiv:hep-th/9211111

    1992 arXiv

  46. [54]

    I, Theoret

    Sklyanin E.K., Takhtadzhyan L.A., Faddeev L.D., Quantum inverse problem method. I, Theoret. and Math. Phys. 40 (1979), 688–706. 20 S. ´E. Derkachov and A.N. Manashov

    1979

  47. [55]

    Elliptic Integrable Systems, Special Functions and Quantum Field Theory

    Spiridonov V.P., The endless beta integrals, Talk at the Workshop “Elliptic Integrable Systems, Special Functions and Quantum Field Theory” (June 16–20, 2019, Nordita, Stockholm, Sweden)

    2019

  48. [56]

    Surveys 56 (2001), 185–186

    Spiridonov V.P., On the elliptic beta function, Russian Math. Surveys 56 (2001), 185–186

    2001

  49. [57]

    Petersburg Math

    Spiridonov V.P., Theta hypergeometric integrals, St. Petersburg Math. J. 15 (2003), 929–967, arXiv:math.CA/0303205

    2003

  50. [58]

    13 (2007), 265–283, arXiv:math.CA/0408369

    Spiridonov V.P., Short proofs of the elliptic beta integrals, Ramanujan J. 13 (2007), 265–283, arXiv:math.CA/0408369

    2007

  51. [59]

    Math., Vol

    Spiridonov V.P., Elliptic beta integrals and solvable models of statistical mechanics, in Algebraic aspects of Darboux transformations, quantum integrable systems and supersymmetric quantum mechanics, Contemp. Math., Vol. 563, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2012, 181–211, a...

    2012 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Spiridonov V.P., Vartanov G.S., Elliptic hypergeometry of supersymmetric dualities, Comm. Math. Phys. 304 (2011), 797–874, arXiv:0910.5944

    2011 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Spiridonov V.P., Warnaar S.O., Inversions of integral operators and elliptic beta integrals on root systems, Adv. Math. 207 (2006), 91–132, arXiv:math.CA/0411044

    2006

  54. [62]

    Stokman J.V., On BC type basic hypergeometric orthogonal polynomials, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 352 (2000), 1527–1579, arXiv:q-alg/9707005

    2000 arXiv

Pith tools

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