Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Classical facets of quantum integrability

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The eigenvalues of transfer matrices of generalized inhomogeneous GL(n)-invariant spin chains with twisted boundary conditions are tau-functions of the mKP hierarchy, and the nested Bethe ansatz is a chain of Bäcklund transformations.

desk verdict Solid review with an elegant new proof of the duality; the main soft spot is an unproved bridge to Krichever tau-functions that the new proof inherits. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.18557 v2 pith:BGKP7JME submitted 2025-01-30 math-ph math.MP

A. Zabrodin This is my paper · ORCID
classification math-phmath.MP MSC 81R1282B2337K10
keywords quantumspinchainsBetheansatzmKPhierarchytau-functionsquantum-classicaldualityRuijsenaars-SchneidermodeltransfermatricesBäcklundtransformations
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 review argues that the spectral problem of generalized inhomogeneous GL(n)-invariant spin chains with twisted boundary conditions is, from the right angle, a problem of classical soliton theory. Its central claim is that every eigenvalue of the commuting transfer matrices is a tau-function of the modified Kadomtsev–Petviashvili (mKP) hierarchy, a polynomial in the spectral parameter whose zeros move as Ruijsenaars–Schneider particles. On this identification, the nested Bethe ansatz is not an auxiliary technique but a chain of Bäcklund transformations, and the nested Bethe equations are equations of motion of the Ruijsenaars–Schneider system in discrete time. The payoff is a simpler proof of quantum-classical duality: placing the quantum Hamiltonian eigenvalues $H_i$ into the classical Lax matrix $L_{ij}=\eta H_i/(x_j-x_i+\eta)$ gives it the prescribed spectrum $(p_1,\dots,p_n)$ with multiplicities equal to the weight eigenvalues. If the paper is right, joint spectra of spin-chain Hamiltonians can be read off from classical inverse-spectral data without solving Bethe equations.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by four interlocking objects. (1) The master $T$-operator, the generating function $\sum_\lambda s_\lambda(t)T_\lambda(x)$ over Young diagrams, whose coefficients are the commuting transfer matrices; the Cherednik–Bazhanov–Reshetikhin (Jacobi–Trudi) identities make its eigenvalues satisfy the bilinear equations of the mKP hierarchy. (2) Krichever's characterization of polynomial solutions: the wave function is fixed by finitely many conditions at points $p_i$ with multiplicities $M_i$, which become the twist eigenvalues and weight eigenvalues on the quantum side. (3) The undressing/dressing chain of Bäcklund transformations, whose factorization of the wave operator into first-order difference operators reproduces the $Q$-operators and yields the nested Bethe equations as discrete-time zero dynamics. (4) The Lax matrix $L_{ij}=\dot x_i/(x_i-x_j-\eta)$ of the Ruijsenaars–Schneider model, whose spectrum the quantum data determine through the relation $\eta H_i=-\dot x_i(0)$.

What would settle it

Take a small twisted chain, e.g. $n=3$ and $N=3$, with generic distinct inhomogeneities $x_i$ and distinct twist eigenvalues $p_i$. Diagonalize the transfer matrices exactly, choose a common eigenstate, and compute the Hamiltonian eigenvalues $H_i$ and weight eigenvalues $M_a$. Form $L_{ij}=\eta H_i/(x_j-x_i+\eta)$; the claim (8.17)–(8.18) predicts $\det(zI-L)=\prod_{a=1}^{3}(z-p_a)^{M_a}$. One eigenstate for which this determinant differs would refute the duality. A second, finer check is to verify the bilinear equation (4.11) directly for a computed eigenvalue, testing the polynomial tau-function characterization outside the generic regime where two twist eigenvalues or two inhomogeneities approach each other.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery, on the paper's own terms, is a complete dictionary between the algebraic Bethe ansatz for twisted $GL(n)$-invariant XXX spin chains and the classical mKP hierarchy. The master $T$-operator $T(x;t)=\sum_\lambda s_\lambda(t)T_\lambda(x)$ is an operator-valued tau-function: each common eigenstate gives a (quasi)polynomial tau-function, and the intermediate tau-functions of the undressing chain are precisely the eigenvalues of Baxter's $Q$-operators. The paper shows that the nested Bethe ansatz is a chain of Bäcklund transformations and that the Bethe equations arise as zero-dynamics equations, i.e., as discrete-time Ruijsenaars–Schneider equations. Its new proof of quantum-classical duality runs as follows: for an eigenstate with weight eigenvalues $M_a$, the matrix $L_{ij}=\eta H_i/(x_j-x_i+\eta)$ built from the quantum Hamiltonian eigenvalues $H_i$ and the inhomogeneities $x_j$ has spectrum $\operatorname{Spec}L=(p_1,\dots,p_1,\dots,p_n,\dots,p_n)$ with each $p_a$ repeated $M_a$ times, where $p_a$ are the twist eigenvalues.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that every common eigenstate of the commuting transfer matrices is exactly one of the classical polynomial solutions of the mKP hierarchy selected by Krichever's conditions at the twist eigenvalues, with multiplicities given by the weight eigenvalues; the paper borrows this correspondence from earlier work rather than proving it, and the new duality proof inherits that reliance.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The joint spectrum of the spin-chain transfer matrices can be computed as an inverse spectral problem for the Ruijsenaars–Schneider Lax matrix, with no reference to Bethe equations.
  • The nested Bethe ansatz levels are reinterpreted as discrete time steps of a Bäcklund chain; the Bethe equations themselves are equations of motion of the Ruijsenaars–Schneider system in discrete time.
  • Equation (8.19) gives algebraic equations for the joint spectrum of the quantum Hamiltonians directly, in terms of elementary symmetric polynomials of the prescribed Lax-matrix eigenvalues.
  • The duality survives the limits covered by the paper: as $\eta\to 0$ it becomes the Gaudin/Calogero–Moser duality, and the trigonometric (XXZ-type) case fits the same mKP picture with trigonometric polynomial tau-functions.
  • For supersymmetric $GL(n|m)$ chains the same correspondence is expected to hold with wave operators of the form $W_1W_2^{-1}$, though the paper notes this needs further precision.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct consequence the author does not spell out: because the characteristic polynomial of $L$ is fixed by twist data alone, exact diagonalization of small twisted chains provides a numerical falsifier of the duality that does not require solving Bethe equations.
  • The inverse-spectral formulation suggests that the number of common eigenstates in a weight sector should equal the number of intersection points of two Lagrangian submanifolds, so intersection theory could count Bethe states; this goes beyond the paper.
  • If the master $T$-operator picture is the right organizing principle, one might expect the duality to extend to open or defect boundaries by modifying the Krichever data rather than the hierarchy; the paper does not treat this.
  • The paper leaves elliptic $R$-matrices as an open problem; a plausible extension would be to elliptic solutions of the mKP hierarchy or a different hierarchy, since the master $T$-operator fails to be an elliptic polynomial.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reviews the program connecting generalized inhomogeneous GL(n)-invariant spin chains with twisted boundary conditions to the classical mKP hierarchy. It recalls the master T-operator, its interpretation as an operator-valued tau-function, the Krichever class of polynomial solutions, and the identification of nested Bethe ansatz with chains of Bäcklund transformations. The new contribution is a proof, in Section 8, of the quantum-classical duality: the Lax matrix constructed from eigenvalues of the quantum Hamiltonians has spectrum equal to the twist eigenvalues with multiplicities equal to the weight eigenvalues, Eqs. (8.17)--(8.18). The proof avoids explicit use of Bethe equations and instead analyzes the pole structure of the adjoint mKP wave function.

Significance. If the main correspondence is accepted, the paper gives a clean conceptual unification of quantum transfer-matrix spectral theory with classical integrable many-body systems, and Section 8 offers a genuinely shorter route to the quantum-classical duality than the earlier Bethe-equation-based proof in [15]. The review is careful and explicit in many places, and it collects useful formulas for the undressing/dressing chain and for the Ruijsenaars-Schneider Lax matrix. The main caveat is that the load-bearing identification of transfer-matrix eigenvalues with Krichever-class mKP tau-functions is quoted from earlier works rather than proved or independently verified here; the new proof is conditional on that bridge.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 6.1, Eq. (6.2)] The proof of the quantum-classical duality is conditional on the assertion that each common eigenstate of the transfer matrices corresponds, via Eq. (7.1), to a polynomial mKP tau-function of the Krichever class (6.2) with p_i equal to the twist eigenvalues and M_i equal to the weight eigenvalues. This bridge is not proved in the manuscript: Section 4.2 cites [14] for the implication from Cherednik--Bazhanov--Reshetikhin relations to mKP tau-functions, Section 6.1 posits the Krichever data, and Section 7 identifies the data by the notational comparison (7.11). In particular, the paper does not verify from the nested Bethe ansatz that the eigenvalue T(x,t) satisfies the Krichever conditions (6.2) with these p_i and M_i, and it does not show that the leading coefficients a_{i,M_i} in (6.12) are nonzero, which is needed for the pole order to be exactly M_i+1. If some a_{i,M_i} vanishes, or if the correspondence fails in some parameter regime, the pole-order comparison and hence Eq. (8.17) do not follow. Please supply a proof, or a precise statement of the external theorem with proof, that the Bethe-ansatz eigenvalues lie in this Krichever class, and address the nonvanishing of the leading Krichever coefficients.
  2. [Section 8, Eq. (8.19)] The Krichever conditions are formulated only for n distinct points p_i, whereas the quantum-classical duality (1.9) and (8.17) is stated for arbitrary diagonal twist g, including the case of repeated eigenvalues such as g = I. The distinctness is used essentially in the construction: the n conditions (6.2) determine the n coefficients w_k, and the determinant representation (6.7) relies on n distinct points. The manuscript does not explain how coincident twist eigenvalues are handled. Please either restrict the main statements to generic twist with a separate limiting argument for degenerate twists, or extend the Krichever construction to the case of coincident p_i.
  3. [Section 8, Eq. (8.19)] The discussion after Eq. (8.19) claims that the duality yields an alternative way to compute joint spectra by solving the algebraic system (8.19) for H_i, without Bethe ansatz. For this to be a complete spectral method one needs two additional facts that are not established in the paper: first, that every common eigenstate is captured by some admissible Krichever data; second, that the inverse spectral problem (8.19) has exactly the right number of solutions, with a bijection between those solutions and the common eigenstates. The paper proves the forward direction only, and that conditionally on the bridge discussed above. Please state precisely what is proved, what is quoted from the literature, and what remains open for the advertised alternative spectral method.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 6.4] The notation for transfer matrices is ambiguous between normalized and unnormalized objects: for example, T_∅(x) = I is stated for normalized transfer matrices, while T(x;0) = φ(x) is used for the master T-operator. This makes relations such as (7.2)--(7.3) harder to follow. A consistent notational convention, or an explicit statement of which normalization is used in each formula, would help.
  2. [Section 6.4] In the determinant displayed in Eq. (6.37), the last row appears to contain a typo: the second entry is printed as A_{n-1}(x-η), but it should presumably be A_n(x-η), matching the pattern of the other rows.
  3. [Section 7] In the proof of Eq. (6.29), the displayed determinant contains an apparent typo, 'A_{m-1}(u-nη)', where the variable u should likely be x and the shift should match the adjacent columns. Please correct and re-check the surrounding indices.
  4. [Section 7] The statement that the other solutions A_2(x),...,A_n(x) of Eq. (6.35) can be obtained by permuting the points p_i is delegated to reference [3] with the comment 'We omit technical details'. Since this fact is used in the identification with the dressing chain, it would be useful to include a short proof or at least a precise lemma statement.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The new duality proof imports the Krichever pole-order data (pi, Mi) and then reads the same Mi back as the predicted Lax-spectrum multiplicities; the quantum-to-classical bridge is cited from [14]-[21], not derived.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 8, Eqs. (8.15)-(8.18)]
    "By construction of the adjoint wave function (8.12) we know that it has multiple poles at z = pi, i = 1,..., n. Therefore, looking at (8.15) with c∗0 given by (8.16), we conclude that the eigenvalues of the Lax matrix should be identified with p1,...,pn, with each pi being in general multiple eigenvalue with multiplicity Mi (then the right-hand side of (8.15) has a pole of order Mi + 1 at this point, as it should)."

    The multiplicity Mi in the Lax spectrum (8.17) is read off from the pole order Mi+1 of the adjoint wave function, but that pole order is an input of the Krichever construction: Section 6.1 says 'With each point pi we associate an integer number Mi ≥ 0' and imposes the Mi+1 conditions (6.2). The same symbol Mi is then labelled the weight eigenvalue in (8.17): 'where Ma are eigenvalues of the operators Ma (2.10)'. No derivation is given that a transfer-matrix eigenstate yields Krichever data with pole order exactly Ma+1; this is the asserted bridge from [14]–[21] and the Bethe-ansatz bookkeeping in Section 7. Thus Eq. (8.18) restates the input Krichever multiplicity as a predicted spectrum.

full rationale

The classical half of the paper is self-contained: given an mKP tau-function with Krichever data (pi, Mi), the pole analysis of the adjoint wave function genuinely forces Spec L = (p1^{M1},...,pn^{Mn}). The circularity is at the quantum-classical interface. The identification of spin-chain eigenstates with Krichever data (pi = twist eigenvalues, Mi = weight eigenvalues) is not proved in this paper; it is imported from the self-cited works [14]–[21] and from the Bethe-ansatz level bookkeeping in Section 7. In particular, the present paper does not prove that every common eigenstate of the transfer matrices gives a polynomial mKP tau-function satisfying the Krichever conditions (6.2) with nonvanishing leading coefficients a_i,Mi. Consequently, the headline result (8.17)–(8.18) is conditional on the very correspondence it claims to establish, and the spectral multiplicities are the Krichever input pole orders renamed as a prediction. The citation of [14] for the CBR-to-mKP theorem is a genuine mathematical theorem with stated assumptions, so it does not by itself raise the score; the reduction is the pole-order-to-multiplicity step.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no fitted numbers; the twist parameters, inhomogeneities, and multiplicities are inputs from the quantum model. The Krichever data a_im are arbitrary parameters of the solution class, not fitted to data. The main axioms are the CBR-to-mKP bridge (from [14]), the characterization by Krichever conditions, and standard mKP hierarchy results.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The Cherednik-Bazhanov-Reshetikhin (quantum Jacobi-Trudi) relations (3.17)-(3.18) imply that any eigenvalue of the master T-operator is a tau-function of the mKP hierarchy.
    Invoked in Section 4.2 before Eq. (4.11); proof is in [14], a self-cited work, not reproduced here. This is the bridge from quantum chains to classical soliton theory.
  • domain assumption The relevant class of polynomial mKP solutions is characterized by the Krichever conditions (6.2) with p_i identified with twist eigenvalues and M_i with weight eigenvalues.
    Stated in Section 6.1 and used in Section 8; identifies the classical data with quantum data without a full derivation in this paper.
  • standard math Standard results of the mKP hierarchy: wave function, adjoint wave function, tau-function bilinear equation (5.12), and the dynamics of zeros being Ruijsenaars-Schneider.
    Standard in soliton theory, cited to [30,31,43]; used throughout Sections 5-8.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Classical facets of quantum integrability." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BGKP7JME

@misc{pith2026250118557,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Classical facets of quantum integrability},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BGKP7JME}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.18557}
}
abstract

This paper is a review of the works devoted to understanding and reinterpretation of the theory of quantum integrable models solvable by Bethe ansatz in terms of the theory of purely classical soliton equations. Remarkably, studying polynomial solutions of the latter by methods of classical soliton theory, one is able to develop a method of solving the spectral problem for the former which provides an alternative to the Bethe ansatz procedure. Our main examples are the generalized inhomogeneous spins chains with twisted boundary conditions on the quantum side and the modified Kadomtsev-Petviashvili hierarchy of nonlinear differential-difference equations on the classical side. In this paper, we restrict ourselves to quantum spin chains with rational $GL(n)$-invariant $R$-matrices (of the XXX type). Also, the connection of quantum spin chains with classical soliton equations implies a close interrelation between the spectral problem for spin chains and integrable many-body systems of classical mechanics such as Calogero-Moser and Ruijsenaars-Scheider models, which is known as the quantum-classical duality. Revisiting this topic, we suggest a simpler and more instructive proof of this kind of duality.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Baxter Q-operators from a Schwinger-Boson construction of the master T-operator and the mKP hierarchy

    math-ph 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    A Schwinger-boson Fock-space trace defines the gl(M) master T-operator, and the same L-operator degenerates to the Q-operator L-operator of Bazhanov–Frassek–Lukowski–Meneghelli–Staudacher.

  2. Discrete solitons in Rydberg atom chains

    quant-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Defect cells crafted from a scarred initial state travel coherently through a Rydberg atom chain, forming quasi-solitons that can carry energy and information.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [14]

    Alexandrov, V

    A. Alexandrov, V. Kazakov, S. Leurent, Z. Tsuboi and A. Zab rodin, Classi- cal tau-function for quantum spin chains , J. High Energy Phys. 09 (2013) 064, arXiv:1112.3310

    arXiv 2013

  2. [3]

    Zabrodin, Hirota equation and Bethe ansatz , Teor

    A. Zabrodin, Hirota equation and Bethe ansatz , Teor. Mat. Fys. 116 (1998) 54–100 (English translation: Theoretical and Mathematical Physics 116 (1998) 782–819)

    1998

  3. [15]

    Gorsky, A

    A. Gorsky, A. Zabrodin and A. Zotov, Spectrum of quantum transfer matrices via classical many-body systems , JHEP 01 (2014) 070, arXiv:1310.6958

    arXiv 2014

  4. [1]

    Krichever, O

    I. Krichever, O. Lipan, P. Wiegmann, A. Zabrodin, Quantum integrable systems and elliptic solutions of classical discrete nonlinear equati ons, Commun. Math. Phys. 188 (1997) 267–304

    1997

  5. [2]

    Zabrodin, Discrete Hirota’s equation in quantum integrable models , Int

    A. Zabrodin, Discrete Hirota’s equation in quantum integrable models , Int. J. Mod. Phys. B11 (1997) 3125–3158

    1997

  6. [4]

    Cherednik, An analogue of the character formula for Hecke algebras , Funct

    I. Cherednik, An analogue of the character formula for Hecke algebras , Funct. Anal. Appl. 21 (1987) 172–174

    work page 1987

  7. [5]

    Bazhanov and N

    V. Bazhanov and N. Reshetikhin, Restricted solid-on-solid models connected with simply laced algebras and conformal field theory , J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 23 (1990) 1477–1492

    work page 1990

  8. [6]

    Kuniba, T

    A. Kuniba, T. Nakanishi and J. Suzuki, Functional Relations in Solvable Lattice Models I: Functional Relations and Representation Theory , Int. J. Mod. Phys. A9 (1994) 5215–5266, arXiv:hep-th/9309137

    arXiv 1994

Show all 53 references
  1. [7]

    Hirota, Discrete analogue of a generalized Toda equation , J

    R. Hirota, Discrete analogue of a generalized Toda equation , J. Phys. Soc. Japan, 50 (1981) 3785–3791

    1981

  2. [8]

    Kazakov, A

    V. Kazakov, A. S. Sorin and A. Zabrodin, Supersymmetric Bethe ansatz and Baxter equations from discrete Hirota dynamics , Nucl. Phys. B790 (2008) 345–413. 37

    2008

  3. [9]

    Zabrodin, B¨ acklund transformations for difference Hirota equation and supersym- metric Bethe ansatz , Teor

    A. Zabrodin, B¨ acklund transformations for difference Hirota equation and supersym- metric Bethe ansatz , Teor. Mat. Fyz. 155 (2008) 74–93 (English translation: Theor. Math. Phys. 155 (2008) 567–584), arXiv:0705.4006

    2008 arXiv

  4. [10]

    Hegedus, Discrete Hirota dynamics for AdS/CFT , Nucl

    A. Hegedus, Discrete Hirota dynamics for AdS/CFT , Nucl. Phys. B825 (2010) 341– 365, arXiv:0906.2546

    2010 arXiv

  5. [11]

    Kulish, Integrable graded magnets, Zap

    P. Kulish, Integrable graded magnets, Zap. Nauchn. Sem. LOMI 145 (1985) 140–163

    1985

  6. [12]

    Tsuboi, Analytic Bethe ansatz and functional equations for Lie supe ralgebrasl(r+ 1|s + 1), J

    Z. Tsuboi, Analytic Bethe ansatz and functional equations for Lie supe ralgebrasl(r+ 1|s + 1), J. Phys. A 30 (1997) 7975–7991, arXiv:0911.5386

    1997 arXiv

  7. [13]

    Tsuboi, Analytic Bethe Ansatz and functional equations associated with any sim- ple root systems of the Lie superalgebra sl(r+1|s+1), Physica A 252 (1998) 565–585, arXiv:0911.5387

    Z. Tsuboi, Analytic Bethe Ansatz and functional equations associated with any sim- ple root systems of the Lie superalgebra sl(r+1|s+1), Physica A 252 (1998) 565–585, arXiv:0911.5387

    1998 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Alexandrov, S

    A. Alexandrov, S. Leurent, Z. Tsuboi, A. Zabrodin, The master T -operator for the Gaudin model and the KP hierarchy , Nucl. Phys. B883 (2014) 173–223

    2014

  9. [17]

    Tsuboi, A

    Z. Tsuboi, A. Zabrodin, A. Zotov, Supersymmetric quantum spin chains and classical integrable systems, J. High Energy Phys. 05 (2015) 086, arXiv:1412.2586

    2015 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Beketov, A

    M. Beketov, A. Liashyk, A. Zabrodin and A. Zotov, Trigonometric version of quantum-classical duality in integrable systems , Nucl. Phys. B903 (2016) 150–163, arXiv:1510.07509

    2016 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Zabrodin, The masterT -operator for vertex models with trigonometric R-matrices as classical tau-function , Teor

    A. Zabrodin, The masterT -operator for vertex models with trigonometric R-matrices as classical tau-function , Teor. Mat. Fys. 174:1 (2013) 59–76 (English translation: Theor. Math. Phys. 174 (2013) 52–67), arXiv:1205.4152

    2013 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Zabrodin, The master T-operator for inhomogeneous XXX spin chain and m KP hierarchy, SIGMA 10 (2014) 006, arXiv:1310.6988

    A. Zabrodin, The master T-operator for inhomogeneous XXX spin chain and m KP hierarchy, SIGMA 10 (2014) 006, arXiv:1310.6988

    2014 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Zabrodin, Quantum spin chains and integrable many-body systems of cla ssical mechanics, Springer Proceedings in Physics, Volume 163 (2015) 29–48

    A. Zabrodin, Quantum spin chains and integrable many-body systems of cla ssical mechanics, Springer Proceedings in Physics, Volume 163 (2015) 29–48

    2015

  14. [22]

    Gaudin, La Fonction d’Onde de Bethe , Masson, Paris, New York, Barcelone, Milan, Mexico, Sao Paulo, 1983

    M. Gaudin, La Fonction d’Onde de Bethe , Masson, Paris, New York, Barcelone, Milan, Mexico, Sao Paulo, 1983

    1983

  15. [23]

    Faddeev Algebraic Aspects of Bethe-Ansatz Int

    L. Faddeev Algebraic Aspects of Bethe-Ansatz Int. J. Mod. Phys. A10 (1995) 1845– 1878

    1995

  16. [24]

    Bogoliubov, A

    N. Bogoliubov, A. Izergin and V. Korepin, Quantum inverse scattering method and correlation functions, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. 38

    1993

  17. [25]

    Slavnov, Algebraic Bethe Ansatz and Correlation Functions , World Scientific, Singapore, 2022

    N. Slavnov, Algebraic Bethe Ansatz and Correlation Functions , World Scientific, Singapore, 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    Kulish and N

    P. Kulish and N. Reshetikhin, Diagonalization of GL(N) invariant transfer matrices and quantum N-wave system (Lee model) , J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 16 (1983) L591– L596

    1983

  19. [27]

    Belliard, E

    S. Belliard, E. Ragoucy, Nested Bethe ansatz for “all” closed spin chains , J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 41 (2008) 295202, arXiv:0804.2822

    2008 arXiv

  20. [28]

    I.G. Macdonald, Symmetric functions and Hall polynomials , 2nd ed., Oxford Math- ematical Monographs, Oxford Science Publications, The Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, New Yourk, 1995

    1995

  21. [29]

    Kazakov, S

    V. Kazakov, S. Leurent and Z. Tsuboi, Baxter’s Q-operators and operatorial B¨ acklund flow for quantum (super)-spin chains , Commun. Math. Phys. 311 (2012) 787–814, arXiv:1010.4022

    2012 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Jimbo and T

    M. Jimbo and T. Miwa, Soliton equations and infinite dimensional Lie algebras , Publ. RIMS, Kyoto University 19 (1983) 943–1001

    1983

  23. [31]

    Nonlinear Integrable Systems – Classical Theory and Quantum theory

    E. Date, M. Jimbo, M. Kashiwara and T. Miwa, Transformation groups for soli- ton equations , in “Nonlinear Integrable Systems – Classical Theory and Quantum theory”, M. Jimbo and T. Miwa (eds.), World Sci., Singapore, 1983, pp . 39–119

    1983

  24. [32]

    Airault, H.P

    H. Airault, H.P. McKean, and J. Moser, Rational and elliptic solutions of the Korteweg-De Vries equation and a related many-body problem , Commun. Pure Appl. Math., 30 (1977) 95–148

    1977

  25. [33]

    Krichever, Rational solutions of the Kadomtsev-Petviashvili equatio n and inte- grable systems of N particles on a line , Funct

    I. Krichever, Rational solutions of the Kadomtsev-Petviashvili equatio n and inte- grable systems of N particles on a line , Funct. Anal. Appl. 12:1 (1978) 59–61

    1978

  26. [34]

    Krichever, Elliptic solutions of the Kadomtsev-Petviashvili equatio n and integrable systems of particles , Funct

    I. Krichever, Elliptic solutions of the Kadomtsev-Petviashvili equatio n and integrable systems of particles , Funct. Anal. Appl. 14:4 (1980) 282–290

    1980

  27. [35]

    Chudnovsky and G.V

    D.V. Chudnovsky and G.V. Chudnovsky, Pole expansions of non-linear partial dif- ferential equations, Nuovo Cimento 40B (1977) 339–350

    1977

  28. [36]

    Krichever, O

    I. Krichever, O. Babelon, E. Billey and M. Talon, Spin generalization of the Calogero- Moser system and the matrix KP equation , Amer. Math. Soc. Transl. Ser. 2 170 (1995) 83–119

    1995

  29. [37]

    Shiota, Calogero-Moser hierarchy and KP hierarchy , J

    T. Shiota, Calogero-Moser hierarchy and KP hierarchy , J. Math. Phys. 35 (1994) 5844-5849

    1994

  30. [38]

    Krichever and A

    I. Krichever and A. Zabrodin, Spin generalization of the Ruijsenaars-Schneider model, non-abelian 2D Toda chain and representations of Skl yanin algebra, Uspekhi Mat. Nauk 50 (1995) 3–56 (in Russian) (English translation: Russ. Math. Surv., 50 (1995) 1101–1150)

    1995

  31. [39]

    Zabrodin, Elliptic solutions to integrable nonlinear equations and m any-body sys- tems, J

    A. Zabrodin, Elliptic solutions to integrable nonlinear equations and m any-body sys- tems, J. Geometry and Physics 146 (2019) 103506. 39

    2019

  32. [40]

    Ruijsenaars and H

    S.N.M. Ruijsenaars and H. Schneider, A new class of integrable systems and its relation to solitons , Annals of Physics 146 (1986) 1–34

    1986

  33. [41]

    Calogero, Exactly solvable one-dimensional many-body systems , Lett

    F. Calogero, Exactly solvable one-dimensional many-body systems , Lett. Nuovo Ci- mento 13 (1975) 411–415

    1975

  34. [42]

    Moser, Three integrable Hamiltonian systems connected with isosp ectral deforma- tions, Adv

    J. Moser, Three integrable Hamiltonian systems connected with isosp ectral deforma- tions, Adv. Math. 16 (1975) 197–220

    1975

  35. [43]

    Iliev, Rational Ruijsenaars-Schneider hierarchy and bispectral difference opera- tors, Physica D 229 (2007) 184–190

    P. Iliev, Rational Ruijsenaars-Schneider hierarchy and bispectral difference opera- tors, Physica D 229 (2007) 184–190

    2007

  36. [44]

    Gaiotto and P

    D. Gaiotto and P. Koroteev, On three dimensional quiver gauge theories and inte- grability, JHEP 0513 (2013) 126, arXiv:1304.0779

    2013 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Givental and B.-S

    A. Givental and B.-S. Kim, Quantum cohomology of flag manifolds and Toda lattices , Commun. Math. Phys. 168 (1995) 609–641, arXiv:hep-th/9312096

    1995 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Mukhin, V

    E. Mukhin, V. Tarasov and A. Varchenko, KZ characteristic variety as the zero set of classical Calogero-Moser Hamiltonians , SIGMA 8 (2012) 072, arXiv:1201.3990

    2012 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Kazakov and P

    V. Kazakov and P. Vieira, From characters to quantum (super)spin chains via fusion , J. High Energy Phys. 10 (2008) 050, arXiv:0711.2470

    2008 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Alexandrov and A

    A. Alexandrov and A. Zabrodin, Free fermions and tau-functions , Journal of Geom- etry and Physics 67 (2013) 37–80, arXiv:1212.6049

    2013 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Nihhoff, O

    F.W. Nihhoff, O. Ragnisco and V. Kuznetsov, Integrable time-discretization of the Ruijsenaars-Schneider model, Commun. Math. Phys. 176 (1996) 681–700

    1996

  42. [50]

    Matsuo, Integrable connections related to zonal spherical functio n, Inventiones Mathematicae, 110 (1992) 95–121

    A. Matsuo, Integrable connections related to zonal spherical functio n, Inventiones Mathematicae, 110 (1992) 95–121

    1992

  43. [51]

    Cherednik, Integration of quantum many-body problems by affine Knizhnik - Zamolodchikov equations, Advances in Mathematics, 106 (1994) 65–95

    I. Cherednik, Integration of quantum many-body problems by affine Knizhnik - Zamolodchikov equations, Advances in Mathematics, 106 (1994) 65–95

    1994

  44. [52]

    Zabrodin, A

    A. Zabrodin, A. Zotov, KZ-Calogero correspondence revisited , J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 50 (2017) 205202, arXiv:1701.06074

    2017 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Zabrodin, A

    A. Zabrodin, A. Zotov, QKZ-Ruijsenaars correspondence revisited , Nucl. Phys. B922 (2017) 113–125, arXiv:1704.04527. 40

    2017 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.