Holomorphic Chern-Simons theory and affine Gaudin models

Benoit Vicedo

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 2 cited by

Holomorphic Chern-Simons theory and affine Gaudin models

T0 review · 2 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 Holomorphic Chern-Simons theory and affine Gaudin models are equivalent descriptions of classical integrable field theories, for non-cyclotomic models satisfying a meromorphicity condition.

desk verdict Good honest bridge between holomorphic Chern-Simons and affine Gaudin models; the main soft spot is the asserted extension to multiple zeroes, which is probably right but under-proven. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07511 v2 pith:EXYCSBVA submitted 2019-08-20 hep-th math-phmath.MP

Benoit Vicedo This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-thmath-phmath.MP MSC 17B6737K1081R1281T13

keywords holomorphicChern-SimonstheoryaffineGaudinmodelsclassicalintegrablefieldtheoriesLaxmatrixtwistfunctionnon-ultralocalPoissonbracketHamiltonianreductionsurfacedefects

topics Yang-Mills Mass Gap

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 tries to establish that two recent, seemingly different ways of encoding classical integrable field theories are equivalent descriptions of the same class of models. The first starts from the four-dimensional action of holomorphic Chern-Simons theory on $\Sigma\times\mathbb{CP}^1$ with a meromorphic one-form $\omega=\phi(z)\,dz$, and extracts an integrable field theory on $\Sigma$ by Hamiltonian reduction. The second starts from classical affine Gaudin models attached to untwisted affine Kac-Moody algebras, which package a Lax matrix, a twist function, and quadratic Hamiltonians. The reduction performed here turns the spatial gauge-field component $A_\sigma$ into the Lax matrix of a non-ultralocal integrable field theory whose bracket and Hamiltonian coincide exactly with those of the affine Gaudin model. If correct, every non-cyclotomic affine Gaudin model meeting the paper's meromorphicity condition acquires a Lagrangian formulation as holomorphic Chern-Simons theory, so the two formalisms describe one common structure rather than two competing ones.

What carries the argument

The object carrying the argument is the non-ultralocal Lax algebra (1.2b)-(1.2c) together with the quadratic Hamiltonian (1.2d). Its R-matrix $R_{12}(z,z') = 2\pi C_{12}/(z'-z)\,\phi(z')^{-1}$ is the bridge: it arises from the Dirac bracket of holomorphic Chern-Simons after the second-class constraints are eliminated, and it is precisely the bracket that the affine Gaudin model produces by evaluating the split Casimir of the affine Kac-Moody algebra in a loop-group representation in which the twist function $\phi$ appears as the central component. The meromorphicity condition (1.2a) is the other load-bearing mechanism: it turns the gauge field into a Lax matrix with the same pole behaviour as the twist function, and it is exactly where the equivalence can break down. The boundary-term prescription for differentiability of functionals fixes the Hamiltonian, yielding the residues of $\langle A_\sigma,A_\sigma\rangle$ at the zeroes of $\omega$.

What would settle it

Perform the Hamiltonian reduction of holomorphic Chern-Simons theory for a twist function with a double pole at a non-zero point, and compute the Dirac bracket of $A_\sigma$ without imposing condition (1.2a); if the result contains a distributional term not of the form (1.2b)-(1.2c), the equivalence fails for that case. Concretely, try to realise sine-Gordon through the cyclotomic orbifold: the paper predicts no gauge choice makes $\phi A_\sigma$ meromorphic with the same poles as $\phi$, so a consistent gauge fixing that does satisfy (1.2a) would refute the paper's stated limitation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the reduced phase space of holomorphic Chern-Simons theory, obtained by imposing the gauge condition $A_{\bar z}\approx 0$ and the constraint $\gamma\approx 0$, the spatial component $A_\sigma$ becomes meromorphic on $\mathbb{CP}^1$ and satisfies the non-ultralocal Poisson bracket (1.2b) whose R-matrix is $R_{12}(z,z') = 2\pi C_{12}/(z'-z)\,\phi(z')^{-1}$, together with the Hamiltonian (1.2d) $H = -\frac12\sum_{x\in\zeta}\varepsilon_x\int_{S^1} d\sigma\,\mathrm{res}_x\langle A_\sigma,A_\sigma\rangle\,\omega$. The paper shows this is exactly the data of a classical non-cyclotomic affine Gaudin model: the field $L=\phi A_\sigma$ is the Gaudin Lax matrix, $\phi$ is the twist function, and the reduced Hamiltonian is a linear combination of the quadratic Gaudin Hamiltonians. This establishes that the Lagrangian formalism based on the holomorphic Chern-Simons action and the Hamiltonian formalism based on affine Gaudin models give equivalent descriptions of classical integrable field theories, within the class satisfying condition (1.2a) that $\phi A_\sigma$ has the same pole structure as $\phi$. The paper explicitly leaves cyclotomic, dihedral, and real-form cases for future work, noting that affine Toda theories such as sine-Gordon do not satisfy condition (1.2a), which explains why they resist a straightforward holomorphic Chern-Simons description.

Load-bearing premise

The identification rests on the gauge-fixed requirement that the product $\phi A_\sigma$ be meromorphic with the same poles as the twist function $\phi$; affine Toda and sine-Gordon fail this condition, so the proof excludes exactly those theories.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Every classical integrable field theory that is a non-cyclotomic affine Gaudin model and satisfies condition (1.2a) can be obtained from holomorphic Chern-Simons theory; the action (1.1) and the Gaudin Lax data are two presentations of the same underlying integrable structure.
The twist function of a Gaudin model is not an independent ingredient: it is the meromorphic differential $\omega = \phi(z)\,dz$ that defines the gauge theory, and the zeroes of $\omega$ are exactly the points at which the reduced Hamiltonian localises as residues.
The distinction between order and disorder surface defects in the Chern-Simons description coincides with the distinction between ultralocal and non-ultralocal integrable field theories; order defects only arise when $\omega$ has no zeroes, while non-ultralocal models require zeroes.
Affine Toda field theories and sine-Gordon are outside the proven equivalence because condition (1.2a) fails for them; a cyclotomic or dihedral extension of the reduction would be required to bring them into the holomorphic Chern-Simons picture.

Reading between the lines

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

Not drawn in the paper: condition (1.2a) may be relaxable by allowing $A_\sigma$ to carry additional poles whose residues act as extra Gaudin sites, which would enlarge the class of theories with a holomorphic Chern-Simons description.
A consequence the paper leaves implicit: if the equivalence holds, quantising non-ultralocal integrable field theories is the same problem as defining quantum holomorphic Chern-Simons theory with zeroes in $\omega$, so a non-perturbative definition of the gauge theory would quantise the affine Gaudin model side as well.
Beyond the paper's examples: the central extension appearing in the gauge-algebra bracket at the poles of $\phi$ (equations (2.10)-(2.11)) may coincide with the affine level in the Gaudin Lax algebra; checking this directly would give an algebraic test of the correspondence that does not require building the full field theory.
Testable extension: applying the reduction to λ-deformations of principal chiral and symmetric-space sigma-models should reproduce their known affine Gaudin realisations, and any mismatch would identify exactly where the equivalence fails.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this note does the bridge it advertises. Starting from the holomorphic Chern-Simons action with a meromorphic twist function, Vicedo performs the Hamiltonian reduction and gets exactly the non-ultralocal Poisson algebra and quadratic Hamiltonian of affine Gaudin type. That reduction is the genuinely new piece, and it is done carefully, with the Regge-Teitelboim boundary-term logic spelled out rather than hand-waved. The paper is also straight about scope: cyclotomic and dihedral cases are out, and condition (1.2a) is stated as a condition, with affine Toda explicitly noted as failing it.

What works best: the Dirac bracket computation in Section 2 is explicit enough to follow, the gauge fixing is motivated by matching the boundary conditions in [CY], and the final identification of the reduced Hamiltonian with a combination of quadratic Gaudin Hamiltonians via residues is clean. The use of [V3] and [DLMV2] is legitimate; the algebra side is being used, not re-derived, and the gauge-theory side is new.

Soft spots. The one real gap is the extension from simple zeroes to generic ones. Section 2.7 assumes simple zeroes 'for clarity' and Section 2.8 asserts the residue formula extends to multiple zeroes and infinity 'straightforwardly'. I pushed on this because the equivalence is stated for generic omega. The stress-test worry that this is load-bearing is, I think, overstated: if you choose A_tau proportional to the full principal part of A_sigma at each zero, with one coefficient epsilon_x per zero, the boundary-term cancellation in Section 2.8 goes through and the residue form (2.18) is the right Hamiltonian. So one parameter per zero is enough; you do not need one per Laurent coefficient. But the paper never writes this multi-zero version, and the distributional identities are not trivial, so the claim deserves a short proof or an explicit conjecture. This is a presentation gap, not a fatal hole.

Also minor: (1.2d) gives one Hamiltonian per zero. When a zero has multiplicity m, the affine Gaudin model has m local quadratic Hamiltonians at that point, so the equivalence as stated exhibits a slice, not the full set. That is compatible with the paper's claim, but it should be said.

Bottom line: this is a useful, honest note for people working in integrable field theories, holomorphic Chern-Simons, or affine Gaudin models. It deserves a serious referee; I would send it out and ask for a brief clarification of the generic-zero argument and a sentence about the one-dimensional slice. No circularity, no invented entities, and the self-citations are to the actual constructions being used.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper performs a Hamiltonian analysis of four-dimensional holomorphic Chern-Simons theory on R × S^1 × CP^1 with meromorphic twist ω = φ dz. After imposing gauge-fixing conditions and Dirac brackets, it derives the non-ultralocal Poisson bracket (1.2b)–(1.2c) for the spatial component Aσ and a quadratic Hamiltonian (1.2d) expressed as a sum of residues at the zeroes of ω. It then identifies these data with the structures of classical non-cyclotomic affine Gaudin models introduced by the author in [V3], thereby proposing an equivalence between the Lagrangian hCS formalism of Costello–Yamazaki and the Hamiltonian affine-Gaudin formalism. The claimed equivalence is explicitly conditional: it requires the pole condition (1.2a), and cyclotomic, dihedral, and real-form cases are excluded.

Significance. If correct, this result provides a concrete bridge between two currently active approaches to classical integrable field theories: holomorphic Chern-Simons theory and affine Gaudin models. The Dirac-bracket and boundary-term computations are explicit and standard in structure, and the final identification of the reduced hCS Hamiltonian with the affine Gaudin quadratic Hamiltonians is a clean and valuable result. The paper also gives a nice explanation of why affine Toda theories do not easily fit into the hCS framework. However, the main theorem is proved only under a simple-zero assumption on ω, and the claimed extension to multiple zeroes is not demonstrated; this materially narrows the scope of the equivalence as stated.

major comments (2)

[Sections 2.7–2.8, Eqs. (2.16)–(2.18) and (1.2d)] The derivation of the reduced Hamiltonian and gauge-fixing assumes that all zeroes of ω are simple and away from infinity. Section 2.7 states this assumption explicitly for the partial-fraction expansions (2.16)–(2.17), while Section 2.8 asserts without proof that equation (2.18) extends to the generic case, including multiple zeroes and zeroes at infinity. At a zero of multiplicity m, condition (1.2a) allows m independent singular coefficients in Aσ, and the single parameter ǫ_x per zero in (2.17) and (1.2d) is not obviously sufficient to reproduce the corresponding affine Gaudin quadratic Hamiltonians. Since the abstract and introduction state the equivalence for generic meromorphic ω, this unproven extension is load-bearing. Please provide the multiple-zero derivation or state the main theorem with the simple-zero hypothesis explicitly.
[Sections 1 and 3, Eqs. (1.2a)–(1.2d) and (3.4)] The paper claims that the formalisms of [CY] and [V3] are equivalent and that the action (1.1) can describe every non-cyclotomic affine Gaudin model satisfying (1.2a). The proof, however, constructs affine Gaudin data from the reduced hCS theory in one direction only. The converse—starting from an arbitrary affine Gaudin realisation with twist function φ and constructing hCS fields Aσ = φ^{-1}L and Aτ satisfying the gauge-fixing condition (2.17)—is not written out explicitly. Since the central claim is an equivalence, please add this construction or soften the wording to state that hCS models give rise to affine Gaudin realisations.

minor comments (3)

[Eq. (3.1)] In the second term on the right-hand side, the factor should presumably be L_2(σ′, z′) rather than L_1(σ′, z′), to match the tensor-factor structure of (3.3).
[Section 3.1] There is a typo: “fundemantal” should be “fundamental.”
[Sections 2.6–2.7] The symbol z is used both for the spectral coordinate and for the set of poles of φ; this is confusing and should be denoted differently, for example Z or z_poles.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Poisson bracket and Hamiltonian are derived from the holomorphic Chern-Simons action; only convention-matching choices and reliance on the author's prior characterization of affine Gaudin models introduce mild self-reference.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. The non-ultralocal bracket (2.14) is obtained from the canonical Dirac brackets of the holomorphic Chern-Simons action, not by imposing the affine Gaudin algebra; the R-matrix (1.2c) is read off from that bracket. The reduced Hamiltonian (2.18) is computed from the bulk Hamiltonian plus a boundary term fixed by Regge-Teitelboim differentiability, given an explicit gauge-fixing choice for Aτ. The paper is transparent that the gauge-fixing (2.16)-(2.17) is chosen to match [DLMV2] and [V3], but this is a boundary-condition choice inside the Hamiltonian analysis, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The equivalence with affine Gaudin models is completed by invoking the author's prior theorem [V3] that theories satisfying (1.2b)-(1.2d) are realizations of affine Gaudin models; although self-citational, this is an independent published result and is used as a characterization, not as an unverified premise. The paper itself flags the condition (1.2a) and the exclusion of cyclotomic/dihedral cases, so the scope is honestly stated. The only notable weakness is the asserted but unproved extension from simple to multiple zeroes of ω in Sections 2.7-2.8; this is a correctness gap, not circularity. Overall, the derivation does not reduce to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on a choice of twist function, gauge-fixing coefficients, and a technical pole-structure condition. No new particles, forces, dimensions, or conserved quantities are introduced. The derivation is carried out within established structures, with the main free choices being the meromorphic differential and the boundary-condition parameters.

free parameters (3)

gauge fixing coefficients epsilon_x = arbitrary complex numbers; set to +/-1 in the relativistic case
Enter in the reduced Hamiltonian (1.2d) and gauge fixing condition (2.17). They parametrize choices of boundary conditions and are not fixed by the action itself.
twist function phi(z) = input meromorphic differential
The whole construction is built on a chosen meromorphic 1-form omega = phi dz. Its poles and zeroes determine the R-matrix (1.2c), the pole-structure condition (1.2a), and the Hamiltonian (1.2d).
normalization factor 2 pi in R-matrix (1.2c) = 2 pi
Chosen to match the conventions of [V3]. It is a convention rather than a data fit, but it affects the stated equality and the comparison between the two formalisms.

assumptions (5)

standard math Standard Dirac bracket and constraint analysis for first and second class constraints
Used throughout Section 2 to reduce the phase space of holomorphic Chern-Simons theory. This is standard Hamiltonian gauge theory.
domain assumption Regge-Teitelboim differentiability criterion for functionals on non-compact phase spaces
Adopted in Section 2.3 to regulate boundary terms and define well-defined Poisson brackets. The paper assumes this criterion is the correct physical prescription.
ad hoc to paper The spatial component A_sigma satisfies the same-pole-structure condition (1.2a)
Derived from gauge fixing and the constraint gamma approximately 0 in Section 2.6, but it is an extra restriction that excludes affine Toda theories, as the paper itself notes in Section 1.
ad hoc to paper Explicit formulas assume simple zeroes of omega not at infinity
Section 2.7 assumes zeta subset of C and all zeroes simple for clarity, and asserts without a written proof that the general case follows. The proof for the generic case is not fully provided.
standard math The untwisted affine Kac-Moody algebra and its standard bilinear form define the Gaudin model
Background from [V3] used in Section 3. This is established mathematics and is not re-derived in the present paper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Holomorphic Chern-Simons theory and affine Gaudin models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EXYCSBVA

@misc{pith2026190807511,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Holomorphic Chern-Simons theory and affine Gaudin models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EXYCSBVA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07511}
}

read the original abstract

We relate two formalisms recently proposed for describing classical integrable field theories. The first is based on the action of four-dimensional holomorphic Chern-Simons theory introduced and studied by Costello, Witten and Yamazaki. The second makes use of classical generalised Gaudin models associated with untwisted affine Kac-Moody algebras.

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

Time-Dependent Integrability from Gauge Theory, I
hep-th 2026-07 accept novelty 7.5 of 10

Spacetime-dependent 4d Chern-Simons theory generates time-dependent integrable field theories whose allowed time dependence coincides with one-loop RG flow while preserving Lax integrability.
Ultralocal Lax connection for para-complex $\mathbb{Z}_T$-cosets
hep-th 2019-09 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

Classical sigma-models on para-complex Z_T-cosets admit an ultralocal, gauge-invariant Lax connection whose light-cone components Poisson-commute, extending earlier results for hermitian symmetric spaces.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

[1]

Babelon, D

[BBT] O. Babelon, D. Bernard and M. Talon, Introduction to classical integrable systems , Cam- bridge University Press (2003). [B1] M. Ba˜ nados,Global charges in Chern-Simons ﬁeld theory and the (2+1) bla ck hole , Phys. Rev. D 52 (1996)

work page 2003
[3]

Costello, E

[CWY1] K. Costello, E. Witten and M. Yamazaki, Gauge Theory and Integrability, I , ICCM Not. 6 (2018) 46–191. [CWY2] K. Costello, E. Witten and M. Yamazaki, Gauge Theory and Integrability, II , ICCM Not. 6 (2018) 120–149. [CY] K. Costello and M. Yamazaki, Gauge Theory And Integrability, III , arXiv:1908.02289 [hep-th]. [DLMV1] F. Delduc, S. Lacroix, M. Ma...

arXiv 2018
[4]

$\lambda$-Deformation Of The $AdS_{5}\times S^{5}$ Pure Spinor Superstring

Amsterdam: Har wood Academic Publishers. vii, 91 p. (1998). [BeS] H. A. Ben ´ ıtez and D. M. Schmidtt,λ -Deformation of the AdS5 × S5 Pure Spinor Superstring, arXiv:1907.13197 [hep-th]. [BS] R. Bittleston and D. Skinner, Gauge Theory and Boundary Integrability , JHEP 1905 (2019)

work page Pith review arXiv 1998
[9]

[HMS2] T. J. Hollowood, J. L. Miramontes and D. M. Schmidtt, An Integrable Deformation of the AdS5 × S5 Superstring, J. Phys. A 47 (2014) no.49, 495402. [KS] P. P. Kulish and E. K. Sklyanin, Quantum inverse scattering method and the Heisenberg ferromagnet, Phys. Lett. A70 (1979)

work page 2014
[12]

[S2] D. M. Schmidtt, Lambda Models From Chern-Simons Theories , JHEP 1811 (2018)

work page 2018
[17]

Delduc, M

[DMV1] F. Delduc, M. Magro and B. Vicedo, On classical q-deformations of integrable sigma- models, JHEP 1311 (2013)

work page 2013
[54]

Mukhin and A

x 18 BENOˆIT VICEDO [MV1] E. Mukhin and A. Varchenko, Critical points of master functions and ﬂag varieties , Com- munication in Contempory Mathematics 6 (2004), no. 1, 111–163. [MV2] E. Mukhin and A. Varchenko, Miura Opers and Critical Points of Master Functions , Cent. Eur. J. Math. 3 (2005), 155–182. [RT] T. Regge and C. Teitelboim, Role of Surface Int...

work page 2004
[111]

Sfetsos, Integrable interpolations: From exact CFTs to non-Abelian T-duals, Nucl

[Sf] K. Sfetsos, Integrable interpolations: From exact CFTs to non-Abelian T-duals, Nucl. Phys. B 880 (2014)

work page 2014

Show all 27 references

[117]

Lacroix, B

[L VY1] S. Lacroix, B. Vicedo and C. Young, Aﬃne Gaudin models and hypergeometric functions on aﬃne opers , Adv. Math. 350 (2019)

2019
[132]

[D] V. G. Drinfeld, Quantum Groups, J. Sov. Math. 41 (1988)

1988
[137]

[M2] J. M. Maillet, New integrable canonical structures in two-dimensional mo dels, Nucl. Phys. B 269 (1986)

1986
[147]

Ba˜ nados and I

[BR] M. Ba˜ nados and I. A. Reyes, A short review on Noethers theorems, gauge symmetries and boundary terms , Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 25 (2016) no.10, 1630021. [BLZ] V. V. Bazhanov, S. L. Lukyanov and A. B. Zamolodchikov, Integrable structure of conformal ﬁeld theory, quantum KdV...

2016
[192]

Delduc, M

[DMV2] F. Delduc, M. Magro and B. Vicedo, Derivation of the action and symmetries of the q-deformed AdS5 × S5 superstring, JHEP 1410 (2014)

2014
[195]

[BH1] J. D. Brown and M. Henneaux, Central Charges in the Canonical Realization of Asymptotic Symmetries: An Example from Three-Dimensional Gravity , Commun. Math. Phys. 104 (1986)

1986
[207]

[BH2] J. D. Brown and M. Henneaux, On the Poisson Brackets of Diﬀerentiable Generators in Classical Field Theory , J. Math. Phys. 27 (1986)

1986
[225]

Vicedo, The classical R-matrix of AdS/CFT and its Lie dialgebra stru cture, Lett

[V1] B. Vicedo, The classical R-matrix of AdS/CFT and its Lie dialgebra stru cture, Lett. Math. Phys. 95 (2011)

2011
[249]

Vicedo, Deformed integrable σ -models, classical R-matrices and classical exchange algebra on Drinfeld doubles , J

[V2] B. Vicedo, Deformed integrable σ -models, classical R-matrices and classical exchange algebra on Drinfeld doubles , J. Phys. A 48 (2015) no.35, 355203. [V3] B. Vicedo, On integrable ﬁeld theories as dihedral aﬃne Gaudin models , Int. Math. Res. Not. rny128 (2018). [W] E. ...

2015
[286]

[S1] D. M. Schmidtt, Integrable Lambda Models And Chern-Simons Theories , JHEP 1705 (2017)

2017
[385]

Faddeev, E

[FST] L. Faddeev, E. K. Sklyanin and L. Takhtajan, The Quantum Inverse Problem Method. 1 , Theor. Math. Phys. 40 (1980)

1980
[461]

Lacroix, Constrained aﬃne Gaudin models and diagonal Yang-Baxter de formations, arXiv:1907.04836 [hep-th]

[L] S. Lacroix, Constrained aﬃne Gaudin models and diagonal Yang-Baxter de formations, arXiv:1907.04836 [hep-th]. [LMV] S. Lacroix, M. Magro and B. Vicedo, Local charges in involution and hierarchies in integrable sigma-models, JHEP 1709 (2017)

2017 arXiv
[486]

Lacroix, B

[L VY2] S. Lacroix, B. Vicedo and C. A. S. Young, Cubic hypergeometric integrals of motion in aﬃne Gaudin models , to appear in Adv. Theor. Math. Phys., arXiv:1804.06751 [ma th.QA]. [M1] J. M. Maillet, Kac-Moody algebra and extended Yang-Baxter relations in th e O(N) non-linea...

1985 arXiv
[489]

Costello, Supersymmetric gauge theory and the Yangian , arXiv:1303.2632 [hep-th]

[C1] K. Costello, Supersymmetric gauge theory and the Yangian , arXiv:1303.2632 [hep-th]. HOLOMORPHIC CHERN-SIMONS THEORY AND AFFINE GAUDIN MODELS 1 7 [C2] K. Costello, Integrable lattice models from four-dimensional ﬁeld theo ries, Proc. Symp. Pure Math. 88 (2014)

2014 arXiv
[688]

Faddeev, N

[FRT] L. Faddeev, N. Reshitikhin and L. Takhtajan, Quantization of Lie Groups and Lie Algebras , Algebr. Analiz. 1, LOMI-E-87-14 (1987). [FT] L. Faddeev and L. Takhtajan, The quantum method of the inverse problem and the Heisenberg XYZ-model, Russ. Math. Surveys 34:5 (1979)

1987
[783]

Frenkel, Gaudin model and opers , Inﬁnite dimensional algebras and quantum integrable systems, Progr

[F2] E. Frenkel, Gaudin model and opers , Inﬁnite dimensional algebras and quantum integrable systems, Progr. Math., vol. 237, Birkhuser, Basel, 2005, pp. 1–58. [FH] E. Frenkel and D. Hernandez, Spectra of quantum KdV Hamiltonians, Langlands duality, an d aﬃne opers , Commun. ...

2018
[898]

[EHMM] J. M. Evans, M. Hassan, N. J. MacKay and A. J. Mountain, Local conserved charges in principal chiral models , Nucl. Phys. B 561 (1999)

1999
[2011]

Feigin, E

[FFR] B. Feigin, E. Frenkel and N. Reshetikhin, Gaudin model, Bethe ansatz and correlation func- tions at the critical level , Commun. Math. Phys. 166 (1994), 27–62. [F1] E. Frenkel, Opers on the projective line, ﬂag manifolds and Bethe ansatz , Mosc. Math. J. 4 (2004), no. 3,...

1994
[5816]

Ba˜ nados,Three-dimensional quantum geometry and black holes , AIP Conf

[B2] M. Ba˜ nados,Three-dimensional quantum geometry and black holes , AIP Conf. Proc. 484, no.1 (1999)

1999

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Babelon, D

[BBT] O. Babelon, D. Bernard and M. Talon, Introduction to classical integrable systems , Cam- bridge University Press (2003). [B1] M. Ba˜ nados,Global charges in Chern-Simons ﬁeld theory and the (2+1) bla ck hole , Phys. Rev. D 52 (1996)

work page 2003

[2] [3]

Costello, E

[CWY1] K. Costello, E. Witten and M. Yamazaki, Gauge Theory and Integrability, I , ICCM Not. 6 (2018) 46–191. [CWY2] K. Costello, E. Witten and M. Yamazaki, Gauge Theory and Integrability, II , ICCM Not. 6 (2018) 120–149. [CY] K. Costello and M. Yamazaki, Gauge Theory And Integrability, III , arXiv:1908.02289 [hep-th]. [DLMV1] F. Delduc, S. Lacroix, M. Ma...

arXiv 2018

[3] [4]

$\lambda$-Deformation Of The $AdS_{5}\times S^{5}$ Pure Spinor Superstring

Amsterdam: Har wood Academic Publishers. vii, 91 p. (1998). [BeS] H. A. Ben ´ ıtez and D. M. Schmidtt,λ -Deformation of the AdS5 × S5 Pure Spinor Superstring, arXiv:1907.13197 [hep-th]. [BS] R. Bittleston and D. Skinner, Gauge Theory and Boundary Integrability , JHEP 1905 (2019)

work page Pith review arXiv 1998

[4] [9]

[HMS2] T. J. Hollowood, J. L. Miramontes and D. M. Schmidtt, An Integrable Deformation of the AdS5 × S5 Superstring, J. Phys. A 47 (2014) no.49, 495402. [KS] P. P. Kulish and E. K. Sklyanin, Quantum inverse scattering method and the Heisenberg ferromagnet, Phys. Lett. A70 (1979)

work page 2014

[5] [12]

[S2] D. M. Schmidtt, Lambda Models From Chern-Simons Theories , JHEP 1811 (2018)

work page 2018

[6] [17]

Delduc, M

[DMV1] F. Delduc, M. Magro and B. Vicedo, On classical q-deformations of integrable sigma- models, JHEP 1311 (2013)

work page 2013

[7] [54]

Mukhin and A

x 18 BENOˆIT VICEDO [MV1] E. Mukhin and A. Varchenko, Critical points of master functions and ﬂag varieties , Com- munication in Contempory Mathematics 6 (2004), no. 1, 111–163. [MV2] E. Mukhin and A. Varchenko, Miura Opers and Critical Points of Master Functions , Cent. Eur. J. Math. 3 (2005), 155–182. [RT] T. Regge and C. Teitelboim, Role of Surface Int...

work page 2004

[8] [111]

Sfetsos, Integrable interpolations: From exact CFTs to non-Abelian T-duals, Nucl

[Sf] K. Sfetsos, Integrable interpolations: From exact CFTs to non-Abelian T-duals, Nucl. Phys. B 880 (2014)

work page 2014