Reduction of a bi-Hamiltonian hierarchy on $T^*\mathrm{U}(n)$ to spin Ruijsenaars--Sutherland models

L. Feher

Reduction of a bi-Hamiltonian hierarchy on $T^*\mathrm{U}(n)$ to spin Ruijsenaars--Sutherland models

T0 review · 0 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 trigonometric spin Ruijsenaars–Sutherland hierarchy is bi-Hamiltonian, arising by Poisson reduction of a free hierarchy on the cotangent bundle of U(n).

desk verdict A solid, genuinely new bi-Hamiltonian reduction result whose central theorem holds; the only real weakness is that the advertised spin-Ruijsenaars interpretation is partly asserted and outsourced to earlier work. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02467 v2 pith:FVS7MKWG submitted 2019-08-07 math-ph hep-thmath.MPnlin.SI

L. Feher This is my paper · ORCID

classification math-phhep-thmath.MPnlin.SI MSC 37J3537K1053D2070H0681R12

keywords bi-HamiltonianhierarchyPoissonreductionHeisenbergdoublespinRuijsenaars–SutherlandmodeltrigonometricSutherlanddynamicalr-matrixcotangentbundleofunitarygroupintegrablemany-bodysystems

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 establishes that the trigonometric spin Ruijsenaars–Sutherland equations, a family of integrable many-body models, carry a bi-Hamiltonian structure. It constructs two compatible Poisson brackets on the cotangent bundle of the unitary group, reduces them under the conjugation action, and computes explicit reduced brackets on invariant functions. The reduced hierarchy sits in the overlap of spin Sutherland and spin Ruijsenaars–Schneider models, so the result gives a common Poisson-geometric origin for both families. A reader interested in integrable systems should care because bi-Hamiltonian structure is a strong organizing principle, linking complete integrability, recursion operators, and shared hierarchies of commuting flows.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the second Poisson bracket (3.5) on $M = U(n)\times H(n)$, which extends the Heisenberg double bracket—originally defined on the open subset $U(n)\times P(n)$—to the full cotangent bundle; its compatibility with the canonical bracket (3.4) is witnessed by the vector field $D$ satisfying the exact bi-Hamiltonian relations (3.15)–(3.16). Under Poisson reduction, the dynamical $r$-matrix $R(Q)$ (1.2) enters the explicit reduced brackets (4.23)–(4.24), and the identity $W_k[f] = \{f,h_k\}^{\mathrm{red}}_2 = \{f,h_{k+1}\}^{\mathrm{red}}_1$ identifies the spin Ruijsenaars–Sutherland flows as bi-Hamiltonian.

What would settle it

Take a Hermitian matrix L with a negative eigenvalue and evaluate the cyclic Jacobi identity for the coordinate functions $L_a$ and matrix elements of $g$ under the second bracket (3.5) at such a point; the paper's analytic-continuation argument predicts zero, so any nonzero value would refute the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The main result is that for invariant functions f and h on the regular quotient, the reduced Poisson brackets take the explicit forms $$\{f,h\}^{\mathrm{red}}_1 = \langle D_1 f, d_2 h\rangle - \langle D_1 h, d_2 f\rangle + \langle L, [d_2 f, d_2 h]_{R(Q)}\rangle$$ and $$\{f,h\}^{\mathrm{red}}_2 = \langle D_1 f, L d_2 h\rangle - \langle D_1 h, L d_2 f\rangle + 2\langle L d_2 f, R(Q)(L d_2 h)\rangle,$$ with $R(Q)$ the dynamical $r$-matrix (1.2). These brackets are compatible, and the induced evolutional derivations satisfy $W_k[f] = \{f,h_k\}^{\mathrm{red}}_2 = \{f,h_{k+1}\}^{\mathrm{red}}_1$, so the hierarchy (1.1) is bi-Hamiltonian. The construction starts from two compatible Poisson structures on $M = U(n)\times H(n)$: the canonical cotangent bracket and a second bracket obtained by extending the Heisenberg double bracket from the open subset $U(n)\times P(n)$ to all of $M$. Poisson reduction under the conjugation action then yields the reduced bi-Hamiltonian system on $N(n)$-invariant functions.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim depends on the second bracket genuinely being a Poisson bracket on all of the phase space, which is proven by analytic continuation from an open subset; the reduction is also only proven on the regular (non-colliding) part.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The evolution equations (1.1) for every $k \in \mathbb{N}$ are Hamiltonian with respect to both reduced brackets, with the Lenard–Magri recursion $W_k = \{ \cdot, h_k \}^{\mathrm{red}}_2 = \{ \cdot, h_{k+1} \}^{\mathrm{red}}_1$.
The reduced brackets are explicitly computable from (4.23) and (4.24), so the bi-Hamiltonian structure is available without solving any transcendental equations.
The spin Sutherland Hamiltonian (1.7) and the spinless trigonometric Ruijsenaars–Schneider model arise as specializations on symplectic leaves of the reduced Poisson spaces, unifying their Hamiltonian structures.
The polynomial traces $\operatorname{tr}(P(L, Q^{-1}LQ))$ are constants of motion along every flow $W_k$, providing a large set of conserved quantities for the hierarchy.
The unreduced free hierarchy on $T^*U(n)$ is exact bi-Hamiltonian, with flows given by $(g(t), L(t)) = (\exp(itL(0)^k)g(0), L(0))$.

Reading between the lines

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

If the analytic continuation of the second bracket is as sound as claimed, the same two-bracket construction should yield bi-Hamiltonian spin Ruijsenaars–Sutherland hierarchies for other compact simple Lie groups, not just $U(n)$; the paper notes Heisenberg-double reductions but not the bi-Hamiltonian pair in that generality.
The restriction to the regular part may be an artifact of the proof: the reduced bracket formulas are rational in $Q$, so they likely extend smoothly to singular strata of the quotient, giving a global bi-Hamiltonian structure on the full reduced space.
The conserved quantities $\operatorname{tr}(P(L, Q^{-1}LQ))$ may already generate the ring of integrals of motion; a direct test is whether they Poisson-commute in involution on a generic symplectic leaf, which would upgrade the stated degenerate integrability to Liouville integrability on leaves.
The connection to the observation that the same $R$-operator governs spinless Ruijsenaars–Schneider and Calogero–Moser hierarchies suggests a broader principle: whenever two integrable hierarchies share an $R$-operator, a bi-Hamiltonian reduction may realize both as different symplectic leaves of one reduced system.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Bottom line up front: this is the first treatment I know that gets the trigonometric spin Ruijsenaars–Sutherland hierarchy a bi-Hamiltonian structure by one Poisson reduction of a free system, and the central derivation is sound. It deserves a serious referee, and I expect it to be accepted after the authors make one interpretive step explicit.

The genuinely new material is in Sections 3 and 4: a compatible pair of Poisson brackets on M = U(n)×H(n), with the free geodesic hierarchy as the bi-Hamiltonian flow, and then the reduced brackets (4.23), (4.24) on invariant functions over the regular part. Theorem 4.5 is the payoff. The proofs are explicit and do not hide the delicate parts. The analytic-continuation step in Proposition 3.1 is the natural place to worry, but it works: (3.5) is a biderivation, the Jacobi identity for coordinate triples is real-analytic in L on the connected manifold M, and the open dense Heisenberg-double set is enough to force vanishing everywhere. Lemma 4.4 and Proposition 4.6 are consistent with that, and the Lenard–Magri relation (4.38) comes directly from reduction of (3.11).

The soft spots are proportional and mostly matters of scope. Section 5 is the weakest section: the change of variables (5.1), the decoupled bracket (5.2), and the spin-Ruijsenaars form of tr(L) are asserted, with a pointer to Theorem 4.3 of [13] for (5.2). A reader who wants the advertised 'spin Ruijsenaars–Schneider' interpretation cannot verify it from this paper alone. That does not touch the bi-Hamiltonian theorem for the hierarchy (1.1), but the abstract promises more than Section 5 delivers. Second, the reduction is done only on the regular part Mreg; the singular strata of M/U(n) are acknowledged as open. That is a limitation clearly stated in the text, not a hidden flaw. Third, the heavy reliance on the author's earlier papers is a real pattern, but the cited items are used for interpretation rather than as black boxes in the core proof.

Who this is for: integrable-systems people and mathematical physicists working on spin Calogero–Moser–Sutherland/Ruijsenaars models and Poisson-Lie reduction. They will get concrete bracket formulas and a clear route to the hierarchy. I would cite it if I were working in that area.

Recommendation: send it to peer review. The referee should ask the author to make Section 5's derivation or sourcing explicit, and to soften the abstract's identification claim if (5.2) stays as an assertion. Neither request undermines the paper's main theorem.

Referee Report

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper constructs two compatible Poisson brackets on the cotangent bundle T^*U(n), modeled as M = U(n) × H(n). The first is the canonical cotangent bracket; the second is obtained by embedding the Heisenberg double Poisson structure from U(n) × P(n) into M and extending it to all of M by real analytic continuation. The author proves that the trace functions H_k = (1/k)tr(L^k) generate a bi-Hamiltonian hierarchy on M, with the Lenard–Magri relation {F,H_k}_2 = {F,H_{k+1}}_1 and coinciding flows. Under the conjugation action of U(n), the paper performs Poisson reduction on the regular part M_reg = U(n)_reg × H(n), identifies the reduced function ring with C^∞(T^n_reg × H(n))^{N(n)}, and derives explicit formulas for the two reduced Poisson brackets (Theorem 4.5). It then shows that the induced evolutional derivations are precisely the trigonometric spin Ruijsenaars–Sutherland equations (1.1), and exhibits a family of polynomial constants of motion. The paper closes with a discussion section relating the reduced system to spin Sutherland and spin Ruijsenaars–Schneider models.

Significance. If the main result is correct, it gives a bi-Hamiltonian interpretation for the trigonometric spin Ruijsenaars–Sutherland hierarchy obtained through a single Poisson reduction, thereby unifying its Hamiltonian structure with that of the spin Sutherland model. The proof is largely self-contained: Proposition 3.1 verifies the Jacobi identity for the second bracket by analytic continuation from an open dense subset, Lemma 4.4 derives the necessary derivative relations, Theorem 4.5 provides the reduced bracket formulas, and Proposition 4.6 reduces the flows. The restriction to the regular part M_reg is stated explicitly, and the treatment of singular strata is honestly left as an open problem. The analytic-continuation step is legitimate because the Jacobi expression is real-analytic on the connected manifold M and vanishes on the open subset U(n) × P(n). The central claim does not depend on the interpretive material in Section 5, which is clearly attributed to prior work.

minor comments (5)

[§4, after Eq. (4.18)] The identity D'_1F(Q,L)=Ad^{-1}_Q(D_1F(Q,L)) is used without proof to pass from (4.18) to (4.19); since this identity is non-obvious and is essential for the subsequent derivation of (4.22), a short derivation or an explicit reference would make the proof more self-contained.
[§5, Eq. (5.2)] The 'decoupled form' of the second reduced bracket in the variables (Q,p,λ) is asserted with a reference to Theorem 4.3 of [13]; because this formula is not needed for the main theorem, it would be helpful to state explicitly that it is quoted from [13] and included only for interpretive purposes.
[§2, proof of Proposition 2.1] The sentence 'It is easy to see that this is sufficient' is too terse; a few more details on why functions of the form ψ(b)φ(g) suffice to establish the Hamiltonian vector field formula would improve readability.
[§2, Proposition 2.2] There is a small grammatical slip: 'the derivatives with respect the first and second arguments' should read 'with respect to the first and second arguments'.
[§4, around (4.4)] The restriction to the regular part M_reg is stated in the body but not highlighted in the abstract or introduction; since all reduced-bracket results are proven only there, a sentence in the abstract clarifying this scope would help the reader.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: all load-bearing formulas are derived in the paper; self-citations are contextual only.

full rationale

I found no circular step. The paper's central bi-Hamiltonian claim is derived in-text: Proposition 3.1 defines the brackets (3.4) and (3.5) and proves they are Poisson brackets by checking Jacobi on coordinate functions over the dense Heisenberg-double open subset and extending by real analyticity; Proposition 3.2 and Lemma 3.3 establish the compatible pair and the hierarchy without fitting any parameter. Theorem 4.5's reduced brackets (4.23) and (4.24) are obtained by substituting the invariant-function relations of Lemma 4.4 into the unreduced bracket formulas, and Proposition 4.6 derives the evolution equations (4.36) from the unreduced flow (3.12) together with the gauge condition (4.35); equation (4.38) is the downstairs version of (3.11). The author's earlier papers [13,15,16] are cited only for interpretations of known models, such as the spinless trigonometric Ruijsenaars-Schneider leaf, and for the alternative Section 5 decoupled form (5.2), which the text also says can be obtained by direct calculation. These citations do not carry the main proof. Thus the derivation is self-contained, and no prediction is equivalent by construction to an input fit or to a cited claim.

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

No numbers are fitted or chosen by hand; the only index is k in the Hamiltonians H_k = tr(L^k)/k, which is a hierarchy label and not a fitted constant. The mathematical assumptions are standard theorems and clearly stated domain restrictions. No new physical entities are introduced; the new mathematical objects, such as the second bracket and the variable λ, are constructions within existing theory.

assumptions (5)

standard math Heisenberg double GL(n,C) with the Semenov-Tian-Shansky Poisson structure (2.15) is a Poisson manifold whose Jacobi identity and Poisson action properties are taken as standard.
Section 2 relies on this to define the brackets transferred to U(n)×P(n), which are then extended in Section 3.
standard math Schwartz's theorem on smooth invariants under a compact Lie group: every smooth U(n)-invariant function on M is a smooth function of finitely many invariant polynomials.
Used in Lemma 4.1 to pass from real-analytic invariant functions to all smooth invariants in proving closure under { , }2.
standard math Poisson reduction principle: for a Poisson action, invariant functions form a Poisson subalgebra, and the reduced phase space can be modeled by N(n)-invariant functions on Tn_reg×H(n).
Used in Lemma 4.1 and Lemma 4.2 to define and compute the reduced brackets.
domain assumption The reduced equations (1.1) coincide with known trigonometric spin Sutherland and spin Ruijsenaars-Schneider models from the literature [5,9,17,24,25,32].
The paper does not re-derive the many-body interpretation; it uses these prior results to name the reduced hierarchy.
domain assumption Regularity of Q: Q is restricted to Tn_reg with distinct eigenvalues, so (Ad_Q - id) is invertible on off-diagonal subspaces.
Explicitly assumed in Section 4; essential for defining R(Q) in (4.12) and for solving the off-diagonal part in Lemma 4.4.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reduction of a bi-Hamiltonian hierarchy on $T^*\mathrm{U}(n)$ to spin Ruijsenaars--Sutherland models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FVS7MKWG

@misc{pith2026190802467,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reduction of a bi-Hamiltonian hierarchy on $T^*\mathrmU(n)$ to spin Ruijsenaars--Sutherland models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FVS7MKWG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02467}
}

abstract

We first exhibit two compatible Poisson structures on the cotangent bundle of the unitary group $\mathrm{U}(n)$ in such a way that the invariant functions of the $\mathfrak{u}(n)^*$-valued momenta generate a bi-Hamiltonian hierarchy. One of the Poisson structures is the canonical one and the other one arises from embedding the Heisenberg double of the Poisson-Lie group $\mathrm{U}(n)$ into $T^*\mathrm{U}(n)$, and subsequently extending the embedded Poisson structure to the full cotangent bundle. We then apply Poisson reduction to the bi-Hamiltonian hierarchy on $T^*\mathrm{U}(n)$ using the conjugation action of $\mathrm{U}(n)$, for which the ring of invariant functions is closed under both Poisson brackets. We demonstrate that the reduced hierarchy belongs to the overlap of well-known trigonometric spin Sutherland and spin Ruijsenaars--Schneider type integrable many-body models, which receive a bi-Hamiltonian interpretation via our treatment.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

[13]

Poisson-Lie analogues of spin Sutherland models

L. Feh´ er, Poisson-Lie analogues of spin Sutherland models , Nucl. Phys. B 949 (2019); arXiv:1809.01529 [math-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2019
[1]

Quantum Trace Formulae for the Integrals of the Hyperbolic Ruijsenaars-Schneider model

G. Arutyunov, R. Klabbers and E. Olivucci, Quantum trace formulae for the integrals of the hyperbolic Ruijsenaars–Schneider model , JHEP05(2019)069; arXiv:1902.06755

work page Pith review arXiv 2019
[2]

Arutyunov and E

G. Arutyunov and E. Olivucci, Hyperbolic spin Ruijsenaars–Schneider model from Pois- son reduction, arXiv:1906.02619

arXiv 1906
[3]

Balog, L

J. Balog, L. D¸ abrowski and L. Feh´ er,Classicalr-matrix and exchange algebra in WZNW and Toda theories , Phys. Lett. B 244 (1990) 227-234

work page 1990
[4]

On the geometric origin of the bi-Hamiltonian structure of the Calogero-Moser system

C. Bartocci, G. Falqui, I. Mencattini, G. Ortenzi and M. Pedroni, On the geometric origin of the bi-Hamiltonian structure of the Calogero–Moser syst em, Int. Math. Res. Not. 2010 279-296; arXiv:0902.0953 [math-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2010
[5]

Affine Toda Solitons and Systems of Calogero-Moser Type

H.W. Braden and N.W. Hone, Aﬃne Toda solitons and systems of Calogero–Moser type , Phys. Lett. B 380 (1996) 296-302; arXiv:hep-th/9603178

work page Pith review arXiv 1996
[6]

Calogero, Solution of the one-dimensional N-body problem with quadra tic and/or in- versely quadratic pair potentials , J

F. Calogero, Solution of the one-dimensional N-body problem with quadra tic and/or in- versely quadratic pair potentials , J. Math. Phys. 12 (1971) 419-436

work page 1971
[7]

Chalykh and M

O. Chalykh and M. Fairon, Multiplicative quiver varieties and generalised Ruijsena ars- Schneider models , J. Geom. Phys. 121 (2017) 413437; arXiv:1704.05814 [math.QA]

arXiv 2017

Show all 49 references

[8]

Chalykh and M

O. Chalykh and M. Fairon, On the Hamiltonian formulation of the trigonometric spin Ruijsenaars–Schneider system , arXiv:1811.08727

arXiv
[9]

Etingof, I.B

P.I. Etingof, I.B. Frenkel and A.A. Kirillov Jr., Spherical functions on aﬃne Lie groups , Duke Math. J. 80 (1995) 59-90; arXiv:hep-th/9407047

1995 arXiv
[10]

Etingof and A

P. Etingof and A. Varchenko, Geometry and classiﬁcation of solutions of the clas- sical dynamical Yang–Baxter equation , Commun. Math. Phys. 192 (1998) 77-120; arXiv:q-alg/9703040

1998 arXiv
[11]

Falqui, F

G. Falqui, F. Magri and M. Pedroni, Bihamiltonian geometry, Darboux coverings, and linearization of the KP hierarchy , Commun. Math. Phys. 197 (1998) 303-324; arXiv:solv-int/9806002 17

1998 arXiv
[12]

Falqui and I

G. Falqui and I. Mencattini, Bi-Hamiltonian geometry and canonical spectral coordi- nates for the rational Calogero–Moser system , J. Geom. Phys. 118 (2017) 126-137; arXiv:1511.06339 [math-ph]

2017 arXiv
[14]

Feh´ er,Bi-Hamiltonian structure of a dynamical system introduced by Braden and Hone , Nonlinearity 32 (2019) 4377-4394; arXiv:1901.03558 [math-ph]

L. Feh´ er,Bi-Hamiltonian structure of a dynamical system introduced by Braden and Hone , Nonlinearity 32 (2019) 4377-4394; arXiv:1901.03558 [math-ph]

2019 arXiv
[15]

Feh´ er and C

L. Feh´ er and C. Klimˇ c ´ ık,Poisson-Lie generalization of the Kazhdan–Kostant–Stern berg reduction, Lett. Math. Phys. 87 (2009) 125-138; arXiv:0809.1509 [math-ph]

2009 arXiv
[16]

Feh´ er and C

L. Feh´ er and C. Klimˇ c ´ ık,Poisson-Lie interpretation of trigonometric Ruijsenaars duality, Commun. Math. Phys. 301 (2011) 55-104; arXiv:0906.4198 [math-ph]

2011 arXiv
[17]

Feh´ er and B.G

L. Feh´ er and B.G. Pusztai,Spin Calogero models obtained from dynamical r-matrices and geodesic motion, Nucl. Phys. B 734 (2006) 304-325; arXiv:math-ph/0507062

2006 arXiv
[18]

Fock and A.A

V.V. Fock and A.A. Rosly, Poisson structure on moduli of ﬂat connections on Riemann surfaces and the r-matrix, pp. 67-86 in: Moscow Seminar in Mathematical Physics, AMS Transl. Ser. 2, Vol. 191, American Mathematical Society, 1999; arXiv:math/9802054 [math.QA]

1999 arXiv
[19]

Gibbons and T

J. Gibbons and T. Hermsen, A generalisation of the Calogero–Moser system , Physica D 11 (1984) 337-348

1984
[20]

Kazhdan, B

D. Kazhdan, B. Kostant and S. Sternberg, Hamiltonian group actions and dynamical systems of Calogero type , Comm. Pure Appl. Math.XXXI, 481-507 (1978)

1978
[21]

Kharchev, A

S. Kharchev, A. Levin, M. Olshanetsky and A. Zotov, Quasi-compact Higgs bundles and Calogero–Sutherland systems with two types spins , J. Math. Phys. 59 (2018) 103509; arXiv:1712.08851 [math-ph]

2018 arXiv
[22]

Klimˇ c ´ ık,On moment maps associated to a twisted Heisenberg double , Rev

C. Klimˇ c ´ ık,On moment maps associated to a twisted Heisenberg double , Rev. Math. Phys. 18 (2006) 781-821; arXiv:math-ph/0602048

2006 arXiv
[23]

Korogodski and Y.S

L.I. Korogodski and Y.S. Soibelman, Algebras of Functions on Qu antum Groups: Part I, American Mathematical Society, 1998

1998
[24]

Krichever and A

I. Krichever and A. Zabrodin, Spin generalization of the Ruijsenaars–Schneider model, non-abelian 2D Toda chain and representations of Sklyanin a lgebra, Russian Math. Sur- veys 50 (1995) 1101-1150; arXiv:hep-th/9505039

1995 arXiv
[25]

Li, Poisson involutions, spin Calogero–Moser systems associa ted with symmetric Lie subalgebras and the symmetric space spin Ruijsenaars–S chneider models, Commun

L.-C. Li, Poisson involutions, spin Calogero–Moser systems associa ted with symmetric Lie subalgebras and the symmetric space spin Ruijsenaars–S chneider models, Commun. Math. Phys. 265 (2006) 333-372; arXiv:math-ph/0506025

2006 arXiv
[26]

Li and P

L.-C. Li and P. Xu, A class of integrable spin Calogero–Moser systems , Commun. Math. Phys. 231 (2002) 257-286; arXiv:math/0105162 [math.QA]

2002 arXiv
[27]

Lu, Momentum mappings and reduction of Poisson actions , pp

J.-H. Lu, Momentum mappings and reduction of Poisson actions , pp. 209-226 in: Sym- plectic Geometry, Groupoids, and Integrable Systems, Springer, 1991

1991
[28]

Moser, Three integrable Hamiltonian systems connected with isosp ectral deformations, Adv

J. Moser, Three integrable Hamiltonian systems connected with isosp ectral deformations, Adv. Math. 16 (1975) 197-220 18

1975
[29]

Nekrasov, Inﬁnite-dimensional algebras, many-body systems and gaug e theories , pp

N. Nekrasov, Inﬁnite-dimensional algebras, many-body systems and gaug e theories , pp. 263-299 in: Moscow Seminar in Mathematical Physics, AMS Transl. Se r. 2, Vol. 191, American Mathematical Society, 1999

1999
[30]

Oblomkov, Double aﬃne Hecke algebras and Calogero–Moser spaces , Represent

A. Oblomkov, Double aﬃne Hecke algebras and Calogero–Moser spaces , Represent. The- ory 8, 243-266 (2004)

2004
[31]

Ortega and T

J.-P. Ortega and T. Ratiu, Momentum Maps and Hamiltonian Reduc tion, Birh¨ auser, 2004

2004
[32]

Reshetikhin, Degenerate integrability of spin Calogero–Moser systems a nd the duality with the spin Ruijsenaars systems , Lett

N. Reshetikhin, Degenerate integrability of spin Calogero–Moser systems a nd the duality with the spin Ruijsenaars systems , Lett. Math. Phys. 63 (2003) 55-71; arXiv:math/0202245 [math.QA]

2003 arXiv
[33]

Reshetikhin, Degenerately integrable systems , J

N. Reshetikhin, Degenerately integrable systems , J. Math. Sci. 213 (2016) 769-785; arXiv:1509.00730 [math-ph]

2016 arXiv
[34]

Reshetikhin, Spin Calogero–Moser models on symmetric spaces , arXiv:1903.03685,

N. Reshetikhin, Spin Calogero–Moser models on symmetric spaces , arXiv:1903.03685,

1903 arXiv
[35]

Roubtsov and T

V. Roubtsov and T. Skrypnyk, Compatible Poisson brackets, quadratic Poisson algebras and classical r-matrices , pp 311-333 in: Diﬀerential Equations - Geometry, Symmetries and Integrability: The Abel Symposium 2008, B. Kruglikov et al (eds ), Springer, 2009

2008
[36]

Rudolph and M

G. Rudolph and M. Schmidt, Diﬀerential Geometry and Mathemat ical Physics. Part I. Manifolds, Lie Groups and Hamiltonian Systems, Springer, 2013

2013
[37]

Ruijsenaars, Systems of Calogero–Moser type , pp

S.N.M. Ruijsenaars, Systems of Calogero–Moser type , pp. 251-352 in: Proceedings of the 1994 CRM-Banﬀ Summer School: Particles and Fields, Springer, 1999

1994
[38]

Ruijsenaars and H

S.N.M. Ruijsenaars and H. Schneider, A new class of integrable systems and its relation to solitons , Ann. Phys. 170 (1986) 370-405

1986
[39]

Schomerus and E

V. Schomerus and E. Sobko, From spinning conformal blocks to matrix Calogero– Sutherland models , JHEP04(2018)052; arXiv:1711.02022 [hep-th]

2018 arXiv
[40]

Schwartz, Smooth functions invariant under the action of a compact Lie group, Topology 14 (1975) 63-68

G.W. Schwartz, Smooth functions invariant under the action of a compact Lie group, Topology 14 (1975) 63-68

1975
[41]

Semenov-Tian-Shansky, Dressing transformations and Poisson group actions , Publ

M.A. Semenov-Tian-Shansky, Dressing transformations and Poisson group actions , Publ. RIMS 21 (1985) 1237-1260

1985
[42]

Sergyeyev, A simple way of making a Hamiltonian system into a bi-Hamilto nian one , Acta Appl

A. Sergyeyev, A simple way of making a Hamiltonian system into a bi-Hamilto nian one , Acta Appl. Math. 83 (2004) 183-197; arXiv:nlin/0310012 [nlin.SI]

2004 arXiv
[43]

Sjamaar and E

R. Sjamaar and E. Lerman, Stratiﬁed symplectic spaces and reduction, Ann. of Math. 134 (1991) 375-422

1991
[44]

Smirnov, Bi-Hamiltonian formalism: A constructive approach , Lett

R.G. Smirnov, Bi-Hamiltonian formalism: A constructive approach , Lett. Math. Phys. 41 (1997) 333-347

1997
[45]

Yu. B. Suris, Why is the Ruijsenaars–Schneider hierarchy governed by the same R-operator as the Calogero–Moser one? , Phys. Lett. A 225 (1997) 253-262; arXiv:hep-th/9602160, arXiv:solv-int/9603011

1997 arXiv
[46]

Sutherland, Exact results for a quantum many-body problem in one dimensi on, Phys

B. Sutherland, Exact results for a quantum many-body problem in one dimensi on, Phys. Rev. A 4 (1971) 2019-2021 19

1971
[47]

van Diejen and L

J.F. van Diejen and L. Vinet (Editors), Calogero–Moser–Suthe rland Models, Springer, 2000

2000
[48]

Wojciechowski, An integrable marriage of the Euler equation with the Caloge ro–Moser system, Phys

S. Wojciechowski, An integrable marriage of the Euler equation with the Caloge ro–Moser system, Phys. Lett. 111 (1985) 101-103

1985
[49]

Zakrzewski, Free motion on the Poisson SU(N) group , J

S. Zakrzewski, Free motion on the Poisson SU(N) group , J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 30 (1997) 6535-6543; arXiv:dg-ga/9612008 20

1997 arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [13]

Poisson-Lie analogues of spin Sutherland models

L. Feh´ er, Poisson-Lie analogues of spin Sutherland models , Nucl. Phys. B 949 (2019); arXiv:1809.01529 [math-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2019

[2] [1]

Quantum Trace Formulae for the Integrals of the Hyperbolic Ruijsenaars-Schneider model

G. Arutyunov, R. Klabbers and E. Olivucci, Quantum trace formulae for the integrals of the hyperbolic Ruijsenaars–Schneider model , JHEP05(2019)069; arXiv:1902.06755

work page Pith review arXiv 2019

[3] [2]

Arutyunov and E

G. Arutyunov and E. Olivucci, Hyperbolic spin Ruijsenaars–Schneider model from Pois- son reduction, arXiv:1906.02619

arXiv 1906

[4] [3]

Balog, L

J. Balog, L. D¸ abrowski and L. Feh´ er,Classicalr-matrix and exchange algebra in WZNW and Toda theories , Phys. Lett. B 244 (1990) 227-234

work page 1990

[5] [4]

On the geometric origin of the bi-Hamiltonian structure of the Calogero-Moser system

C. Bartocci, G. Falqui, I. Mencattini, G. Ortenzi and M. Pedroni, On the geometric origin of the bi-Hamiltonian structure of the Calogero–Moser syst em, Int. Math. Res. Not. 2010 279-296; arXiv:0902.0953 [math-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2010

[6] [5]

Affine Toda Solitons and Systems of Calogero-Moser Type

H.W. Braden and N.W. Hone, Aﬃne Toda solitons and systems of Calogero–Moser type , Phys. Lett. B 380 (1996) 296-302; arXiv:hep-th/9603178

work page Pith review arXiv 1996

[7] [6]

Calogero, Solution of the one-dimensional N-body problem with quadra tic and/or in- versely quadratic pair potentials , J

F. Calogero, Solution of the one-dimensional N-body problem with quadra tic and/or in- versely quadratic pair potentials , J. Math. Phys. 12 (1971) 419-436

work page 1971

[8] [7]

Chalykh and M

O. Chalykh and M. Fairon, Multiplicative quiver varieties and generalised Ruijsena ars- Schneider models , J. Geom. Phys. 121 (2017) 413437; arXiv:1704.05814 [math.QA]

arXiv 2017