SciPost Submission Page
Common framework and quadratic Bethe equations for rational Gaudin magnets in arbitrarily oriented magnetic fields
by Alexandre Faribault, Hugo Tschirhart
This is not the latest submitted version.
Submission summary
| Authors (as registered SciPost users): | Alexandre Faribault · Hugo Tschirhart |
| Submission information | |
|---|---|
| Preprint Link: | http://arxiv.org/abs/1704.01873v1 (pdf) |
| Date submitted: | April 7, 2017, 2 a.m. |
| Submitted by: | Alexandre Faribault |
| Submitted to: | SciPost Physics |
| Ontological classification | |
|---|---|
| Academic field: | Physics |
| Specialties: |
|
| Approach: | Theoretical |
Abstract
In this work we demonstrate a simple way to implement the quantum inverse scattering method to find eigenstates of spin-1/2 XXX Gaudin magnets in an arbitrarily oriented magnetic field. The procedure differs vastly from the most natural approach which would be to simply orient the spin quantisation axis in the same direction as the magnetic field through an appropriate rotation. Instead, we define a modified realisation of the rational Gaudin algebra and use the quantum inverse scattering method which allows us, within a slightly modified implementation, to build an algebraic Bethe ansatz using the same unrotated reference state (pseudovacuum) for any external field. This common framework allows us to easily write determinant expressions for certain scalar products which would be highly non-trivial in the rotated system approach.
Current status:
Reports on this Submission
Report #4 by Anonymous (Referee 3) on 2017-5-12 (Invited Report)
- Cite as: Anonymous, Report on arXiv:1704.01873v1, delivered 2017-05-12, doi: 10.21468/SciPost.Report.137
Strengths
1- Alternative, possibly easier to generalize, solution to a model of Gaudin magnets in a magnetic field. 2- All statements are thoroughly proven.
Weaknesses
Report
Overall the paper is quite interesting, and timely, given the recent interest in integrable systems without a simple reference state. The results are clearly stated and proven, which makes it easy to read also. For these reasons I recommend publication in SciPost, provided the minor issues mentioned below are addressed.
Requested changes
1- In section 4.1, the relation to SoV should be discussed more thoroughly. 2- What about the completeness of the set of eigenstates constructed here? 3- There is a clash of notations regarding the variable k in several equations, including (38),(39),(40),(41). 4- Section 5. While the derivation itself is clear, putting the main result (58) either at the beginning or at the end would definitely improve readability. 5- Last paragraph before the conclusion. Regarding the normalization of these eigenstate, the authors say either too little or too much.
Below is also a short list of additional typos:
a) The first sentence page 2, especially the "whose", reads awkwardly. b) Second paragraph "leads" should read "leading". b) Page 9 before (23). "writable" is improper in that context. Same comment on page 19. c) In (71), the Cauchy matrix is strictly speaking not defined. d) In the conclusion "and therefore an eigenstate" should read "and therefore not an eigenstate".
Report #3 by Anonymous (Referee 2) on 2017-5-3 (Invited Report)
- Cite as: Anonymous, Report on arXiv:1704.01873v1, delivered 2017-05-03, doi: 10.21468/SciPost.Report.126
Strengths
- Very well explained and readable paper
- Very interesting result relating ABA-like and SOV-like constructions for a simple toy model
- Connection between homogeneous and inhomogeneous Bethe roots
Weaknesses
- Absence of a scalar product formula for off-shell and on-shell states (it seems that in this construction even a off-shell off-shell scalar products can be computable)
Report
The paper is well written, the statements are proved in a clear way. I recommend the paper for publication in SciPost.
Requested changes
- Mention after eq. 12 that the inhomogeneity parameters \epsilon_j should be generic
Report #2 by Anonymous (Referee 1) on 2017-4-26 (Invited Report)
- Cite as: Anonymous, Report on arXiv:1704.01873v1, delivered 2017-04-26, doi: 10.21468/SciPost.Report.122
Strengths
Weaknesses
Report
Requested changes
1/ It would be interesting to compare the method used in this paper with the previous works concerning the algebraic Bethe ansatz without pseudovacuum. For example : a/ the ansatz with the same number of the creation operators than the number of sites (see relation (22)) has been introduced previously in SIGMA 9 (2013), 072 ( arXiv:1309.6165); b/ the computation of the supplementary term in their relation (26) which is the main technical problem has been also encountered in other contexts and solved by different methods in J. Phys. A48 (2015) 08FT01 and arXiv:1411.7954 ; N. Phys. B899 (2015) 229-246 and arXiv:1506.02147 ; SIGMA 11 (2015), 099 and arXiv:1506.06550.
2/ The type of Bethe equations they obtained has been introduced previously in the context of the spin chain without U(1) symmetry and has been the heart of a lot of recent researches initiated in Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 137201 (2013) and arXiv:1305.7328v4.
3/ At the end of section 4.1, they discuss about the SoV used to solve the models without proper pseudovacuum. Other methods to deal with this problem have been also introduced. In addition of the references given previously (concerning the ABA and the TQ relation), there exist also the q-Onsager approach (J. Stat. Mech. (2007) P09006 and arXiv:hep-th/0703106), the generalisation of the coordinate Bethe ansatz (J. Stat. Mech. (2010) P11038 and arXiv:1009.4119) or the functional Bethe ansatz (J. Stat. Mech. (2005) P08002 and arXiv:hep-th/0504124; Nucl. Phys. B790 (2008) 524 and arXiv:0708.0009; J. Phys. A44 (2011) 015001 and arXiv:1009.1081) .
4/ I believe that the cases $B_0^+=0, B_0^- \neq 0$ and $B_0^+\neq 0, B_0^- = 0$ deserve at least a remark before to treat the general case with $B_0^+\neq 0, B_0^- \neq 0$. It would correspond to triangular boundaries treated for example by ABA in Lett. Math. Phys. 103 (2013) 493 and arXiv:1209.4269.
5/ To enlighten their results, I propose to reorganize a bit the section 4. The final results summarized at the end by relations (49)-(53) may be put after relations (22) and the rest of the section may be presented as a proof of these results.
6/ A discussion on the completeness of their solution is also necessary. As usual in the context of Bethe ansatz, they give a proof that the vector they proposed (assuming that it is not zero) is an eigenvector but we do not know a priori that all the eigenvectors are obtained by this way.
7/ I list below small typographic mistakes: - in the last sentence of the first paragraph of the introduction: 'a eigenstates which are'; - at different places, they give the eigenvalues of Sz proportional to $\hbar$. If it is the case, $\hbar$ is also present in the commutation relations of the Gaudin algebra; - they must precise that the epsilon are 2 by 2 different after (12); - in (21), an index 'i' is missing for S; - keep the same notations for the l.h.s of (5), (22), (50),... - in (37) and (49), they used $B_0^z$ instead of $B_z$; - a tilde is missing on the last $\Lambda$ of (64)