Inverse Scattering Transform for the Massive Thirring Model: Delving into Higher-Order Pole Dynamics

Bo Xue; Dongli Luan; Huan Liu

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 39 references

Inverse Scattering Transform for the Massive Thirring Model: Delving into Higher-Order Pole Dynamics

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that the massive Thirring model's inverse scattering transform can handle N pairs of higher-order poles, with explicit N-multipole solutions in the reflectionless case.

desk verdict The RH-based multiple-pole framework for the massive Thirring model is a plausible and useful extension, but the vanishing lemma's key symmetry identity fails for the complex f(λ) the paper itself allows, so the central existence/uniqueness claim is not proved as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18140 v1 pith:MLF5TBWL submitted 2024-11-27 nlin.SI

Dongli Luan , Bo Xue , Huan Liu This is my paper · ORCID

classification nlin.SI MSC 35Q1537K1535Q51

keywords massiveThirringmodelinversescatteringtransformhigher-orderpolesRiemann–HilbertproblemN-multipolesolutionsreflectionlesscaseLaxpairalgebraicsolitons

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 works on the massive Thirring model, a 1+1-dimensional integrable field theory of interacting fermions with mass, and claims that its inverse scattering transform remains fully solvable when the transmission coefficient carries N pairs of higher-order poles instead of only simple poles. To establish this, it builds a 2×2 Riemann–Hilbert problem with residue conditions at those poles, removes the poles to obtain an equivalent pole-free Riemann–Hilbert problem, and proves a vanishing lemma for unique solvability. In the reflectionless case, the reconstruction reduces to two finite linear algebraic systems, so explicit N-multipole solutions can be computed from the pole data and the residue polynomial.

What carries the argument

The central object is the pole-free Riemann–Hilbert problem 3.2 for a 2×2 matrix \widehatM(x,t;λ), obtained from the meromorphic Riemann–Hilbert problem 3.1 by multiplying by triangular matrices Pk and \widehatPk inside small disks around each pole, thereby replacing residue conditions with jumps across the disk boundaries. The uniqueness proof runs through the symmetry identity (3.21) relating the jump matrix \widehatJ to its conjugate transpose with the weight diag(λ−1/2,λ1/2), which makes the auxiliary matrix M = \widehatM diag(λ−1/2,λ1/2)\widehatM† continuous, hence entire and zero by Liouville's theorem; positive definiteness of the transformed real-axis jump then forces \widehatM to vanish. The reconstruction itself is carried by the regularized integral equations (3.31)–(3.32), and in the reflectionless case by the two algebraic systems G1=0 and G2=0 for F1 and F2.

What would settle it

Evaluate both sides of the symmetry identity (3.21) at a point on a small circle, for example f(λ)=1, x=1, t=0, λk=i, and λ=0.05+i; comparing the (1,2)-entries of the two sides settles whether the identity holds as stated. If the entries differ, the vanishing lemma as written is not valid for that configuration and the existence-uniqueness proof needs repair.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the massive Thirring model's inverse scattering transform extends to multiple-pole transmission coefficients: if α(λ) has N distinct zeros λ1,...,λN in the upper half-plane, each of multiplicity mk+1, together with their conjugates, the scattering data determine a 2×2 matrix Riemann–Hilbert problem with higher-order residue conditions at all 2N points. The paper shows these residue conditions can be converted into jumps on small circles around the poles using lower- and upper-triangular factors Pk and \widehatPk, producing a pole-free Riemann–Hilbert problem; Lemma 3.3 asserts that this problem has only the zero solution under a vanishing condition, so the unique solution follows by standard theory. In the reflectionless case γ=0, the reconstruction closes as two linear algebraic systems for the Taylor data F1 and F2 at the poles, and Theorem 3.8 reconstructs u(x,t) and v(x,t) as finite sums, giving explicit N-multipole solutions.

Load-bearing premise

The vanishing lemma's proof rests entirely on the jump-matrix symmetry identity (3.21) holding on every part of the contour, including the small circles around the poles; if that identity fails on any contour piece, the proof of existence and uniqueness of the pole-free Riemann–Hilbert problem has no support.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For reflectionless scattering data with N pairs of higher-order poles, the massive Thirring model has explicit N-multipole solutions; formula (3.40) writes u and v as finite sums of derivatives of F1 and F2 evaluated at the poles.
The inverse scattering map is claimed to be well-defined on multipole data: the unique solvability of the pole-free Riemann–Hilbert problem means the scattering data determine a unique potential, not just a formal solution.
The single-limit reconstruction formulas in Corollary 3.5 compute u and v directly from one Riemann–Hilbert solution, avoiding the two separate Riemann–Hilbert problems and quotient formulas used in earlier treatments.
The numerical plots for N=1,2,3 show localized multipole wave structures whose shapes are controlled by the pole locations λk and the polynomial f(λ), demonstrating that the constructed solutions are genuine soliton-type objects.

Reading between the lines

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

Going beyond the paper: the vanishing lemma's proof depends on the jump-matrix symmetry (3.21) holding on the small circles, so a natural next step is to check whether this identity requires extra conditions on f(λ); if it fails, the algebraic formulas (3.40) may still give formal multipole solutions, but the existence-uniqueness theorem would need a repaired argument.
The finite linear systems for F1 and F2 are built from Hermite-interpolation-type data, which suggests that large-time asymptotics of the N-multipole solutions could be extracted by expanding Θ(x,t;λ) around each pole; the paper does not compute such asymptotics.
Because the pole-removal construction is transferable, the two-transformation scheme used here should adapt to other derivative-type integrable equations whose spectral problems lack the standard symmetry, such as derivative nonlinear Schrödinger-type systems with λ and λ−1 appearing asymmetrically.

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

Punchline: the direct scattering setup is solid and the reflectionless algebraic construction is a real convenience, but the vanishing lemma's key identity fails for generic f, so the existence/uniqueness claim for the pole-free RH problem is not established. The paper is not ready as is.

What is actually new: adapting the multiple-pole RH method to MTM is non-trivial because the spectral problem lacks the symmetry of Sasa–Satsuma or Ablowitz–Ladik. The two parameter transformations (large λ and small λ) are worked through carefully, and the reduction to two linear algebraic systems in Theorem 3.8 is a clean way to generate N-multipole solutions. Those parts read as competent and worth keeping.

Soft spots: Lemma 3.3 is load-bearing and invalid as written. Following the proof, identity (3.21) on ∂D_k forces f(λ) = overline{f(λ)}. The paper imposes no such condition, and its own examples use non-real f (λ−i, e^{iλ}). Without (3.21), the matrix M is not jump-free, so Morera and Liouville do not apply, and uniqueness of the pole-free RHP 3.2 is unsupported. Since RHP 3.2 is the vehicle for the inverse step, this is central, not cosmetic. In addition, the paper cites Ref. [24] on algebraic solitons but does not compare its N-multipole solutions to those, leaving the novelty claim under-checked. The reconstruction formula is only cited to Fokas; that is less severe because it is standard, but still not demonstrated.

What holds up: the direct scattering analysis, Volterra estimates, asymptotic expansions, the residue conditions via Hermite interpolation, and the explicit algebraic systems all appear coherent. The plots in Section 3.4 are consistent with multipole behavior. The self-citations to Refs. [35–37] are to published papers and are not abusive.

Who this is for: researchers working on IST for derivative NLS-type systems and massive-Thirring equations. If Lemma 3.3 can be patched, e.g., by requiring f real on the contours or by a different symmetry argument, this would be a solid contribution. As it stands, the central existence/uniqueness claim is unproved. I would not cite the main theorem, but I would send this to a knowledgeable referee: the flaw is specific and potentially fixable, and the rest of the paper has real content. If the referee confirms the vanishing lemma cannot be repaired, the paper should not be accepted.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes an inverse scattering transform (IST) for the massive Thirring model (MTM) in the case where the transmission coefficient has N pairs of higher-order poles. The authors introduce two parameter transformations to control the Jost solutions at λ→0 and λ→∞, derive scattering data including residue constants at the poles and their conjugates, and formulate a meromorphic Riemann–Hilbert problem (RHP 3.1). They then remove the pole singularities to obtain a pole-free RHP 3.2, claim existence and uniqueness of its solution through a vanishing lemma (Lemma 3.3), and give a reconstruction formula for the potentials u and v. In the reflectionless case the inverse problem is reduced to two linear algebraic systems (Theorem 3.8), and several explicit multipole solutions are plotted.

Significance. If correct, the paper would extend the IST for the MTM from simple poles to higher-order poles, complementing previous work on the MTM and analogous results for other integrable equations. The direct scattering analysis in Section 2 and the algebraic reduction in the reflectionless case (Theorem 3.8) are well motivated, and the numerical figures illustrate nontrivial multipole dynamics. However, the central well-posedness claim for the pole-free RHP rests on a false matrix identity, and the discrete residue data appear incomplete; these gaps affect the main results and cannot be repaired by minor editing.

major comments (2)

[Section 3, Lemma 3.3, Eq. (3.21)] The identity (3.21) is false for the jump matrices on the small circles. For λ∈∂D_k, J(λ)=P_k^{-1}(λ) has (1,2) entry f(λ)e^{2iΘ(λ)}/(λ−λ_k)^{m_k+1}, while the corresponding entry of D J†(λ̄)D^{-1}D? Direct substitution shows that (3.21) would require f(λ)=f(λ) on ∂D_k, a condition that is not imposed and is false for admissible f; e.g., with f(λ)=λ, λ_k=i, x=t=0, m_k=0, and λ=0.05+i on ∂D_k, the two sides of (3.21) differ already in the (1,2) entry. Analogous conditions fail on ∂D_k. Since Lemma 3.3 is the only argument for the existence and uniqueness of RHP 3.2 (via Theorem 9.3 of Ref. [38]), the well-posedness of the pole-free problem and hence the reconstruction in Theorem 3.4 are not established as written.
[Section 2.3, Proposition 2.12 and Remark 2.13; Section 3.1, residue conditions (3.6)–(3.7)] The discrete data for the inverse problem are not well-defined. Proposition 2.12 asserts a unique polynomial f of degree less than N satisfying both (2.59) and (2.60), but the proof only interpolates the derivatives at λ_k; the conditions at λ_k, which involve f(λ) and its derivatives, are not controlled. Remark 2.13 explicitly allows replacing f by f+g∏(λ−λ_k)^{m_k+1}, which changes the values of f at λ_k while preserving (2.59), contradicting the claimed uniqueness. The scattering data in (3.1) list only f^{(n_k)}(λ_k), so the residue conditions (3.7) are not determined by the stated data, and the equivalence between the direct scattering problem and RHP 3.1 is not established.

minor comments (4)

[Throughout] There are several typographical errors that should be corrected: “Similiarly” (p.8), “intergal” (p.6), “removeable” (p.17), and “uniffied” (Ref. [39]).
[Section 2.3, Proposition 2.12] The symbol N is used with two meanings: the number of zeros of α in Assumption 2.11 and the total multiplicity Σ(m_k+1) in Proposition 2.12. This makes statements like “degree less than N” ambiguous.
[Section 3, Lemma 3.3] The proof uses the factors λ^{-1/4} and λ^{1/4} in (3.23) without specifying the branch, especially on R^−; the branch should be fixed before applying the analytic continuation argument across R^+.
[Section 3.4, Figures 3–5] The captions describe cases as “1-multipole”, “2-multipole”, and “3-multipole” solutions, which is confusing because the figures vary the integer m_1 while keeping N fixed; the terminology should be clarified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derivation is self-contained; the main caveat is a correctness gap in the vanishing lemma, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

I walked the claimed derivation chain: direct scattering maps (u,v) to scattering data, the inverse problem builds a Riemann-Hilbert problem from those data, and Theorem 3.4 reconstructs u,v via an external dressing-method result (Ref. [39]). Existence and uniqueness of the pole-free problem are referred to Zhou's Theorem 9.3 (Ref. [38]), an external result, with Lemma 3.3 serving as the required vanishing lemma. The residue-condition input in Proposition 2.8 is cited to Ref. [37], which shares an author with the present paper; however, it is a published mathematical result with stated assumptions not including the target solution, so under the rubric it counts as external support rather than a circular reduction. No parameter is fitted to the target N-multipole solutions: f(lambda) is part of the scattering data, and the algebraic systems in Theorem 3.8 solve the RHP rather than fit data. The apparent failure of identity (3.21) for generic f in Lemma 3.3 is a mathematical gap in the proof of existence/uniqueness, but it is not a case of a prediction being equivalent to an input by construction. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

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

The construction introduces no constants fitted to the target solutions; the scattering data (poles, multiplicities, residue constants) are the inputs of the inverse problem. The load-bearing assumptions are the (unproved) jump-matrix symmetry (3.21) and the cited dressing-method reconstruction. The paper also assumes the standard Lax pair and Volterra theory.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption MTM admits the Lax pair (2.1)-(2.2) and the zero-curvature representation (2.3)
The whole IST relies on integrability; established in Refs [4-7].
standard math Volterra integral equations (2.16),(2.24) have unique L-infinity solutions under u,v in L1 intersect L-infinity, ux,vx in L1
Standard Volterra theory, as stated in Theorems 2.1 and 2.2.
domain assumption Assumption 2.11: alpha(lambda) has N distinct zeros in C+ with finite multiplicities, none on the real axis
Defines the discrete spectrum for the higher-order pole problem.
ad hoc to paper The jump-matrix symmetry \hat J diag(lambda^{-1/2},lambda^{1/2}) = diag(lambda^{-1/2},lambda^{1/2}) \hat J^dagger(\bar lambda) (Eq. (3.21))
Needed for Lemma 3.3; not derived and fails for generic f(lambda) on the small circles.
ad hoc to paper Reconstruction via the dressing method: u = lim_{lambda to 0} \hat M_{12}, v = lim_{lambda to 0} \hat M_{21} (Theorem 3.4)
Proof is deferred to Ref [39] without details.
standard math Existence and uniqueness of the Hermite interpolation polynomial f(lambda) in Proposition 2.12
Standard result used to combine residue data.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Inverse Scattering Transform for the Massive Thirring Model: Delving into Higher-Order Pole Dynamics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MLF5TBWL

@misc{pith2026241118140,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Inverse Scattering Transform for the Massive Thirring Model: Delving into Higher-Order Pole Dynamics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MLF5TBWL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18140}
}

abstract

We investigate the inverse scattering problem for the massive Thirring model, focusing particularly on cases where the transmission coefficient exhibits $N$ pairs of higher-order poles. Our methodology involves transforming initial data into scattering data via the direct scattering problem. Utilizing two parameter transformations, we examine the asymptotic properties of the Jost functions at both vanishing and infinite parameters, yielding two equivalent spectral problems. We subsequently devise a mapping that translates the obtained scattering data into a $2 \times 2$ matrix Riemann--Hilbert problem, incorporating several residue conditions at $N$ pairs of multiple poles. Additionally, we construct an equivalent pole-free Riemann--Hilbert problem and demonstrate the existence and uniqueness of its solution. In the reflectionless case, the $N$-multipole solutions can be reconstructed by resolving two linear algebraic systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18140 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** The regions {Dk} N k=1 and {Dˆ k} N k=1 (shaded). We define a new matrix Mˆ (x, t; λ) in terms of M(x, t; λ) in RH problem 3.1 by Mˆ (x, t; λ) =    M(x, t; λ)Pk(x, t; λ), λ ∈ Dk, k = 1, . . . , N, M(x, t; λ)Pˆ k(x, t; λ), λ ∈ Dˆ k, k = 1, . . . , N, M(x, t; λ), otherwise, (3.11) where Pk(x, t; λ) = 1 − f(λ)e2iΘ(x,t;λ) (λ−λk)mk+1 0 1 ! , Pˆ k(x, t; λ) = 1 0 λf(λ¯)e−2iΘ(x,t;λ) (λ−λ¯ k)mk+1 1 ! . (3.12) It can… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Density structures of |u(x, t)| and |v(x, t)| (from top to bottom) for λ1 = i+1, f(λ) = 1 and m1 = 1, 2, 3 (from left to right). 24 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Density structures of |u(x, t)| and |v(x, t)| (from top to bottom) for λ1 = i 2 , λ2 = i + 1, f(λ) = λ − i and m1 = 0, m2 = 0 (left), m1 = 1, m2 = 1 (middle), m1 = 1, m2 = 2 (right). 25 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Density structures of |u(x, t)| and |v(x, t)| (from top to bottom) for λ1 = i, λ2 = i 2 , λ3 = i + 1, f(λ) = eiλ and m1 = 0, m2 = 0, m3 = 0 (left), m1 = 1, m2 = 0, m3 = 0 (middle), m1 = 1, m2 = 1, m3 = 0 (right). 26 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

[24]

Han, J., He, C., Pelinovsky, D.E.: Algebraic solitons in the massive Thirring model. Phys. Rev. E 110, 034202 (2022)

work page 2022
[38]

The Riemann–Hilbert problem and inverse scattering

Zhou, X. The Riemann–Hilbert problem and inverse scattering. SIAM. J. Math. Anal . 20, 966–986 (1989)

work page 1989
[1]

Thirring, W.E.: A soluable relativistic field theory. Ann. Phys. 3, 91–112 (1958)

work page 1958
[2]

Katsnelson, M.I., Nazaikinskii, V.E.: The Aharonov–Bohm effect for massless Dirac fermions and the spectral flow of Dirac-type operators with classical boundary condi- tions. Theor. Math. Phys . 172, 1263–1277 (2012)

work page 2012
[3]

K¨ onenberg, M., Stockmeyer, E.: Localization of two-dimensional massless Dirac fermions in a magnetic quantum dot. J. Spectr. Theor. 2, 115–146 (2012)

work page 2012
[4]

Kuznetzov, E.A., Mikhailov, A.V.: On the complete integrability of the two-dimensional classical Thirring model. Theor. Math. Phys . 30, 193–200 (1977)

work page 1977
[5]

JETP Lett

Mikhailov, A.V.: Integrability of the two-dimensional Thirring model. JETP Lett. 23, 320–323 (1976)

work page 1976
[6]

Orfanidis, S.J.: Soliton solutions of the massive Thirring model and the inverse scattering transform. Phys. Rev. D 14, 472–478 (1976)

work page 1976

Show all 39 references

[7]

Kaup, D.J., Newell, A.C.: On the Coleman correspondence and the solution of the massive Thirring model. Lett. Nuovo Cimento 20, 325–331 (1977)

1977
[8]

Seiler, R., Uhlenbrock, D.A.: On the massive Thirring model. Ann. Phys. 105, 81–110 (1977)

1977
[9]

Chung, S.G.: Soliton theory for classical statistical mechanics of the massive-Thirring- sine-Gordon model. Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 8, 2447–2488 (1994) 27

1994
[10]

Blas Achic, H.S., Ferreira, L.A.: Confinement, solitons and the equivalence between the sine–Gordon and massive Thirring models. Nucl. Phys. B 571, 607–631 (2000)

2000
[11]

New developments in quantum field theory and statistical mechanics.NATO Adv

Flume, R.: Higher conservation laws in the massive Thirring model. New developments in quantum field theory and statistical mechanics.NATO Adv. Study Inst. Ser. B:Physics 26, 379–383 (1977)

1977
[12]

Mondaini, L., Marino, E.C.: Exact asymptotic behaviour of fermion correlation func- tions in the massive Thirring model. J. Phys. A 39, 967–977 (2006)

2006
[13]

Bergknoff, H., Thacker, H.B.: Structure and solution of the massive Thirring model. Phys. Rev. D 19, 3666–3681 (1979)

1979
[14]

Zhou, Y.K., Schotte, K.D.: L matrix for the massive Thirring model. Phys. Rev. D 47, 1281–1284 (1993)

1993
[15]

Basu-Mallick, B., Sinha, D.: Integrable coupled bosonic massive Thirring model and its nonlocal reductions. J. High Energy Phys . 3, 1–25 (2024)

2024
[16]

Chen, J., Yang, B., Feng, B.F.: Rogue waves in the massive Thirring model. Stud. Appl. Math. 151, 1020–1052 (2023)

2023
[17]

Xia, B.: The massive Thirring system in the quarter plane. P. Roy. Soc. Edinb. A 150, 2387–2416 (2020)

2020
[18]

arXiv:2409.02755 (2024)

Cui, S., Pelinovsky, D.E.: Stability of standing periodic waves in the massive Thirring model. arXiv:2409.02755 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[19]

Nijhoff, F.W., Capel, H.W., Quispel, G.R.W., van der Linden, J.: The derivative non- linear Schr¨ odinger equation and the massive Thirring model.Phys. Lett. A 93, 455–458 (1983)

1983
[20]

Zhang, Y., Wu, H., Qiu, D.: Revised Riemann–Hilbert problem for the derivative nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation: Vanishing boundary condition. Theor. Math. Phys . 217, 1595–1608 (2023)

2023
[21]

Wadati, M.: General solution and Lax pair for 1D classical massless Thirring model. J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 52, 1084–1085 (1983)

1983
[22]

David D., Harnad J., Shnider S.: Multisoliton solutions to the Thirring model through the reduction method. Lett. Math. Phys. 8, 27–37 (1984) 28

1984
[23]

Vaklev Y.: Soliton solutions and gauge equivalence for the problem of Zakharov–Shabat and its generalizations. J. Math. Phys. 37, 1393–1413 (1996)

1996
[25]

Morris, H.C.: A generalized prolongation structure and the B¨ acklund transformation of the anticommuting massive Thirring model. J. Math. Phys. 19, 85–87 (1978)

1978
[26]

Nissimov, E.R., Pacheva, S.J.: B¨ acklund transformation in the classical massive Thirring model. Cr. Acad. Bulg. Sci. 32, 1191–1194 (1979)

1979
[27]

Acta Phys

Shen, J., Geng, X.G.: Darboux transformation of the coupled massive Thirring models and exact solutions. Acta Phys. Pol. B 54, 3 (2023)

2023
[28]

Xu, T., Pelinovsky, D.E.: Darboux transformation and soliton solutions of the semi- discrete massive Thirring model. Phys. Lett. A 383, 32 (2019)

2019
[29]

Chung, S.G., Chang, Y.C.: A direct approach to the massive Thirring model ther- modyamics for rational coupling constants. Phys. Lett. A 93, 230–234 (1983)

1983
[30]

In: Miller P., Perry, P., Saut, J.C., Sulem, C., eds

Pelinovsky, D.E., Saalmann, A.: Inverse scattering for the massive Thirring model. In: Miller P., Perry, P., Saut, J.C., Sulem, C., eds. Nonlinear Dispersive Partial Differential Equations and Inverse Scattering. Fields Inst. Commun. Vol 83. Springer; 497–528 (2019)

2019
[31]

Aguirre, A.R.: Inverse scattering approach for massive Thirring models with integrable type-II defects. J. Phys. A 45, 20 (2012)

2012
[32]

Izergin, A.G., Kulish, P.P.: On the inverse scattering method for the classical massive thirring model with anticommuting variables. Lett. Math. Phys. 2, 297–302 (1978)

1978
[33]

Kawata, T., Morishima, T., Inoue, H.: Inverse scattering method for the two-dimensional massive Thirring model. J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 47, 1327–1334 (1979)

1979
[34]

arXiv:2307.15323 (2023)

He, C., Liu, J.Q., Qu, C.Z.: Massive Thirring Model: Inverse Scattering and Soliton Resolution. arXiv:2307.15323 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[35]

Liu, H., Zhou, P.P., Geng, X.G.: Inverse scattering transform for the Sasa–Satsuma equation: multiple-pole case of N pairs. Z. Angew. Math. Phys . 75, 193 (2024)

2024
[36]

Liu, H., Shen, J., Geng, X.G.: Multiple higher-order pole solutions in spinor Bose– Einstein condensates. J. Nonlinear Sci . 34, 48 (2024) 29

2024
[37]

Liu, H., Shen, J., Geng, X.G.: Riemann–Hilbert method to the Ablowitz–Ladik equa- tion: Higher-order cases. Stud. Appl. Math . 153, e12748 (2024)

2024
[39]

CBMS-NSF Regional Conference Series in Applied Mathematics, vol

Fokas, A.S.: A uniffed approach to boundary value problems. CBMS-NSF Regional Conference Series in Applied Mathematics, vol. 78. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM), Philadelphia (2008) 30

2008

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [24]

Han, J., He, C., Pelinovsky, D.E.: Algebraic solitons in the massive Thirring model. Phys. Rev. E 110, 034202 (2022)

work page 2022

[2] [38]

The Riemann–Hilbert problem and inverse scattering

Zhou, X. The Riemann–Hilbert problem and inverse scattering. SIAM. J. Math. Anal . 20, 966–986 (1989)

work page 1989

[3] [1]

Thirring, W.E.: A soluable relativistic field theory. Ann. Phys. 3, 91–112 (1958)

work page 1958

[4] [2]

Katsnelson, M.I., Nazaikinskii, V.E.: The Aharonov–Bohm effect for massless Dirac fermions and the spectral flow of Dirac-type operators with classical boundary condi- tions. Theor. Math. Phys . 172, 1263–1277 (2012)

work page 2012

[5] [3]

K¨ onenberg, M., Stockmeyer, E.: Localization of two-dimensional massless Dirac fermions in a magnetic quantum dot. J. Spectr. Theor. 2, 115–146 (2012)

work page 2012

[6] [4]

Kuznetzov, E.A., Mikhailov, A.V.: On the complete integrability of the two-dimensional classical Thirring model. Theor. Math. Phys . 30, 193–200 (1977)

work page 1977

[7] [5]

JETP Lett

Mikhailov, A.V.: Integrability of the two-dimensional Thirring model. JETP Lett. 23, 320–323 (1976)

work page 1976

[8] [6]

Orfanidis, S.J.: Soliton solutions of the massive Thirring model and the inverse scattering transform. Phys. Rev. D 14, 472–478 (1976)

work page 1976