Quantized six-vertex model on a torus

Atsuo Kuniba; Junya Yagi; Rei Inoue; Yuji Terashima

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Quantized six-vertex model on a torus

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read On admissible torus graphs, transfer matrices commute.

desk verdict The square-lattice case is solid and the dimer/parafermion connections are valuable, but Theorem 3.4 has a real gap: the two closed-loop R operators are only shown invertible, never equal, so the admissible-case commutativity proof does not close. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.08924 v1 pith:6V5ZKLGE submitted 2025-05-13 nlin.SI hep-thmath-phmath.GTmath.MPmath.QA

Rei Inoue , Atsuo Kuniba , Yuji Terashima , Junya Yagi This is my paper · ORCID

classification nlin.SIhep-thmath-phmath.GTmath.MPmath.QA MSC 82B2381R1216T25

keywords quantizedsix-vertexmodeltetrahedronequationtransfermatrixcommutingfamilyadmissiblewiringdiagramdimerfreeparafermionrelativisticTodachain

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 quantized six-vertex model—a four-parameter lattice model whose Boltzmann weights take values in the $q$-Weyl algebra—is integrable on a torus for a large class of wiring diagrams. Its central object is the layer transfer matrix $T_G(x,y)$, built from the q-6v operators on the vertices and carrying two spectral parameters $x,y$ associated with the two cycles of the torus. The main theorem states that whenever the wiring diagram $G$ is admissible, the transfer matrices form a commuting two-parameter family, $[T_G(x,y),T_G(u,w)]=0$; expanding in $x,y$ then produces commuting quantum Hamiltonians. This matters because the construction simultaneously covers general torus graphs, and it reproduces known integrable systems—the free parafermion model and the relativistic quantum Toda chain—as sectors of the model.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the layer transfer matrix $T_G(x,y)$, defined as the trace over the auxiliary space of a monodromy matrix built from the q-6v vertex operators $L(r_k,s_k,f_k,g_k;q)$ on the graph $G$, with twisted boundary conditions $x^{\pm h}$ and $y^{\pm h}$ along the two torus cycles. The argument is carried by four tetrahedron equations (ordinary, horizontally reversed, vertically reversed, and totally reversed) together with two inversion relations for the companion operator $M$; these moves rewrite a diagram with the auxiliary 'green arrow' in the NE position into one with it in the SW position. Admissibility (Definition 3.3) is exactly the condition that such a rewrite exists without making the type-A and type-B moves coexist, which would force incompatible constraints on the parameters $r',s',f',g'$ of $M$. The trace-constructed $R$-matrix $R(z)$ of (2.20), identified with quantum $R$-matrices and invertible for generic $z$, is cancelled in the final step to turn an intertwining relation into a commutator.

What would settle it

Take the $2\times2$ square grid and evaluate $[T_G(x,y),T_G(u,w)]$ as a Laurent polynomial in $x,y,u,w$ with generic parameters $r,s,f,g,q$; any nonzero coefficient disproves Theorem 3.4. Alternatively, for $N=2$ check the inversion relation $P R_{l,k}(z^{-1})P R_{k,l}(z)=\varrho_{k,l}(z)\operatorname{Id}$ used in Lemma 2.2 and look for a $z$ where $\varrho_{k,l}(z)$ vanishes, which would invalidate the cancellation step.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is Theorem 3.4: for any admissible wiring diagram $G$ on a torus, the layer transfer matrices $T_G(x,y)$ form a two-parameter commuting family, $[T_G(x,y),T_G(u,w)]=0$ for all complex $x,y,u,w$. The transfer matrix is the trace of a monodromy matrix whose vertices carry the $q$-Weyl-algebra-valued operator $L(r,s,f,g;q)$ of the quantized six-vertex model, and the spectral parameters $x,y$ are attached to the two homology cycles of the torus through boundary twists $x^{h}$, $y^{h}$. For the square grid the commutativity is unconditional (Theorem 3.1); for general graphs, admissibility—the requirement that a green arrow can be swept from the NE to the SW corner using the four tetrahedron equations and two inversion relations without mixing the two mutually exclusive parameter constraints—is the sufficient condition. Because the coefficients of $T_G(x,y)$ in $x,y$ commute, the same theorem manufactures commuting quantum Hamiltonians, and the paper shows that the free parafermion model and the relativistic quantum Toda chain appear as sectors of this construction.

Load-bearing premise

The commutativity proof assumes the auxiliary $R$-matrix $R(z)$ built from the trace (2.20), and its analogues with transposed insertions used for admissible graphs, are invertible for generic spectral parameter; the argument cancels these operators before taking the trace, so a failure of generic invertibility would break $[T_G(x,y),T_G(u,w)]=0$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Every admissible wiring diagram on a torus carries a two-parameter commuting family of transfer matrices, so the coefficients of the expansion in $x$ and $y$ provide mutually commuting quantum Hamiltonians.
The square-grid result extends the known integrability of the q-6v model from the planar square lattice to arbitrary admissible torus graphs, including graphs with nontrivial winding.
The free parafermion chain's conserved charges $J^{(m)}$ appear as coefficients of $T_G(y)$, and the relativistic quantum Toda Hamiltonian appears as the coefficient $T_{0,1}$ in the sector $T_{1,0}=e^U$; both are therefore special cases of the same commuting family.
The transfer matrix of the q-6v model equals the dimer partition function on the associated bipartite graph, so Kasteleyn determinants compute the commuting Hamiltonians.
The Yang-Baxter move from the RLLL relation conjugates monodromy matrices, so the commuting family is preserved under local rewiring of an admissible graph.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper: if Conjecture 3.8 is true, commutativity of the q-6v transfer matrices is characterized purely topologically—the absence of oriented faces—so checking a diagram's integrability becomes a graph-theoretic inspection.
Beyond the paper: the dimer reformulation suggests that the spectral properties of $T_G(x,y)$ could be studied through the Kasteleyn matrix, potentially giving determinant formulas for the conserved charges beyond the relativistic Toda example.
Beyond the paper: the admissible/non-admissible dichotomy likely extends to higher-genus surfaces, where the homology-cycle spectral parameters would be replaced by more parameters and the tetrahedron moves would need additional types.

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: the square-lattice story is in good shape, and the dimer/Toda connections are nice, but the admissible-graph theorem is not actually proved as written. The stress-test note is right. In the proof of Theorem 3.4, the closing step only shows that the two closed-loop operators built from M and its transpose are invertible. It never shows they are the same operator. When an incoming boundary edge is present, the NE and SW arrows meet boundary edges in different orders and with different incoming/outgoing status, so you get R1 T(u,w) T(x,y) = T(x,y) T(u,w) R2 with R1 and R2 generically different. Invertibility of each does not let you cancel and take the trace to obtain commutativity; you need equality, or a trace-preserving relation, and the paper does not supply it. That is a genuine gap in the central theorem for general graphs, not a cosmetic omission. The square-grid case, Theorem 3.1, is fine: the same R(z) appears on both sides, and Lemma 2.2 closes the argument.

What is genuinely new and good: the torus transfer matrix for wiring diagrams, the admissibility notion, the four tetrahedron equations and two inversion relations, the dimer reformulation, and the reductions to free parafermions and relativistic Toda. The local tetrahedron equations are checked by direct computation with representative cases, which is standard in this area. The RLLL background is properly cited and not circular. The free parafermion derivation is explicit and convincing; it really produces the known commuting charges. The Toda identification is more of an expectation than a proof—the paper itself says 'it is expected'—so treat that section as suggestive.

How to fix it: the authors need either (a) to prove that for an admissible graph the two closed-loop R operators coincide, perhaps by a canonical choice of fundamental domain and boundary crossings, or (b) to replace the trace over the combined auxiliary space with an operation that conjugates by the difference between R1 and R2 so the cyclicity still yields commutativity. If they close this, Theorem 3.4 is very plausible; nothing here suggests the statement is false.

Who it is for: people working in 3D integrability, tetrahedron equations, cluster algebra realizations, and dimer models. I would send it to a serious referee: the construction is probably right, the gap is local and fixable, and the paper opens a genuinely new class of transfer matrices. But I would not accept it until the admissible-case proof is completed.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the quantized six-vertex (q-6v) model with four parameters on a torus, introducing a layer transfer matrix T_G(x,y) for wiring diagrams with spectral parameters associated with the two homology cycles. The main results are: commutativity of transfer matrices on a square grid (Theorem 3.1); an extension to a class of 'admissible' wiring diagrams (Theorem 3.4), proved by moving a distinguished arrow via four tetrahedron equations and two inversion relations; symmetry properties of T_G; and applications reproducing the free parafermion model and the relativistic quantum Toda chain. The paper also establishes a correspondence between the q-6v model and quantized dimer models on the associated bipartite graph and presents explicit examples of commuting transfer matrices.

Significance. If the advertised theorems hold, this provides a genuinely general framework for three-dimensional integrable lattice models: commuting two-parameter transfer matrices on arbitrary admissible graphs, with concrete reductions to known integrable systems and a quantized dimer formulation. The square-grid theorem is proved in detail, the use of the RLLL relation from [14] is coherent, and the explicit free-parafermion and Toda reductions are checkable and convincing. The main weakness is that the proof of the admissible-case commutativity theorem is incomplete at a load-bearing point, so the central generalization is not yet established as written.

major comments (2)

[§3.2, proof of Theorem 3.4] The proof does not establish that the two closed-loop operators coming from the initial NE arrow and the final SW arrow are equal. For a vertex on the NE arrow with an incoming boundary edge, the proof replaces M by its transpose and obtains the invertible operator (σ(1⊗A))_k R(z)(A^{-1}⊗1 σ)_k, which is a conjugate of R(z), not R(z) itself. For admissible graphs with incoming boundary arrows, for instance the left diagram in Fig. 5, whose transfer matrix in §4.1 contains x^{-i_1+i_2}, the NE and SW arrows intersect the boundary edges in different orders and with different incoming/outgoing status, so the final relation has the form R_1 T(u,w)T(x,y)=T(x,y)T(u,w)R_2. Invertibility of R_1 and R_2 is not sufficient: after left multiplication by R_1^{-1} and tracing, one obtains Tr(T(u,w)T(x,y)) = Tr(R_1^{-1} T(x,y)T(u,w) R_2), which equals Tr(T(x,y)T(u,w)) only if R_1=R_2 (or if another trace-preserving relation is proved). The paper asserts only invertibility and never verifies the required equality. This gap is load-bearing for Theorem 3.4 and for the claimed commutation in the examples of §4; it needs either a proof of R_1=R_2 (for example via a crossing symmetry of R(z) together with a boundary-intersection analysis) or a modification of the definition of admissibility and of the transfer matrix.
[Proposition 2.3] The proof of the four tetrahedron equations (2.23)–(2.26) displays only two sample cases for (o) and two sample cases for (h), with the remaining cases and types (v) and (t) left to 'direct calculation.' Since these equations are the engine of the diagrammatic arguments in Theorems 3.1 and 3.4, a complete case-by-case verification, or a systematic computer-assisted check supplied as supplementary material, should be provided, or the location of the full calculation should be stated precisely.

minor comments (4)

[§3.1, proof of Theorem 3.1] The footnote describing the reordering of indices in the trace construction (2.20) is quite terse; please spell out how the cyclically shifted product is identified with R(z) as defined in (2.19)–(2.22).
[Definition 3.3] Admissibility is defined relative to a chosen sequence of moves of types A, B, and C; the paper does not discuss whether this notion depends on the chosen fundamental domain or on the chosen sequence. A short remark on this point would help, especially because Proposition 3.6 only addresses translation of the fundamental domain.
[Equation (5.16)] The notation g^L and f^L is ambiguous: it should be made clear whether these are powers of the scalar parameters g and f or products ∏_{i=1}^L g_i and ∏_{i=1}^L f_i over the vertices.
[§6.2, equation (6.8)] The identification Z_{Γ(G)}(x,y)=T_G(x,y) is argued locally via Table 1; a more explicit global statement of the bijection between perfect matchings and q-6v configurations, including the choice of the reference matching M_0 on the torus, would make the correspondence easier to verify.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's central commutativity proof is an algebraic derivation from independently verified tetrahedron equations.

full rationale

The paper contains no fitted parameters and no quantity that is 'predicted' after being used as an input. Theorem 3.1 is established by applying the ordinary tetrahedron equation (2.23), which is proved by direct calculation in Proposition 2.3, followed by the inversion/invertibility Lemma 2.2; that lemma is an external standard property of quantum R-matrices, not a restatement of the desired commutativity. Theorem 3.4 is conditional on the diagrammatic property 'admissible' (Definition 3.3), which is defined by the existence of a sequence of local moves of the NE green arrow; this property does not mention the transfer matrix or its commutativity, so the theorem is a genuine sufficient-condition statement rather than a definitional reduction. The type A/B non-coexistence condition is an explicit hypothesis ensuring the parameter constraints of Proposition 2.3 and Lemma 2.5 can be met, not a hidden restatement of commutativity. The self-citation to [14] (Theorem 2.7, the RLLL relation) is independent published work and is used only for the Yang-Baxter move Corollary 3.7, not for the main commutativity argument. The free-parafermion and relativistic-Toda sections are reproductions and reformulations of known models, not circular predictions. One correctness concern exists but is not circularity: in the proof of Theorem 3.4 the text shows that the closed NE-arrow operator is invertible but does not verify that the two closed-loop R-operators on the two sides coincide, so the final trace cancellation is not fully justified; this is a proof gap, since the missing equality is not supplied by any input assumption or definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the q-6v operators L and M from [18], the R-operator and RLLL relation from [14], and standard quantum group and dimer results. No fitted parameters or new entities are introduced. The proof of commutativity is a transfer-matrix argument driven by local tetrahedron equations, with invertibility of the R-matrix as the main analytic input.

assumptions (4)

standard math RLLL relation (Theorem 2.7) holds for the q-6v operators L and R
Proven in [14] via quantum cluster algebra; imported as the key input for diagram moves and commutativity.
standard math The R-matrix R(z) from the trace construction is invertible for generic z (Lemma 2.2)
Invoked to cancel R(z) and take traces in Theorems 3.1 and 3.4; relies on standard quantum R-matrix inversion relations.
domain assumption The trace in (2.20) converges for |z|<1 and extends as a rational function
The R-matrix is defined via a trace over the infinite-dimensional space V_+; convergence and generic invertibility are assumed to justify the algebraic manipulations.
standard math Kasteleyn's theorem for bipartite dimer partition functions on a torus
Used in Section 6 to express the dimer partition function as a determinant of the Kasteleyn matrix.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantized six-vertex model on a torus." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6V5ZKLGE

@misc{pith2026250508924,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantized six-vertex model on a torus},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6V5ZKLGE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.08924}
}

read the original abstract

We study the integrability of the quantized six-vertex model with four parameters on a torus. It is a three-dimensional integrable lattice model in which a layer transfer matrix, depending on two spectral parameters associated with the homology cycles of the torus, can be defined not only on the square lattice but also on more general graphs. For a class of graphs that we call admissible, we establish the commutativity of the layer transfer matrices by introducing four types of tetrahedron equations and two types of inversion relations. Expanding in the spectral parameters yields a family of commuting quantum Hamiltonians. The quantized six-vertex model can also be reformulated in terms of (quantized) dimer models, and encompasses known integrable systems as special cases, including the free parafermion model and the relativistic Toda chain.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.08924 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** , where one sees the weight conservation, i + j = a + b, in V ⊗ V as in the (original) six-vertex model [3]. i ✲✻ ✲✻ ✲✻ ✲✻ ✲✻ ✲✻ ✲✻ j a b 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 L ab ij r s feu geu e −w rsew+fge2u+w [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** The operators Mab ij , where p = −q −1 . Let us proceed to a trace construction based on M, which can be performed for any positive integer N. We prepare the notations (V is defined in the beginning of this section): i = (i1, . . . , iN ) ∈ {0, 1} N , |i| = i1 + · · · + iN , (2.16) Vk = M i∈{0,1}N ,|i|=k Cvi , vi = vi1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ viN , (2.17) V = V ⊗N = V0 ⊕ · · · ⊕ VN . (2.18) The last equality is a direct consequen… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Trace construction (2.20). The diagram is a concatenation of the right one in (2.6), where Mab ij is specialized to Mab ij . The green arrow is closed cyclically reflecting the trace. From the conservation law (2.8), one can deduce R(z) a,b i,j = 0 unless a + b = i + j, |a| = |i|, |b| = |j|. (2.21) Thus R(z) is decomposed as R(z) = M 0≤k,l≤N Rk,l(z), Rk,l(z) ∈ End(Vk ⊗ Vl). (2.22) From (2.21) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:f… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (11 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The square grid Gm,n (left), and the corresponding vertex model (right). The red rectangle is a fundamental domain of a torus. Here x, y are spectral parameters and T a,b i,j ∈ Wmn(q) is graphically defined as T a,b i,j = X {0,1} inner edges im am i2 a2 i1 a1 j1 b1 j2 …

**Figure 2.6.** Figure 2.6: Employ its representation explained in (2.10)–(2.14), which amounts to replacing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2_6.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Wiring diagrams on a torus. The left one is admissible, and the right one is not. The only difference is the orientation of the middle vertical wire. Fix a fundamental domain of the torus, so that its boundary (a red rectangle) does not overlap the vertices of G. As in…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: An admissible transformation. The vertices affected in the next step are shown in green. The region marked with ∗ denotes where the inversion relation is applied. Now we describe the main results. Let G be a diagram on a torus as described above, with K vertices. Assig…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: The tangle description of the admissible transformation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: An admissible graph G related to free parafermion model. Vertices are labeled with 1, . . . , L and 1′ , . . . , L′ . The parameters µ and µ ′ are boundary magnetic fields mentioned in Remark 3.2. Let L(ri , si , fi , gi ; q) and L(ri ′, si ′, fi ′, gi ′; q) be the ope…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Configurations of a q-5v model contributing y 1 term to TG(y) for L = 3. Thick (resp. thin) edges correspond to the local state 1 (resp. 0). Here we have set Xi = e ui+ui ′ , Zi = e wi+wi ′ , (5.8) which satisfy the commutation relation XiZj = q 2δi,jZjXi . (5.9) For g…

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Examples of extra configurations allowed for nonzero µ, µ′ for L = 3. Weights are shown without the spectral parameters x, y. For general L, we define h2L = µµ′Z −1 L Z1. The commutation relations among h1, . . . , h2L are given by (5.11), this time interpreting the i…

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: The admissible graph for the closed relativistic Toda chain. The configuration shown here contributes to the Hamiltonian. For the q-6v model on the graph G in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_11.png]

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: The bipartite graph for the q-6v model on a plane. The reference perfect matching is indicated by the blue edges. Taking the quotient of R 2 by translations generated by two integral vectors, we obtain a bipartite graph corresponding to a wiring diagram on a torus. Le…

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: The bipartite graph on a torus for a dimer model generalizing the relativistic quantum Toda chain, for (M, N) = (2.3). 6.3. Quantized five-vertex model as a dimer model. When the parameter f = 0, only five of the six local configurations in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/f…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Solving the tetrahedron equation by Teichm\"uller TQFT
math-ph 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Boltzmann weights built from Teichmüller TQFT on shaped triangulations with line defects exactly solve the bicolored tetrahedron equations.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[14]

Inoue, A

R. Inoue, A. Kuniba, X. Sun, Y. Terashima, J. Yagi,Solutions of tetrahedron equation from quantum cluster algebra associated with symmetric butterfly quiver, SIGMA20, 113, 45 pages (2024)

work page 2024
[1]

F. C. Alcaraz, R. A. Pimenta,Free fermionic and parafermionic quantum spin chains with multispin inter- actions, Phys. Rev. B102, 121101(R) (2020)

work page 2020
[2]

M. T. Batchelor, R. Henry, X. Lu,A brief history of free parafermions, AAPPS Bulletin33, 29 (2023)

work page 2023
[3]

R. J. Baxter,Exactly solved models in statistical mechanics, Academic Press, London (1982)

work page 1982
[4]

R. J. Baxter,A simple solvableZ N Hamiltonian, Phys. Lett. A140, 155-157 (1989)

work page 1989
[5]

V. V. Bazhanov, V. V. Mangazeev, S. M. Sergeev,Quantum geometry of 3-dimensional lattices and tetrahe- dron equation, 16th Int. Congr. of Mathematical Physics, ed. P. Exner (Singapore: World Scientific) 23–44 (2010)

work page 2010
[6]

Bruschi, O

M. Bruschi, O. Ragnisco,Lax representation and complete integrability for the periodic relativistic Toda lattice, Phys. Lett. A134, no. 6, 365–370 (1989)

work page 1989
[7]

V. V. Bazhanov, S. M. Sergeev,Zamolodchikov’s tetrahedron equation and hidden structure of quantum groups, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.,39, 3295–3310 (2006)

work page 2006

Show all 21 references

[8]

Eager, S

R. Eager, S. Franco, K. Schaeffer,Dimer models and integrable systems, JHEP, Volume 2012, no. 6, 106 (2012)

2012
[9]

C. Fan, F. Y. Wu,General lattice model of phase transitions, Phys. Rev. B2, 723–733 (1970)

1970
[10]

Fendley,Free parafermions, J

P. Fendley,Free parafermions, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.,47, 075001 (2014)

2014
[11]

V. V. Fock, A. B. Goncharov,Cluster ensembles, quantization and the dilogarithm, Ann. Sci. ´Ec. Norm. Sup´ er. (4),42, 865–930 (2009)

2009
[12]

A. B. Goncharov, R. Kenyon,Dimers and cluster integrable systems, Ann. Sci. ´Ec. Norm. Sup´ er. (4),46, 747–813 (2013)

2013
[13]

Inoue, A

R. Inoue, A. Kuniba, Y. Terashima,Quantum cluster algebras and 3D integrability: Tetrahedron and 3D reflection equations, IMRN, rnae128, 11549–11581 (2024)

2024
[15]

Kasteleyn

P.W. Kasteleyn. Graph theory and crystal physics. InGraph Theory and Theoretical Physics, pp. 43–110. Academic Press, London, 1967

1967
[16]

Kenyon, A

R. Kenyon, A. Okounkov, S. Sheffield,Dimers and amoebae, Ann. of Math. (2)163(2006), no. 3, 1019–1056

2006
[17]

Kuniba,Quantum groups in three-dimensional integrability, Springer, Singapore (2022)

A. Kuniba,Quantum groups in three-dimensional integrability, Springer, Singapore (2022). QUANTIZED SIX-VERTEX MODEL ON A TORUS 31

2022
[18]

Kuniba, S

A. Kuniba, S. Matsuike, A. Yoneyama,New solutions to the tetrahedron equation associated with quantized six-vertex models, Commun. Math. Phys.401, 3247–3276 (2023)

2023
[19]

Yu. B. Suris,Discrete time generalized Toda lattices: complete integrability and relation with relativistic Toda lattices, Phys. Lett. A145, no. 2-3, 113–119 (1990)

1990
[20]

F. Y. Wu,Remarks on the Modified Potassium Dihydrogen Phosphate Model of a Ferroelectric, Phys. Rev., 168, 539–543 (1968)

1968
[21]

A. B. Zamolodchikov,Tetrahedra equations and integrable systems in three-dimensional space, Soviet Phys. JETP79, 641–664 (1980). Rei Inoue, Department of Mathematics and Informatics, F aculty of Science, Chiba University, Chiba 263-8522, Japan. Email address:reiiy@math.s.chiba...

1980

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [14]

Inoue, A

R. Inoue, A. Kuniba, X. Sun, Y. Terashima, J. Yagi,Solutions of tetrahedron equation from quantum cluster algebra associated with symmetric butterfly quiver, SIGMA20, 113, 45 pages (2024)

work page 2024

[2] [1]

F. C. Alcaraz, R. A. Pimenta,Free fermionic and parafermionic quantum spin chains with multispin inter- actions, Phys. Rev. B102, 121101(R) (2020)

work page 2020

[3] [2]

M. T. Batchelor, R. Henry, X. Lu,A brief history of free parafermions, AAPPS Bulletin33, 29 (2023)

work page 2023

[4] [3]

R. J. Baxter,Exactly solved models in statistical mechanics, Academic Press, London (1982)

work page 1982

[5] [4]

R. J. Baxter,A simple solvableZ N Hamiltonian, Phys. Lett. A140, 155-157 (1989)

work page 1989

[6] [5]

V. V. Bazhanov, V. V. Mangazeev, S. M. Sergeev,Quantum geometry of 3-dimensional lattices and tetrahe- dron equation, 16th Int. Congr. of Mathematical Physics, ed. P. Exner (Singapore: World Scientific) 23–44 (2010)

work page 2010

[7] [6]

Bruschi, O

M. Bruschi, O. Ragnisco,Lax representation and complete integrability for the periodic relativistic Toda lattice, Phys. Lett. A134, no. 6, 365–370 (1989)

work page 1989

[8] [7]

V. V. Bazhanov, S. M. Sergeev,Zamolodchikov’s tetrahedron equation and hidden structure of quantum groups, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.,39, 3295–3310 (2006)

work page 2006