Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 66 references

Interplay between Symmetry Breaking and Interactions in a Symmetry Protected Topological Phase

T0 review · 3 major / 3 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 For repulsive interactions, the SPT and trivial phases of the massive Thirring / sine-Gordon model with boundary fields survive only inside a window $|\phi_{L,R}|<u$, whose width $u$ shrinks as bulk interactions grow, and the edge…

desk verdict Genuine Bethe-ansatz extension with a derived four-state spectrum; the phase boundary at phi_C = u is load-bearing and unproven, but the paper deserves refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.19771 v1 pith:LP3GI6NQ submitted 2025-06-24 hep-th cond-mat.str-elmath-phmath.MP

Parameshwar R. Pasnoori , Patrick Azaria This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thcond-mat.str-elmath-phmath.MP
keywords massiveThirringmodelsine-GordonsymmetryprotectedtopologicalphaseBetheansatzboundaryboundstatesdualitychargeconjugationmid-gap
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper solves the one-dimensional massive Thirring model (equivalently, the sine-Gordon model) in the repulsive regime with general Dirichlet boundary conditions, described by left and right boundary fields $\phi_L,\phi_R$ that explicitly break charge conjugation. It establishes that the trivial and symmetry-protected topological (SPT) phases remain stable away from their special symmetry points only while the boundary fields stay within a window of half-width $u$ around the trivial or topological point; outside that window the low-energy description changes qualitatively. Inside the window the boundary spectrum is exact and simple: two edge bound states with energies $m_{L,R}=m\sin(\gamma\phi_{L,R})$, giving four low-energy states in the mid-gap phase and a unique ground state in the trivial phase. If correct, this fixes the boundary phase diagram for all repulsive couplings and shows that the stability of topological protection is controlled by the interplay of boundary-field values and bulk interaction strength.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the coordinate Bethe ansatz for the massive Thirring model with general open boundary conditions. The Bethe equations include boundary-dependent factors with the anomalous shift $u-\pi/2$, and the key objects are close (short) boundary strings: purely imaginary rapidity solutions that describe bound states exponentially localized at an edge. Adding or removing such a string from the reference states $|\pm1\rangle$ generates the four-state boundary Hilbert space, and its energy evaluates to $\mp m\sin(\gamma\phi_b)$; the phase boundary at $|\phi_b|=u$ is where a close string turns into a wide boundary string, which no longer describes a simple localized bound state. A duality symmetry $\Omega$ (changing the sign of $m_0$ and shifting $\phi_{L,R}\to\phi_{L,R}+\pi$) maps the trivial and mid-gap regions onto each other and lets the authors solve both phases from one calculation.

What would settle it

Solve the Bethe equations in the uncolored regions $|\phi_{L,R}|>u$ for a wide boundary string whose energy $E=m_0\sum_j\cosh\beta_j$ lies below the soliton mass $m$; alternatively, numerically diagonalize the lattice sine-Gordon model with Dirichlet boundary fields and look for a localized state with energy below $m$ at $|\phi|>u$. Either observation would refute the claimed phase boundary at $\phi_C=u$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the massive Thirring model with open boundaries and generic boundary fields has, in the repulsive regime, two exact phases that survive away from their symmetry points. At the topological point $m_0>0$, $\phi_L=\phi_R=0$, and at its duality image $m_0<0$, $\phi_L=\phi_R=\pi$, the system hosts zero-energy bound states at both edges and a twofold degenerate ground state in each fermionic parity sector; this is the SPT phase. For boundary fields inside region I, $-u<\phi_{L,R}<u$ (for $m_0>0$), the degeneracy is lifted but the boundary Hilbert space is unchanged: the four states $|-1\rangle$, $|0\rangle_L$, $|0\rangle_R$, $|+1\rangle$ have energies $E_{|0\rangle_{L,R}}=E_{|-1\rangle}+m_{L,R}$ and $E_{|+1\rangle}=E_{|-1\rangle}+m_L+m_R$ with $m_{L,R}=m\sin(\gamma\phi_{L,R})$, $\gamma=\pi/(2u)$. As a boundary field approaches $|\phi|=u$ the corresponding bound state rises to the soliton mass and merges with the continuum; beyond $u$ the close boundary string turns into a wide boundary string and both the mid-gap and trivial phases cease to exist. By duality, $m_0\to-m_0$ and $\phi_{L,R}\to\phi_{L,R}+\pi$ interchanges the two regions, so the same statement holds for $m_0<0$ with region II playing the role of the mid-gap phase. The critical half-width $u$ is largest at the Luther-Emery (free-fermion) point $\beta=\sqrt{4\pi}$ and decreases to zero as the interaction strength increases toward $\beta\to\sqrt{8\pi}$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Bethe-ansatz classification into close and wide boundary strings is complete, so that inside regions I and II no other exponentially localized state exists below the soliton mass; if a wide-string configuration produced an additional localized bound state, the critical value $\phi_C=u$ and the phase boundaries would be wrong.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Inside the stability window, the SPT ground-state degeneracy is replaced by a fixed ladder of three mid-gap states, so the boundary Hilbert space has dimension four for every $\phi_{L,R}$ in region I or II.
  • The bound-state energies $m\sin(\gamma\phi_{L,R})$ are continuously tunable between $-m$ and $m$; changing the signs of $\phi_L,\phi_R$ selects which of the four states is the ground state (subphases $A_1$ through $A_4$).
  • Because the critical value $\phi_C=u$ shrinks as repulsion strengthens, the SPT phase is maximally tolerant of boundary-field asymmetry at the Luther-Emery free-fermion point and loses all tolerance as $\beta\to\sqrt{8\pi}$.
  • The duality symmetry makes the trivial phase for $m_0<0$, $\phi_{L,R}\in(-u,u)$ exactly equivalent to the mid-gap phase for $m_0>0$, $\phi_{L,R}$ in region II, so results for one mass sign transfer quantitatively to the other.
  • Any physical realization of the sine-Gordon or massive Thirring model with tunable boundary fields has a precise prediction for where edge bound states appear and at what energy.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next test is a numerical diagonalization or tensor-network simulation of the lattice sine-Gordon model with Dirichlet walls: the paper predicts edge states at exactly $m\sin(\gamma\phi)$ and their disappearance at $|\phi|=u$, and a localized state surviving past $u$ would mean the string classification is incomplete.
  • The paper leaves the region outside I and II to a wide-boundary-string regime; if the close-to-wide transition is a genuine boundary quantum phase transition, the exact value $u$ gives a sharp location to look for nonanalytic changes in edge entanglement or local density.
  • In the attractive regime the paper states that boundary breathers appear and the spectrum is richer; by analogy, boundary fields there are likely to split or shift breather levels, so the four-state structure is probably specific to repulsive interactions.
  • The interaction dependence of $u$ suggests an experimental route: by tuning bulk interactions one can continuously vary how much boundary asymmetry an SPT phase tolerates, turning edge stability itself into a probe of the bulk Luttinger parameter.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies the massive Thirring model (equivalently sine-Gordon) in the repulsive regime with charge-conserving Dirichlet boundary conditions parameterized by boundary fields phi_L and phi_R. Using the coordinate Bethe ansatz, it derives the Bethe equations (18) and claims an exact solution in two boundary-field intervals, region I and region II of Eq. (20). For m0<0 in region I (and by duality for m0>0 in region II) the authors find a trivial phase with a unique ground state; for m0>0 in region I (and by duality for m0<0 in region II) they find a mid-gap phase containing exactly four low-energy states, with boundary bound-state energies m_L,R = m sin(gamma phi_L,R) given by Eq. (30). The paper concludes that the SPT and trivial phases are stable only when the boundary fields lie within a distance phi_C = u of the topological or trivial point, and that this critical width decreases as the bulk interaction strength increases.

Significance. If correct, this is a valuable exact result: it extends the free-fermion boundary phase diagram of the massive Thirring model to all repulsive couplings and demonstrates, within an exactly solvable model, that the stability of SPT edge states under symmetry-breaking boundary fields is controlled by the bulk interaction strength. The manuscript is technically detailed: the Bethe ansatz wave function, integral equations, and renormalized mass/energy calculations are presented explicitly, and the central formulas (21), (30), and (B48) are derived rather than fitted. The main significance, however, is conditional on the completeness of the boundary-root classification, which is the central technical issue raised below.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section VI; Appendix B (paragraph before B.1)] The phase boundary phi_C = u is load-bearing but is not derived in this manuscript. The text states that outside regions I and II the Bethe equations have wide boundary strings whose analysis 'will be presented in a further publication,' and Section VI asserts that crossing the boundary turns the close string into a wide string and that the localized bound state ceases to exist. The completeness of the close/wide boundary-string classification for the two-boundary problem with arbitrary phi_L,R is inherited from Refs. [40,42] rather than verified here. Since the exact four-state spectrum (28)-(30) and the stability claim rest on there being no other boundary-root configuration with |E| < m, this missing step is load-bearing. I suggest either a proof that wide strings cannot produce imaginary rapidity solutions with |m cosh beta| < m outside regions I/II, or a numerical Bethe-root census over the full phi_L,R domain, which would also clarify the 'uncolored' regions of Fig. 1.
  2. [Abstract; Sections I and VII] The abstract's claim of solving the model with 'general Dirichlet boundary conditions' overstates what is shown. The Bethe solution is explicitly restricted to regions I and II of Eq. (20); the uncolored regions of Fig. 1, where wide boundary strings occur, are not solved and are deferred to future work. The abstract and Section VII should be rephrased to state that the solution is obtained within regions I and II, and that the phase diagram outside these regions is not established.
  3. [Appendix B.2.c; Eq. (B74)] The boundary bound-state energies (30) are computed only for the close-string roots +/- i(u - phi_b), and the manuscript does not show that these are the only isolated imaginary solutions of the Bethe equations (A33) in the relevant strip. If an additional isolated imaginary root, for example a wide-string configuration with a rapidity near i pi, also yielded an eigenstate with energy below the mass gap, then the four-state spectrum (28) would be incomplete and the asserted critical value phi_C = u would be incorrect. The paper should either prove the absence of such roots in the two-boundary setting or provide a numerical check for representative values of u and phi_L,R.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Figure 2] The figure contains labels B1 and B2, but the caption and Table I only define the A1-A4 sub-phases; the B1/B2 labels should either be defined or removed.
  2. [Appendix B.2, opening paragraph] The sentence stating that for m0<0 the boundary fields are shifted by phi_L,R -> phi_L,R + i pi appears to contain a typo: since phi_L,R are real boundary fields, the shift should be phi_L,R -> phi_L,R + pi.
  3. [Appendix A and Section VI] There are typos in 'Dirchlet' (should be 'Dirichlet') and 'Luther-Emergy line' (should be 'Luther-Emery line'); these should be corrected.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Bound-state energies and φ_C = u are derived from the Bethe equations rather than fitted; the only load-bearing circularity is the importation of the close/wide boundary-string classification from the authors' prior work to rule out localized states outside regions I and II.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section III and Section VI ('Phase Boundaries'); Appendix B (uncolored regions / wide boundary strings)]
    "In the uncolored regions of Fig. 1, the Bethe equations have a different kind of boundary string called “wide” boundary strings [40, 42, 45] which describe a rather complicated boundary phenomena unlike the simple exponentially localized bound states. ... The analysis in this regime is rather involved and will be presented in a further publication. ... As we cross these phase boundaries, as mentioned before, the close boundary string which describes the boundary bound state turns into a wide boundary string and the physics at the boundary is much more intricate."

    The central phase diagram and the claim that the mid-gap/trivial phases exist only inside regions I and II depend on the completeness of the authors' own close/wide boundary-string classification, imported from previous papers [40,42] rather than derived here. The paper explicitly defers the analysis of the uncolored region to a future publication, yet uses the claimed absence of exponentially localized states there to set the phase boundary at φ_C = u. If a wide-string configuration produced a below-gap localized state, the four-state spectrum (28) and the critical boundary would be incomplete. This is load-bearing self-citation, although it is not a fitted parameter disguised as a prediction.

full rationale

The main results—the bound-state energies m_L,R = m sin(γ φ_L,R) and the critical value φ_C = u—are not fitted or defined into existence. They are computed from the Bethe equations: the boundary string rapidities ±i(u−φ_b) are inserted into the Bethe equations, the back-flow density is obtained by Fourier transform, and the bound-state energy is evaluated as a pole contribution, leading to Eq. (B74) and hence Eq. (30). The critical value φ_C = u follows from sin(γ u) = 1, i.e., the bound-state energy reaching the mass gap. Within regions I and II the derivation is self-contained. The residual circularity is confined to the negative claim outside those regions: the paper asserts that crossing φ_C = u turns a close boundary string into a wide boundary string, that no exponentially localized bound state survives, and that the mid-gap/trivial phases therefore cease to exist. That assertion is supported by citation to the same authors' previous boundary-string papers [40,42], and the uncolored-region analysis is explicitly deferred to a further publication. This makes the phase boundaries depend on an unverified self-citation, which is load-bearing but is not a by-construction equivalence. Accordingly, the score is 2 rather than 0.

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

The central calculation assumes the standard Bethe ansatz completeness for the massive Thirring model with integrable open boundaries, plus the boundary-anomaly relation and the short/wide boundary-string classification inherited from earlier papers. None of these are fitted to the results; they are inputs.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Bethe ansatz completeness: every eigenstate corresponds to a unique set of Bethe roots satisfying the Bethe equations (18).
    Stated in Section III after Eq. (18); no completeness proof is given for the boundary problem.
  • domain assumption Boundary anomaly relation phi = phi_L + u - pi/2 (Eq. 10).
    Taken from Skorik and Saleur [38]; essential for matching the MT boundary conditions to the SG boundary fields. If wrong, the whole boundary-field phase diagram shifts.
  • standard math Coleman bosonization equivalence between sine-Gordon and massive Thirring models (Eqs. 3-4).
    Standard equivalence used to phrase the model; not derived in the paper.
  • domain assumption Close/short vs wide boundary string classification.
    Adopted from refs. [40,42]; the decision that regions I and II contain the solvable bound states and that outside regions wide strings change the physics underpins the phase diagram.
  • domain assumption Maximum-charge constraint selects which Bethe equations describe physical states.
    Used throughout Appendix B (e.g., Eqs. B24 and B28) to exclude root configurations; based on the bulk charge saturation argument from [25].
  • standard math Thermodynamic-limit cutoff procedure for the integral equations.
    Fourier-transform solution of the integral equations requires the cutoff Lambda and contour evaluation, following Bergknoff and Thacker [25]; standard but unproven here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Interplay between Symmetry Breaking and Interactions in a Symmetry Protected Topological Phase." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LP3GI6NQ

@misc{pith2026250619771,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Interplay between Symmetry Breaking and Interactions in a Symmetry Protected Topological Phase},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LP3GI6NQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.19771}
}
abstract

We solve the one dimensional massive Thirring model or equivalently the sine-Gordon model in the repulsive regime with general Dirichlet boundary conditions, which are characterized by two boundary fields $\phi_{L,R}$ associated with the left and right boundaries respectively. In the presence of these boundary fields, which explicitly break the charge conjugation symmetry, the system exhibits a duality symmetry which changes the sign of the mass parameter $m_0$ and shifts the values of the boundary fields by $\phi_{L,R}\rightarrow \phi_{L,R}+\pi$. When the mass parameter $m_0<0$ and the boundary fields $\phi_{L,R}=0$, or equivalently due to duality symmetry, when the mass parameter $m_0>0$ and the boundary fields $\phi_{L,R}=\pi$, the system is at a trivial point. Here, the ground state is unique just as in the case of periodic boundary conditions. In contrast, when the mass parameter $m_0<0$ and the boundary fields $\phi_{L,R}=\pi$, and equivalently due to the duality symmetry, when the mass parameter $m_0>0$ and the boundary fields $\phi_{L,R}=0$, the system is at a topological point where it exhibits a symmetry protected topological (SPT) phase, which is characterized by the existence of zero energy bound states at both the boundaries. For a given value of the mass parameter $m_0$, we find that these phases remain stable in the presence of symmetry breaking fields at the boundary, provided they are smaller than certain critical values which depend on the strength of the interactions in the bulk. Hence, we show that the stability of the SPT and trivial phases depends on the interplay of the symmetry breaking boundary field values and the bulk interaction strength.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The nature of our solution crucially depends on the sign of the bare fermion mass parameterm 0

    in two regions: region I, i.e:ϕL,R∈(−u,u), and region II, i.e:ϕ L,R∈(−π+u,π−u). The nature of our solution crucially depends on the sign of the bare fermion mass parameterm 0. Form 0 <0 the system is shown to exhibit a trivial phase when the boundary fields lie in the region I whereas when they lie in the region II the system is in the mid-gap phase. Due ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Tang and X

    E. Tang and X. Wen, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 096403 (2012)

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    A. M. Turner, F. Pollmann, and E. Berg, Physical review b83, 075102 (2011)

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    J. Sau, B. Halperin, K. Flensberg, and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. B84, 144509 (2011)

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    Fidkowski and A

    L. Fidkowski and A. Kitaev, Physical review b83, 075103 (2011)

    2011

  6. [6]

    Beenakker, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics4, 113 (2013)

    C. Beenakker, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics4, 113 (2013)

    2013

  7. [7]

    Ruhman, E

    J. Ruhman, E. Berg, and E. Altman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 100401 (2015)

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Ruhman and E

    J. Ruhman and E. Altman, Phys. Rev. B96, 085133 (2017)

    2017

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    Jiang, Z.-X

    H.-C. Jiang, Z.-X. Li, A. Seidel, and D.-H. Lee, arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.02997 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Kainaris, R

    N. Kainaris, R. A. Santos, D. B. Gutman, and S. T. Carr, Fortschritte der Physik65, 1600054 (2017), 1600054

    2017

  3. [11]

    O. A. Starykh, D. L. Maslov, W. H¨ ausler, L. I. Glazman, and Glazman, inLow-Dimensional Systems, edited by T. Brandes (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidel- berg, 2000) pp. 37–78

    2000

  4. [12]

    J. Sun, S. Gangadharaiah, and O. A. Starykh, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 126408 (2007)

    2007

  5. [13]

    Ruhman, E

    J. Ruhman, E. G. Dalla Torre, S. D. Huber, and E. Alt- man, Phys. Rev. B85, 125121 (2012)

    2012

  6. [14]

    C. V. Kraus, M. Dalmonte, M. A. Baranov, A. M. L¨ auchli, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 173004 (2013)

    2013

  7. [15]

    Keselman and E

    A. Keselman and E. Berg, Phys. Rev. B91, 235309 (2015)

    2015

  8. [16]

    Iemini, L

    F. Iemini, L. Mazza, D. Rossini, R. Fazio, and S. Diehl, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 156402 (2015)

    2015

  9. [17]

    C. Chen, W. Yan, C. Ting, Y. Chen, and F. Burnell, Phys. Rev. B98, 161106 (2018)

    2018

  10. [18]

    Kainaris, S

    N. Kainaris, S. T. Carr, and A. D. Mirlin, Phys. Rev. B 97, 115107 (2018)

    2018

  11. [19]

    Scaffidi, D

    T. Scaffidi, D. E. Parker, and R. Vasseur, Phys. Rev. X 7, 041048 (2017)

    2017

  12. [20]

    Keselman, E

    A. Keselman, E. Berg, and P. Azaria, Phys. Rev. B98, 214501 (2018)

    2018

  13. [21]

    Haldane, Physics Letters A93, 464 (1983)

    F. Haldane, Physics Letters A93, 464 (1983)

    1983

  14. [22]

    Affleck, T

    I. Affleck, T. Kennedy, E. H. Lieb, and H. Tasaki, Phys. Rev. Lett.59, 799 (1987)

    1987

  15. [23]

    P. R. Pasnoori, N. Andrei, and P. Azaria, Phys. Rev. B 102, 214511 (2020)

    2020

  16. [24]

    A. Y. Kitaev, Physics-Uspekhi44, 131 (2001)

    2001

  17. [25]

    W. Su, J. Schriefer, and C. Hegger, Phys. Rev. Lett.42, 1698 (1979)

    1979

  18. [26]

    Bergknoff and H

    H. Bergknoff and H. B. Thacker, Phys. Rev. D19, 3666 (1979)

    1979

  19. [27]

    Coleman, Phys

    S. Coleman, Phys. Rev. D11, 2088 (1975)

    1975

  20. [28]

    Realizing a symmetry protected topological phase in a superconduct- ing circuit,

    P. R. Pasnoori, P. Azaria, and A. Mizel, “Realizing a symmetry protected topological phase in a superconduct- ing circuit,” (2025), arXiv:2503.13406 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  21. [29]

    A. Roy, D. Schuricht, J. Hauschild, F. Pollmann, and H. Saleur, Nuclear Physics B968, 115445 (2021)

    2021

  22. [30]

    Jackiw and C

    R. Jackiw and C. Rebbi, Phys. Rev. D13, 3398 (1976)

    1976

  23. [31]

    Jackiw, A

    R. Jackiw, A. Kerman, I. Klebanov, and G. Semenoff, Nuclear Physics B225, 233 (1983)

    1983

  24. [32]

    Duality symmetry, zero energy modes and boundary spectrum 9 of the sine-gordon/massive thirring model,

    P. R. Pasnoori, A. Mizel, and P. Azaria, “Duality symmetry, zero energy modes and boundary spectrum 9 of the sine-gordon/massive thirring model,” (2025), arXiv:2503.14776 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  25. [33]

    P. R. Pasnoori, N. Andrei, and P. Azaria, Phys. Rev. B 104, 134519 (2021)

    2021

  26. [34]

    A. H. Mueller and T. L. Trueman, Phys. Rev. D4, 1635 (1971)

    1971

  27. [35]

    Gomes and J

    M. Gomes and J. Lowenstein, Nuclear Physics B45, 252 (1972)

    1972

  28. [36]

    P. K. Mitter and P. H. Weisz, Phys. Rev. D8, 4410 (1973)

    1973

  29. [37]

    Hahlen, Nuclear Physics B102, 67 (1976)

    P. Hahlen, Nuclear Physics B102, 67 (1976)

    1976

  30. [38]

    Seiler and D

    R. Seiler and D. A. Uhlenbrock, Annals of Physics105, 81 (1977)

    1977

  31. [39]

    Skorik and H

    S. Skorik and H. Saleur, Journal of Physics A: Mathe- matical and General28, 6605 (1995)

    1995

  32. [40]

    Japaridze, A

    G. Japaridze, A. Nersesyan, and P. Wiegmann, Nucl. Phys. B230, 511 (1984)

    1984

  33. [41]

    P. R. Pasnoori, Rutgers Theses (2022), https://doi.org/doi:10.7282/t3-1599-m323

    2022 doi

  34. [42]

    P. R. Pasnoori, C. Rylands, and N. Andrei, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 013006 (2020)

    2020

  35. [43]

    P. R. Pasnoori, N. Andrei, C. Rylands, and P. Azaria, Phys. Rev. B105, 174517 (2022)

    2022

  36. [44]

    P. R. Pasnoori, J. Lee, J. H. Pixley, N. Andrei, and P. Azaria, Phys. Rev. B107, 224412 (2023)

    2023

  37. [45]

    Emergent boundary supersymmetry in a one dimen- sional superconductor,

    P. R. Pasnoori, P. Azaria, C. Rylands, and N. Andrei, “Emergent boundary supersymmetry in a one dimen- sional superconductor,” (2025), arXiv:2505.24777 [cond- mat.str-el]

    2025 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Grijalva, J

    S. Grijalva, J. Nardis, and V. Terras, SciPost Physics7 (2019), 10.21468/SciPostPhys.7.2.023

    2019 doi

  39. [47]

    P. R. Pasnoori, A. Mizel, and P. Azaria, (In prepara- tion)

  40. [48]

    P. R. Pasnoori, A. Mizel, and P. Azaria, (In prepara- tion). [48]−πis identified withπ, asϕ∈(−π,π]. Appendix A: The Bethe wave function The Hamiltonian of the Massive Thirring model is H=−i Z L 0 Ψ† R(x)∂xΨR(x) +i Z L 0 Ψ† L(x)∂xΨL(x) +im 0 Z L 0 Ψ† L(x)ΨR(x)−Ψ † R(x)ΨL(x) +2g...

  41. [49]

    One particle sector In one particle sector, the wave function can be written as |1⟩= Z L 0 dx χR β (x)Ψ† R(x) +χL β (x)Ψ† L(x) |0⟩,(A8) whereβis the rapidity. Applying the Hamiltonian (A1), to the one particle wave function (A8), we obtain the following set of equations (−i∂x−...

  42. [50]

    Due to the interactions in the Hamiltonian, the ordering of the particles is important

    Two particles sector Now consider the two particle case. Due to the interactions in the Hamiltonian, the ordering of the particles is important. The wavefunction in the two particle sector can be written as |2⟩= X α1,α2=L,R Z L 0 Z L 0 dx1dx2 Ψ† α1(x1)Ψ† α2(x2)AΥα1α2 β1β2 (x1,...

  43. [51]

    mid gap phase

    Bethe equations in the N particles sector Similarly, one can constructNparticle wavefunction |N⟩= X α1,...αN=L,R Z L 0 NY i=1 dxiΨ† αi(xi)AΥα1...αN β1...βN (x1,...xN)|0⟩, Υα1...αN β1...βN (x1,...xN) = X Q X δi=1,2 NY i=1 Yαi δi,βi (xi)A{δi}[Q]θ(Q),(A24) whereArepresents anti-s...

  44. [52]

    T rivial Phase As mentioned above, the Bethe equations in the trivial phase are given by (A34),(A27). Since we are working with m0 <0, as mentioned before, the trivial phase corresponds to the case where the boundary fields lie in the region I, where the boundary fields take v...

  45. [53]

    Form 0 >0, they correspond to the following domains of the boundaries fields 0< ϕ L,R < u, (−u < ϕL < 0,0< ϕ R < u),(−u < ϕL <0,−u < ϕR <0),(0< ϕ L < u,−u < ϕR <0) respectively

    Mid-gap phase:A 1 The mid-gap phase is divided into four sub-phasesA i,i= 1,2,3,4 depending on the values of the boundary fields ϕL,R. Form 0 >0, they correspond to the following domains of the boundaries fields 0< ϕ L,R < u, (−u < ϕL < 0,0< ϕ R < u),(−u < ϕL <0,−u < ϕR <0),(0...

  46. [54]

    There exists four states|±1⟩,|0⟩ L,|0⟩R whose energy is below the mass gapm

  47. [55]

    The energy difference between these states is mL +mR

    Both the states|±1⟩contain Bethe roots which lie on theiπline. The energy difference between these states is mL +mR

  48. [56]

    The state|1⟩contains two bound states at each edge and has energym L +mR above the ground state

    Sincem L,R >0, the ground state in the phaseA 1 is|−1⟩. The state|1⟩contains two bound states at each edge and has energym L +mR above the ground state

  49. [57]

    The states|0⟩ R,|0⟩L are obtained by adding the boundary strings±i(u−ϕ L),±i(u−ϕ R) to the state|1⟩ respectively

  50. [58]

    Similarly, the state|0⟩ R has energy−m R with respect to the state|1⟩or equivalently, it has energym L with respect to the state|−1⟩

    The boundary strings±i(u−ϕ L,R) have energies−m L,R respectively, and hence the state|0⟩ L has energy−m L with respect to the state|1⟩or equivalently, it has energym R with respect to the state|−1⟩. Similarly, the state|0⟩ R has energy−m R with respect to the state|1⟩or equiva...

  51. [59]

    Hence we interpret that by the state|0⟩ L (|0⟩R) contains a bound state with energym L (mR) at the left (right) edge on top of the ground state|−1⟩

  52. [60]

    Comparing the energies of the two states|0⟩ L and|0⟩R, we find that they are degenerate on the lineϕ L =ϕ R

  53. [61]

    In this phase the boundary fieldsϕ L,R take values in the following range:−u < ϕL <0, 0< ϕ R < u

    Mid-gap phase:A 2 In this section we present the solution to the Bethe equations (A25) in theA 2 phase. In this phase the boundary fieldsϕ L,R take values in the following range:−u < ϕL <0, 0< ϕ R < u. This phase can be further split into two sub-regions depending on the absol...

  54. [62]

    Just as in theA 1 phase, there exists four states|±1⟩,|0⟩ L,|0⟩R whose energy is below the mass gapm

  55. [63]

    The energy difference between these states is E|1⟩−E|−1⟩ =m R +mL, wherem R =msinγϕ R,m L =msinγϕ L

    Both the states|±1⟩contain Bethe roots which lie on theiπline. The energy difference between these states is E|1⟩−E|−1⟩ =m R +mL, wherem R =msinγϕ R,m L =msinγϕ L

  56. [64]

    Comparing the energies of the two states|1⟩and|−1⟩, we find that they are degenerate on the lineϕ L =−ϕ R

  57. [65]

    Forϕ R <|ϕ L|, the states|0⟩ R,|0⟩L are obtained by adding the boundary strings±i(u+ϕ R),±i(u−ϕ ′ L) to the state|−1⟩respectively

    Forϕ R >|ϕ L|, the states|0⟩ R,|0⟩L are obtained by adding the boundary strings±i(u+ϕ ′ L),±i(u−ϕ R) to the state|1⟩respectively, whereϕ ′ L≡|ϕ L|. Forϕ R <|ϕ L|, the states|0⟩ R,|0⟩L are obtained by adding the boundary strings±i(u+ϕ R),±i(u−ϕ ′ L) to the state|−1⟩respectively

  58. [66]

    Sinceϕ L <0,ϕ R >|ϕ L|, we havem L <0,m R >|m L|

    The boundary strings±i(u−ϕ R),±i(u−ϕ ′ L) have energies−m R,mL respectively, and the boundary strings ±i(u+ϕ R),±i(u+ϕ ′ L) have energiesm R,−mL respectively. Sinceϕ L <0,ϕ R >|ϕ L|, we havem L <0,m R >|m L|. Comparing the energies of the four states|±1⟩,|0⟩ L,R we see that th...

Pith tools

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