Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 61 references

Phases in WLZZ Matrix Models

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For the cubic WLZZ two-matrix model, integration-contour choices describe the full Ward-identity solution space only in the $N \to \infty$ limit; at finite $N$ they cover an $N$-parameter slice.

desk verdict Solid N=1 check and a bold finite-N claim, but the general counting rests on an unproven rank assertion. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.05406 v1 pith:7AODY5SA submitted 2025-07-07 hep-th math-phmath.MP

A. Mironov , A. Oreshina , A. Popolitov This is my paper
classification hep-thmath-phmath.MP
keywords WLZZmatrixmodelsWardidentitiestwo-matrixmodelintegrationcontoursSchurfunctionslarge-Nlimitphases
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 studies the cubic positive-branch WLZZ two-matrix model, whose partition function is a two-matrix integral with a cubic potential in one matrix and a shifted Gaussian in the other. Its central claim is that the freedom to choose integration contours describes the whole space of solutions to the Ward identities only in the limit $N \to \infty$; at finite $N$, the $N$ contour choices span only an $N$-parameter subspace of a much larger formal solution space. The extra rigidity of matrix integrals is encoded by the vanishing of Schur functions with more than $N$ rows, which cuts the partition-number-sized freedom down to $N$ parameters. The paper matters because it identifies exactly when the familiar 'different contour means a different phase' picture of matrix models is valid, and it exposes a finite-$N$ gap that closes only in the large-$N$ limit.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the system of Ward identities for the positive-branch two-matrix WLZZ model, written through the $\widehat{fW}^{(3)}$ algebra generators in (28)--(29), together with the Schur-function expansion $Z=\sum_R b_R S_R\{p\}$. Shifting $p_2$ introduces two extra differential operators $\hat O_1$ and $\hat O_{-1}$ into the single combined equation (53), and the level-by-level counting balances $p(K)$ unknown coefficients against $p(K-1)$ equations. The matrix-model restriction is the vanishing condition $S_R(Y_{N\times N})=0$ for $l_R>N$, which converts the free-parameter count into $N_{K,N}=p(K)-\sum_{k=1}^K(p(k)-p(k,N))$ and eventually makes the system overdetermined but solvable. In the $N=1$ worked example, the integral is evaluated by Laplace's method around two saddle points, and the two contour weights $\beta_1,\beta_2$ are identified with the two free Ward coefficients.

What would settle it

At $N=3$, fix the normalization $b_\varnothing=1$ and solve the shifted Ward identities level by level, keeping only coefficients $b_R$ with $l_R\le N$; the claim predicts exactly three free coefficients that determine all others, with the system becoming overdetermined yet solvable once $N_{K,N}$ turns negative. Finding a fourth independent coefficient, or an inconsistent equation at any level, would disprove the finite-$N$ counting.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated in Section 4.3, is that for the cubic WLZZ model the correspondence between Ward-identity solutions and integration contours is a large-$N$ statement, not a finite-$N$ one. After shifting $p_2 \to p_2 + \alpha_2$, the formal power-series solution space of the Ward identities has $p(K)$ free coefficients at level $K$, where $p(K)$ is the partition number; a matrix-integral partition function at fixed $N$ also obeys the Schur restrictions $S_R(Y_{N\times N})=0$ for $l_R>N$, which changes the free-parameter count to $N_{K,N}=p(K)-\sum_{k=1}^K (p(k)-p(k,N))$, with $p(k,N)$ counting partitions of $k$ into at most $N$ parts. At some level this count becomes negative, so the restricted system is overdetermined, and the claim is that it remains solvable with exactly $N$ free parameters, one for each of the $N$ integration contours. The paper verifies this explicitly for $N=1$, where the two coefficients $b_\varnothing$ and $b_{[1]}$ of the general Ward solution are matched one-to-one with the two saddle-point contour weights $\beta_1,\beta_2$ of the one-dimensional integral, and it checks the free-parameter count for $N=2$.

Load-bearing premise

The finite-$N$ conclusion rests entirely on the premise that the only constraints a matrix-integral partition function obeys beyond the Ward identities are the vanishings of Schur functions with more than $N$ rows; the paper asserts this in Section 4.3 and checks it only for $N=1$ and $N=2$, so any further hidden constraint would break the exact match between contours and Ward-identity solutions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At any fixed $N$, most formal solutions of the Ward identities are not representable as matrix integrals; only the slice selected by the Schur restriction $l_R\le N$ can come from choosing integration contours.
  • In the limit $N\to\infty$, the Schur restriction disappears and the contour choices sweep out the full solution space, recovering the familiar one-matrix-model phase picture.
  • For $N=1$, the phases of the cubic WLZZ model with shifted $p_2$ are exactly two steepest-descent contours, one through the origin and one suppressed as $\alpha\to0$, and the two contour weights equal the two free parameters of the Ward solution.
  • The same contour description should extend to the negative WLZZ branch through the polynomial Harish-Chandra--Itzykson--Zuber expansion, and $\beta$-deformation does not change the solution space or the contour counting.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the Schur-vanishing conditions are genuinely complete, the finite-$N$ Ward solution space should be a $D$-module of dimension $N$, so the $N$ contours would be coordinates on a finite-dimensional moduli space of phases; the paper computes the dimension by counting but does not construct that moduli space.
  • The same mechanism of $p(K)$ coefficients against $p(K-1)$ equations should appear for shifts of any $p_m$ and for other WLZZ family members, which would make the finite-$N$ gap a general feature of $W$-representation matrix models rather than a special artifact of the cubic potential.
  • A direct check for $N=3$ would be to generate random formal Ward solutions and test whether matrix-integral ones are exactly those supported on Schur functions with at most three rows; if solutions with four-row Schur components survive the Ward identities, they confirm the extra finite-$N$ freedom the paper identifies.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies the space of solutions to the Ward identities of WLZZ two-matrix models, focusing on the cubic model with a shift in p2 (the Z_{3,2} model). It derives the relevant Ward identities, analyzes the freedom in the coefficients b_R of the Schur-function expansion of the partition function, and claims that at finite N the integration-contour freedom in the matrix integral parameterizes only an N-dimensional subspace of the much larger formal solution space of the Ward identities. The paper argues that only in the N→∞ limit does the contour freedom describe the full solution space. The N=1 case is worked out in detail by evaluating the one-dimensional integral via saddle points and matching the two contour weights to the two free parameters of the restricted Ward solution.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper establishes a precise sense in which matrix integrals at finite N realize only a small subspace of the formal solutions of their Ward identities, with the extra solutions appearing only in the large-N limit. This is a conceptually interesting distinction that could matter for the interpretation of phases of matrix models and for the use of Ward identities as a definition of the partition function. The N=1 analysis is explicit and convincing: the Ward-identity coefficients are matched to the saddle-point contributions in detail, and the counting at fixed level K for the unrestricted solution space is clear. The paper does not, however, supply a proof or a general rank computation for the finite-N constrained system; the central claim rests on unverified assumptions about linear dependencies and about the completeness of the D-module constraints. The strengths are the concrete two-matrix-model setup, the explicit N=1 contour calculation, and the clear statement of the finite-N versus large-N dichotomy; the weakness is that the general claim is asserted rather than established.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.3, Eq. (47)] The counting formula (47) is not a dimension formula for the solution space. For N=1 it gives N_{K,N}=0 already at K=3 and negative values for K≥4, although the paper concludes there is one free parameter; for N=2 it gives zero at K=5 and negative values at K=6, while the paper concludes there are two. The statement that 'some equations are no longer independent' is therefore the entire load-bearing step, but no rank computation, no explicit check for N≥2, and no general argument is supplied. Without a proof that the constrained linear system has exactly N-dimensional solution space at every level, the central claim of Section 4.3 is not established.
  2. [§4.3, Eq. (46)] Equation (46) asserts that the only finite-N constraints on the matrix-integral partition function are the vanishing of Schur functions with l(R)>N. This is checked only for N=1 and N=2 and is used to pass from the unrestricted Ward solution space to the restricted sum in (39). If the D-module of the matrix integral is generated by additional constraints, the count of free parameters would be smaller; if (46) is not exhaustive, the matching to N contour parameters could fail even after the rank issue in (47) is resolved. The status of (46) for general N needs to be clarified or proved.
  3. [§5.1–5.2] The N=1 analysis is explicit and convincing: equations (71)–(74) exhibit the identification of the two contour weights β1, β2 with the two free coefficients b_∅ and b_[1], and the saddle-point evaluation is detailed. However, the analogous N=2 case is only asserted in §4.3 ('one determines ... b_[2], while b_[1] and b_[1,1] remain free parameters') without presenting the linear system, the dependencies, or the mapping to two contour choices. Since the N=2 case is the next nontrivial test of the central claim, it should be supplied, or the claim should be restricted to what is proven.
  4. [§4.3, bold claim] The central statement 'only in the limit of N→∞ is the space of solutions described by a freedom in choosing the integration contours' is not formulated with a precise notion of the limit. At finite N the contour choices give N parameters, while the unrestricted solution space has p(K) free coefficients at each level K; for any fixed K and N>K these coefficients are all unconstrained by (46). The paper does not explain how the N→∞ limit of the N contour parameters reproduces the p(K) free coefficients at each level, nor in which topology or formal sense the matching is meant. This should be clarified for the claim to be testable.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.2] In 'in variance with the Hermitian one-matrix model case', the phrase should be 'in contrast with'; also 'W LZZmodels' in the section heading lacks spacing.
  2. [§4.3] The text refers to 'the (53)' when inserting the power series into the single equation, but equation (53) is introduced only later in Section 5.1; the cross-reference should be fixed.
  3. [Eq. (29)] The summation notation in (29) is garbled: expressions such as 'Pp+k−2' and 'Pk−2' are not properly typeset and should be written with explicit summation limits.
  4. [Eq. (57)] In the last displayed line of (57), 'b[0]' should presumably be 'b_∅' for consistency with the rest of the formula.
  5. [Eq. (53)] The symbol 'Z3+2' in (53) is not defined; it should be Z_{3,2} or introduced explicitly before use.
  6. [References] Reference [61] is a Wikipedia URL for Laplace's method; a standard textbook or review reference would be more appropriate for a journal publication.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular reduction; the central finite-N claim rests on an asserted rank property, not on a tautology.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The Ward identities (28)-(29) are written out explicitly and solved level-by-level; the free-parameter count (42) follows from p(k) equations at level k for p(k+1) coefficients and is a counting statement, not an input assumption. The finite-N restriction lR > N implies SR = 0, introduced around (46), is a D-module constraint asserted with checks for N = 1,2; formula (47) is bookkeeping, and the statement that the resulting overdetermined system remains solvable with exactly N free parameters is an unproven rank claim in Section 4.3. That is a completeness and correctness risk, not a circular step, because the conclusion is not assumed in the premises. The N = 1 verification in Section 5 compares two independently computed two-parameter families: Ward coefficients in (56)-(57) and saddle-point contour coefficients in (69)-(71). The contour weights beta1 and beta2 are arbitrary and are not tuned to force the match; the identification of b_empty and b_[1] with beta1, beta2 is then checked through explicit relations such as (74). Self-citations to [44,45] and [56] supply the integral representation and Ward-generator ingredients, but the target conclusion, that finite-N contour choices span only a subspace of all Ward solutions, is not contained in those cited inputs. The contour-independence claim from [45] is additionally illustrated in Sec.5.2 rather than used to define the finite-N result. No equation is shown to be identical to its own input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction; therefore the paper is not significantly circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests mostly on standard operator algebra and integral representation results from prior work, not on fitted parameters. The main burden is the unproved finite-N D-module constraint (vanishing of Schur functions with more than N rows) used to count free parameters, and the assumption that the overdetermined Ward identity system remains solvable. The arbitrary contour weights beta1,beta2 and the free coefficient b[1] are physical degrees of freedom of the solution space, not fitted values; they are exactly what the classification is about.

free parameters (3)
  • alpha (variable shift, alpha2 in Z3,2) = complex parameter; formal Laurent expansion around alpha=0
    Introduced in (33) via p_k to p_k + alpha_m delta_{k,m}; the non-uniqueness and all contour comparisons are studied as series in alpha.
  • beta1, beta2 (integration contour weights) = arbitrary constants in (63)
    Parameterize linear combinations of the two Airy-type contours in the N=1 integral; matching these to Ward identity coefficients is the paper's main check.
  • b[1] (N=1 free Ward identity coefficient) = arbitrary; b_empty normalized to 1
    After normalization, the N=1 matrix-model-compatible Ward identity solutions form a one-parameter family (57); this parameter is matched to the contour weights in (70)-(71).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The fW-algebra Ward identities (28)-(29) for the cubic WLZZ positive branch are correct.
    Imported from [56]; all solution counting uses these identities as the starting point.
  • domain assumption The integral representation (25) and the contour-independence claim for contours through the origin follow from [44,45].
    Used in Section 3.2 to identify the unique unshifted solution and to interpret nontrivial contours as phases.
  • ad hoc to paper The finite-N constraints on matrix-integral partition functions are exactly the vanishing of Schur functions with lR>N, Eq. (46).
    Load-bearing for the count N_{K,N} in (47); stated in Section 4.3 without proof and verified only for N=1,2.
  • ad hoc to paper The overdetermined system at finite N remains solvable because some Ward identity equations become dependent.
    Needed to conclude there are exactly N free parameters at finite N; no general proof or citation is given.
  • standard math Laplace's method provides the alpha-expansion of the contour integrals in Section 5.2.
    Used to evaluate saddle-point contributions; assumes the standard asymptotic expansion is valid for the rescaled integral.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Phases in WLZZ Matrix Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7AODY5SA

@misc{pith2026250705406,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Phases in WLZZ Matrix Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7AODY5SA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.05406}
}
read the original abstract

We discuss the space of solutions to the Ward identities associated with the WLZZ models. We mostly concentrate on the case of these models described by a two-matrix model with the cubic potential in one of the matrices. We study how this space of solutions can be described by the freedom in choosing integration contours in the matrix integral.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    E. Date, M. Jimbo, M. Kashiwara, T. Miwa, Transformation groups for soliton equations, RIMS Symp. ”Non-linear integrable systems – classical theory and quantum theory”(World Scientific, Singapore, 1983)

    work page 1983

  2. [2]

    Givental, math.AG/0008067

    A. Givental, math.AG/0008067

    work page arXiv

  3. [4]

    A.Okounkov, Math.Res.Lett. 7 (2000) 447-453 V.Bouchard, M.Marino, In: From Hodge Theory to Integrability and tQFT: tt*-geometry, Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, AMS (2008), arXiv:0709.1458 S.Lando, In: Applications of Group Theory to Combinatorics, Koolen, Kwak and Xu, Eds. Taylor & Francis Group, London, 2008, 109-132 M.Kazarian, arXiv:0809....

    work page Pith review arXiv 2000

  4. [5]

    Morozov, S

    A. Morozov, S. Shakirov, JHEP 0904 (2009) 064, arXiv:0902.2627

    arXiv 2009

  5. [6]

    Alexandrov, Mod.Phys.Lett

    A. Alexandrov, Mod.Phys.Lett. A26 (2011) 2193-2199, arXiv:1009.4887 A. Alexandrov, Adv.Theor.Math.Phys. 22 (2018) 1347, arXiv:1608.01627 H. Itoyama, A. Mironov, A. Morozov, JHEP 1706 (2017) 115, arXiv:1704.08648

    arXiv 2011

  6. [7]

    Virasoro constraints revisited

    L. Cassia, R. Lodin, M. Zabzine, Commun. Math. Phys. 387 (2021) 1729-1755, arXiv:2102.05682

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  7. [8]

    Virasoro versus superintegrability. Gaussian Hermitian model

    A. Mironov, V. Mishnyakov, A. Morozov, R. Rashkov, JETP Lett. 113 (2021) 728-732, arXiv:2104.11550 A. Mironov, V. Mishnyakov, A. Morozov, R. Rashkov, Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) 1140, arXiv:2105.09920 A. Mironov, V. Mishnyakov, A. Morozov, Phys. Lett. B 823 (2021) 136721, arXiv:2107.02210

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  8. [9]

    R. Wang, C. H. Zhang, F. H. Zhang, W. Z. Zhao, Nucl. Phys. B985 (2022) 115989, arXiv:2203.14578

    arXiv 2022

Show all 61 references
  1. [10]

    R. Wang, F. Liu, C.H. Zhang, W.Z. Zhao, Eur. Phys. J. C82 (2022) 902, arXiv: 2206.13038

    2022 arXiv

  2. [11]

    Mironov, V

    A. Mironov, V. Mishnyakov, A. Morozov, A. Popolitov, JHEP 23 (2020) 065, arXiv:2306.06623 A. Mironov, V. Mishnyakov, A. Morozov, A. Popolitov, Phys. Lett. B845 (2023) 138122, arXiv:2307.01048 13

    2020 arXiv

  3. [12]

    Mironov, V

    A. Mironov, V. Mishnyakov, A. Morozov, A. Popolitov, R. Wang, W.Z. Zhao, Eur. Phys. J. C83 (2023) 377, arXiv:2301.04107

    2023 arXiv

  4. [13]

    Mironov, V

    A. Mironov, V. Mishnyakov, A. Morozov, A. Popolitov, W.Z. Zhao, Phys. Lett. B839 (2023) 137805, arXiv:2301.11877

    2023 arXiv

  5. [14]

    Mironov, V

    Fan Liu, A. Mironov, V. Mishnyakov, A. Morozov, A. Popolitov, Rui Wang, Wei-Zhong Zhao, Nucl.Phys. B993 (2023) 116283, arXiv:2303.00552

    2023 arXiv

  6. [15]

    Tsymbaliuk, Adv

    A. Tsymbaliuk, Adv. Math. 304 (2017) 583-645, arXiv:1404.5240

    2017 arXiv

  7. [16]

    Proch´ azka, JHEP10 (2016) 077, arXiv:1512.07178

    T. Proch´ azka, JHEP10 (2016) 077, arXiv:1512.07178

    2016 arXiv

  8. [17]

    Mironov, A

    A. Mironov, A. Morozov, A. Popolitov, JHEP 09 (2024) 200, arXiv:2406.16688

    2024 arXiv

  9. [18]

    J. Ding, K. Iohara, Lett.Math.Phys. 41 (1997) 181-193, q-alg/9608002

    1997 arXiv

  10. [19]

    Miki, J.Math.Phys

    K. Miki, J.Math.Phys. 48 (2007) 123520

    2007

  11. [20]

    Kapranov, Algebraic geometry 7, J.Math

    M. Kapranov, Algebraic geometry 7, J.Math. Sci. 84 (1997) 1311-1360, alg-geom/9604018

    1997 arXiv

  12. [21]

    Burban, O

    I. Burban, O. Schiffmann, Duke Math. J. 161 (2012) 1171, math/0505148

    2012 arXiv

  13. [22]

    Schiffmann, J

    O. Schiffmann, J. Algebraic Combin. 35 (2012) 237-26, arXiv:1004.2575

    2012 arXiv

  14. [23]

    Feigin, M

    B. Feigin, M. Jimbo, T. Miwa, E. Mukhin, Commun. Math. Phys. 356 (2017) 285, arXiv:1603.02765

    2017 arXiv

  15. [24]

    David, Mod.Phys.Lett

    F. David, Mod.Phys.Lett. A5 (1990) 1019

    1990

  16. [25]

    Ambjørn, Yu

    J. Ambjørn, Yu. Makeenko, Mod.Phys.Lett. A5 (1990) 1753

    1990

  17. [26]

    Mironov, A

    A. Mironov, A. Morozov, Phys.Lett. B252 (1990) 47-52

    1990

  18. [27]

    Itoyama, Y

    H. Itoyama, Y. Matsuo, Phys.Lett. 255B (1991) 20

    1991

  19. [28]

    Alexandrov, A

    A. Alexandrov, A. Mironov, A. Morozov, Int.J.Mod.Phys. A19 (2004) 4127, hep-th/0310113

    2004 arXiv

  20. [29]

    Alexandrov, A

    A. Alexandrov, A. Mironov, A. Morozov, Physica D235 (2007) 126-167, hep-th/0608228 A. Alexandrov, A. Mironov, A. Morozov, Theor. Math. Phys. 150 (2007) 153-164, hep-th/0605171

    2007 arXiv

  21. [30]

    Chekhov, A

    L. Chekhov, A. Mironov, Phys.Lett. B552 (2003) 293, hep-th/0209085

    2003 arXiv

  22. [31]

    Chekhov, A

    L. Chekhov, A. Marshakov, A. Mironov, D. Vasiliev, Phys.Lett. B562 (2003) 323, hep-th/0301071 L. Chekhov, A. Marshakov, A. Mironov, D. Vasiliev, Proc. Steklov Inst.Math. 251 (2005) 254, hep- th/0506075

    2003 arXiv

  23. [32]

    Mironov, Fortsch

    A. Mironov, Fortsch. Phys. 51 (2003) 781-786, arXiv:hep-th/0301196

    2003 arXiv

  24. [33]

    Mironov, Theor

    A. Mironov, Theor. Math. Phys. 146 (2006) 63-72, arXiv:hep-th/0506158

    2006 arXiv

  25. [34]

    Mironov, A

    A. Mironov, A. Morozov, Phys. Lett. B771 (2017) 503, arXiv:1705.00976 A. Mironov, A. Morozov, Phys. Lett. B774 (2017) 210, arXiv:1706.03667

    2017 arXiv

  26. [35]

    Mironov, A

    A. Mironov, A. Morozov, JHEP 1808 (2018) 163, arXiv:1807.02409

    2018 arXiv

  27. [36]

    Mironov, A

    A. Mironov, A. Morozov, Phys.Lett. B835 (2022) 137573, arXiv:2201.12917

    2022 arXiv

  28. [37]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airy function

  29. [38]

    Dijkgraaf, C

    R. Dijkgraaf, C. Vafa,Nucl.Phys. B644 (2002) 3-20, hep-th/0206255 R. Dijkgraaf, C. Vafa,Nucl.Phys. B644 (2002) 21-39, hep-th/0207106 R. Dijkgraaf, C. Vafa, Perturbative Derivation of Mirror Symmetry, hep-th/0208048

    2002 arXiv

  30. [39]

    Bonnet, F

    G. Bonnet, F. David and B. Eynard, Breakdown of universality in multi-cut matrix models, J.Phys. A33 (2000) 6739, cond-mat/0003324

    2000 arXiv

  31. [40]

    Klemm, M

    A. Klemm, M. Mari˜ no, S. Theisen, JHEP 0303 (2003) 051, hep-th/0211216

    2003 arXiv

  32. [41]

    Cordova, B

    C. Cordova, B. Heidenreich, A. Popolitov, S. Shakirov, Commun. Math. Phys. 361 (2018) 1235, arXiv:1611.03142 14

    2018 arXiv

  33. [42]

    Alexandrov, A

    A. Alexandrov, A. Mironov, A. Morozov, JHEP 12 (2009) 053, arXiv:0906.3305

    2009 arXiv

  34. [43]

    Popolitov, Towards mixed phase correlators in monomial matrix models, being prepared for publication

    A. Popolitov, Towards mixed phase correlators in monomial matrix models, being prepared for publication

  35. [44]

    Mironov, A

    A. Mironov, A. Oreshina and A. Popolitov, Eur. Phys. J. 8C4 (2024) 705, arXiv:2403.05965

    2024 arXiv

  36. [45]

    A. D. Mironov, A. Oreshina and A. V. Popolitov, Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 120 (2024) 62-65, arXiv:2404.18843

    2024 arXiv

  37. [46]

    Mironov, A

    A. Mironov, A. Morozov, Phys. Lett. B842 (2023) 137964, arXiv:2303.05273

    2023 arXiv

  38. [47]

    Goulden, D.M

    D. Goulden, D.M. Jackson, A. Vainshtein, Ann. of Comb. 4 (2000) 27-46, Brikh¨ auser, math/9902125

    2000 arXiv

  39. [48]

    Mironov, A

    A. Mironov, A. Morozov, S. Natanzon, Theor.Math.Phys. 166 (2011) 1-22, arXiv:0904.4227; J. Geom. Phys. 62 (2012) 148-155, arXiv:1012.0433

    2011 arXiv

  40. [49]

    I, American Journal of Mathematics (1958) 241-310

    Harish-Chandra, Spherical functions on a semisimple Lie group. I, American Journal of Mathematics (1958) 241-310

    1958

  41. [50]

    Itzykson, J.-B

    C. Itzykson, J.-B. Zuber, J. Math. Phys. 21 (1980) 411-421

    1980

  42. [51]

    Mironov, A

    A. Mironov, A. Morozov, Z. Zakirova, Phys. Lett. B831 (2022) 137178, arXiv:2203.03869

    2022 arXiv

  43. [52]

    Alexandrov, A

    A. Alexandrov, A. Mironov, A. Morozov, S. Natanzon, JHEP 11 (2014) 080, arXiv:1405.1395

    2014 arXiv

  44. [53]

    Kazakov, hep-th/0003064

    V. Kazakov, hep-th/0003064

    arXiv

  45. [54]

    Balantekin, J.Math.Phys

    A. Balantekin, J.Math.Phys. 25 (1984) 2028; Phys.Rev. D62 (2000) 085017, hep-th/0007161

    1984 arXiv

  46. [55]

    Morozov, Theor.Math.Phys

    A. Morozov, Theor.Math.Phys. 162 (2010) 1-33 (Teor.Mat.Fiz. 161 (2010) 3-40), arXiv:0906.3518

    2010 arXiv

  47. [56]

    Marshakov, A

    A. Marshakov, A. Mironov, A. Morozov, Mod.Phys.Lett. A7 (1992) 1345-1359

    1992

  48. [57]

    Mironov, A

    A. Mironov, A. Morozov, G.W. Semenoff, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A11 (1996) 5031, hep-th/9404005

    1996 arXiv

  49. [58]

    Drachov, A

    Y. Drachov, A. Mironov, A. Popolitov, Phys. Lett. B 849 (2024) 138426, arXiv:2311.17738

    2024 arXiv

  50. [59]

    Drachov, Eur

    Y. Drachov, Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024) 1078, arXiv:2406.13624

    2024 arXiv

  51. [60]

    Mironov, A

    A. Mironov, A. Morozov, SIGMA 13 (2017) 047, arXiv:1701.03057

    2017 arXiv

  52. [61]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace’s method

  53. [62]

    Mironov, A

    A. Mironov, A. Morozov, J. High Energ. Phys. 2023 (2023) 116, arXiv:2210.09993 15

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.