Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 29 references

Cactus flower spaces and monodromy of Bethe vectors

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that the monodromy of Bethe eigenlines for Gaudin models is captured exactly by crystal commutors, naive permutations, and cyclic rotations.

desk verdict Serious extension of the cactus flower/Gaudin program; the inhomogeneous monodromy theorem is well supported, but the compact trigonometric version leans on a quoted semisimplicity theorem and the split version depends on an unpublished input. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.12829 v1 pith:4DKX4PZM submitted 2025-07-17 math.RT math.AGmath.QA

Joel Kamnitzer , Leonid Rybnikov This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.RTmath.AGmath.QA MSC 17B1005E1017B3714N3581R12
keywords cactusflowerspaceGaudinmodelBethevectorsmonodromyKashiwaracrystalscoboundarycategoriesvirtualgroupaffineGrassmannianwall-crossing
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 aims to show that the monodromy of Bethe eigenlines in Gaudin models is a purely combinatorial phenomenon, controlled by Kashiwara crystals. It establishes a one-to-one correspondence between operadic coverings of the real cactus flower spaces $\overline{F}_n(\mathbb{R})$ and concrete coboundary monoidal categories, then proves that the covering built from inhomogeneous Gaudin eigenlines corresponds exactly to the category of normal $g$-crystals. From this, it derives that the virtual cactus group $\mathrm{v}C_n$ acts on the eigenlines by crystal commutors together with naive permutations of tensor factors, and that the mirabolic and extended affine cactus groups act in the trigonometric models by the same crystal commutors with, respectively, permutation and cyclic-rotation effects. The upshot is a uniform combinatorial description of how Bethe vectors behave when parameters wind around real loci, with a direct bearing on the wall-crossing conjecture of Bezrukavnikov and Okounkov in the minuscule case.

What carries the argument

The mechanism carrying the argument is the equivalence between $\Xi$-coloured operadic coverings of the real cactus flower spaces and $\Xi$-coloured concrete coboundary monoidal categories. An operadic covering is a family of covering spaces over $\overline{F}_n(\mathbb{R}) \times \Xi^n$ and $\overline{M}_{n+1}(\mathbb{R}) \times \Xi^{n+1}$, together with gluing isomorphisms coming from the operadic maps $\alpha_k$, $\beta_k$, $\gamma_k$ that describe how marked points bubble off at infinity or at other marked points. A concrete coboundary monoidal category is a monoidal category with an involutive commutor $\sigma_{A,B} : A\otimes B \to B\otimes A$ and a faithful monoidal functor to sets; the commutors on $n$-fold tensor products generate an action of the cactus group, and the faithful functor adds the naive permutation action of the symmetric group, together giving the virtual cactus group action. Bethe eigenlines of the inhomogeneous Gaudin algebras assemble into such an operadic covering, and the equivalence identifies this covering with the category of normal Kashiwara crystals, whose commutor is built from the Schützenberger involution. Once this identification is in place, the monodromy of the eigenlines is forced to match the crystal commutor and permutation action on products of crystals.

What would settle it

Pick $\mathfrak{g} = \mathfrak{sl}_2$, $n=3$, all $\lambda_i$ the standard representation, and trace the joint eigenlines of the inhomogeneous Gaudin algebra along the generating loops of $\mathrm{v}C_3$ in $\overline{F}_3(\mathbb{R})$; if the resulting permutation of lines in $V(\lambda)_\mu$ differs from the action of $\mathrm{v}C_3$ on $B(\omega_1)^3$ by Schützenberger commutors and factor permutations, Theorem 1.3(1) is false. The compact-form statement would be falsified more directly by any point $C \in \overline{F}^{\mathrm{comp}}_n$ where the trigonometric Gaudin algebra has a repeated eigenvalue on a weight space, since the eigenline covering would be branched there.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the whole family of joint eigenlines of the inhomogeneous Gaudin algebra $A_\chi(C)$ acting on $V(\lambda)_\mu$, as $C$ ranges over the cactus flower space $\overline{F}_n(\mathbb{R})$, forms an operadic covering whose associated concrete coboundary category is the category of Kashiwara $g$-crystals. Therefore the monodromy of this covering under $\mathrm{v}C_n = \pi_1^{S_n}(\overline{F}_n(\mathbb{R}), \infty)$ agrees with the action of $\mathrm{v}C_n$ on $B(\lambda_1) \times \cdots \times B(\lambda_n)$ by crystal commutors and naive permutation of tensor factors. For the trigonometric Gaudin model, the same covering, restricted to the split and compact real loci, yields monodromy actions of the mirabolic cactus group $\mathrm{MC}_n$ and the extended affine cactus group $\mathrm{gAC}_n$; these actions factor through $\mathrm{v}C_n$, with the cyclic generator $r$ acting as cyclic rotation of the tensor factors. This is the theorem conjectured in the authors' previous work and proved here by combining the covering/category equivalence with degeneration of trigonometric Gaudin algebras to inhomogeneous ones.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that over the compact real form the trigonometric Gaudin algebra always splits the relevant weight space into distinct one-dimensional eigenspaces; this semisimplicity-with-simple-spectrum fact is taken from the authors' previous paper, not proved here.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any dominant weights $\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_n$, the covering of inhomogeneous Gaudin eigenlines over $\overline{F}_n(\mathbb{R})$ is isomorphic to the combinatorial cover with fibre $B(\lambda_1)\times\cdots\times B(\lambda_n)$, so the virtual cactus group acts on eigenlines exactly as on crystal tensor products.
  • The monodromy of trigonometric Gaudin eigenlines over the split real locus factors through $\mathrm{v}C_n$, with the generators $t_i$ acting as elementary transpositions of the tensor factors.
  • The monodromy of trigonometric Gaudin eigenlines over the compact real locus factors through $\mathrm{v}C_n$, and the extended affine cactus group acts by crystal commutors together with cyclic rotation of tensor factors.
  • The equivalence of categories means that every $\Xi$-coloured operadic covering of $\overline{F}_n(\mathbb{R})$ determines a concrete coboundary category, and conversely every such category produces such a covering; in particular, the Gaudin covering recovers the whole category of normal $g$-crystals.
  • For sums of minuscule weights, the compact-form monodromy theorem is a combinatorial counterpart of the Bezrukavnikov–Okounkov wall-crossing conjecture for minuscule resolutions of slices in the affine Grassmannian.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the equivalence suggests that the monodromy of any operadic covering of $\overline{F}_n(\mathbb{R})$ can be read off from the underlying coboundary category, so crystal commutors could in principle be reconstructed from observed monodromy rather than from a chosen crystal model.
  • The paper's generalization remarks point toward analogous statements for braided monoidal categories, where the virtual cactus group would be replaced by the virtual braid group; such an extension would give a topological description of R-matrix monodromy for quantum group Bethe vectors, which the paper does not prove.
  • The minuscule wall-crossing interpretation implies a concrete test: the monodromy permutations computed here should coincide with the wall-crossing functors for these slices, a comparison the paper leaves as a conjecture.
  • The compact-form trigonometric result depends on a semisimplicity input taken from earlier work, so a failure of that input would affect mainly the compact trigonometric monodromy statement rather than the rational inhomogeneous result.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper studies the interplay between operadic coverings of the real cactus flower moduli spaces F_n(R) and concrete coboundary monoidal categories. The main categorical result (Theorem 1.2) establishes an equivalence between the category of Ξ-coloured operadic coverings of these moduli spaces and the category of Ξ-coloured concrete coboundary categories. The authors then apply this to Gaudin models: for a complex semisimple Lie algebra g, they show (Theorem 7.2) that the coverings formed by eigenlines of inhomogeneous Gaudin algebras yield a concrete coboundary category equivalent to the category of Kashiwara g-crystals. From this they deduce that the monodromy action of the virtual cactus group vC_n on Bethe eigenlines matches the action on tensor products of crystals (Theorem 1.3(1)), and similarly for the mirabolic and extended affine cactus groups in the split and compact trigonometric cases (Theorems 1.3(2),(3)). A connection to a combinatorial version of the Bezrukavnikov–Okounkov wall-crossing conjecture is discussed for minuscule highest weights.

Significance. This is a substantial contribution to the monodromy of Bethe vectors and its relation to crystals. The categorical equivalence of Theorem 1.2 is a clean and general statement that unifies the operadic covering perspective with concrete coboundary categories, extending earlier work of Halacheva–Kamnitzer–Rybnikov–Weekes. The monodromy computations for the virtual and mirabolic cactus groups are new and provide concrete realizations of these groups. The compact trigonometric case, if fully justified, gives a combinatorial avatar of the wall-crossing conjecture for minuscule slices, which is of independent interest. The proofs are detailed and make effective use of prior work on cactus flower spaces and Gaudin algebras; the main theorems are supported by explicit homotopies and cube decompositions, e.g., the proof of Theorem 4.9 and Proposition 5.2.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 7.3, proof of Theorem 7.7] The covering property of E^{comp}_χ(λ)_µ over F^{comp}_n(-c,c) requires simultaneous cyclicity and semisimplicity of the algebras A^ε_{χ+ε/2 µ}(C) for all C in this neighborhood. While semisimplicity is reduced to Theorem 6.10(2), cyclicity is asserted to follow from Theorem 6.9, which is stated only for a fixed χ. In the compact case, the parameter χ is replaced by χ(ε) = χ + ε/2 µ, so Theorem 6.9 does not apply verbatim. The authors should supply a proof that the exceptional set of ε for which cyclicity fails has no accumulation at 0 uniformly in C (or else restrict the family differently), because without cyclicity the union of eigenlines is not a covering space and the monodromy action is undefined.
  2. [Section 6.4, Corollary 6.12 and its use in Theorem 7.7] The semisimplicity assertion for the compact real form is quoted as [IKR, Thm 8.15] and is not reproved. This result is load-bearing: it is exactly what makes E^{comp}_χ(λ)_µ → F^{comp}_n(-c,c) a covering space, and hence it underlies the entire gAC_n monodromy action in Theorem 1.3(3). Since [IKR] is a preprint, the referee cannot verify the theorem from the manuscript. Please state the theorem with all hypotheses explicitly and either include a proof or give a precise indication of where it is proved in [IKR], so that the compact case is self-contained to the extent possible.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 5.4] The text refers to "α_1^2 : F_2 → P^1" as an isomorphism; this is likely a typo for the function δ_{12}. Please check and correct.
  2. [Theorem 6.9] The word "domianant" should be "dominant".
  3. [Section 7.3] The sentence "we combine Theorem 4.11 and Theorem 7.3" should refer to Corollary 7.3, since the preceding result is Corollary 7.3 rather than Theorem 7.3.
  4. [Section 7.3] The notation for the compact-family fibers is inconsistent: E^{comp}_χ(C, λ)_µ versus E_χ(λ)_µ. Please unify the notation.
  5. [Proposition 5.2] A small figure of the five boundary components of F_3(R)^+ would improve readability, though the verbal description is sufficient.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central monodromy theorems are not assumed, though the proof leans substantially on the authors' own prior results.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain for the three monodromy statements and the covering/category equivalence. The central claim Theorem 1.3(1) is derived from Theorem 7.2 and Corollary 7.3, where the identification of the Gaudin eigenline cover with the crystal cover is imported from the prior theorem [HKRW, Thm 8.7] and [HKRW, Thm 12.3]. That is an external input with its own independent statement and proof, not a restatement of the conclusion being derived. The same holds for the compact trigonometric case: Theorem 7.7 uses Theorem 6.12, whose semisimplicity input is quoted as [IKR, Thm 8.15], and Section 6.4 only arranges the hypothesis chi(epsilon) - epsilon/2 mu = chi in h_split. This is reliance on a previous theorem, not a circular reduction: the semisimplicity theorem does not contain the gAC_n monodromy action as part of its input. The structural equivalence Theorem 1.2 is built by explicit parallel-transport constructions and verified by covering theory in Propositions 5.1, 5.2, and 5.4; the constructions and their inverses are checked rather than assumed. I found no equation that is used as both input and output, and no fitted parameter that is renamed as a prediction. The paper does lean heavily on the authors' own prior work ([IKLPR], [IKR], [HKRW], and the in-preparation [GHR]) for fundamental groups, Gaudin spectrality, and crystal identifications; these are independent support rather than circularity, but the heavy self-reliance and the un-reproved quoted semisimplicity theorem justify a score of 2 rather than 0.

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

The central claims rest on prior results, mostly by the same group (HKRW, IKLPR, IKR), establishing fundamental groups of real moduli loci, Gaudin algebra semisimplicity, and the crystal structure of eigenlines. These are independent theorems and preprints, not assumptions equivalent to the target results. No free parameters are fitted to data.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The real locus \bar{F}_n(R) has equivariant fundamental group vC_n and the cube complex decomposition of \bar{F}_n(R) (see IKLPR Theorems 4.2(2), 4.4, 9.17).
    Used throughout to define coverings, identify the monodromy group, and in the proof of Proposition 5.2, where F_3(R)^+ is described as a disk with five boundary strata.
  • domain assumption Semisimplicity and cyclicity of Gaudin subalgebras on real loci: Theorems 6.6, 6.7, 6.9, 6.10, 6.11 from [IKR], [FFRy], [R2].
    These ensure simple spectrum, so the eigenline sets form covering spaces; Theorem 6.10(2)'s condition χ - ε/2 µ ∈ h_split is load-bearing for the compact-form monodromy in Section 7.3.
  • domain assumption The mirabolic cactus group MC_n is the preimage of S_n in C_{n+1} and is generated by s_ij and t_i (Theorem 4.6 from [GHR], in preparation).
    Used in Section 4.4 to state and prove Theorem 4.9, which is needed for the split-form monodromy Theorem 7.6.
  • domain assumption The isomorphism π^{S_n}_1(M^comp_{n+2}, u) ≅ gAC_n and the homomorphism gAC_n → vC_n sending s_ij to s_ij and r to the long cycle (Theorem 4.11 from [IKLPR]).
    Used in Section 4.5 and in the proof of Theorem 7.7 for the compact-form monodromy.
  • domain assumption The results of [HKRW]: operadic coverings of M_{n+1}(R) give coboundary categories; the Bethe eigenlines E_χ(p,λ) carry a g-crystal structure isomorphic to B(λ); there is a monoidal equivalence Ψ: C → g-Crys (HKRW Theorems 4.13, 8.7, 12.3).
    Backbone of Theorem 7.2, which identifies the concrete coboundary category from the covering with g-Crys.
  • domain assumption Genericity: for fixed regular χ in the dominant Weyl chamber and distinct z_i, and existence of c > 0 with cyclic action on (-c,c) (Theorem 6.9).
    The covering constructions over F^split_n(-c,c) and F^comp_n(-c,c) depend on this; Lemma 7.4 needs the R^×-equivariant structure from IKLPR Remark 7.7.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cactus flower spaces and monodromy of Bethe vectors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4DKX4PZM

@misc{pith2026250712829,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cactus flower spaces and monodromy of Bethe vectors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4DKX4PZM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.12829}
}
abstract

We continue the study of cactus flower moduli spaces $\overline{F}_n$ and Gaudin models started in arXiv:2308.06880, arXiv:2407.06424. We show that isomorphism classes of operadic coverings of the real form $\overline{F}_n(\mathbb{R})$ are naturally one-to-one with equivalence classes of concrete coboundary monoidal categories (i.e. coboundary monoidal categories that admit a faithful monoidal functor to sets) with certain semisimplicity and finiteness conditions. Following the strategy of arXiv:1708.05105, for any complex semisimple Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$, we recover Kashiwara $\mathfrak{g}$-crystals, as a concrete coboundary category, from the coverings given by Bethe eigenlines for inhomogeneous Gaudin models. Using this, we compute the monodromy of Bethe eigenlines for trigonometric Gaudin models over two different real loci. In the particular case of minuscule highest weights, this can be regarded as combinatorial version of the wall-crossing conjecture of Bezrukavnikov and Okounkov for quantum cohomology of symplectic resolutions in the case of minuscule resolutions of slices in the affine Grassmannian.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.12829 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A half 2-cube in Dbn. The bottom edge of this cube lives in the hyperplane Hn; the labels of its cubes coincide with the labels on the cubes above them. Theorem 4.3. (1) The Sn-fixed point ∞ ∈ F n from Theorem 4.1(1) induces the natural map Sn → vCn on equivariant fundamental groups. (2) Under the isomorphisms from Theorem 4.2, pc∞y becomes the natural map Cn → vCn. Proof. (1) follows immediately from construction o… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The caterpillar point c ∈ M split 4+2 , a point on the path p2, and the permuted caterpillar point w2(c). 4.4. Equivariant fundamental group of the split form. Specializing (5) at ε = 1, we get an embedding M split n+2 ∼= F split n (1) ⊂ F split n . We will now study the resulting map on equivariant fundamental groups. We have a basepoint in M split n+2 defined above, but to avoid confusion with the same named point… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    R. Anno, R. Bezrukavnikov, I. Mirkovic Stability conditions for Slodowy slices and real variations of stability, Mosc. Math. J., 15:2 (2015), 187–203, arXiv:1108.1563

    work page Pith review arXiv 2015

  2. [2]

    Aguirre, G

    L. Aguirre, G. Felder, A. Veselov, Gaudin subalgebras and stable rational curves, Compos. Math. 147 (2011), no. 5, 1463--1478

    work page 2011

  3. [3]

    Brochier, Virtual tangles and fibre functors, Journal of Knot Theory and Its RamificationsVol

    A. Brochier, Virtual tangles and fibre functors, Journal of Knot Theory and Its RamificationsVol. 28, No. 07, 1950044 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218216519500445

    doi:10.1142/s0218216519500445 2019

  4. [4]

    Berenstein, A

    A. Berenstein, A. Kirillov, Groups generated by involutions, Gelfand-Tsetlin patterns, and combinatorics of Young tableaux. Algebra i Analiz 7 (1995), no. 1, 92--152; translation in St. Petersburg Math. J. 7 (1996), no. 1, 77--127

    work page 1995

  5. [5]

    Chmutov, M

    M. Chmutov, M. Glick, P. Pylyavskyy, The Berenstein-Kirillov group and cactus groups , J. Comb. Algebra 4 (2020), no. 2, 111--140

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Danilenko, Quantum Cohomology of Slices of the Affine Grassmannian, PhD thesis, Columbia University, 2020, https://doi.org/10.7916/d8-vnkw-ps05

    I. Danilenko, Quantum Cohomology of Slices of the Affine Grassmannian, PhD thesis, Columbia University, 2020, https://doi.org/10.7916/d8-vnkw-ps05

    work page doi:10.7916/d8-vnkw-ps05 2020

  7. [7]

    Devadoss, Tessellations of moduli spaces and the mosaic operad

    S. Devadoss, Tessellations of moduli spaces and the mosaic operad. Homotopy invariant algebraic structures (Baltimore, MD, 1998), 91--114, Contemp. Math., 239, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1999

    work page 1998

  8. [8]

    Davis, T

    M. Davis, T. Januszkiewicz, R. Scott, Fundamental groups of blow-ups , Adv. Math. 177 (2003), no. 1, 115--175

    work page 2003

Show all 29 references
  1. [9]

    Feigin, E

    B. Feigin, E. Frenkel, N. Reshetikhin, Gaudin model, Bethe Ansatz and critical level. Comm. Math. Phys., 166 (1994), pp. 27-62

    1994

  2. [10]

    Feigin, E

    B. Feigin, E. Frenkel, L. Rybnikov, Opers with irregular singularity and spectra of the shift of argument subalgebra. Duke Math. J. 155(2): 337-363 (2010). DOI: 10.1215/00127094-2010-057 ArXiv:math.QA/0712.1183

    2010 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Gaudin, Diagonalisation d'une classe d'Hamiltoniens de spin, J

    M. Gaudin, Diagonalisation d'une classe d'Hamiltoniens de spin, J. Physique 37 (1976), no.10, 1089--1098

    1976

  4. [12]

    Gaudin, La fonction d’onde de Bethe, Collect

    M. Gaudin, La fonction d’onde de Bethe, Collect. Commissariat \'Energ. Atom. S\'er. Sci. Masson, Paris, 1983. xvi+331 pp

    1983

  5. [13]

    Gavazzi, Spaces Related to Virtual Artin Groups, arXiv:2410.08640

    F. Gavazzi, Spaces Related to Virtual Artin Groups, arXiv:2410.08640

    arXiv

  6. [14]

    Gurenkova, I

    A. Gurenkova, I. Halacheva, L. Rybnikov, Mirabolic cactus group, skew Young tableaux and monodromy of Bethe vectors, in preparation

  7. [15]

    Ginzburg, S

    V. Ginzburg, S. Riche, Differential operators on G/U and the affine Grassmannian, J. Inst. Math. Jussieu 14 (2015), no.3, 493--575

    2015

  8. [16]

    Halacheva, Skew Howe duality for crystals and the cactus group, arXiv:2001.02262 [math.RT]

    I. Halacheva, Skew Howe duality for crystals and the cactus group, arXiv:2001.02262 [math.RT]

    2001 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Henriques, J

    A. Henriques, J. Kamnitzer, Crystals and coboundary categories. Duke Math. J. 132 (2006), no. 2, 191--216

    2006

  10. [18]

    Halacheva, J

    I. Halacheva, J. Kamnitzer, L. Rybnikov, A. Weekes, Crystals and monodromy of Bethe vectors, Duke Mathematical Journal. 2020. Vol. 169. No. 12. P. 2337-2419

    2020

  11. [19]

    Halacheva, A

    I. Halacheva, A. Licata, I. Losev, O. Yacobi, Categorical braid group actions and cactus groups, Adv. Math. 429 (2023), 36 pp

    2023

  12. [20]

    A. Ilin, J. Kamnitzer, Y. Li, P. Przytycki, L. Rybnikov, The moduli space of cactus flower curves and the virtual cactus group, arXiv:2308.06880 [math.AG]

    arXiv

  13. [21]

    A. Ilin, J. Kamnitzer, L. Rybnikov, Gaudin models and moduli space of flower curves, arXiv:2407.06424 [math.RT]

  14. [22]

    Kapranov, The permutoassociahedron, Mac Lane's coherence theorem and asymptotic zones for the KZ equation

    M. Kapranov, The permutoassociahedron, Mac Lane's coherence theorem and asymptotic zones for the KZ equation. J. Pure Appl. Algebra 85 (1993), no. 2, 119--142

    1993

  15. [23]

    Losev, On modular categories O for quantized symplectic resolutions, Pure Appl

    I. Losev, On modular categories O for quantized symplectic resolutions, Pure Appl. Math. Q. Volume 21 (2025) Number 1, pp. 415-494

    2025

  16. [24]

    S. Liao, L. Rybnikov, Maximal transitivity of the cactus group on standard Young tableaux, arXiv:2506.16561 [math.CO]

  17. [25]

    S. Mau, C. Woodward, Geometric realizations of the multiplihedra, Comp. Math. 146, no. 4 (2010), 1002--1028

    2010

  18. [26]

    Mukhin, V

    E. Mukhin, V. Tarasov, A. Varchenko, Bispectral and ( _N, _M) dualities, discrete versus differential, Adv. Math. 218 no. 1 (2008), 216--265

    2008

  19. [27]

    Molev, E

    A. Molev, E. Ragoucy. Higher-order Hamiltonians for the trigonometric Gaudin model, Lett. Math. Phys. 109 (2019), 2035--2048

    2019

  20. [28]

    Rybnikov, Cactus group and monodromy of Bethe vectors, Int

    L. Rybnikov, Cactus group and monodromy of Bethe vectors, Int. Math. Res. Not. (2018) no. 1. P. 202-235. arXiv:1409.0131

    2018 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Rybnikov, A proof of the Gaudin Bethe ansatz conjecture, Int

    L. Rybnikov, A proof of the Gaudin Bethe ansatz conjecture, Int. Math. Res. Not. (2020), no. 22, 8766--8785

    2020

Pith tools

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