Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 53 references

Taxonomy of integrable and ground-state solvable models: Jastrow wave functions on graphs and parent Hamiltonians

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For every graph and pair function, an edge-product wavefunction is the exact zero-energy ground state of an explicit Hamiltonian.

desk verdict A useful framework for generating graph-based Jastrow models, but the domain issue for singular pair functions is real and the 'integrable' label overreaches; referee it, but expect revisions. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.22315 v2 pith:4PLTBLCR submitted 2026-02-25 quant-ph cond-mat.quant-gasmath-phmath.MP

Nilanjan Sasmal , Adolfo del Campo This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.quant-gasmath-phmath.MP
keywords Graph-JastrowwavefunctionparentHamiltonianexactlysolvablemany-bodymodelsadjacencymatrixthree-bodyinteractionsCalogero-Sutherlandmodelground-statesolvabilityintegrablesystems
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

This paper establishes a general recipe: any undirected graph G and any pair function f(r) define a many-body Hamiltonian for which the Jastrow-like product of f(r_ij) over the graph's edges is the exact zero-energy ground state. The parent Hamiltonian contains two-body interactions on the graph's edges and three-body interactions over its length-two paths, and the proof rests on factoring the Hamiltonian as a sum of squares of first-order operators that annihilate the wavefunction. This turns graph structure into a taxonomy of exactly solvable models, recovering known limits such as complete-graph quantum fluids and nearest-neighbor Jain-Khare-type systems, while generating new models on stars, wheels, ladders, and other graph products. The value is a systematic way to produce closed-form ground states, Hamiltonians, and energies for a broad class of distinguishable-particle systems.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the factorization H0 = ∑_i Q_i^† Q_i into first-order differential operators Q_i defined through the logarithmic derivative of the pair function and the graph's adjacency matrix. Each Q_i annihilates Φ0 because the gradient of an edge product picks up exactly the adjacency matrix entries, so H0 is positive semidefinite and Φ0 is automatically the ground state. The adjacency matrix A_ij controls which pairs enter the wavefunction and the potentials: edges generate two-body terms, and length-two paths (consecutive incident edges) generate three-body terms. Thus the graph's combinatorics determines the operator structure, and the pair function dictates the detailed fu

What would settle it

Take N=2 particles on a one-edge graph with f(r)=e^{g r}. The formal Hamiltonian predicts a repulsive delta interaction and zero ground-state energy. If a numerical diagonalization of a regularized version on a fine grid finds a negative energy eigenvalue, or if the delta contribution must be renormalized differently to produce a normalizable zero-energy state, the universal ground-state claim fails for this pair function.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the graph-Jastrow ansatz Φ0 = ∏_{(i,j)∈E} f(r_ij) is the exact ground state (with energy zero up to constant shifts) of the parent Hamiltonian H0 = -ħ²/2m ∑∇_i² + V2 + V3, where V2 couples pairs connected by an edge and V3 couples triples forming a two-edge path. The argument uses the identity H0 = ∑_i Q_i^† Q_i with Q_i = (ħ/√(2m))(∇_i − ∑_j A_ij (f'_ij/f_ij) r̂_ij), and Q_i Φ0 = 0, which makes H0 positive semidefinite. In one dimension the construction simplifies: the complete graph reproduces known exactly solvable gases (inverse-square, contact, and oscillator types), paths and cycles generalize the Jain-Khare model to arbitrary pair functions, 2r-regular graphs

Load-bearing premise

The proof that Φ0 is the ground state assumes H0 = ∑ Q_i^† Q_i defines a positive self-adjoint operator on a domain containing Φ0; for singular pair functions like |x|^g or e^{g|x|}, the derivatives and delta functions are only formal, so boundary contributions at particle coincidences could spoil positivity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every undirected graph and pair function yields a closed-form ground state and parent Hamiltonian, producing a broad class of exactly solvable many-body models without permutation symmetry.
  • The complete-graph limit recovers known exactly solvable gases (inverse-square, contact, harmonic) as special cases, showing a single construction unifies them.
  • Path, cycle, and 2r-regular graph models implement interactions truncated by adjacency rather than spatial range, interpolating between nearest-neighbor and all-to-all limits.
  • Graph joins and products generate composite system-plus-environment models (star, wheel, ladder, prism, Creutz ladder) whose ground states are exactly known, relevant for impurity and decoherence studies.
  • Weighted and random graph ensembles extend the framework to multi-species and disordered systems with site-dependent interaction strengths.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The factorization suggests that ground-state properties such as correlation decay or entanglement may be controlled by graph invariants (degree distribution, number of 2-paths, spectral gap); comparing the same pair function on a path versus a complete graph would be a concrete test of this connectivity-controlled universality.
  • For singular pair functions like |x|^g or e^{g|x|}, the formal Hamiltonian contains delta functions and inverse-square terms; verifying the two-particle spectrum for a single-edge graph, where the self-adjoint extension issue is tractable, would determine whether the ground-state claim survives beyond formal manipulations.
  • The Q_i operators could seed a variational family: for graphs that are not exactly solvable, optimizing the pair function f would yield approximate ground states, extending the construction from exact to variational.
  • Since the three-body terms on 2-paths are required for exactness, a realistic simulator that implements only the two-body graph interactions will see a finite energy penalty; computing this penalty as a function of graph connectivity gives a testable prediction for analogue quantum simulators.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs parent Hamiltonians for many-body systems whose ground state is a product of pair-correlation functions over the edge set of a graph (a ``Graph-Jastrow'' wavefunction). The parent Hamiltonian is shown to contain two-body interactions supported on graph edges and three-body interactions supported on 2-paths. The authors derive the general formula in arbitrary dimension, specialize to one dimension, and catalogue examples for complete, path, cycle, regular, star, and product graphs, recovering Calogero-Sutherland, Lieb-Liniger, Jain-Khare, and truncated models. They also show how graph joins and products generate composite solvable models, with explicit tables of Hamiltonians, wavefunctions, and energies.

Significance. If the constructions are made rigorous, the paper provides a useful unifying framework and taxonomy for exactly solvable many-body Hamiltonians with Jastrow-type ground states. The factorization H0 = ∑ Qi† Qi is elegant and gives a clear sufficient condition for non-negativity; the graph-theoretic organization is transparent and yields many explicit new examples. A particular strength is the large set of closed-form results in Tables I–VI, which makes the formal claims easy to test. The recovery of known models (Calogero-Sutherland, Lieb-Liniger, Jain-Khare, truncated Calogero-Sutherland) is a valuable sanity check. However, the central derivation and the stated ground-state claims have gaps for singular pair functions, and one step in the D-dimensional proof is incorrect as written. These issues are fixable but require careful revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III, Eqs. (5)-(10)] The formal factorization H0 = ∑ Qi† Qi does not by itself establish that Φ0 is a ground state of the operator defined by Eqs. (5)-(7) when f is singular. Example: D=1, N=2, f=|x_ij|. Equations (6)-(7) give V2=V3=0, so the formal Hamiltonian is the free Laplacian; but Φ0=|x1−x2| has ΔΦ0 = 2δ(x1−x2) and is not in its domain. The factorization actually defines the Dirichlet Laplacian on R\{0} for the relative coordinate, i.e., it imposes an unstated boundary condition at the coincidence manifold. The same issue affects |x_ij|^g (0<g≤1) and exp(g|x_ij|) in Tables I–V. The paper must either restrict f so that the formal potentials and the wavefunction share a domain, or define H0 through the closure of the form (11) and state the resulting boundary conditions explicitly.
  2. [Sec. III, Eq. (4)] The statement ``Noting that Δ_{S^{D-1}}^i Φ0 = 0'' is false for the Graph-Jastrow wavefunction (2). Φ0 depends on r_i through the relative vectors r_i−r_j and therefore has nontrivial angular dependence in hyperspherical coordinates centered at the origin. The final D-dimensional formulas (5)-(7) are nevertheless correct; they follow from direct differentiation of the edge product, and the proof should be rewritten without the angular-Laplacian assertion.
  3. [Sec. VI, after Eq. (24) and Table II] For f = exp(g|x_ij|), the constants in V2 and V3 are positive; together with the kinetic term they cancel, so the parent Hamiltonian H0 has zero ground-state energy by construction. The quoted E0 = −ℏ²g²/(6m) N(N²−1) is the energy of the attractive Lieb-Liniger Hamiltonian, which differs from H0 by a constant shift. Please clarify which Hamiltonian this energy belongs to, or correct the sign/energy shift. This affects the exact-energy claim in the complete-graph row.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table IV] The header for the cycle graph writes Φ0 = ∏_{i=1}^{N−1} f(x_i,i+1), but a cycle with periodic boundary conditions should include the edge (N,1); the product should run to N with indices modulo N.
  2. [Sec. VIII] The statement ``for r=(N−1)/2 one recovers K_N'' requires N odd. For even N the complete graph is (N−1)-regular and is not of the form 2r with integer r.
  3. [Title/Introduction] The title and introduction use ``integrable'' but the paper only establishes ground-state solvability; no complete set of conserved quantities is constructed for the general graph-Jastrow Hamiltonians. Suggest softening the terminology to ``ground-state solvable''.
  4. [Various] Typos and small presentation issues: ``Arbitary'' in Table III, ``Anstze'' in Sec. V, inconsistent sub/superscript notation for the Laplace-Beltrami operator in Eq. (4), and a few awkward hyphenations.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Hamiltonian is derived from the Jastrow ansatz by explicit differentiation, and the ground-state property follows from a positivity factorization, not from fitted parameters or load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The central construction is self-contained: for a chosen graph G and pair function f, the paper defines the Graph-Jastrow wavefunction Φ0 (Eq. 2) and derives the parent Hamiltonian H0 by directly computing the action of the kinetic operator on Φ0 (Eqs. 5–7). Positivity is then proven by the explicit factorization H0 = Σ_i Q_i† Q_i with Q_i Φ0 = 0 (Eqs. 8–11), so the conclusion that Φ0 is a zero-energy ground state is a verification of the inverse construction rather than an independent prediction fitted to data. No parameters are adjusted to a subset of results and then 'predicted'; the ground-state property is built into the definition of a parent Hamiltonian, but the explicit form of V2 and V3 is derived, not assumed. The self-citations [17,19,34,38] are used for background, for the confinement extension in Sec. IV, and for recovering known models; the graph-generalized formulas (19)–(20) are derived in the text and do not rest on those citations. The main caveat is a mathematical-domain issue: for singular pair functions such as |x|^g with 0 < g ≤ 1, the operators Q_i and H0 are only formally defined, and boundary/contact terms at particle coincidences are not discussed. That is a correctness and rigorous-analysis gap, not a circularity, because it does not make the derivation equivalent to its inputs. Accordingly, no circular step is identified.

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

No numerical fitting appears: the graph G and pair function f are inputs chosen by hand. The coupling g and length ℓ in specific models are physical parameters of the constructed Hamiltonian, not fitted constants. No new physical entities are introduced; the graph is a bookkeeping device for selecting pair correlations. The main unstated input is the domain/self-adjointness assumption for singular potentials.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption H0 = ∑ Q_i^† Q_i is a well-defined positive self-adjoint operator on a domain containing Φ0; boundary terms at particle coincidences vanish or are handled by boundary conditions.
    Sec. III Eqs. (8)-(11) use the factorization to conclude Φ0 is the ground state; this requires Q_i to be closable and H0 essentially self-adjoint, which is not discussed for singular f.
  • domain assumption The pair function f and its logarithmic derivatives are such that the Laplacian action on Φ0 is well-defined away from singularities, and the singular cases are obtained by a limiting procedure.
    Used throughout; e.g., Table I uses f=|x|^g, whose derivatives are singular at x=0. The formulas hold on the configuration space excluding coincidences.
  • domain assumption Known identities relating confined and unconfined exact ground states (Refs. [17,19,38]) are valid.
    Sec. IV invokes these to add external confinement; not re-derived in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Taxonomy of integrable and ground-state solvable models: Jastrow wave functions on graphs and parent Hamiltonians." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4PLTBLCR

@misc{pith2026260222315,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Taxonomy of integrable and ground-state solvable models: Jastrow wave functions on graphs and parent Hamiltonians},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4PLTBLCR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.22315}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce a family of many-body systems of distinguishable continuous-variable particles in which interparticle interactions are set by the adjacency matrix of a graph. The ground-state wave function of such systems is of a generalized Jastrow form involving the product of pair-correlation functions over the edge set of the graph. These systems describe quantum fluids when the graph is complete, and the pair function has a well-defined permutation symmetry. In general, they provide the continuous-variable generalization of spin systems on graphs, with broken permutation symmetry. The corresponding parent Hamiltonian is shown to include (a) two-body interactions determined by the graph adjacency matrix and (b) three-body interactions over all possible 2-paths on the graph. Employing elements of graph theory, we chart the landscape of models, recovering known instances in the literature and providing numerous new examples of ground-state solvable models for which the system Hamiltonian, ground-state wave function, and corresponding energy eigenvalue are specified.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.22315 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top: Regular graphs with N = 7, 8 and open boundary conditions and truncated pairwise interactions for r = 1, 2, 3, 4. Bottom: Circulant graphs with N = 12 and periodic boundary conditions for r = 1, 2, 3, 4, the 2r-regular graph interpolates between the cycle graph C12 (r = 1) and the complete graph K12 (r = 6). We consider a ground-state with GJW form restricted to the r nearest neighbors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Complete bipartite graphs: (a) K8,8 and (b) K8,5. posed of two species A and B. Assume there are NA par￾ticles of type A and NB particles of type B. A bipartite graph KNA,NB is natural to describe mixtures in which there are no AA or BB interactions, but there are AB interactions. Arguably, this setting is rather restricted, as one may generally want to consider AA and BB inter￾actions, with or without local restric… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Ladder graph L7 = P7□P2 (top) and flattened lad￾der graph (bottom) realized as a 1D model with two particles bound per unit cell, which can be visualized as xi = (x A i , xB i ). The adjacency matrix for the ladder graph, compressed to 1D as two composite particles bound to form a single entity, can be written as A(i,α),(j,β) = δ|i−j|,1δα,β + δi,j δα,β¯, (44) where i ∈ {1, · · ·, N}, α ∈ {A, B}, and A¯ = B, B¯ = A. … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Quantum many-body systems represented in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Top: Creutz Ladder Graph P7 ◦ P2 ∼= P7 ⊠ P2, comes from a theorem G1 ◦ G2 ∼= G1 ⊠ G2 iff G2 is a complete graph [50]. Bottom: Flattened Creutz ladder to visualize a more realistic 1D model with two particles bound per unit cell. It differs from the model shown in [PIT…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Wheel graphs with N = 10, 60 vertices, which is formed from the graph operation, WN+1 = K1 ⊙ CN . The ground-state GJW for the wheel graph reads Φ0 = nY−1 k=1 fk,k+1fk+n,k+n+1fk,k+nfn,1f2n,n+1fn,2n. (53) A few other relevant graph operations are the strong product and …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bethe, Zur theorie der metalle, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik 71, 205 (1931)

    H. Bethe, Zur theorie der metalle, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik 71, 205 (1931)

    1931

  2. [2]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information(Cambridge University Press, 2000)

    2000

  3. [3]

    Dhar, Heat transport in low-dimensional systems, Ad- vances in Physics57, 457 (2008)

    A. Dhar, Heat transport in low-dimensional systems, Ad- vances in Physics57, 457 (2008)

    2008

  4. [4]

    Eisert, M

    J. Eisert, M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio, Colloquium: Area laws for the entanglement entropy, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 277 (2010)

    2010

  5. [5]

    Calogero, Solution of a ThreeBody Problem in One Dimension, Journal of Mathematical Physics10, 2191 (2003)

    F. Calogero, Solution of a ThreeBody Problem in One Dimension, Journal of Mathematical Physics10, 2191 (2003)

    2003

  6. [6]

    Moser, Three integrable hamiltonian systems con- nected with isospectral deformations, Advances in Math- ematics16, 197 (1975)

    J. Moser, Three integrable hamiltonian systems con- nected with isospectral deformations, Advances in Math- ematics16, 197 (1975)

    1975

  7. [7]

    M. A. Olshanetsky and A. M. Perelomov, Classical inte- grable finite-dimensional systems related to lie algebras, Physics Reports71, 313 (1981)

    1981

  8. [8]

    M. A. Olshanetsky and A. M. Perelomov, Quantum in- tegrable systems related to lie algebras, Physics Reports 94, 313 (1983)

    1983

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    A. V. Turbiner, From quantum an(calogero) to h4(rational) model, Symmetry, Integrability and Geom- etry: Methods and Applications 10.3842/sigma.2011.071 (2011)

    2011 doi

  2. [10]

    Girardeau, H

    M. Girardeau, H. Nguyen, and M. Olshanii, Effective in- teractions, fermibose duality, and ground states of ultra- cold atomic vapors in tight de broglie waveguides, Optics Communications243, 3 (2004)

    2004

  3. [11]

    N. L. Harshman, M. Olshanii, A. S. Dehkharghani, A. G. Volosniev, S. G. Jackson, and N. T. Zinner, Integrable families of hard-core particles with unequal masses in a one-dimensional harmonic trap, Phys. Rev. X7, 041001 (2017)

    2017

  4. [12]

    A. P. Polychronakos, Lattice integrable systems of haldane-shastry type, Phys. Rev. Lett.70, 2329 (1993)

    1993

  5. [13]

    A. P. Polychronakos, The physics and mathematics of calogero particles, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General39, 12793 (2006)

    2006

  6. [14]

    L. H. Nosanow, Theory of quantum crystals, Phys. Rev. 146, 120 (1966)

    1966

  7. [15]

    Cazorla and J

    C. Cazorla and J. Boronat, Zero-temperature equation of state of solid4he at low and high pressures, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter20, 015223 (2007)

    2007

  8. [16]

    Cazorla, G

    C. Cazorla, G. E. Astrakharchik, J. Casulleras, and J. Boronat, Bose–einstein quantum statistics and the ground state of solid4he, New Journal of Physics11, 013047 (2009)

    2009

  9. [17]

    del Campo, Exact ground states of quantum many- body systems under confinement, Phys

    A. del Campo, Exact ground states of quantum many- body systems under confinement, Phys. Rev. Research 2, 043114 (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    Sutherland,Beautiful Models(World Scientific, 2004)

    B. Sutherland,Beautiful Models(World Scientific, 2004)

    2004

  11. [19]

    Beau and A

    M. Beau and A. del Campo, Parent Hamiltonians of Jas- trow wavefunctions, SciPost Phys. Core4, 030 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    Calogero, Solution of the onedimensional nbody prob- lems with quadratic and/or inversely quadratic pair po- tentials, Journal of Mathematical Physics12, 419 (1971)

    F. Calogero, Solution of the onedimensional nbody prob- lems with quadratic and/or inversely quadratic pair po- tentials, Journal of Mathematical Physics12, 419 (1971)

    1971

  13. [21]

    Sutherland, Quantum manybody problem in one di- mension: Ground state, Journal of Mathematical Physics 12, 246 (1971)

    B. Sutherland, Quantum manybody problem in one di- mension: Ground state, Journal of Mathematical Physics 12, 246 (1971)

    1971

  14. [22]

    Kuramoto and Y

    Y. Kuramoto and Y. Kato,Dynamics of One- Dimensional Quantum Systems: Inverse-Square Interac- tion Models(Cambridge University Press, 2009)

    2009

  15. [23]

    E. H. Lieb and W. Liniger, Exact analysis of an interact- ing bose gas. i. the general solution and the ground state, Phys. Rev.130, 1605 (1963)

    1963

  16. [24]

    E. H. Lieb, Exact analysis of an interacting bose gas. ii. the excitation spectrum, Phys. Rev.130, 1616 (1963)

    1963

  17. [25]

    J. B. McGuire, Study of exactly soluble onedimensional nbody problems, Journal of Mathematical Physics5, 622 (1964)

    1964

  18. [26]

    V. E. Korepin, N. M. Bogoliubov, and A. G. Izer- gin,Quantum Inverse Scattering Method and Correlation Functions(Cambridge, Cambridge, 1997)

    1997

  19. [27]

    Takahashi,Thermodynamics of One-Dimensional Solvable Models(Cambridge, Cambridge, 1999)

    M. Takahashi,Thermodynamics of One-Dimensional Solvable Models(Cambridge, Cambridge, 1999)

    1999

  20. [28]

    S. R. Jain and A. Khare, An exactly solvable many-body problem in one dimension and the short-range dyson model, Physics Letters A262, 35 (1999)

    1999

  21. [29]

    Auberson, S

    G. Auberson, S. R. Jain, and A. Khare, A class of N-body problems with nearest- and next-to-nearest-neighbour in- teractions, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Gen- eral34, 695 (2001)

    2001

  22. [30]

    Basu-Mallick and A

    B. Basu-Mallick and A. Kundu, Exact solution of a many body problem with nearest and next-nearest neighbour interactions, Physics Letters A279, 29 (2001)

    2001

  23. [31]

    Ezung, N

    M. Ezung, N. Gurappa, A. Khare, and P. K. Panigrahi, Quantum many-body systems with nearest and next-to- nearest neighbor long-range interactions, Phys. Rev. B 71, 125121 (2005)

    2005

  24. [32]

    Enciso, F

    A. Enciso, F. Finkel, A. Gonz´ alez-L´ opez, and M. Rodr ´ ıguez, Solvable scalar and spin models with near-neighbors interactions, Physics Letters B605, 214 (2005)

    2005

  25. [33]

    S. R. Jain, Random matrix theories and exactly solvable 13 models, Czechoslovak Journal of Physics56, 1021 (2006)

    2006

  26. [34]

    S. M. Pittman, M. Beau, M. Olshanii, and A. del Campo, Truncated calogero-sutherland models, Phys. Rev. B95, 205135 (2017)

    2017

  27. [35]

    T. R. Tummuru, S. R. Jain, and A. Khare, Truncated calogerosutherland models on a circle, Physics Letters A 381, 3917 (2017)

    2017

  28. [36]

    Baradaran, J

    M. Baradaran, J. A. Carrasco, F. Finkel, and A. Gonz´ alez-L´ opez, Jastrow-like ground states for quan- tum many-body potentials with near-neighbors interac- tions, Annals of Physics388, 147 (2018)

    2018

  29. [37]

    R. K. Yadav, A. Khare, N. Kumari, and B. P. Man- dal, Rationally extended many-body truncated calogero- sutherland model, Annals of Physics400, 189 (2019)

    2019

  30. [38]

    M. Beau, S. M. Pittman, G. E. Astrakharchik, and A. del Campo, Exactly solvable system of one-dimensional trapped bosons with short- and long-range interactions, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 220602 (2020)

    2020

  31. [39]

    L. M. B. C. Campos and M. J. S. Silva, On hyperspheri- cal associated legendre functions: the extension of spher- ical harmonics tondimensions (2020), arXiv:2005.09603 [math-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Kundu, Exact solution of doubleδfunction bose gas through an interacting anyon gas, Phys

    A. Kundu, Exact solution of doubleδfunction bose gas through an interacting anyon gas, Phys. Rev. Lett.83, 1275 (1999)

    1999

  33. [41]

    M. D. Girardeau, Anyon-fermion mapping and applica- tions to ultracold gases in tight waveguides, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 100402 (2006)

    2006

  34. [42]

    M. T. Batchelor, X.-W. Guan, and N. Oelkers, One- dimensional interacting anyon gas: Low-energy proper- ties and haldane exclusion statistics, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 210402 (2006)

    2006

  35. [43]

    del Campo, Fermionization and bosonization of ex- panding one-dimensional anyonic fluids, Phys

    A. del Campo, Fermionization and bosonization of ex- panding one-dimensional anyonic fluids, Phys. Rev. A78, 045602 (2008)

    2008

  36. [44]

    N. E. Mackel, J. Yang, and A. d. Campo, Quantum Alchemy and Universal Orthogonality Catastrophe in One-Dimensional Anyons, Quantum7, 1211 (2023)

    2023

  37. [45]

    Yang, Some exact results for the many body prob- lems in one dimension with repulsive delta function in- teraction, Phys

    C.-N. Yang, Some exact results for the many body prob- lems in one dimension with repulsive delta function in- teraction, Phys. Rev. Lett.19, 1312 (1967)

    1967

  38. [46]

    Li and J.-H

    Y.-Q. Li and J.-H. Dai,δ-function spin-1/2 fermions in a one-dimensional potential well, Phys. Rev. A53, 3743 (1996)

    1996

  39. [47]

    Olshanii, Atomic scattering in the presence of an ex- ternal confinement and a gas of impenetrable bosons, Phys

    M. Olshanii, Atomic scattering in the presence of an ex- ternal confinement and a gas of impenetrable bosons, Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 938 (1998)

    1998

  40. [48]

    Godsil and G

    C. Godsil and G. F. Royle,Algebraic Graph Theory (Springer, New York, 2001)

    2001

  41. [49]

    Creutz, End states, ladder compounds, and domain- wall fermions, Phys

    M. Creutz, End states, ladder compounds, and domain- wall fermions, Phys. Rev. Lett.83, 2636 (1999)

    1999

  42. [50]

    P. P. Mondal, M. R. Kannan, and F. Atik, When are standard graph products isomorphic? (2025), arXiv:2508.04137 [math.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Meljanac, M

    S. Meljanac, M. Milekovi´ c, and A. Samsarov, A mul- tispecies calogero model, Physics Letters B573, 202 (2003)

    2003

  44. [52]

    Meljanac, M

    S. Meljanac, M. Milekovi´ c, and A. Samsarov, Generalized calogero model in arbitrary dimensions, Physics Letters B594, 241 (2004)

    2004

  45. [53]

    A. G. Ushveridze,Quasi-Exactly Solvable Models in Quantum Mechanics, 1st ed. (CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1994)

    1994

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.