Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 57 references

The paper claims a new family of integrable exclusion Markov processes, the (p,q)-SSEP, whose reactive particle species flip in pairs, and proves that for one family of open boundaries the stationary densities and currents are given exactly

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 13:47 UTC pith:LIAPLGEA

load-bearing objection The periodic construction is solid and the stationary-state projection is worth publishing, but as written the open-boundary integrability claim does not go through: the K-matrices solve the reflection equation for \check r(u), while the transfer matrix is built from r(u)=P\check r(u). the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.18959 v1 pith:LIAPLGEA submitted 2026-07-21 math-ph cond-mat.stat-mechmath.MPmath.QAnlin.SI

Integrable multi-species SSEP with reactive particle species

Mathieu Dabrowski , Lo\"ic Poulain d'Andecy , Eric Ragoucy This is my paper
classification math-ph cond-mat.stat-mechmath.MPmath.QAnlin.SI MSC 60K3582C2282B2316T25
keywords integrable exclusion processmulti-species SSEPreactive particlesset-theoretical Yang-Baxter equationreflection equationBaxterisationstationary statenon-equilibrium
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper aims to extend the multi-species Symmetric Simple Exclusion Process by adding 'reactive' particle species that do not simply swap with all other species like ordinary particles: two particles of the same reactive species can flip together into the opposite species of the same pair (or, in another reading, evaporate and condense by pairs). The authors show that the resulting (p,q)-SSEP is integrable both on a ring and on an open interval, with two families of integrable boundary reservoirs built from Baxterisations of solutions of the reflection equation. For one type of boundary, they identify the two species in each reactive pair, project the stationary state onto the known open multi-species SSEP, and obtain explicit linear densities and constant currents, with a vanishing reaction rate. If correct, these are new exactly solvable non-equilibrium models whose stationary observables can be written in closed form.

Core claim

The central claim is that the set-theoretical map acting on the local alphabet X = {1,...,p,1-,1+,...,q-,q+}, which swaps two singlet species and swaps species from different reactive pairs but sends a-a- to a+a+ (and vice versa) instead of swapping, is a solution of the Yang-Baxter equation. Through the standard Baxterisation r(u) = (u r + Id)/(u+1), this yields a commuting transfer matrix whose logarithmic derivative is the Markov matrix of the (p,q)-SSEP, proving integrability in the periodic case. For open boundaries, the paper gives block-diagonal matrices k in (4.15) satisfying the constant reflection equation; applying a Baxterisation procedure from the literature produces parameter-d

What carries the argument

The central objects are: (i) the set-theoretical solution r of the Yang-Baxter equation defined in (4.2), whose local action is a permutation except on a-a- ↔ a+a+; (ii) its Baxterisation r(u) = (u r + Id)/(u+1), which produces the commuting periodic transfer matrix; (iii) the constant reflection equation solutions k(1), k(2), and the general block-diagonal k in (4.15), Baxterised through Proposition 3.3 to yield open transfer matrices; and (iv) the projection map u of (5.20) that identifies a- with a+ and intertwines the (p,q)-SSEP Markov matrix with the open multi-species SSEP Markov matrix, giving the stationary-state formula (5.19).

Load-bearing premise

That the imported Baxterisation result (Proposition 3.3, taken from reference [17]) correctly turns the constant reflection-equation solutions k(1), k(2), and the general block-diagonal k in (4.15) into solutions of the parameter-dependent reflection equation; if this step fails for any of these matrices, the open-boundary transfer matrices would not commute and the open-case integrability claims would collapse.

What would settle it

Compute the open transfer matrix t(u) from (3.14) for the smallest non-trivial cases, e.g., L=2, p=q=1 with boundary B(1), and check symbolically that [t(u),t(v)] = 0 for generic parameters λ, μ, γ, α1; alternatively, verify directly that the Baxterised k(u) from (3.11) satisfies the parameter-dependent reflection equation (3.8) for the matrix k(1) in (3.21) and for the block-diagonal k in (4.15). A single counterexample to the commutativity or to the reflection equation would falsify the open-boundary integrability claim.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the paper is right, the (p,q)-SSEP is exactly solvable on a ring and on open intervals with the constructed boundaries, opening the door to spectral and correlation-function computations via the algebraic Bethe ansatz machinery.
  • For B(1)-type boundaries, the non-equilibrium stationary state is known explicitly through the projection, giving linear density profiles and species-wise constant currents that are consistent with the reservoir densities.
  • The periodic (p,1)-SSEP has a complete sector classification, so its long-time relaxation is understood sector by sector, including exact sector sizes.
  • The reaction rate observable is well-defined and vanishes whenever the a± symmetry is preserved, so it cleanly isolates the effect of reactive species.
  • The construction provides a template for building integrable stochastic models from non-permutation set-theoretical Yang-Baxter solutions, going beyond the Lyubashenko-type solutions previously studied.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same projection idea could yield exact stationary states for other integrable exclusion processes whose bulk and boundary operators respect an identification of species, since the intertwining in (5.21) only needs such consistency.
  • For q2 > 0 boundaries with γ+ ≠ γ-, the a± symmetry is broken; the numerical checks reported in the paper suggest the reaction rate becomes site-dependent and the current non-constant, so a Matrix Ansatz with a larger algebra may be needed - a natural next testable step.
  • The sector count for the periodic (p,1)-SSEP given in (A.10) provides a sharp, checkable way to distinguish this process from other three-species exclusion models, such as the twisted SSEP discussed in the paper.
  • The Baxterisation step is imported from the literature; if the constant reflection equation solution k in (4.15) does not satisfy the required quadratic condition with the specified coefficients for all parameter choices, the boundary families constructed here may be a subset of the full set of integrable boundaries, so a classification of reflection equation solutions for this r remains open.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a new family of exclusion processes, the (p,q)-SSEP, built from set-theoretical solutions of the Yang–Baxter equation. The processes contain p 'singlet' species behaving as in the multi-species SSEP and q pairs of 'reactive' species that can transform into each other by pairs. The authors prove the Yang–Baxter relation for the underlying set-theoretical matrix, establish periodic integrability via the Baxterised transfer matrix, and propose open-boundary constructions from solutions of the constant reflection equation. They also derive exact stationary densities, currents, and reaction rates for the open (p,q)-SSEP with boundaries of type B(1) by projecting the stationary state onto the known open multi-species SSEP. A combinatorial classification of sectors for the periodic (p,1)-SSEP is given in an appendix.

Significance. If the claims are correct, this is a genuinely new family of exactly solvable non-equilibrium exclusion processes with reactive species, and the stationary-state observables obtained by projection would be a valuable addition to the integrable Markov-process literature. The paper contains several explicit, machine-checkable computations: the YBE verification, the construction of K-matrices, and the intertwining relations underlying the stationary-state projection. The sector analysis in Appendix A is detailed and self-contained. The stationary-state projection formula (5.19) is independent of the open transfer-matrix machinery and appears to be a solid contribution. However, the advertised open-boundary integrability is load-bearing for the paper's central claim, and that claim is not supported by the present manuscript.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.1.3, Eq. (3.14), with §2.4 and Eq. (3.8)] The open transfer matrix (3.14) is built from the operators r(u) = P ˇr(u), as defined in Section 2.4. The K-matrices, however, are constructed to solve the reflection equation (3.8) for ˇr(u), not for r(u). Sklyanin's commutativity theorem requires the boundary K-matrix to satisfy the reflection equation with the same R-matrix that appears in the monodromy, i.e. with r(u). For r = P ˇr, the reflection equation (3.8) is not equivalent to the reflection equation with r; it transforms into an equation in which K acts on the second auxiliary space. This is not a cosmetic change. Concretely, take the (0,1)-SSEP with X={0,¯0}, λ=1, γ=1/2. The Baxterised K(u) from (3.22) is (1−u)[[1,u],[u,1]], and r(u) = (u P ˇr + P)/(u+1). Evaluating the r-reflection equation at u=2, v=4 on the basis vector |00⟩ gives LHS=(369/7, 6/7, 120/7, −180/7)^T and RHS=(369/7, −90/7, 216/7, −180/7)^T. These differ, so
  2. [§4.2.1–4.2.2, Prop. 4.7 and Eqs. (4.15)–(4.23)] The same convention mismatch invalidates the general (p,q)-SSEP open-boundary construction. Proposition 4.7 verifies the constant reflection equation with ˇr, and the Baxterisation is with respect to ˇr. But the transfer matrix (3.14) uses r=P ˇr. Therefore the claimed integrability of the general boundary B in (4.15)–(4.16) fails for the same reason as in the (0,1)-SSEP counterexample. This is not a gap that can be fixed by citing [17] or [52]; the K-matrix obtained from the ˇr-reflection equation does not satisfy the r-reflection equation, so the double-row transfer matrix does not define a commuting family. The authors must either reformulate the open transfer matrix to use ˇr(u) in the monodromy (which would change the boundary construction) or find K-matrices that solve the reflection equation with r(u).
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.2.1, Eq. (3.22)] The Baxterisation formula (3.22) differs from Proposition 3.3 by an overall factor of u. This is harmless because f(u) is arbitrary in the proposition, but it should be stated explicitly to avoid confusion.
  2. [§3.1.1 and §3.1.3] The notation r(u) and ˇr(u) is easy to confuse. Since the transfer matrix uses r(u)=Pˇr(u), it would help to restate this definition immediately before Eq. (3.14) and to emphasise that the reflection equation for the boundary K-matrix must be with r(u), not ˇr(u).
  3. [§5.2.1, Prop. 5.8] The proof of Proposition 5.8 relies on the unicity of the stationary state of the (p,q)-SSEP with boundaries B(1) and ¯B(1). This unicity is asserted but not proved. The boundary B(1) is presumably irreducible, but a short argument would strengthen the proof, especially because the bulk dynamics has frozen two-site configurations of the form 0¯0 and ¯00.
  4. [Appendix A, A.2.2] In the proof of Proposition A.7, the 'moves 0a → a0 and ¯0a → a¯0' are used with periodic boundary conditions. Since the appendix considers the periodic model, this is appropriate, but it should be stated explicitly at the start of the proof.
  5. [Throughout] Typos: 'Litterature' in Appendix A, 'the in the' at the beginning of Section 1, and 'reservoirs' vs 'resevoirs' in Section 5.1. These are minor presentation issues.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the new integrable models and their stationary-state observables are derived from directly verified equations and external standard results, not from self-citations or fitted inputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The periodic integrability claim (Section 2.4) uses the standard transfer-matrix construction applied to the set-theoretical solution whose Yang-Baxter property is verified directly in Proposition 4.3. The open-boundary integrability uses the standard Baxterisation and reflection-equation framework, with Proposition 3.3 quoted from the external reference [17] rather than from the authors' own prior work; the specific K-matrices are verified directly in Propositions 3.6, 3.9, and 4.7. The stationary-state results in Section 5.2 are not fitted or renamed inputs: Proposition 5.8 establishes an explicit intertwining relation (5.21) between the new process and the known open multi-species SSEP, and then imports the known stationary distribution of the multi-species SSEP from [56], which is an external benchmark outside the present paper's construction. The parameters appearing in formulas (5.8)-(5.9) are the prescribed boundary rates, not parameters fitted to the predicted densities or currents. The only self-citations, [13] and [10], are used for motivation or comparison (e.g., Remark A.8) and are not load-bearing in the proof of the new claims. The possible reviewer concern about the reflection-equation convention with r(u) versus ˇr(u) is a question of mathematical validity of the proof, not a demonstration that any claimed result is equivalent by construction to its inputs; it does not constitute circularity. Accordingly, no circular step is identified.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 4 axioms · 1 invented entities

The paper introduces no hidden fitted constants: the boundary parameters λ, μ, α, β, γ, δ are openly declared model parameters, not tuned to data. The central claims rest on standard integrable-system machinery and on the known solution of the open multi-species SSEP from [56].

axioms (4)
  • standard math Baxterisation Proposition 3.3: if k solves the constant reflection equation and k^2 = a1 k + a0, then k(u) in (3.11) solves the parameter-dependent reflection equation (3.8).
    Sec 3.1.2; imported from [17], underpins all open-boundary integrability claims.
  • standard math Standard Sklyanin open transfer matrix construction (3.14) gives [t(u),t(v)]=0 and t'(0) yields the Markov generator (3.19).
    Sec 3.1.3-3.1.4; cited to [52,55], not re-derived in the paper.
  • domain assumption Known stationary distribution and density/current formulas of the open multi-species SSEP with boundaries (5.14)-(5.15).
    Sec 5.2; imported from [56] and used via the projection/intertwining map to compute stationary observables.
  • standard math Finite-state positive-recurrent Markov chains have a unique stationary state per irreducible sector.
    Appendix A.1; used to justify uniform stationary states in periodic sectors and uniqueness of the open stationary state under B(1).
invented entities (1)
  • Reactive particle species pairs {a-, a+} for a=1..q no independent evidence
    purpose: Generalise the multi-species SSEP by adding pair transitions a-a- ↔ a+a+, interpreted as evaporation/condensation or as chemical/conformational transformation.
    Abstract internal degrees of freedom of the proposed Markov model. No independent physical evidence is claimed, and none is needed for the mathematical construction.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 31145 in / 13142 out tokens · 137590 ms · 2026-08-01T13:47:26.384109+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We investigate integrable exclusion Markov processes constructed from set-theoretical solutions of the Yang-Baxter Equation (YBE) that generalise the multi-species Symmetric Simple Exclusion Process (SSEP). We first introduce the process called the $ (p,1) $-SSEP that is analogous to the multi-species SSEP but with an extra particle species qualified as reactive. Reactive species are able to evaporate and condensate by pairs or to transform by pairs depending on the interpretation. We provide a full combinatorial study of the sectors in the periodic case. We prove the integrability of the process in the periodic case and in the open case for two types of boundaries that we introduce using Baxterisations of solutions of the reflection equation. Next we move on to the process called $ (p,q) $-SSEP, i.e. the multi-species SSEP with an arbitrary number of reactive particle species. We prove its integrability in the periodic case and, for the open case, we introduce integrable boundaries generalising the ones considered for the $ (p,1) $-SSEP. Finally, we define physical quantities relevant to the models and we compute them in the non-equilibrium stationary state of the open $ (p,q) $-SSEP for one type of integrable boundaries.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.18959 by Eric Ragoucy, Lo\"ic Poulain d'Andecy, Mathieu Dabrowski.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Illustration of a possible evolution in the transformation interpretation of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Illustration of a possible evolution in the evaporation-condensation interpretation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Illustration of a possible evolution in the transformation interpretation. The lattice is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Graphical representation of the transition probabilities given by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Graphical representation of the transition probabilities given by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Graphical representation of the transition probabilities given by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Graphical representation of the transition probabilities given by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 22 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Alcaraz, M

    F. Alcaraz, M. Droz, M. Henkel and V. Rittenberg,Reaction-Diffusion Processes, Critical Dynamics, and Quantum Chains, Ann. Physics230250–302 (1994),arXiv:hep-th/9302112

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  2. [2]

    Alexander, and T

    S. Alexander, and T. Holstein,Lattice diffusion and the Heisenberg ferromagnet, Phys. Rev. B18301–302 (1978)

    1978

  3. [3]

    Ayyer, J.L

    A. Ayyer, J.L. Lebowitz, and E.R. Speer,On the Two Species Asymmetric Exclusion Process with Semi-Permeable Boundaries, J. Stat. Phys.1351009–1037 (2009),arXiv:0807.2423. 31

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  4. [4]

    Baxter,Exactly Solved Models in Statistical Mechanics, Academic Press (1982)

    R. Baxter,Exactly Solved Models in Statistical Mechanics, Academic Press (1982)

    1982

  5. [5]

    Bertini, A

    L. Bertini, A. Sole, D. Gabrielli, G. Jona-Lasinio, and Claudio Landim,Large Deviations for the Boundary Driven Symmetric Simple Exclusion Process, Math. Phys. Anal. Geom.6 231–267 (2003)arXiv:cond-mat/0307280

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  6. [6]

    Caudrelier, N

    V. Caudrelier, N. Crampé, and Q. Zhang,Set-theoretical reflection equation: classification of reflection maps, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.46095203 (2013),arXiv:1210.5107

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  7. [7]

    F. Cedó, E. Jespers and A. Rio,Involutive Yang-Baxter Groups, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 3622541–2558 (2010),arXiv:0803.4054

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  8. [8]

    F. Cedó, E. Jespers and J. Okniński,Braces and the Yang–Baxter Equation, Comm. Math. Phys.327101–116 (2014),arXiv:1205.3587

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  9. [9]

    Cedó,Left Braces: Solutions of the Yang-Baxter Equation, Adv

    F. Cedó,Left Braces: Solutions of the Yang-Baxter Equation, Adv. Group Theory Appl.5 33–90 (2018)

    2018

  10. [10]

    Crampe, E

    N. Crampe, E. Ragoucy and M. Vanicat,Integrable approach to simple exclusion processes with boundaries. Review and progress, J. Stat. Mech.: Theory Exp.2014P11032 (2014), arXiv:1408.5357

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  11. [11]

    Crampe, M

    N. Crampe, M. Evans, K. Mallick, E. Ragoucy, and M. Vanicat,Matrix product solution to a 2-species TASEP with open integrable boundaries, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.49475001 (2016),arXiv:1606.08148

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  12. [12]

    Crampe, E

    N. Crampe, E. Ragoucy, V. Rittenberg and M. Vanicat,Integrable dissipative exclusion process: Correlation functions and physical properties, Phys. Rev. E94032102 (2016), arXiv:1603.06796

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  13. [13]

    Dabrowski, L

    M. Dabrowski, L. Poulain D’Andecy, and E. Ragoucy,Twisted symmetric exclusion processes and set-theoretical R-matrices, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.59245203 (2026), arXiv:2602.18204

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  14. [14]

    De Masi, E

    A. De Masi, E. Presutti, and E. Scacciatelli,The weakly asymmetric simple exclusion process, Ann. inst. Henri Poincare (B) Probab. Stat.251–38 (1989)

    1989

  15. [15]

    B.Derrida, S.A.Janowsky, J.Lebowitz, andE.SpeerExactsolutionofthetotallyasymmetric simple exclusion process: Shock profiles, J. Stat. Phys.73813–842 (1993)

    1993

  16. [16]

    Derrida, O

    B. Derrida, O. Hirschberg, and T. Sadhu,Large Deviations in the Symmetric Simple Exclusion Process with Slow Boundaries, J. Stat. Phys.182(2020),arXiv:2310.11350

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  17. [17]

    Doikou and A

    A. Doikou and A. Smoktunowicz,Set-theoretic Yang–Baxter and reflection equations and quantum group symmetries, Lett. Math. Phys.111105 (2021),arXiv:2003.08317

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  18. [18]

    Drinfeld,Quantum groups, J

    V. Drinfeld,Quantum groups, J. Sov. Math.41898–915 (1988)

    1988

  19. [19]

    Drinfeld,On some unsolved problems in quantum group theory, Quantum Groups Lect

    V. Drinfeld,On some unsolved problems in quantum group theory, Quantum Groups Lect. Notes Math.15101–8 (1992)

    1992

  20. [20]

    Etingof, T

    P. Etingof, T. Schedler and A. Soloviev,Set-theoretical solutions to the quantum Yang-Baxter equation, Duke Math. J.100(2) 169–209 (1999),arXiv:math/9801047

    arXiv 1999

  21. [21]

    Faddeev, E.K

    L.D. Faddeev, E.K. Sklyanin and L.A. Takhtajan,Quantum inverse problem method. I, Theor. Math. Phys.40688–706 (1979). 32

    1979

  22. [22]

    Faddeev,How algebraic Bethe ansatz works for integrable model, Les Houches Lectures Quantum Symmetries de A

    L.D. Faddeev,How algebraic Bethe ansatz works for integrable model, Les Houches Lectures Quantum Symmetries de A. Connes et al. (Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1998) p. 149, arxiv:hep-th/9605187

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  23. [23]

    Ferrari, E

    P. Ferrari, E. Presutti, E. Scacciatelli, and M. Vares,The symmetric simple exclusion process, I: Probability estimates, Stoch. Process. Their Appl.3989–105 (1991)

    1991

  24. [24]

    Ferrari, E

    P. Ferrari, E. Presutti, E. Scacciatelli, and M. Vares,The symmetric simple exclusion process, II: Applications, Stoch. Process. Their Appl.39107–115 (1991)

    1991

  25. [25]

    Ferrari, L

    P. Ferrari, L. Fontes, and Y. Kohayakawa,Invariant measures for a two-species asymmetric process, J. Stat. Phys.761153–1177 (1994)

    1994

  26. [26]

    Föllmer,Random economies with many interacting agents, J

    H. Föllmer,Random economies with many interacting agents, J. Math. Econ.151–62 (1974)

    1974

  27. [27]

    Giardina, R

    C. Giardina, R. Frassek,Exact solution of an integrable non-equilibrium particle system, J. Math. Phys.63103301 (2022),arXiv:2107.01720

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  28. [28]

    de Gier and F

    J. de Gier and F. Essler,Bethe Ansatz Solution of the Asymmetric Exclusion Process with Open Boundaries, Phys. Rev. Lett.95240601 (2005),cond-mat/0508707

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  29. [29]

    Gateva-Ivanova and M

    T. Gateva-Ivanova and M. Van den Bergh,Semigroups of I-Type, J. Algebra20697–112 (1998),arXiv:math/0308071

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  30. [30]

    Gwa, and H

    L. Gwa, and H. Spohn,Bethe solution for the dynamical-scaling exponent of the noisy Burgers equation, Phys. Rev. A46844–854 (1992)

    1992

  31. [31]

    Golinelli and K

    O. Golinelli and K. Mallick,Bethe ansatz calculation of the spectral gap of the asymmetric exclusion process, J. Phys. A Math. Gen.373321 (2004),arXiv:cond-mat/0312371

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  32. [32]

    Jimbo,A q-difference analogue of U(g) and the Yang-Baxter equation, Lett

    M. Jimbo,A q-difference analogue of U(g) and the Yang-Baxter equation, Lett. Math. Phys. 1063–69 (1985)

    1985

  33. [33]

    V. F. R. Jones,Baxterization, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B4701–713 (1990)

    1990

  34. [34]

    Kadanoff and, J

    L. Kadanoff and, J. Swift,Transport Coefficients near the Critical Point: A Master-Equation Approach, Phys. Rev165310–322 (1968)

    1968

  35. [35]

    Kawasaki,Diffusion Constants near the Critical Point for Time-Dependent Ising Models

    K. Kawasaki,Diffusion Constants near the Critical Point for Time-Dependent Ising Models. I., Phys. Rev.145224–230 (1966)

    1966

  36. [36]

    Kipnis, S

    C. Kipnis, S. Olla, and S. Varadhan,Hydrodynamics and large deviation for simple exclusion processes, Comm. Pure Appl. Math.42115–137 (1989)

    1989

  37. [37]

    Kipnis, C

    C. Kipnis, C. Landim, and S. OllaHydrodynamical limit for a nongradient system: The generalized symmetric exclusion process, Comm. Pure Appl. Math.471475–1545 (1994)

    1994

  38. [38]

    Kipnis, C

    C. Kipnis, C. Landim,Scaling Limits of Interacting Particle Systems, Grundlehren Math. Wiss.3020(1999)

    1999

  39. [39]

    T. M. Liggett,Stochastic Interacting Systems: Contact, Voter and Exclusion Processes, Grundlehren Math. Wiss.324(1999)

    1999

  40. [40]

    T. M. Liggett,Interacting Particle Systems, Classics in Mathematics (2005)

    2005

  41. [41]

    MacDonald, J

    C. MacDonald, J. Gibbs and A. Pipkin,Kinetics of biopolymerization on nucleic acid templates, Biopolymers61–25 (1968). 33

    1968

  42. [42]

    Mallick,The exclusion process: A paradigm for non-equilibrium behaviour, Phys

    K. Mallick,The exclusion process: A paradigm for non-equilibrium behaviour, Phys. A: Stat. Mech. Appl.41817–48 (2015),arXiv:1412.6258

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  43. [43]

    Norris,Markov Chains, Cambridge University Press (2012)

    J. Norris,Markov Chains, Cambridge University Press (2012)

    2012

  44. [44]

    Nagahata, and M

    Y. Nagahata, and M. Sasada,Spectral Gap for Multi-species Exclusion Processes, J. Stat. Phys.143381–398 (2011)

    2011

  45. [45]

    Popkov, M

    V. Popkov, M. Fouladvand, and G. Schütz,A sufficient criterion for integrability of stochas- tic many-body dynamics and quantum spin chains, J. Phys. A.357187–7204 (2002) arXiv:hep-th/0205169

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  46. [46]

    Rump,A decomposition theorem for square-free unitary solutions of the quantum Yang-Baxter equation, Advances in Math.19340–55 (2005)

    W. Rump,A decomposition theorem for square-free unitary solutions of the quantum Yang-Baxter equation, Advances in Math.19340–55 (2005)

    2005

  47. [47]

    Rump,Braces, radical rings, and the quantum Yang–Baxter equation, J

    W. Rump,Braces, radical rings, and the quantum Yang–Baxter equation, J. Algebra307 153–170 (2007)

    2007

  48. [48]

    Sasamoto, and M

    T. Sasamoto, and M. Wadati,Dynamic matrix product ansatz and Bethe ansatz equation for asymmetric exclusion process with periodic boundary, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.66279–282 (1997)

    1997

  49. [49]

    Schelling,Dynamic models of segregation, J

    T. Schelling,Dynamic models of segregation, J. Math. Sociol.1143–186 (1971)

    1971

  50. [50]

    Schütz,Exactly Solvable Models for Many-Body Systems Far from Equilibrium, Ph

    G. Schütz,Exactly Solvable Models for Many-Body Systems Far from Equilibrium, Ph. Transit. Crit. Phenom.191–251 (2001)

    2001

  51. [51]

    Simpson, K

    M. Simpson, K. Landman, and B. Hughes,Multi-species simple exclusion processes, Phys. A: Stat. Mech. Appl.388399–406 (2009)

    2009

  52. [52]

    E. K. Sklyanin,Boundary conditions for integrable quantum systems, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 212375 (1988)

    1988

  53. [53]

    Smoktunowicz, L

    A. Smoktunowicz, L. Vendramin, and R. Weston,Combinatorial solutions to the reflection equation, J. Algebra549268–290 (2020),arXiv:1810.03341

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  54. [54]

    Spitzer,Interaction of Markov processes, Advances in Math.5246–290 (1970)

    F. Spitzer,Interaction of Markov processes, Advances in Math.5246–290 (1970)

    1970

  55. [55]

    Vanicat,An integrabilist approach of out-of-equilibrium statistical physics models, Phd thesis, Laboratoire d’Annecy-le-Vieux de Physique Théorique, 2017,arXiv:1708.02440

    M. Vanicat,An integrabilist approach of out-of-equilibrium statistical physics models, Phd thesis, Laboratoire d’Annecy-le-Vieux de Physique Théorique, 2017,arXiv:1708.02440

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  56. [56]

    Vanicat,Exact Solution to Integrable Open Multi-species SSEP and Macroscopic Fluctu- ation Theory, J

    M. Vanicat,Exact Solution to Integrable Open Multi-species SSEP and Macroscopic Fluctu- ation Theory, J. Stat. Phys.1661129–1150 (2017),arXiv:1610.08388

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  57. [57]

    Yang,Some Exact Results for the Many-Body Problem in one Dimension with Repulsive Delta-Function Interaction, Phys

    C. Yang,Some Exact Results for the Many-Body Problem in one Dimension with Repulsive Delta-Function Interaction, Phys. Rev. Lett.191312–1315 (1967). 34

    1967