Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 55 references

One-point functions in AdS/dCFT: MPS and twisted Yangian

T0 review · 5 major / 4 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 SO(6) sector of the D5-D3 defect, scalar one-point functions are overlaps between matrix product states and Bethe states, and the paper claims these overlaps reduce to transfer-matrix eigenvalues acting on a scalar MPS.

desk verdict Master thesis with a sound but non-novel SU(3) re-derivation and an unfinished SO(6) claim whose branching rules fail as stated; desk-reject. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.15462 v1 pith:BEIFL2FE submitted 2025-07-21 hep-th math-phmath.MPnlin.SI

Xin Qian This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thmath-phmath.MPnlin.SI
keywords AdS/CFTdefectCFTone-pointfunctionsmatrixproductstatestwistedYangianboundaryYang-BaxterequationSO(6)spinchainD5-D3probebrane
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

At stake is a formula for scalar one-point functions in the SO(6) sector of the D5-D3 probe-brane defect: the one-point function of a scalar operator is proportional to the overlap $\langle\text{MPS}|u\rangle$ between a matrix product state and a Bethe eigenstate of the SO(6) spin chain. The central claim is that these matrix product states are not accidental: they solve the twisted boundary Yang-Baxter equation and therefore carry representations of the extended twisted Yangian for the symmetric pair $(\mathrm{SO}(6),\mathrm{SO}(3)\times\mathrm{SO}(3))$. Starting from the scalar MPS $|\text{MPS}_{\delta\pm}\rangle$, the dressing procedure, implemented by acting with transfer matrices or taking coproducts, generates the higher-dimensional MPS, and highest-weight matching via branching rules rewrites the overlap as a limit of a linear combination of transfer-matrix eigenvalues acting on the scalar overlap. If correct, this gives an integrability-based route to one-point functions in the defect CFT and connects the same MPS to integrable initial states in quantum quenches.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the two-site block $\psi(u)$ obtained from the square-root relation associated with integrability of the MPS; it is assembled into the matrix $K(u)$ that satisfies the twisted boundary Yang-Baxter equation. In the $(\mathrm{SO}(6),\mathrm{SO}(3)\times\mathrm{SO}(3))$ case the relevant algebraic object is the extended twisted Yangian $X(\mathfrak{so}_6,\mathfrak{so}_3\oplus\mathfrak{so}_3)$, realized through $S(u)=T(u)K(u)T^t(-u)$, with the isomorphism $X(\mathfrak{so}_6)\to Y(\mathfrak{gl}_4)$ built by the fusion procedure allowing highest weights to be computed in $\mathfrak{gl}_4$ modules. The dressing procedure, acting with transfer matrices or taking coproducts, builds higher representations from the scalar one, and branching rules decide which transfer-matrix eigenvalues appear in the overlap formula.

What would settle it

Decompose the $\mathfrak{gl}_4$ module $L(4,4,0,0)$ into $\mathrm{SO}(3)\times\mathrm{SO}(3)$ representations and check whether $[0,4,0]\oplus[2,1,0]=[2,2,0]\oplus[0,1,0]\oplus(0,4)\oplus(4,0)$ holds; if the identity fails for this value of $s$, the claimed formula collapses. A complementary check is to compute the overlap $\langle\text{MPS}_{2s+1}|u\rangle$ by exact diagonalization for small chain length $L$ and compare with the right-hand side of (7.74), fixing the prefactors by the highest-weight data.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the scalar one-point-function overlap in the SO(6) sector is controlled by a representation-theoretic matching between two descriptions of the same integrable state. On one side, the two-site block $\psi(u)$ of the MPS is a solution of the twisted boundary Yang-Baxter equation, hence a representation of the extended twisted Yangian $X(\mathfrak{so}_6,\mathfrak{so}_3\oplus\mathfrak{so}_3)$; on the other side, the same representation is obtained by dressing the scalar solution $|\text{MPS}_{\delta\pm}\rangle$ with transfer matrices. For integer spin $s$, the paper claims that the higher MPS connects to the scalar state through the combination $\lim_{u\to 0}\big(e(u)T_{(0,s,0)}(a)+f(u)T_{(2,s-3,0)}(b)-g(u)T_{(2,s-2,0)}(c)-h(u)T_{(0,s-3,0)}(d)\big)\langle\text{MPS}_{\delta\pm}|u\rangle$, with prefactors and spectral-parameter shifts left to be fixed, while the half-integer case has the analogous form with four transfer-matrix terms. The argument that selects which transfer matrices appear is the branching rule $[0,s,0]\oplus[2,s-3,0]=[2,s-2,0]\oplus[0,s-3,0]\oplus(0,s)\oplus(s,0)$ and its half-integer analogue.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the branching-rule identity $[0,s,0]\oplus[2,s-3,0]=[2,s-2,0]\oplus[0,s-3,0]\oplus(0,s)\oplus(s,0)$ and its half-integer analogue, stated without proof: if these SO(6)-to-SO(3)$\times$SO(3) decompositions are wrong, the transfer-matrix combination that defines the overlap formula is wrong.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the SO(6) sector, computing scalar one-point functions reduces to evaluating transfer-matrix eigenvalues at fixed spectral-parameter shifts; once the prefactors are fixed, no separate diagonalization of the overlap is needed.
  • The same MPS solves the twisted boundary Yang-Baxter equation, so the one-point-function construction doubles as a construction of integrable initial states for quantum quenches of SO(6)-symmetric spin chains.
  • Dressing and the coproduct make higher-spin and higher-dimensional MPS systematically generated from the scalar MPS $|\text{MPS}_{\delta\pm}\rangle$, so overlaps for all $k=2s+1$ are controlled by the scalar overlap and the transfer matrices $T_{(a,b,c)}$.
  • The branching rules select a finite set of transfer-matrix terms, so the claimed overlap formula is a finite sum rather than a nested thermodynamic Bethe ansatz expression.
  • The method is presented as applicable beyond one-point functions in probe-brane systems, including non-equilibrium settings where the same MPS appear as integrable states after a quench.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the undetermined prefactors and shifts in (7.74) can be fixed by a systematic highest-weight comparison, the same decomposition should hold for arbitrary chain length $L$, and a small-$L$ exact diagonalization of the MPS overlap would confirm or refute it without invoking representation theory.
  • The invented highest-weight definition for $X(\mathfrak{so}_6,\mathfrak{so}_3\oplus\mathfrak{so}_3)$ and the branching rules are the main points to check; if they survive, the method likely generalizes to other symmetric pairs $(\mathrm{SO}(N),\mathrm{SO}(D)\times\mathrm{SO}(N-D))$, whose scalar solutions are already written down in Section 5.4.
  • A testable extension is to apply the same dressing logic to non-equilibrium settings: the overlap $\langle\text{MPS}|u\rangle$ is exactly the quantity that sets the post-quench steady state, so the formula would predict time-averaged one-point functions after a quench from $|\text{MPS}_{\delta\pm}\rangle$.
  • The paper leaves the interpretation of the quotient representations in the branchings open; a cleaner algebraic statement of which irreducible $X(\mathfrak{so}_6,\mathfrak{so}_3\oplus\mathfrak{so}_3)$ modules appear would turn the formula into a complete statement rather than a matching with parameters still to be fixed.
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

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript, based on a master's thesis, surveys integrability techniques for spin chains and applies them to one-point functions in the D5-D3 defected N=4 SYM setup. It reviews coordinate and algebraic Bethe ansatz, Gaudin determinants, and the mapping between matrix product states and Bethe states. The SU(3) overlap formula is rederived via the twisted Yangian highest-weight matching, reproducing known results. The central new claim is an SO(6) overlap formula in which the scalar MPS overlap is expressed through a combination of transfer-matrix eigenvalues, obtained by matching representations of an extended twisted Yangian. The manuscript explicitly states in Chapter 1 that the SO(6) sector is unfinished, and the final formulas contain undetermined prefactors and spectral shifts.

Significance. If completed and correct, the SO(6) result would extend the AdS/dCFT one-point function program from SU(3) to the full scalar sector and would illustrate the use of extended twisted Yangians in computing overlaps with Bethe states. The review portions (coordinate and algebraic Bethe ansatz, Gaudin matrix, SU(3) overlap) are useful pedagogically and are internally consistent, though they largely reproduce existing results and cite the original references. The paper does not provide machine-checked proofs or reproducible code. The advertised SO(6) formula, however, is not actually derived: it depends on unproved and locally invalid branching rules, an invented highest-weight definition, and undetermined parameters. In its current form the manuscript does not establish the central claim.

major comments (5)
  1. [§7.3, Eq. (7.70)] The branching rule [0,s,0] ⊕ [2,s−3,0] = [2,s−2,0] ⊕ [0,s−3,0] ⊕ (0,s) ⊕ (s,0) is stated for s > 0 without proof or citation, but it is not a valid decomposition in the representation ring for small s: at s=1 the right-hand side contains [2,−2,0] and [0,−2,0], and at s=2 it contains [2,−1,0] and [0,−1,0], all with negative Dynkin labels, so they are not finite-dimensional su(4) representations. Since this relation determines which transfer matrices appear in the central overlap formula (7.74), the failure of the branching rule invalidates the advertised SO(6) formula.
  2. [§7.3, Eq. (7.75)] The half-integer branching rule [0,s−1/2,0]⊗(1/2,0) ⊕ [1,s−5/2,0]⊗(0,1/2) = [1,s−3/2,0]⊗(0,1/2) ⊕ [0,s−5/2,0]⊗(1/2,0) ⊕ (s,0) suffers the same problem: for s=1/2 it yields [1,−2,0] and [0,−1,0], which are not valid finite-dimensional representations. No proof or reference is supplied, and this rule is load-bearing for the half-integer overlap formula (7.77).
  3. [§7.1.4, Eq. (7.36)] The highest-weight module definition for X(so6, so3⊕so3) is introduced by inspection of the classical algebra and is labeled 'invent' in the text. It removes the annihilation condition for (i,j)=(−1,1) and assigns separate eigenvalues to s_{1,−1} and s_{−1,1}, but this is not derived from the extended twisted Yangian commutation relations or from the isomorphism with Y(gl4). The highest-weight matching in §7.2 relies directly on this definition, so the representation-theoretic identification between the dressed scalar solution and the MPS is not established.
  4. [§7.3, Eqs. (7.74) and (7.77)] The claimed SO(6) overlap formulas are not complete formulas: the prefactors e(u), f(u), g(u), h(u) (and α(u), β(u), γ(u), δ(u)) and the spectral shifts a,b,c,d (and p,q,r,x) are all left undetermined. The text states that only one prefactor can be fixed and that the rest 'probably can be fixed by comparing the highest weight.' As written, the formulas are therefore an ansatz rather than a derivation, and the central result of the paper is not defined.
  5. [Chapter 1 and Chapter 7] The manuscript explicitly announces in the introduction that Chapter 7 presents 'the unfinished work in full SO(6) sector,' and the body of Chapter 7 reiterates that parameters remain to be fixed and that the highest-weight definition is invented. This is not a presentation issue: it means the main new claim is presented as incomplete and cannot be accepted as a finished result in a journal submission.
minor comments (4)
  1. [General] The text contains numerous typographical and grammatical errors, including inconsistent terminology ('ansatz' vs 'anzatz', 'notion' for 'notation'), and would benefit from careful proofreading.
  2. [§6.4.2] The section title 'Even k=2s+1' is confusing because k=2s+1 is odd for integer s; the actual distinction is between integer and half-integer s, and the title should be changed accordingly.
  3. [§7.3] The branching rules (7.70) and (7.75) are central to the derivation, yet no reference is given for them. Even if corrected, they should be accompanied by a proof or a precise citation to a standard representation-theory source.
  4. [§5.1.1] The integrability condition for MPS is stated as a definition, but the equivalence with the vanishing of odd conserved charges would benefit from a more explicit derivation, especially given that this is one of the conceptual pillars of the paper.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Central SO(6) overlap formula (7.74) is a term-by-term transcription of the asserted, unproved branching rule (7.70), whose small-s instances carry negative Dynkin labels; with all prefactors left unfixed, the advertised result restates its own input.

  1. self definitional [Section 7.3.1, Eqs. (7.70) and (7.74)]
    "Using the branching rules, we have found the following relation [0, s, 0] ⊕ [2, s − 3, 0] = [2, s − 2, 0] ⊕ [0, s − 3, 0] ⊕ (0, s) ⊕ (s, 0), for s > 0. ... Hence for higher spin ⟨MPS 2s+1|u⟩ = lim_{u→0} ( e(u)T(0,s,0)(a) + f (u)T(2,s−3,0)(b) − g(u)T(2,s−2,0)(c) − h(u)T(0,s−3,0)(d) ) ⟨MPSδ±|u⟩, (7.74)"

    Eq. (7.74) — the advertised SO(6) overlap formula — is not obtained from the twisted-Yangian analysis of Sec. 7.2; it is a one-to-one transcription of the asserted branching rule (7.70), each A3 Dynkin label being replaced by the transfer matrix with the same labels and sign, with the (0,s)⊕(s,0) components absorbed into the scalar MPS states. The branching rule is stated without proof or citation, and as written it is not a valid decomposition: for s=1 the RHS contains [2,−2,0] and [0,−2,0]; for s=2, [2,−1,0] and [0,−1,0]; (7.75) likewise gives [1,−2,0] and [0,−1,0] at s=1/2 — negative Dynkin labels, not finite-dimensional su(4) representations. The paper concedes that the prefactors e,f,g,h and shifts a,b,c,d are unfixed.

  2. other [Section 7.1.4, Eq. (7.36); Section 7.2.2, Eq. (7.59)]
    "Such definition turns out doesn't work for our X(so6, so3 ⊗ so3) case. We are going to 'invent' one for X(so6, so3 ⊗ so3) by inspecting the classical algebra. ... As one can show that the highest weights of higher dimensional two site solutions from BYB and the highest weights of the corresponding dressing scalar solutions from BYB will only differ by a pure function of rapidity parameter u, if we choose the transformation matrix Eq. (7.14)."

    Section 7.2.2 matches four highest-weight functions of the MPS solution (7.47) with those of the dressed scalar solution (7.54)–(7.67) and concludes S(u) = −½u²(u+1)S^D(u) (7.59). What counts as a 'highest weight representation' here is not imported from the cited literature: the paper 'invent[s]' the definition (7.36), exempting (i,j)=(−1,1) from the annihilation conditions, and chooses (7.14) so that the two sides' weights 'will only differ by a pure function of rapidity.' The weight comparison is a genuine calculation, but the equivalence it establishes is conditioned on a representation notion constructed — by the paper's own account — to make that equivalence hold.

full rationale

Chapters 5–6 are not circular. In Chapter 5 the MPS blocks are built from an ansatz and the paper derives sq.r.r. ⇔ integrability (5.14) and sq.r.r. ⇒ BYB (5.32), so the abstract's claim that the MPS solve the twisted BYB is a verified property of a constructed object. Chapter 6 announces that it 'reproduce[s] the derivation of SU(3) sector [16]', imports the scalar overlap (6.76) from [16] as external input, and its final ratio (6.77) agrees with the independent known formula (4.20); reproducing and checking a known result is not circular. The circularity is confined to the SO(6) chapter, which the paper itself calls 'unfinished work'. There, the advertised formula (7.74) is obtained by transcribing the asserted branching rule (7.70) term by term into transfer matrices; the rule is neither proved nor cited, is invalid as stated for s=1,2 and s=1/2 (negative Dynkin labels such as [2,−2,0], [0,−2,0], [2,−1,0], [1,−2,0]), and the prefactors e,f,g,h and shifts a,b,c,d are left unfixed ('we need to fix a, b, c, d'). Hence the prediction reduces by construction to its own unproven input. Secondary: the highest-weight definition (7.36) for X(so6,so3⊕so3) is explicitly invented and the transformation (7.14) is chosen so the matching works, so the relation (7.59) is partly definitional, though the weight computations themselves are honest and the paper flags the construction as an invention/conjecture. The scalar overlaps imported from [16] (Eqs. (6.76), (7.72)) cannot be checked for author overlap because the bibliography was truncated in review; in any case they serve as an external benchmark and do not create a loop. Per the review rule, the paper's own limitation statements — 'unfinished work', 'one can conjecture', 'One can only fix one of the pre-factor' — are weighed here: they mitigate overclaiming but do not remove the reduction-by-construction of (7.74) to (7.70). The negative-Dynkin defect is best classified as a correctness risk rather than as circularity by itself. Overall: genuine independent content in Chapters 5–6 and in the BYB/Yangian identification, but the central SO(6) overlap formula restates its asserted input, so the analysis is partially circular: score 5.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central SO(6) claim rests on unproved branching rules, an invented module definition, and undetermined overlap prefactors. The SU(3) derivation rests on two unproved irreducibility conjectures and imports the scalar overlap from [16].

free parameters (2)
  • Prefactors e(u), f(u), g(u), h(u) in Eq. (7.74) = unspecified
    The SO(6) overlap formula is written as a linear combination of four transfer-matrix eigenvalues with functions e(u), f(u), g(u), h(u). The text states: 'One can only fix one of the pre-factor (i.e. T(0,s,0)), the rest probably can be fixed by compare the highest weight.' These are undetermined parameters that the claimed result depends on.
  • Spectral shifts a, b, c, d (integer spin) and p, q, r, x (half-integer spin) = unspecified
    Section 7.3 states: 'we need to fix a, b, c, d by the eigenvalue of the transfer matrix.' The overlap formulas (7.74) and (7.77) depend on these shift parameters, which are not determined by any derivation in the paper.
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper Conjecture 1: L(s,s,2) is an irreducible module of the twisted Yangian Y+(3) for all s > 1.
    Stated without proof in Section 6.3.1 and used in the SU(3) dressing decomposition; no citation or argument is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper Conjecture 2: L(s,s,3/2) ⊗ V(1/2) is an irreducible module of Y+(3) for all s ∈ Z+ + 1/2.
    Stated without proof in Section 6.4.2 and needed for the even-k overlap derivation.
  • domain assumption Branching rules (7.70) and (7.75) for the gl4 modules under SO(3) × SO(3).
    Section 7.3 states 'Using the branching rules, we have found' and gives the decompositions without proof or citation. The SO(6) overlap formula depends on these rules.
  • ad hoc to paper Invented highest-weight module definition for X(so6, so3 ⊕ so3) given by Eq. (7.36).
    Section 7.1.4 says the formal definition 'turns out doesn't work for our case' and that the authors will 'invent' one by inspecting the classical algebra. The highest-weight matching in Section 7.2 uses this definition.
  • domain assumption Scalar MPS overlap formula (6.76): ⟨MPSδ|u⟩/⟨u|u⟩ = sqrt(Q1(0)Q1(1/2) / (Q bar2(0) Q bar2(1/2))) sqrt(det G+ / det G-).
    Taken from [16] as input; not derived in this thesis. It is used to produce the final SU(3) overlap formula.
invented entities (1)
  • New highest-weight module structure for the extended twisted Yangian X(so6, so3 ⊕ so3)
    purpose: To identify the dressed scalar solution with the higher-dimensional MPS and to derive the SO(6) overlap formula.
    Section 7.1.4: 'We are going to "invent" one for X(so6, so3 ⊕ so3) by inspecting the classical algebra.' No falsifiable prediction is provided; the construction is chosen to make the highest-weight matching work.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of One-point functions in AdS/dCFT: MPS and twisted Yangian." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BEIFL2FE

@misc{pith2026250715462,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: One-point functions in AdS/dCFT: MPS and twisted Yangian},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BEIFL2FE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.15462}
}
abstract

I focus on the scalar one-point functions in SO(6) sector of D5-D3 probe-brane set-up. Start with a general introduction of integrability, I explore both coordinate Bethe ansatz and algebraic Bethe ansatz, with possible generalization. I then shortly review how to use the Bethe ansatz in $N = 4$ super Yang-Mills theory, and then apply such procedure to the D5-D3 system. The dual field theory of such system corresponds to a defected version of $N = 4$ super Yang-Mills theory, where the one-point functions of certain scalars are non-zero. The calculation of one-point functions is mapped to the overlap between matrix product states and Bethe states. The matrix product states are found to be solutions of the twisted Boundary Yang-Baxter equation, and equivalently the representations of extended twisted Yangian. By dressing procedure or coproduct property, we can connect the scalar matrix product state and higher dimension matrix product states. We have used the branching rules to find the connection with some detailed parameters needed to be fixed. Such method can not only be used for calculations of one-point functions in probe-branes system, but also shed some light on non-equilibrium system.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [16]

    Spin chain overlaps and the twisted Yangian

    Marius de Leeuw, Tamás Gombor, Charlotte Kristjansen, Georgios Linardopoulos, and Balázs Pozsgay. Spin chain overlaps and the twisted Yangian. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2020(1), jan 2020. doi: 10.1007/jhep01(2020)176. URL https://doi. org/10.1007%2Fjhep01%282020%29176

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep01(2020)176 2020

  2. [1]

    International Journal of Theoretical Physics , 38(4):1113–1133,

    Juan Maldacena. International Journal of Theoretical Physics , 38(4):1113–1133,

    work page

  3. [2]

    Beisert, C

    N. Beisert, C. Kristjansen, and M. Staudacher. The dilatation operator of con- formal super-yang–mills theory. Nuclear Physics B , 664(1-2):131–184, aug 2003. doi: 10.1016/s0550-3213(03)00406-1. URL https://doi.org/10.1016% 2Fs0550-3213%2803%2900406-1

    work page doi:10.1016/s0550-3213(03)00406-1 2003

  4. [3]

    Alday, Zoltán Bajnok, James M

    Niklas Beisert, Changrim Ahn, Luis F. Alday, Zoltán Bajnok, James M. Drum- mond, Lisa Freyhult, Nikolay Gromov, Romuald A. Janik, Vladimir Kazakov, Thomas Klose, Gregory P. Korchemsky, Charlotte Kristjansen, Marc Magro, Tristan McLough- lin, Joseph A. Minahan, Rafael I. Nepomechie, Adam Rej, Radu Roiban, Sakura Schäfer-Nameki, Christoph Sieg, Matthias Sta...

    work page

  5. [4]

    EPFL Lectures on Conformal Field Theory in D ≥ 3 Dimensions

    Slava Rychkov. EPFL Lectures on Conformal Field Theory in D ≥ 3 Dimensions . Springer International Publishing, 2017. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-43626-5. URL https://doi.org/10.1007%2F978-3-319-43626-5

    doi:10.1007/978-3-319-43626-5 2017

  6. [5]

    The Bethe-ansatz for N = 4 super Yang- Mills

    Joseph A Minahan and Konstantin Zarembo. The Bethe-ansatz for N = 4 super Yang- Mills. Journal of High Energy Physics , 2003(03):013–013, mar 2003. doi: 10.1088/ 1126-6708/2003/03/013. URL https://doi.org/10.1088%2F1126-6708% 2F2003%2F03%2F013

    work page 2003

  7. [6]

    Introduction to Integrability, HS 2016

    Niklas Beisert. Introduction to Integrability, HS 2016. URL https://people. phys.ethz.ch/~nbeisert/lectures/Int-16HS-Notes.pdf

    work page 2016

  8. [7]

    C. N. Yang. Some exact results for the many-body problem in one dimension with repulsive delta-function interaction. Phys. Rev. Lett., 19:1312–1315, Dec 1967. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.19.1312. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.19.1312

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.19.1312 1967

Show all 55 references
  1. [8]

    Partition function of the eight-vertex lattice model

    Rodney J Baxter. Partition function of the eight-vertex lattice model. Annals of Physics, 70(1):193–228, 1972. ISSN 0003-4916. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-4916(72) 90335-1. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/0003491672903351

    1972

  2. [9]

    Zabrodin

    A. Zabrodin. Discrete hirota's equation in quantum integrable models. In- ternational Journal of Modern Physics B , 11(26n27):3125–3158, oct 1997. doi: 10.1142/s0217979297001520. URL https://doi.org/10.1142% 2Fs0217979297001520. BIBLIOGRAPHY 110

    1997 doi

  3. [10]

    Restricted solid-on-solid models connected with simply laced algebras and conformal field theory

    V V Bazhanov and N Reshetikhin. Restricted solid-on-solid models connected with simply laced algebras and conformal field theory. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General, 23(9):1477–1492, may 1990. doi: 10.1088/0305-4470/23/9/012. URL https://doi.org/10.1088/0305-4470/23/9/012

    1990 doi

  4. [11]

    T-systems and y-systems in inte- grable systems

    Atsuo Kuniba, Tomoki Nakanishi, and Junji Suzuki. T-systems and y-systems in inte- grable systems. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical , 44(10):103001, feb 2011. doi: 10.1088/1751-8113/44/10/103001. URL https://doi.org/10. 1088%2F1751-8113%2F44%2F10%2F103001

    2011 doi

  5. [12]

    Open and closed string interpretation of SUSY CFT's on branes with boundaries

    Andreas Karch and Lisa Randall. Open and closed string interpretation of SUSY CFT's on branes with boundaries. Journal of High Energy Physics , 2001(06):063–063, jun

    2001

  6. [13]

    de Leeuw, A

    M. de Leeuw, A. C. Ipsen, C. Kristjansen, and M. Wilhelm. Introduction to Integrability and One-point Functions in N = 4 SYM and its Defect Cousin, 2017. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/1708.02525

    2017 arXiv

  7. [14]

    AdS/dCFT one-point func- tions of the SU(3) sector

    Marius de Leeuw, Charlotte Kristjansen, and Stefano Mori. AdS/dCFT one-point func- tions of the SU(3) sector. Physics Letters B , 763:197–202, dec 2016. doi: 10.1016/ j.physletb.2016.10.044. URL https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.physletb. 2016.10.044

    2016

  8. [15]

    Integrable matrix product states from boundary integrability

    Balázs Pozsgay, Lorenzo Piroli, and Eric Vernier. Integrable matrix product states from boundary integrability. SciPost Physics, 6(5), may 2019. doi: 10.21468/scipostphys.6. 5.062. URL https://doi.org/10.21468%2Fscipostphys.6.5.062

    2019 doi

  9. [17]

    Introduction to Integrability – FS 2013, FS

    Marius de Leeuw and Constantin Candu. Introduction to Integrability – FS 2013, FS

    2013

  10. [18]

    L. D. Faddeev. How Algebraic Bethe Ansatz works for integrable model, 1996. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9605187

    1996 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Vladimir E. Korepin. Calculation of norms of bethe wave functions. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 86:391–418, 1982

    1982

  12. [20]

    Calculation of scalar products of wave functions and form factors in the framework of the alcebraic bethe ansatz

    Nikita Andreevich Slavnov. Calculation of scalar products of wave functions and form factors in the framework of the alcebraic bethe ansatz. Theoretical and Mathematical Physics, 79:502–508, 1989

    1989

  13. [21]

    Calculation of the norm of bethe vectors in models with su(3)- symmetry

    Nikolai Reshetikhin. Calculation of the norm of bethe vectors in models with su(3)- symmetry. Journal of Soviet Mathematics, 46:1694–1706, 1989

    1989

  14. [22]

    Integrability in AdS/CFT: Exacts Results for Correlation Functions,

    Escobed Jorge. Integrability in AdS/CFT: Exacts Results for Correlation Functions,

  15. [23]

    Schwarz, and J

    Lars Brink, John H. Schwarz, and J. Scherk. Supersymmetric Yang-Mills theories. Nuclear Physics B , 121(1):77–92, 1977. ISSN 0550-3213. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1016/0550-3213(77)90328-5. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/0550321377903285. BIBLIOGRAPHY 111

    1977

  16. [24]

    A brief introduction to the Bethe ansatz in super-Yang–Mills

    Joseph A Minahan. A brief introduction to the Bethe ansatz in super-Yang–Mills. Jour- nal of Physics A: Mathematical and General, 39(41):12657–12677, sep 2006. doi: 10. 1088/0305-4470/39/41/s02. URL https://doi.org/10.1088/0305-4470/ 39/41/s02

    2006 doi

  17. [25]

    The complete one-loop dilatation operator of super-yang–mills theory

    Niklas Beisert. The complete one-loop dilatation operator of super-yang–mills theory. Nuclear Physics B , 676(1-2):3–42, jan 2004. doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2003.10.019. URL https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.nuclphysb.2003.10.019

    2004 doi

  18. [26]

    Freedman, and Hirosi Ooguri

    Oliver DeWolfe, Daniel Z. Freedman, and Hirosi Ooguri. Holography and defect con- formal field theories. Phys. Rev. D , 66:025009, Jul 2002. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD. 66.025009. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.66. 025009

    2002 doi

  19. [27]

    Constable, Robert C

    Neil R. Constable, Robert C. Myers, and Øyvind Tafjord. Noncommutative bion core. Physical Review D, 61(10), apr 2000. doi: 10.1103/physrevd.61.106009. URLhttps: //doi.org/10.1103%2Fphysrevd.61.106009

    2000 doi

  20. [28]

    One-point functions in AdS/dCFT from matrix product states

    Isak Buhl-Mortensen, Marius de Leeuw, Charlotte Kristjansen, and Konstantin Zarembo. One-point functions in AdS/dCFT from matrix product states. Journal of High Energy Physics , 2016(2), feb 2016. doi: 10.1007/jhep02(2016)052. URL https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fjhep02%282016%29052

    2016 doi

  21. [29]

    Scalar one-point functions and matrix product states of AdS/dCFT

    Marius de Leeuw, Charlotte Kristjansen, and Georgios Linardopoulos. Scalar one-point functions and matrix product states of AdS/dCFT. Physics Letters B, 781:238–243, jun

  22. [30]

    Tarasov, L.A

    V .O. Tarasov, L.A. Takhtadzhyan, and L.D Faddeev. Local Hamiltonians for integrable quantum models on a lattice. Theoretical and Mathematical Physics , 57:1059–1073, nov 1983. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01018648

    1983 doi

  23. [31]

    Lectures on Yangian symmetry

    Florian Loebbert. Lectures on Yangian symmetry. Journal of Physics A: Math- ematical and Theoretical , 49(32):323002, jul 2016. doi: 10.1088/1751-8113/49/ 32/323002. URL https://doi.org/10.1088%2F1751-8113%2F49%2F32% 2F323002

    2016 doi

  24. [32]

    What is an integrable quench? Nu- clear Physics B, 925:362–402, dec 2017

    Lorenzo Piroli, Balázs Pozsgay, and Eric Vernier. What is an integrable quench? Nu- clear Physics B, 925:362–402, dec 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2017.10.012. URL https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.nuclphysb.2017.10.012

    2017 doi

  25. [33]

    I. V . Cherednik. Factorizing particles on a half-line and root systems. Theoreti- cal and Mathematical Physics , 61:977–983, oct 1984. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/ BF01038545

    1984

  26. [34]

    Boundary S matrix and boundary state in two-dimensional integrable quantum field theory

    Subir Ghoshal and Alexander Zamolodchikov. Boundary S matrix and boundary state in two-dimensional integrable quantum field theory. International Journal of Modern Physics A , 09(21):3841–3885, aug 1994. doi: 10.1142/s0217751x94001552. URL https://doi.org/10.1142%2Fs0217751x94001552

    1994 doi

  27. [35]

    Molev, M

    A. Molev, M. Nazarov, and G. Olshanskii. Yangians and classical lie algebras

  28. [36]

    Yangians and Classical Lie Algebras

    Alexander Molev. Yangians and Classical Lie Algebras. American Mathematical Soci- ety, 2007. BIBLIOGRAPHY 112

    2007

  29. [37]

    Lie Algebras and Applications, Lecture Notes in Physics

    Francesco Iachello. Lie Algebras and Applications, Lecture Notes in Physics. Springer, 2006

    2006

  30. [38]

    Twisted Yangians for symmetric pairs of types B, C, D

    Nicolas Guay and Vidas Regelskis. Twisted Yangians for symmetric pairs of types B, C, D. Mathematische Zeitschrift , 284(1-2):131–166, apr 2016. doi: 10.1007/s00209-016-1649-2. URL https://doi.org/10.1007% 2Fs00209-016-1649-2

    2016 doi

  31. [39]

    Representations of twisted yangians of types B, C, D: I

    Nicolas Guay, Vidas Regelskis, and Curtis Wendlandt. Representations of twisted yangians of types B, C, D: I. Selecta Mathematica , 23(3):2071–2156, jan

  32. [40]

    Representations of twisted yangians of types B, C, D: II

    Nicolas Guay, Vidas Regelskis, and Curtis Wendlandt. Representations of twisted yangians of types B, C, D: II. Transformation Groups , 24(4):1015–1066, feb

  33. [41]

    Long-range Bethe ansätze for gauge theory and strings

    Niklas Beisert and Matthias Staudacher. Long-range Bethe ansätze for gauge theory and strings. Nuclear Physics B, 727(1-2):1–62, oct 2005. doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2005.06

    2005 doi

  34. [42]

    Introduction to the nested algebraic bethe ansatz

    Nikita Slavnov. Introduction to the nested algebraic bethe ansatz. SciPost Physics Lecture Notes, sep 2020. doi: 10.21468/scipostphyslectnotes.19. URL https:// doi.org/10.21468%2Fscipostphyslectnotes.19

    2020 doi

  35. [43]

    Kulish and Nikolai Reshetikhin

    Petr P. Kulish and Nikolai Reshetikhin. Diagonalisation of gl(n) invariant transfer ma- trices and quantum n-wave system (lee model). Journal of Physics A, 16, 1983

    1983

  36. [44]

    Generalized gibbs ensemble and string-charge relations in nested bethe ansatz

    Gyorgy Fehér and Balázs Pozsgay. Generalized gibbs ensemble and string-charge relations in nested bethe ansatz. SciPost Physics, 8(3), mar 2020. doi: 10.21468/ scipostphys.8.3.034. URL https://doi.org/10.21468%2Fscipostphys. 8.3.034

    2020

  37. [45]

    On the R-Matrix Realization of Yangians and their Representations

    Daniel Arnaudon, Alexander Molev, and Eric Ragoucy. On the R-Matrix Realization of Yangians and their Representations. Annales Henri Poincaré , 7(7-8):1269–1325, nov 2006. doi: 10.1007/s00023-006-0281-9. URL https://doi.org/10.1007% 2Fs00023-006-0281-9

    2006 doi

  38. [51]

    URL https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.nuclphysb.2005.06.038

    2005

  39. [1994]

    URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/hep-th/9409025

    doi: 10.48550/ARXIV .HEP-TH/9409025. URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/hep-th/9409025

    doi

  40. [1999]

    URL https://doi.org/10.1023%2Fa% 3A1026654312961

    doi: 10.1023/a:1026654312961. URL https://doi.org/10.1023%2Fa% 3A1026654312961

    doi

  41. [2001]

    URL https://doi.org/10.1088% 2F1126-6708%2F2001%2F06%2F063

    doi: 10.1088/1126-6708/2001/06/063. URL https://doi.org/10.1088% 2F1126-6708%2F2001%2F06%2F063

    2001 doi

  42. [2011]

    URL https://doi.org/10.1007% 2Fs11005-011-0529-2

    doi: 10.1007/s11005-011-0529-2. URL https://doi.org/10.1007% 2Fs11005-011-0529-2

    doi

  43. [2012]

    URL http://hdl.handle.net/10012/6788

  44. [2013]

    URL https://edu.itp.phys.ethz.ch/fs13/int/SpinChains. pdf

  45. [2017]

    URL https://doi.org/10.1007% 2Fs00029-017-0306-x

    doi: 10.1007/s00029-017-0306-x. URL https://doi.org/10.1007% 2Fs00029-017-0306-x

    doi

  46. [2018]

    URL https://doi.org/10.1016% 2Fj.physletb.2018.03.083

    doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.03.083. URL https://doi.org/10.1016% 2Fj.physletb.2018.03.083

    2018 doi

  47. [2019]

    URL https://doi.org/10.1007% 2Fs00031-019-09514-x

    doi: 10.1007/s00031-019-09514-x. URL https://doi.org/10.1007% 2Fs00031-019-09514-x

    doi

Pith tools

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