More on Slavnov Products of Spin Chains and KP Hierarchy Tau Functions

Thiago Araujo

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 27 references

More on Slavnov Products of Spin Chains and KP Hierarchy Tau Functions

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The normalized Slavnov product is a KP hierarchy tau function.

desk verdict A serious gap in the central claim, but enough new formulas that a referee could usefully force a fix. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.21166 v1 pith:BNADULYM submitted 2025-05-27 hep-th math-phmath.MPnlin.SI

Thiago Araujo This is my paper

classification hep-thmath-phmath.MPnlin.SI MSC 81T4081U1582B2082B2182B23

keywords SlavnovproductalgebraicBetheansatzKPhierarchytaufunctionalternantdeterminantBaker-AkhiezerWronskianstates

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to establish a general bridge from quantum integrable spin chains to the classical KP hierarchy: under the determinant-representation conditions studied in [16], the normalized Slavnov product, written as an alternant determinant divided by a Vandermonde product, is a tau function of the KP hierarchy. This matters because Slavnov products are the building blocks of correlation functions and Bethe-state norms, so identifying them with KP tau functions imports the full machinery of classical integrable systems into the algebraic Bethe ansatz. The paper proves the identification for rational models, shows the homogeneous limit is a Wronskian of transfer-matrix eigenvalue data, and derives a closed determinantal formula for the associated Baker–Akhiezer function. It also conjectures that an underlying multicomponent KP hierarchy is reduced by the Belliard–Slavnov linear system.

What carries the argument

The central object is the normalized Slavnov product, an alternant determinant: an $n\times n$ determinant of functions $\Omega_j(z)=Y_j(z)/(z-v_j)$ evaluated at $n$ spectral parameters, divided by the Vandermonde determinant $\Delta(z)$. Here $Y_j(z)$ is the transfer-matrix eigenvalue factor with the $j$-th Bethe root removed, so the whole ratio is built from Bethe-ansatz data. The load-bearing mechanism is the proposition that ratios of this alternant form satisfy the KP bilinear identity for generic functions; the paper then puts that mechanism to work by expanding along a single column (Laplace expansion) to get a basis of smaller tau functions, by coalescing all spectral parameters to obtain a Wronskian limit, and by applying the Japanese formula to obtain the Baker–Akhiezer function.

What would settle it

Compute the explicit $n=3$ normalized Slavnov product from Section 5.2 and substitute it into the bilinear identity of the KP hierarchy at generic values of the spectral parameters $z_j$ and Bethe roots $v_j$; since the tau function is rational, this is a finite algebraic check, and a single nonzero evaluation would disprove the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the normalized Slavnov product of Bethe states, $$\$tau^{{(\ell)}}$($z^{{(\ell)}}$,v) = \frac{\det[\Omega_j($z^{{(\ell)}}$_k)]_{j,k=1}^n}{\$\Delta$($z^{{(\ell)}}$)}, \qquad \Omega_j(z) = \frac{Y_j(z)}{z-v_j},$$ is a tau function of the KP hierarchy for every $\ell=1,\ldots,n+1$, whenever the transfer matrix of the spin chain has the triangular action (3a)-(3b) that produces the determinant representation of the scalar products. The proof strategy is to recognize (34) as an instance of the general alternant ratio $\det[\phi_i(w_j)]/\Delta(w)$, which the cited literature shows satisfies the bilinear identity of the KP hierarchy, and then to derive the consequences: a basis expansion in smaller tau functions, a Wronskian formula for the homogeneous limit, and a closed determinantal formula for the associated Baker–Akhiezer function obtained through the Japanese formula.

Load-bearing premise

The whole conclusion rests on the unproved assertion that an alternant ratio $\det[\phi_i(w_j)]/\Delta(w)$ is a KP tau function for essentially arbitrary functions $\phi_i$, whereas the specific functions $\Omega_j(z)=Y_j(z)/(z-v_j)$ have asymptotic behaviour that falls outside the class covered by the references cited for that assertion.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For any rational spin chain meeting the determinant-representation conditions, the Slavnov product automatically satisfies the full KP hierarchy, not just a single bilinear identity.
The Slavnov product can be written as a linear combination (43) of smaller alternant tau functions $\tilde\tau_j$, each independent of the singled-out parameter $z_l$; these form a basis for the space of Slavnov products.
The homogeneous limit of the tau function is the Wronskian $W[Y_1,\ldots,Y_n](w)/\prod_{k=1}^n(w-v_k)$, so the transfer-matrix eigenvalue data alone determine the condensed limit.
The Baker–Akhiezer function has the closed form $\psi(t,v;\lambda)=e^{\xi(t,\lambda)}\det(1+\lambda^{-1}M)$, which makes the thermodynamic limit accessible as a Fredholm determinant.
If the paper's conjecture holds, the linear system (37) is a reduction of an underlying multicomponent KP hierarchy, constraining relations among the parameter sets of the different tau functions.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper does not test whether the same classification extends to models with elliptic R-matrices, for which determinant scalar-product formulas are known; checking the KP bilinear identity for those determinants is a direct next experiment.
The finite-dimensional matrix $M$ in the Baker–Akhiezer formula suggests a concrete numerical route to the thermodynamic limit: compute $M$ for increasing $n$ and look for convergence of $\det(1+\lambda^{-1}M)$ to a Fredholm determinant.
One implication the author leaves implicit is that any determinant representation obtained from the triangular transfer-matrix action (3a)-(3b) should automatically carry the whole KP hierarchy, not just the single bilinear identity; verifying this on another model would be a clean consistency test.
The multicomponent KP conjecture could be probed before a proof: if the vector of tau functions came from one multicomponent KP tau function, its components would satisfy additional bilinear relations beyond the scalar KP identity.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Let me give you the bottom line: the paper's main result, that the normalized Slavnov product (34) is a KP tau function, is not proven. The author cites a 'well documented' fact about alternants, then concedes in the very next paragraph that the Omega_j functions have asymptotic behavior outside the cited class. That admission is not accompanied by a substitute proof of the Hirota bilinear equations, so the central identification rests on an assertion, not a derivation.

That said, the paper is not empty. The homogeneous limit formula (47e), expressing the limit as a Wronskian divided by a product, is genuinely new, as is the Baker-Akhiezer representation (87) in terms of det(1 + M/lambda). The basis expansion in Section 3.2 is a nice way to organize residues. These are useful identities in their own right, and the integral representation in Proposition 2 is a clean determinant computation. But note that all of these inherit the unproven tau-function property because they are derived from (34). If the tau property fails, they are just determinant identities, not statements about KP.

The paper is also honest about its limitations: it explicitly flags the mismatch with the literature, and the multicomponent-KP idea is clearly labeled as a conjecture. The Belliard-Slavnov material is well reviewed, and the notation is carefully set up, though the writing is rough in places (typos, a title that says 'SLA VNOV').

So where does that leave us? The central claim could be true, but the paper doesn't demonstrate it. It's exactly the sort of gap a referee should ask the author to close, and it may be fixable: someone who knows the Grassmannian conditions could verify them for Omega_j = Y_j/(z - v_j) or prove the Hirota equations directly. Until that's done, the paper shouldn't be accepted as a proof.

I'd send it to peer review rather than desk-reject, because the formulas are concrete and the gap is precisely located. But I wouldn't cite it for the tau-function identification yet. It's for people working on Slavnov products and KP, who can evaluate whether the missing condition is plausible.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies Slavnov products of Bethe states in rational integrable spin chains. Following Belliard and Slavnov, it derives a determinant representation and rewrites the normalized Slavnov product as an alternant determinant ratio (Eq. (34)). It claims that each such ratio is a KP tau function, that these tau functions admit expansions in terms of other tau functions, that the homogeneous limit is a Wronskian, and that the associated Baker–Akhiezer function has a closed determinantal form. The paper also states a conjecture about a multicomponent KP hierarchy.

Significance. If the central claim were established, the paper would provide a general mechanism for interpreting Slavnov products as KP tau functions across many rational spin-chain models, unifying and extending earlier results. The Wronskian formula (47e) and the basis expansion (43) are interesting structural observations that may be correct independently of the KP identification. However, the paper's main theorem is not proven: the assertion that the alternant ratio (34) is a KP tau function is cited to references that, as the paper itself notes, do not cover the functions Omega_j. The paper contains no direct verification of the Hirota bilinear equations. The determinant identities and Baker–Akhiezer computations, while clearly presented, are conditional on this unproved identification.

major comments (3)

[§3.1, Eqs. (34)–(35)] The claim that each normalized Slavnov product tau^(ell)(z^(ell), v) in (34) is a KP tau function is the paper's main result, but it is not proved. The sentence preceding (35) asserts that expressions of the form det[phi_i(w_j)]/Delta(w) satisfy the Hirota bilinear equation for 'generic' functions phi_i, citing [14,18,19]. The very next paragraph concedes that the functions Omega_j(z)=Y_j(z)/(z-v_j) 'do not belong to the class considered in the references above' because of their asymptotic behavior and their poles at the Bethe roots. No alternative proof of the Hirota equations for (34) is supplied. Proposition 2 (Section 6.1) only establishes the determinant identity det K = det Omega / Delta(z) by residue calculus; it does not imply the KP property. Since (34) is the foundation for all subsequent claims, this gap is load-bearing.
[§3.2, Eq. (43)] The basis expansion (43) does not repair the gap. The objects tilde_tau_j defined in (44) are alternant ratios of the same type as (34), built from functions hat_Omega^(j) that again have simple poles and the same O(1/z) asymptotics. The statement that each tilde_tau_j is 'by construction' a tau function, and that the expansion 'ensures that the resulting Slavnov product is also a tau function,' presupposes the unproved assertion from §3.1 rather than proving it. The Laplace expansion along a column is an algebraic identity and introduces no new mechanism for verifying the Hirota equations.
[§6.2–6.3, Eqs. (66), (87)] The Baker–Akhiezer function is introduced through the Japanese formula (66), which is only valid for genuine KP tau functions. The subsequent derivation of the determinant formula (87) uses the integral representation (59a) and the determinant identity (65), together with elementary matrix manipulations; it does not verify the Hirota bilinear equations. Consequently, the results of Section 6 do not provide independent evidence for the central claim; they are conditional on the same unsupported identification of (34) as a KP tau function.

minor comments (5)

[§2.1, Eq. (3b)] The term Lambda(u_j; u_j)|Psi(v)> in (3b) appears to be a typo; consistency with (3a) suggests it should read Lambda(u_j; u_j)|Psi(u_j)>. Also, 'Puttting' in the following paragraph is a typo.
[Eq. (67)] The third component of t - [lambda^{-1}] is written as t2 - lambda^{-3}/3; it should be t3 - lambda^{-3}/3. The entry t2 is repeated.
[§6.2] The heading 'Bakher-Akhiezer' should be 'Baker–Akhiezer'.
[Lemma 1, §6.1] The claim that K is invertible 'follows immediately from the relation tau(z,v)=det K' is not justified, since the determinant may vanish for some parameter values. Invertibility would require a separate argument.
[§3.1] The sentence 'This result establishes that the normalized slavnov products (34) are tau functions of the KP hierarchy' appears before the caveat that the functions Omega_j fall outside the class covered by the cited references; the logical order is confusing and should be restructured.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular reduction found: the central KP claim rests on an admitted gap in the cited applicability conditions, not on a definitional or fitted equivalence.

full rationale

The normalized Slavnov product (34) is taken from Belliard--Slavnov [16] as an alternant determinant ratio; the normalization in (21) is fixed algebraically by the prefactor c0 phi(v), not by imposing the Hirota equation. The paper's central assertion that (34) is a KP tau function is made in Section 3.1 by invoking the general alternant statement (35), citing [14,18,19]. Crucially, the paper itself immediately concedes that 'the asymptotic behavior of the functions Omega_j ... indicates that they do not belong to the class considered in the references above,' and no alternative verification of the Hirota bilinear identity for these Omega_j is supplied. This is a serious correctness/rigor gap that undermines the central claim, but it is not a circularity: the tau-function property is not built into the definition of tau^(ell), no parameter is fitted to force the conclusion, and the determinant representation itself is an external input. The later results (basis expansion, Wronskian limit, integral representation, Baker-Akhiezer formulas) are algebraic consequences of (34) and inherit the gap rather than create a circular loop. The author's prior works [14,15] are cited, and [14] appears among the references for the alternant-tau proposition, but [14] is cited alongside independent external references [18,19]; the derivation does not reduce to an unverified self-citation chain. Hence the circularity score is low (2), reflecting only a minor, non-load-bearing self-citation and the admitted unsupported step, which belongs to correctness risk rather than circularity.

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

The central claim rests on the Belliard-Slavnov determinant representation (external), the transfer matrix structure for rational models, and the unverified alternant-to-tau step. No numerical parameters are fitted; the alpha_p(z) are free functional inputs from the model, not ad hoc constants.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The transfer matrix action on off-shell Bethe states expands as T(u_j)|Psi(u_j)> = sum_k L_jk |Psi(u_k)> with L_jk given by (16) for rational models
Inherited from [16]; it defines the class of models for which the determinant representation holds. The paper does not rederive this from the R-matrix.
domain assumption The transfer matrix eigenvalues have the form Lambda(z;v) = g(z,v) Y(z;v) with Y expanded as sum_p alpha_p(z) sigma_p^{(n)}(v), where alpha_p are regular at the Bethe roots
This is the structure of rational models from [16]; the explicit form of alpha_p is model dependent and not needed.
standard math Any expression of the form det[phi_i(w_j)]/Delta(w) is a KP tau function in Miwa variables for generic functions phi_i
This is the load-bearing step, cited to [14,18,19]. The paper does not verify the hypotheses for the specific functions Omega_j, and the statement as phrased is stronger than the cited literature supports. Placed here as an axiom because it is assumed without proof.
domain assumption The Bethe roots v are non-degenerate (v_j distinct)
Assumed in Section 3.2 to perform the Laplace expansion and in the homogeneous limit; generic for Bethe states, but an additional restriction.
standard math Contour integrals can be evaluated by residues with the specified contours enclosing the relevant poles
Used in Proposition 2 and the Baker-Akhiezer derivation; standard, but contour deformations for the shifted integral in Section 6 are not fully justified for the pole at w=0 in the j=n case.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of More on Slavnov Products of Spin Chains and KP Hierarchy Tau Functions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BNADULYM

@misc{pith2026250521166,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: More on Slavnov Products of Spin Chains and KP Hierarchy Tau Functions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BNADULYM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.21166}
}

read the original abstract

Connections between classical and quantum integrable systems are analyzed from the viewpoint of Slavnov products of Bethe states. It is well known that, modulo model dependent aspects, the functional structure of Slavnov products generally takes the form of determinants. Building on recent results on the structure of rational and trigonometric models, we show that, provided certain conditions are satisfied, the Slavnov product of a given model can be interpreted as a tau function of the KP hierarchy, thus extending known results in a more general setting. Moreover, we show that Slavnov products can be expanded in terms of other tau functions. We also prove that their homogeneous limit can be systematically expressed as a Wronskian of functions related to the eigenvalues of the transfer matrices. Finally, we compute the Baker-Akhiezer functions associated with these Slavnov products and show that, apart from a universal multiplicative factor, they admit a closed determinantal representation.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

[1]

V. E. Korepin, N. M. Bogoliubov, and A. G. Izergin,Quantum Inverse Scattering Method and Correlation Functions. Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993

work page 1993
[2]

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

N. A. Slavnov, “Calculation of scalar products of wave functions and form factors in the framework of the algebraic bethe ansatz,”Teoreticheskaya i Matematicheskaya Fizika79 (1989) no. 2, 232–240

work page 1989
[3]

Spin spin correlation functions for the two-dimensional Ising model: Exact theory in the scaling region,

T. T. Wu, B. M. McCoy, C. A. Tracy, and E. Barouch, “Spin spin correlation functions for the two-dimensional Ising model: Exact theory in the scaling region,”Phys. Rev. B13 (1976) 316–374

work page 1976
[4]

Temperature Correlations of Quantum Spins

A. R. Its, A. G. Izergin, V. E. Korepin, and N. A. Slavnov, “Temperature correlations of quantum spins,”Phys. Rev. Lett.70 (1993) 1704–1708, arXiv:hep-th/9212135. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 70, 2357 (1993)]

work page Pith review arXiv 1993
[5]

Thermodynamic limit of the six-vertex model with domain wall boundary conditions,

V. Korepin and P. Zinn-Justin, “Thermodynamic limit of the six-vertex model with domain wall boundary conditions,”Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General33 (2000) no. 40, 7053

work page 2000
[6]

Domain wall partition functions and kp,

O. Foda, M. Wheeler, and M. Zuparic, “Domain wall partition functions and kp,”Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment2009 (03, 2009) P03017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1742-5468/2009/03/P03017

work page doi:10.1088/1742-5468/2009/03/p03017 2009
[7]

Classical tau-function for quantum spin chains,

A. Alexandrov, V. Kazakov, S. Leurent, Z. Tsuboi, and A. Zabrodin, “Classical tau-function for quantum spin chains,”JHEP 09 (2013) 064, arXiv:1112.3310 [math-ph]

arXiv 2013
[8]

XXZ scalar products and KP

O. Foda, M. Wheeler, and M. Zuparic, “XXZ scalar products and KP,”Nucl. Phys. B820 (2009) 649–663, arXiv:0903.2611 [math-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2009

Show all 27 references

[9]

M. A. Wheeler,Free fermions in classical and quantum integrable models. PhD thesis, Melbourne U., 2010.arXiv:1110.6703 [math-ph]

2010 arXiv
[10]

Xxz scalar products, miwa variables and discrete kp,

O. Foda and G. Schrader, “Xxz scalar products, miwa variables and discrete kp,” inNew Trends in Quantum Integrable Systems, p. 61–80. WORLD SCIENTIFIC, Oct., 2010. http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/9789814324373_0004

2010 doi
[11]

KP and Toda tau functions in Bethe ansatz,

K. Takasaki, “KP and Toda tau functions in Bethe ansatz,” 3, 2010.arXiv:1003.3071 [math-ph]

2010 arXiv
[12]

Variations on Slavnov’s scalar product,

O. Foda and M. Wheeler, “Variations on Slavnov’s scalar product,”JHEP 10 (2012) 096, arXiv:1207.6871 [math-ph]

2012 arXiv
[13]

Slavnov determinants, Yang-Mills structure constants, and discrete KP,

O. Foda and M. Wheeler, “Slavnov determinants, Yang-Mills structure constants, and discrete KP,” arXiv:1203.5621 [hep-th]

arXiv
[14]

Comments on Slavnov products, Temperley-Lieb open spin chains, and KP tau functions,

T. Araujo, “Comments on Slavnov products, Temperley-Lieb open spin chains, and KP tau functions,” Nucl. Phys. B972 (2021) 115566, arXiv:2107.13060 [math-ph]

2021 arXiv
[15]

Q-boson model and relations with integrable hierarchies,

T. Araujo, “Q-boson model and relations with integrable hierarchies,”Nucl. Phys. B1006 (2024) 116640, arXiv:2405.01213 [math-ph]

2024 arXiv
[16]

Why scalar products in the algebraic Bethe ansatz have determinant representation,

S. Belliard and N. A. Slavnov, “Why scalar products in the algebraic Bethe ansatz have determinant representation,”JHEP 10 (2019) 103, arXiv:1908.00032 [math-ph]

2019 arXiv
[17]

Algebraic bethe ansatz,

N. A. Slavnov, “Algebraic bethe ansatz,” 2019.https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.07350. 22 THIAGO ARAUJO

2019 arXiv
[18]

Loop groups and equations of KdV type,

G. Segal and G. Wilson, “Loop groups and equations of KdV type,”Inst. Hautes Etudes Sci. Publ. Math. 61 (1985) no. 1, 5–65

1985
[19]

Towards unified theory of 2-d gravity,

S. Kharchev, A. Marshakov, A. Mironov, A. Morozov, and A. Zabrodin, “Towards unified theory of 2-d gravity,”Nucl. Phys. B380 (1992) 181–240, arXiv:hep-th/9201013

1992 arXiv
[20]

Enumerative Geometry, Tau-Functions and Heisenberg–Virasoro Algebra,

A. Alexandrov, “Enumerative Geometry, Tau-Functions and Heisenberg–Virasoro Algebra,” Commun. Math. Phys.338 (2015) no. 1, 195–249,arXiv:1404.3402 [hep-th]

2015 arXiv
[21]

Determinant formula for the six vertex model,

A. G. Izergin, D. A. Coker, and V. E. Korepin, “Determinant formula for the six vertex model,” J. Phys. A25 (1992) 4315–4334

1992
[22]

HCIZ integral and 2-D Toda lattice hierarchy,

P. Zinn-Justin, “HCIZ integral and 2-D Toda lattice hierarchy,”Nucl. Phys. B634 (2002) 417–432, arXiv:math-ph/0202045

2002 arXiv
[23]

On some integrals over the U(N) unitary group and their large N limit,

P. Zinn-Justin and J. B. Zuber, “On some integrals over the U(N) unitary group and their large N limit,”J. Phys. A36 (2003) 3173–3194, arXiv:math-ph/0209019

2003 arXiv
[24]

Six-vertex, loop and tiling models: Integrability and combinatorics

P. Zinn-Justin, “Six-vertex, loop and tiling models: Integrability and combinatorics.” 2009

2009
[25]

Babelon, D

O. Babelon, D. Bernard, and M. Talon,Introduction to Classical Integrable Systems. Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics. Cambridge University Press, 2003

2003
[26]

Harnad and F

J. Harnad and F. Balogh,Tau Functions and their Applications. Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics. Cambridge University Press, 2021. https://books.google.com.br/books?id=jxgXEAAAQBAJ

2021
[27]

Lectures on nonlinear integrable equations and their solutions,

A. Zabrodin, “Lectures on nonlinear integrable equations and their solutions,”arXiv e-prints (12, 2018) arXiv:1812.11830,arXiv:1812.11830 [math-ph] . Universidade Federal Fluminense, Instituto de Ciências Exatas, Departamento de Física Volta Redonda, RJ, Brazil Email address: ...

2018 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

V. E. Korepin, N. M. Bogoliubov, and A. G. Izergin,Quantum Inverse Scattering Method and Correlation Functions. Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993

work page 1993

[2] [2]

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

N. A. Slavnov, “Calculation of scalar products of wave functions and form factors in the framework of the algebraic bethe ansatz,”Teoreticheskaya i Matematicheskaya Fizika79 (1989) no. 2, 232–240

work page 1989

[3] [3]

Spin spin correlation functions for the two-dimensional Ising model: Exact theory in the scaling region,

T. T. Wu, B. M. McCoy, C. A. Tracy, and E. Barouch, “Spin spin correlation functions for the two-dimensional Ising model: Exact theory in the scaling region,”Phys. Rev. B13 (1976) 316–374

work page 1976

[4] [4]

Temperature Correlations of Quantum Spins

A. R. Its, A. G. Izergin, V. E. Korepin, and N. A. Slavnov, “Temperature correlations of quantum spins,”Phys. Rev. Lett.70 (1993) 1704–1708, arXiv:hep-th/9212135. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 70, 2357 (1993)]

work page Pith review arXiv 1993

[5] [5]

Thermodynamic limit of the six-vertex model with domain wall boundary conditions,

V. Korepin and P. Zinn-Justin, “Thermodynamic limit of the six-vertex model with domain wall boundary conditions,”Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General33 (2000) no. 40, 7053

work page 2000

[6] [6]

Domain wall partition functions and kp,

O. Foda, M. Wheeler, and M. Zuparic, “Domain wall partition functions and kp,”Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment2009 (03, 2009) P03017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1742-5468/2009/03/P03017

work page doi:10.1088/1742-5468/2009/03/p03017 2009

[7] [7]

Classical tau-function for quantum spin chains,

A. Alexandrov, V. Kazakov, S. Leurent, Z. Tsuboi, and A. Zabrodin, “Classical tau-function for quantum spin chains,”JHEP 09 (2013) 064, arXiv:1112.3310 [math-ph]

arXiv 2013

[8] [8]

XXZ scalar products and KP

O. Foda, M. Wheeler, and M. Zuparic, “XXZ scalar products and KP,”Nucl. Phys. B820 (2009) 649–663, arXiv:0903.2611 [math-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2009