Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Integrability of the Kondo model with time dependent interaction strength

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 Kondo model with time-dependent coupling J(t)=c/(a+t) is exactly solvable: periodic boundary conditions turn the Bethe-ansatz constraints into qKZ equations, whose solution gives the exact many-body wavefunction.

desk verdict The paper's one-particle S-matrix is non-unitary and does not solve the Schrödinger equation, and the advertised example J(t)=c/(a+t) fails the paper's own consistency condition; the new light-cone idea is suggestive but the central construction is wrong. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.20125 v2 pith:GD52NXWT submitted 2025-05-26 cond-mat.str-el math-phmath.MP

Parameshwar R. Pasnoori This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-elmath-phmath.MP
keywords Kondomodeltime-dependentinteractionstrengthBetheansatzquantumYang-BaxterequationKnizhnik-Zamolodchikovequationsexactsolutionnon-equilibriumdynamicsmatrixdifference
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 argues that the Kondo model — a magnetic impurity exchanging spin with a bath of conduction electrons — remains exactly solvable when the exchange coupling $J(t)$ is allowed to vary with time. The author builds a Bethe-ansatz wavefunction for $N$ electrons, shows that periodic boundary conditions turn the consistency of the solution into a matrix difference equation, and derives conditions on $J(t)$ under which that equation has a solution. For the concrete coupling $J(t) = c/(a+t)$ with $c \ll 1$, the difference equations become quantum Knizhnik–Zamolodchikov (qKZ) equations, a well-studied class solvable by the off-shell Bethe ansatz, yielding an explicit many-body wavefunction that satisfies the time-dependent Schrödinger equation. The paper presents this as the first integrable model based on the quantum Yang–Baxter equation with a time-dependent interaction strength, and as an exact window into the non-equilibrium physics of the Kondo problem.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a set of spin-space scattering operators that satisfy the quantum Yang–Baxter algebra, assembled into monodromy-like transport operators. The particle–impurity S-matrix $S^{10}(z) = e^{i\varphi(z)}(ig(z)I + P)/(ig(z)+1)$ relates amplitudes for a particle on the two sides of the impurity, where $g(z) = \tfrac12 J\bigl(1 - \tfrac34 J^2\bigr)$ evaluated at $J(t-x)$ and $P$ is the spin permutation operator; the electron–electron S-matrix $S^{ij}(z_i,z_j) = (i(g(z_i)-g(z_j))I + P)/(i(g(z_i)-g(z_j)) + 1)$ relates amplitudes differing by the exchange of two electrons. These satisfy the Yang–Baxter relations (22)–(23) and enter the transport operator $Z_j$ of Eq. (25), which carries particle $j$ once around the ring under periodic boundary conditions. The decisive structural condition is $g(z \pm L) = g(z) \pm \kappa$ with $\kappa$ constant, supplement Eq. (96): when it holds, the spin amplitudes obey qKZ matrix difference equations and the phase factor obeys the analytic difference equation $h(z-L) = e^{i\varphi(z)}h(z)$, so the exact wavefunction follows from solving well-studied equations.

What would settle it

The decisive check is to substitute the one-particle ansatz with the scattering operator of Eq. (9) into Eq. (6) and verify the delta-function jump condition; direct integration across the impurity gives $S = (2i - J\,\vec\sigma\cdot\vec S)^{-1}(2i + J\,\vec\sigma\cdot\vec S)$, which is unitary, whereas the phase factor in Eq. (9) has modulus $|e^{i\varphi}| \approx 2.5$ at $J = 0.2$, so the substitution either succeeds or the claim fails. A second, independent check is to compute $g(z+L) - g(z)$ for $J(t) = c/(a+t)$, where $g(z) \approx c/(2(a-z))$, and see whether the difference is the constant $\kappa$ that supplement Eq. (96) requires.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is a new integrability framework for the time-dependent Kondo Hamiltonian $H = \int dx\,\Psi^\dagger(x)(-i\partial_x)\Psi(x) + J(t)\,\Psi^\dagger(0)\,\vec\sigma\cdot\vec S\,\Psi(0)$. The many-body wavefunction is written as a sum of amplitudes $f^Q(z_1,\dots,z_N)$ labeled by the ordering $Q$ of the electrons relative to the impurity, with $z_i = x_i - t$; the Schrödinger equation fixes the relations between orderings that differ by moving one particle across the impurity, through the particle–impurity S-matrix $S^{10}(z) = e^{i\varphi(z)}(ig(z)I + P)/(ig(z) + 1)$, while orderings that differ by swapping two electrons are connected by a particle–particle S-matrix chosen so that everything obeys the quantum Yang–Baxter algebra. Periodic boundary conditions then require the reference amplitude $f^{N\dots 10}$ to be transported consistently around the ring by operators $Z_j$, which yields matrix difference equations; the consistency of these equations restricts the allowed interaction strengths. For $J(t) = c/(a+t)$ the consistency conditions are met, the difference equations become qKZ equations, and the exact solution of the time-dependent Schrödinger equation is obtained by solving those equations together with the phase difference equation $h(z-L) = e^{i\varphi(z)}h(z)$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the proposed scattering operator really is the solution of the one-particle Schrödinger equation, since every many-body amplitude is built by multiplying that operator around the ring; if directly integrating the delta-function interaction produces a different, unitary scattering operator, the constructed wavefunction does not solve the time-dependent Schrödinger equation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For $J(t) = c/(a+t)$, the exact many-body wavefunction is obtained by solving the qKZ difference equations for the spin amplitudes together with the analytic difference equation for the phase factor, with the off-shell Bethe ansatz identified as the solving method.
  • The model becomes the first known integrable system with time-dependent interaction strength built on the quantum Yang–Baxter equation, complementing the classical-Yang–Baxter-based time-dependent models of the Landau–Zener and time-dependent BCS/Dicke type.
  • The framework provides an exact handle on non-equilibrium Kondo physics: time-dependent spin screening and impurity dynamics under a coupling that ramps as $c/(a+t)$ can be studied from the explicit wavefunction rather than by approximation.
  • The consistency conditions act as a selection rule on $J(t)$, so the construction doubles as a criterion for which time-dependent couplings keep a quantum-Yang–Baxter-based Hamiltonian integrable.
  • The same machinery is claimed to extend to other quantum-Yang–Baxter-based models with time-dependent couplings, such as the SU(N) Gross–Neveu and sine-Gordon models and the XXZ spin chain, where the paper asks whether time-dependent analogs of symmetry-protected topological phases, spin fractionalization, and strong zero modes appear.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The structural claim is separable from the explicit one-particle S-matrix: if the operator in Eq. (9) failed its own Schrödinger equation, the difference-equation/qKZ reduction could still hold for a corrected, unitary scattering operator, so the integrability framework might survive a fix to its scattering input.
  • The condition $g(z+L) = g(z) + \kappa$ with constant $\kappa$ is a quasi-periodicity constraint that could be solved in closed form; classifying all $J(t)$ satisfying it would turn the paper's single example into a complete catalog of exactly solvable time-dependent couplings.
  • A direct small-system check is available: integrate the time-dependent Schrödinger equation numerically for one or two electrons with $J(t) = c/(a+t)$ and compare against the wavefunction built from the paper's S-matrices and the qKZ solution; agreement would confirm the construction, while disagreement would localize the failure in the one-particle scattering input.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript studies the one-dimensional Kondo model with a time-dependent exchange coupling J(t). It constructs a coordinate Bethe ansatz wavefunction with ordering-dependent amplitudes, derives a particle-impurity S-matrix, introduces a particle-particle S-matrix, and obtains matrix difference equations from periodic boundary conditions. The consistency conditions are claimed to constrain J(t), and the example J(t)=c/(a+t) is said to turn the difference equations into quantum Knizhnik-Zamolodchikov (qKZ) equations. The central claims are that this provides an exact solution of the time-dependent Schrödinger equation for the Kondo model and opens a new class of QYB-based integrable models with time-dependent interactions.

Significance. If correct, the paper would be a genuinely novel extension of Bethe ansatz methods to a time-dependent coupling and would connect the Kondo model to qKZ equations. The general idea of translating time-dependent couplings into matrix difference equations and imposing consistency conditions on transport operators is interesting and worth pursuing. However, the paper's concrete implementation has load-bearing errors: the one-particle S-matrix does not solve the stated Schrödinger equation, the electron-electron S-matrix is introduced without derivation from the Hamiltonian, and the advertised example fails the paper's own consistency condition. No numerical or machine-checked verification is provided, and the actual solution of the difference equations is deferred to future work. These issues currently prevent the central claims from being established.

major comments (3)
  1. [One particle solution and the S-matrix, Eqs. (6)–(11)] The one-particle S-matrix (9)–(11) is not a solution of the one-particle Schrödinger equation (6). Integrating (6) across x=0 with the stated convention θ(0)=1/2 gives f^{01} = (2i + J σ·S)(2i − J σ·S)^{-1} f^{10}, which is unitary and has eigenvalues (2i + J/2)/(2i − J/2) and (2i − 3J/2)/(2i + 3J/2) for real J. In contrast, the matrix in (9)–(11) has eigenvalues e^{iφ} and e^{iφ}(ig−1)/(ig+1); the factor e^{iφ} defined in (11) has modulus about 1/(2J) for small J, e.g. |e^{iφ}| ≈ 2.5 for J=0.2, so the S-matrix is not unitary. A non-unitary S-matrix cannot arise from the Hermitian Hamiltonian (1). Since this same S10 is used for every particle-impurity crossing in (19) and in the construction of Z_j in (25), the N-particle ansatz and all consistency conditions inherit the error. This is a load-bearing defect in the central derivation.
  2. [N particle solution and Yang-Baxter algebra, Eqs. (20)–(21)] The electron-electron S-matrix (21) is imposed rather than derived. The supplement (SM §II.1) states that the amplitudes in different particle orderings 'are not constrained by the Hamiltonian due to the relativistic dispersion' and that one 'needs to choose a specific electron-electron S-matrix' to preserve integrability. However, Hamiltonian (1) contains no electron-electron interaction, and the wavefunction (15) is explicitly anti-symmetrized by A, so the ordering amplitudes are not free. Unless (21) is shown to follow from the delta-function boundary conditions or from the fermionic statistics of the fields, the resulting wavefunction is not established to solve (1); at best the construction defines a different model. Because the consistency conditions (26) and the reduction to qKZ equations depend directly on S^{ij}, this issue is load-bearing for the claimed exact solution.
  3. [Consistency conditions and constraints on integrability; SM Eq. (96)] The advertised example J(t)=c/(a+t) does not satisfy the paper's own integrability condition (96). With z=x−t and J(t−x)=c/(a−z), the function g(z) = (1/2)(a−z)/c [1 − (3/4)c²/(a−z)²] = (a−z)/(2c) − (3c)/(8(a−z)). Therefore g(z+L)−g(z) = −L/(2c) + (3c/8)[1/(a−z−L) − 1/(a−z)], which depends on z. Thus (96) is not satisfied, so the example does not meet the paper's stated constraint for integrability, and the claim that the matrix difference equations become qKZ equations for this J(t) is unsupported. Taking c small does not repair the failure because the condition is exact.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Notation, Eq. (9)] The notation S10 is used both as a label and as an operator with indices ab,αβ; the index structure and the ordering of the particle and impurity spin spaces should be defined explicitly before first use.
  2. [Supplement, general] The supplement contains typographical errors, including 'for for x<0' and 'Scrodinger equation'; a careful proofread is needed.
  3. [Hamiltonian, Eq. (1) vs supplement] The main text writes the spatial integration range in (1) as −(L−y) to y, whereas the supplement uses 0 to L; the equivalence of these conventions should be stated explicitly.
  4. [Abstract and Discussion] The abstract and discussion state that an exact solution is constructed, but the paper actually reduces the problem to difference equations (28) and (29), whose solution is deferred to future work; the claims should be phrased conditionally.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The central exact-solution claim is constructed by imposing an ad hoc electron-electron S-matrix that the Hamiltonian does not contain, and the one-particle S-matrix is asserted rather than obtained from Eq. (6); the consistency conditions and J(t) constraints therefore constrain the imposed ansatz, not the stated model.

  1. self definitional [Main text, 'N particle solution and Yang-Baxter algebra', Eqs. (19)-(21)]
    "These pairs of amplitudes are not constrained by the Hamiltonian due to the relativistic dispersion. To preserve integrability, one needs to choose a specific electron-electron S-matrix Sij(zi,zj) that relates the amplitudes f..ij.. and f..ji.., ... where Sij(zi,zj) = [i(g(zi)-g(zj))I + P]/[ig(zi)-ig(zj)+1]."

    The Hamiltonian (1) contains no electron-electron interaction, so the relation between f..ij and f..ji is not fixed by the TDSE. The paper explicitly 'chooses' an XXX-type S-matrix so that the Yang-Baxter equations (22)-(23) close. All subsequent amplitude relations, the monodromy operator Zj in (25), the consistency conditions (26), and the resulting restriction on J(t) are built from this choice. The claimed exact N-particle wavefunction is therefore a solution of the imposed S-matrix algebra, not a consequence of the original Hamiltonian; the central result is determined by the initial definition of Sij.

  2. other [Main text, 'One particle solution and the S-matrix', Eqs. (6)-(11)]
    "Using the above expression (7) in the equation (6), we obtain the following relation between the two amplitudes ... f01 = S10 f10 ... S10(z) = e^{i phi(z)} [ig(z)I + P]/[ig(z)+1]."

    Direct integration of (6) across x=0 gives the unitary jump S=(2i+J sigma*S)/(2i-J sigma*S)^{-1}, whereas the stated S10 has |e^{i phi}| != 1 for J != 0 and cannot solve (6). The paper presents S10 as derived from the Hamiltonian, but it is actually selected so that, together with the chosen S12, the Yang-Baxter relations (22)-(23) hold. Since every particle-impurity crossing (19) and the transport operator (25) reuse this same S10, the many-body chain is built on an assumed one-particle input, not on the local equation of motion. The 'derivation' runs in reverse: the algebraically convenient S-matrix is defined first and then called the Hamiltonian's prediction.

full rationale

The core circular structure is in the construction of the Bethe ansatz wavefunction. The paper admits that the electron-electron sector amplitudes are 'not constrained by the Hamiltonian' and then chooses Sij; that choice, together with a one-particle S-matrix that is asserted but does not follow from Eq. (6), generates the consistency conditions, the integrability constraints on J(t), and the advertised reduction to qKZ equations. The central claim is thus equivalent to the ansatz inputs. I did not count the many self-citations as load-bearing: the supplement [48] is part of the same manuscript, and the qKZ/off-shell Bethe ansatz references [52]-[60] are external mathematical tools, so no separate self-citation chain is needed. The paper also has independent correctness defects: the example J(t)=c/(a+t) in Eq. (30) does not satisfy the supplement's sufficient condition g(z±L)=g(z)±k (Eq. 96), since g(z)=1/2 J(-z)(1-3/4 J(-z)^2) gives a z-dependent difference for this J. These defects are consistent with the circular/self-defining structure but are flagged here as supporting evidence rather than as an additional circularity step.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation rests on the one-particle S-matrix and an ad hoc e-e S-matrix. Neither is derived from the Hamiltonian, and the example coupling does not satisfy the stated consistency condition.

free parameters (2)
  • c = c << 1
    The example J(t) = c/(a+t) requires c << 1 for the claimed consistency, but even for c << 1 the condition g(z+L) = g(z) + κ fails. The smallness is chosen by hand to make the example plausible.
  • a = a > 0
    An arbitrary positive constant in the example, not constrained by the derivation. It is a hand-chosen parameter that does not appear in the final consistency condition.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper The one-particle S-matrix (9) solves the Schrödinger equation (6).
    Direct integration of the delta-function potential gives S = (2i - J σ·S)^{-1}(2i + J σ·S), which is unitary and differs from (9).
  • ad hoc to paper The electron-electron S-matrix (21) with spectral parameter g(z_i)-g(z_j) is the correct S-matrix despite no e-e interaction in the Hamiltonian.
    Imposed to preserve integrability, not derived from the Hamiltonian (1). The physical model is thereby altered.
  • domain assumption The consistency conditions (26) are necessary and sufficient for the existence of a solution to the time-dependent Schrödinger equation.
    The paper proves that condition (96) implies (26), but does not prove that (26) suffices for the full time-dependent problem.
  • domain assumption The light-cone ansatz (17) with z_i = x_i - t captures the full solution space.
    Assumed without proof; completeness and normalizability of the ansatz are not addressed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Integrability of the Kondo model with time dependent interaction strength." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GD52NXWT

@misc{pith2026250520125,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Integrability of the Kondo model with time dependent interaction strength},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GD52NXWT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.20125}
}
abstract

In this letter we consider the time dependent Kondo model where a magnetic impurity interacts with the electrons through a time dependent interaction strength $J(t)$. We develop a new framework based on Bethe ansatz and construct an exact solution to the time-dependent Schrodinger equation. We show that when periodic boundary conditions are applied, the consistency of the solution results in a constraint equation which relates the amplitudes corresponding to a certain ordering of the particles in the configuration space. This constraint equation takes the form of a matrix difference equation, and the associated consistency conditions restrict the interaction strength $J(t)$ for the system to be integrable. For a given $J(t)$ satisfying these constraints, the solution to the matrix difference equations provides the exact many-body wavefunction that satisfies the time-dependent Schrodinger equation. We provide a concrete example of $J(t)$ which satisfies these constraint equations. We show that in this case, the matrix difference equations turn into quantum Knizhnik-Zamolodchikov (qKZ) equations, which are well studied in the literature. The framework developed in this work allows one to probe the non-equilibrium physics of the Kondo model, and being general, it also allows one to solve new class of Hamiltonians with time-dependent interaction strength which are based on quantum Yang-Baxter algebra.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.20125 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Figure depicts electrons (small orange arrows) scat [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Time-Dependent Integrability from Gauge Theory, I

    hep-th 2026-07 accept novelty 7.5 of 10

    Spacetime-dependent 4d Chern-Simons theory generates time-dependent integrable field theories whose allowed time dependence coincides with one-loop RG flow while preserving Lax integrability.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Rylands, E

    C. Rylands, E. Vernier, and P. Calabrese, Dynamical symmetry restoration in the heisenberg spin chain, Jour- nal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2024, 123102 (2024)

    2024

  2. [2]

    Grijalva, J

    S. Grijalva, J. D. Nardis, and V. Terras, Open XXZ chain and boundary modes at zero temperature, SciPost Phys. 7, 023 (2019)

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Rylands, K

    C. Rylands, K. Klobas, F. Ares, P. Calabrese, S. Mur- ciano, and B. Bertini, Microscopic origin of the quantum mpemba effect in integrable systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 010401 (2024)

    2024

  4. [4]

    P. R. Pasnoori, N. Andrei, and P. Azaria, Edge modes in one-dimensional topological charge conserving spin- triplet superconductors: Exact results from bethe ansatz, Phys. Rev. B102, 214511 (2020)

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Parhizkar, C

    A. Parhizkar, C. Rylands, and V. Galitski, Path integral approach to quantum anomalies in interacting models, Phys. Rev. B109, 155109 (2024)

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    P. R. Pasnoori, C. Rylands, and N. Andrei, Kondo im- purity at the edge of a superconducting wire, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 013006 (2020)

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    P. R. Pasnoori, N. Andrei, and P. Azaria, Boundary- induced topological and mid-gap states in charge con- serving one-dimensional superconductors: Fractionaliza- tion transition, Phys. Rev. B104, 134519 (2021)

    2021

  8. [8]

    Abetian, N

    C. Abetian, N. Kitanine, and V. Terras, Boundary over- lap in the open XXZ spin chain, SciPost Phys.18, 026 (2025)

    work page 2025

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    P. R. Pasnoori, J. Lee, J. H. Pixley, N. Andrei, and P. Azaria, Boundary quantum phase transitions in the spin- 1 2 heisenberg chain with boundary magnetic fields, Phys. Rev. B107, 224412 (2023)

    2023

  2. [10]

    Kattel, P

    P. Kattel, P. R. Pasnoori, and N. Andrei, Exact solu- tion of a non-hermitian pt-symmetric spin chain, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical56, 325001 (2023)

    2023

  3. [11]

    Kattel, A

    P. Kattel, A. Zhakenov, P. R. Pasnoori, P. Azaria, and N. Andrei, Dissipation driven phase transition in the non-hermitian kondo model, Phys. Rev. B111, L201106 (2025)

    2025

  4. [12]

    Kattel, P

    P. Kattel, P. R. Pasnoori, J. H. Pixley, and N. Andrei, Spin chain with non-hermitianPT-symmetric boundary couplings: Exact solution, dissipative kondo effect, and phase transitions on the edge, Phys. Rev. B111, 224407 (2025)

    2025

  5. [13]

    Rylands, B

    C. Rylands, B. Bertini, and P. Calabrese, Integrable quenches in the hubbard model, Journal of Statisti- cal Mechanics: Theory and Experiment2022, 103103 (2022)

    2022

  6. [14]

    P. R. Pasnoori, N. Andrei, C. Rylands, and P. Azaria, Rise and fall of yu-shiba-rusinov bound states in charge-conserving s-wave one-dimensional superconduc- tors, Phys. Rev. B105, 174517 (2022). 6

    2022

  7. [15]

    Kattel, P

    P. Kattel, P. R. Pasnoori, J. H. Pixley, and N. Andrei, Edge modes and boundary impurities in the anisotropic heisenberg spin chain, Phys. Rev. B111, 174430 (2025)

    2025

  8. [16]

    P. R. Pasnoori, Y. Tang, J. Lee, J. H. Pixley, N. Andrei, and P. Azaria, Spin fractionalization and zero modes in the spin- 1 2 xxz chain with boundary fields, Phys. Rev. B 112, 075121 (2025)

    2025

  9. [17]

    X.-W. Guan, M. T. Batchelor, and C. Lee, Fermi gases in one dimension: From bethe ansatz to experiments, Rev. Mod. Phys.85, 1633 (2013)

    2013

  10. [18]

    Zhang, Y.-Q

    D.-W. Zhang, Y.-Q. Zhu, Y. X. Zhao, H. Yan, and S.-L. Zhu, Topological quantum matter with cold atoms, Advances in Physics67, 253 (2018), https://doi.org/10.1080/00018732.2019.1594094

    2018

  11. [19]

    I. D. Potirniche, A. C. Potter, M. Schleier-Smith, A. Vishwanath, and N. Y. Yao, Floquet symmetry- protected topological phases in cold-atom systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 123601 (2017)

    2017

  12. [20]

    A. A. Houck, H. E. Tureci, and J. Koch, On-chip quan- tum simulation with superconducting circuits, Nature Physics8, 292 (2012)

    2012

  13. [21]

    Smith, M

    A. Smith, M. S. Kim, F. Pollmann, and J. Knolle, Simu- lating quantum many-body dynamics on a current digi- tal quantum computer, npj Quantum Information5, 106 (2019)

    2019

  14. [22]

    L. I. Glazman and A. I. Larkin, New quantum phase in a one-dimensional josephson array, Phys. Rev. Lett.79, 3736 (1997)

    1997

  15. [23]

    P. R. Pasnoori, P. Azaria, and A. Mizel, Realizing a sym- metry protected topological phase in a superconducting circuit (2025), arXiv:2503.13406 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Bethe, Zur theorie der metalle, Zeitschrift fur Physik 71, 205 (1931)

    H. Bethe, Zur theorie der metalle, Zeitschrift fur Physik 71, 205 (1931)

    1931

  17. [25]

    Kondo, Resistance minimum in dilute magnetic alloys, Progress of Theoretical Physics32, 37 (1964)

    J. Kondo, Resistance minimum in dilute magnetic alloys, Progress of Theoretical Physics32, 37 (1964)

    1964

  18. [26]

    W. E. Thirring, A soluble relativistic field theory, Annals of Physics3, 91 (1958)

    1958

  19. [27]

    P. R. Pasnoori, A. Mizel, and P. Azaria, Duality symmetry, zero energy modes and boundary spec- trum of the sine-gordon/massive thirring model (2025), arXiv:2503.14776 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Coleman, Quantum sine-gordon equation as the mas- sive thirring model, Phys

    S. Coleman, Quantum sine-gordon equation as the mas- sive thirring model, Phys. Rev. D11, 2088 (1975)

    1975

  21. [29]

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

    1967

  22. [30]

    R. J. Baxter, Partition function of the eight-vertex lattice model, Annals of Physics70, 193 (1972)

    1972

  23. [31]

    A. B. Zamolodchikov and A. B. Zamolodchikov, Factor- ized s-matrices in two dimensions as the exact solutions of certain relativistic quantum field theory models, An- nals of Physics120, 253 (1979)

    1979

  24. [32]

    E. K. Sklyanin, L. A. Takhtadzhyan, and L. D. Faddeev, Quantum inverse problem method 1, Teoreticheskaya i Matematicheskaya Fizika Kvantovyj metod obratnoj zadachi 1,40, 194 (1979)

    1979

  25. [33]

    Japaridze, A

    G. Japaridze, A. Nersesyan, and P. Wiegmann, Exact results in the two-dimensional u(1)-symmetric thirring model, Nucl. Phys. B230, 511 (1984)

    1984

  26. [34]

    Bergknoff and H

    H. Bergknoff and H. B. Thacker, Structure and solution of the massive thirring model, Phys. Rev. D19, 3666 (1979)

    1979

  27. [35]

    Richardson and N

    R. Richardson and N. Sherman, Exact eigenstates of the pairing-force hamiltonian, Nuclear Physics52, 221 (1964)

    1964

  28. [36]

    Dukelsky, S

    J. Dukelsky, S. Pittel, and G. Sierra, Colloquium: Ex- actly solvable richardson-gaudin models for many-body quantum systems, Rev. Mod. Phys.76, 643 (2004)

    2004

  29. [37]

    Gaudin, M., Diagonalisation d’une classe d’hamiltoniens de spin, J. Phys. France37, 1087 (1976)

    1976

  30. [38]

    M. G. Raizen, Quantum chaos with cold atoms (Aca- demic Press, 1999) pp. 43–81

    1999

  31. [39]

    K. Siva, G. Koolstra, J. Steinmetz, W. P. Livingston, D. Das, L. Chen, J. Kreikebaum, N. Stevenson, C. Junger, D. Santiago, I. Siddiqi, and A. Jordan, Time- dependent hamiltonian reconstruction using continuous weak measurements, PRX Quantum4, 040324 (2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    E. A. Yuzbashyan, Integrable time-dependent hamiltoni- ans, solvable landau-zener models and gaudin magnets, Annals of Physics392, 323 (2018)

    2018

  33. [41]

    Y. N. Demkov and V. Osherov, Stationary and non- stationary problems in quantum mechanics that can be solved by means of contour integration, Sov. Phys. JETP 26, 1 (1968)

    1968

  34. [42]

    Patra and E

    A. Patra and E. A. Yuzbashyan, Quantum integrability in the multistate landau-zener problem, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical48, 245303 (2015)

    2015

  35. [43]

    P. W. Anderson, G. Yuval, and D. R. Hamann, Exact results in the kondo problem. ii. scaling theory, quali- tatively correct solution, and some new results on one- dimensional classical statistical models, Phys. Rev. B1, 4464 (1970)

    1970

  36. [44]

    K. G. Wilson, The renormalization group: Critical phe- nomena and the kondo problem, Rev. Mod. Phys.47, 773 (1975)

    1975

  37. [45]

    Nozieres and A

    P. Nozieres and A. Blandin, Kondo effect in real metals, J. Phys. France41, 193 (1980)

    1980

  38. [46]

    Andrei, Diagonalization of the kondo hamiltonian, Phys

    N. Andrei, Diagonalization of the kondo hamiltonian, Phys. Rev. Lett.45, 379 (1980)

    1980

  39. [47]

    P. B. Wiegmann, Exact solution of the s-d exchange model (kondo problem), Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics14, 1463 (1981)

    1981

  40. [48]

    P. R. Pasnoori, Supplemental material [link to be inserted by publisher] (2025)

    2025

  41. [49]

    Explicit form of the permutation operator is P ab pq,rs = 1 2 I ab pq,rs + X α=x,y,z σa,α pq σb,α rs ! .(31) Hereσ a,α andσ b,α,α=x, y, zare the Pauli matrices acting in the spin spacesaandbrespectively

  42. [50]

    In the case of quadratic dispersion, the Hamiltonian fixes all the relations and this is one of the reasons why the regular Kondo model is not integrable with quadratic dis- persion

  43. [51]

    These conditions impose that transporting particle ‘j’ around the system first and then particle ‘i’ around the system is equivalent to transporting particle ‘i’ around the system first and then particle ‘j’ around the system

  44. [52]

    S. N. M. Ruijsenaars, First order analytic dif- ference equations and integrable quantum sys- tems, Journal of Mathematical Physics38, 1069 (1997), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jmp/article- pdf/38/2/1069/19136488/1069 1 online.pdf

    1997

  45. [53]

    The case wherea, c∈Cis also a solution, in which case, the Hamiltonian is non Hermitian and is interesting on its own right. 7

  46. [54]

    Reshetikhin, Jackson-type integrals, bethe vectors, and solutions to a difference analog of the knizhnik- zamolodchikov system, Letters in Mathematical Physics 26, 153 (1992)

    N. Reshetikhin, Jackson-type integrals, bethe vectors, and solutions to a difference analog of the knizhnik- zamolodchikov system, Letters in Mathematical Physics 26, 153 (1992)

    1992

  47. [55]

    F. A. Smirnov, A general formula for soliton form factors in the quantum sine-gordon model, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General19, L575 (1986)

    1986

  48. [56]

    I. B. Frenkel and N. Y. Reshetikhin, Quantum affine al- gebras and holonomic difference equations, Communica- tions in Mathematical Physics146, 1 (1992)

    1992

  49. [57]

    Reshetikhin, The knizhnik-zamolodchikov system as a deformation of the isomonodromy problem, Letters in Mathematical Physics26, 167 (1992)

    N. Reshetikhin, The knizhnik-zamolodchikov system as a deformation of the isomonodromy problem, Letters in Mathematical Physics26, 167 (1992)

    1992

  50. [58]

    A. N. Varchenko, Asymptotic solutions to the knizhnik- zamolodchikov equation and crystal base, Communica- tions in Mathematical Physics171, 99 (1995)

    1995

  51. [59]

    Matsuo, Jackson integrals of jordan-pochhammer type and quantum knizhnik-zamolodchikov equations, Com- munications in Mathematical Physics151, 263 (1993)

    A. Matsuo, Jackson integrals of jordan-pochhammer type and quantum knizhnik-zamolodchikov equations, Com- munications in Mathematical Physics151, 263 (1993)

    1993

  52. [60]

    Babujian, M

    H. Babujian, M. Karowski, and A. Zapletal, Matrix dif- ference equations and a nested bethe ansatz, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General30, 6425 (1997)

    1997

  53. [61]

    P. R. . Pasnoori and E. A. Yuzbashyan, In preparation

  54. [62]

    Fendley, Strong zero modes and eigenstate phase tran- sitions in the XYZ/interacting majorana chain, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical49, 30LT01 (2016)

    P. Fendley, Strong zero modes and eigenstate phase tran- sitions in the XYZ/interacting majorana chain, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical49, 30LT01 (2016). I. ONE P AR TICLE W A VEFUNCTION In this section we construct the most general one particle wavefunction...

    2016

  55. [63]

    A simple wavefunction for time dependent interaction strengthJ(t) To gain some intuition, let us consider the situation where the system is very large such that we can ignore the boundary conditions. Let the wave function associated with the particle be sharply localized in th...

  56. [64]

    Even though this produces a consistent solution, it clearly cannot be a general solution

    General wavefunction for constantJ(t) =J We have considered the situation where the particle is sharply localized in the form of a wave packet. Even though this produces a consistent solution, it clearly cannot be a general solution. To obtain the most general solution, it is ...

  57. [65]

    General wavefunction for time dependent interaction strengthJ(t) Now for general time dependent caseJ(t), one can consider the superposition of the wave packets for all values of τin (37) 9 Faα(x, t) = Z τ f 10 aα(−τ)θ(−x) +f 01 aα(−τ)θ(x) e− 1 2σ2 (x−t+τ) 2 (43) =f 10 aα(x−t)...

  58. [66]

    One needs to distinguish between the amplitudes corresponding to different ordering of particles with respect to each other

    A simple wavefunction for time dependent interaction strengthJ(t) Similar to the one particle case, ignoring the boundary conditions, we can start by looking at a simple solution in terms of the wave packets. One needs to distinguish between the amplitudes corresponding to dif...

  59. [67]

    General wavefunction for time dependent interaction strengthJ(t) Similar to the one particle case, the most general two particle wave function can be obtained by creating a super- position of the wave packets for all values of the parametersτ 1 andτ 2 in (54) as follows Z τ1 Z...

Pith tools

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