Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 30 references

Ruijsenaars spectral transform

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that the Ruijsenaars spectral transform is inverted by its dual on a class of symmetric analytic functions, for complex parameters, and extends to a unitary L2 isomorphism in four unitarity regimes.

desk verdict A serious framework paper whose central complex-parameter inversion theorem rests on a cited delta-sequence result that the paper's own introduction says was only proved for real parameters – worth refereeing, but the main claim is unproven as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.19659 v2 pith:HHPKR34J submitted 2024-11-29 math-ph hep-thmath.CAmath.MPnlin.SI

N. Belousov , S. Khoroshkin This is my paper · ORCID
classification math-phhep-thmath.CAmath.MPnlin.SI MSC 33E3047A70
keywords Ruijsenaarshyperbolicsystemspectraltransforminversionformulaorthogonalityrelationsunitarityregimesdoublesinefunctionbispectraldualitydeltasequence
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 Ruijsenaars hyperbolic system has wave functions $\Psi_\lambda(x)$ that depend on position $x$ and spectral parameter $\lambda$; integrating a function against these wave functions defines an integral transform $T$ that generalizes the Fourier transform, to which it reduces when there is one particle. The paper establishes the basic harmonic-analysis facts for this transform: on a space $\mathcal{S}_{\omega,g}$ of symmetric, analytic, exponentially decaying functions, every $\phi$ is recovered from its spectral image by $T^\dagger$, i.e. $[T^\dagger T\phi](x)=\phi(x)$, and the transform respects the natural pairings. These facts are proved for complex-valued periods $\omega_1,\omega_2$ and coupling $g$ under mild positivity assumptions, extending earlier results that required real parameters. The paper then classifies four unitarity regimes, real or complex-conjugate periods combined with real or reflected coupling, in which the transform extends to a unitary isomorphism between the relevant symmetric square-integrable spaces. Together these results yield a spectral decomposition for the commuting Ruijsenaars-Macdonald difference operators, with Fourier-like completeness, orthogonality, and inversion in one package.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Hallnäs-Ruijsenaars wave function $\Psi_\lambda(x)$, built recursively from a kernel $K(x)$ expressed through the double sine function $S_2(z|\omega)$, and the corresponding measure $\mu(x)=\prod_{j\neq k}\mu(x_j-x_k)$ with $\mu(x)=S_2(ix|\omega)S_2^{-1}(ix+g|\omega)$. The spectral transform is $[T\phi](\lambda)=\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}dx\,\mu(x)\Psi_\lambda(-x)\phi(x)$, with dual $[T^\dagger\chi](x)=\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}d\lambda\,\hat\mu(\lambda)\Psi_\lambda(x)\chi(\lambda)$ using the dual measure $\hat\mu$ on spectral variables. The identity that carries the argument is the delta-sequence limit of the regularized pairing $(\Psi_\lambda(y),\Psi_\lambda(x))^{\lambda,\varepsilon}_{\hat\mu}$, which converges to $\mu^{-1}(x)\delta(x,y)$; inserting this pairing into $T^\dagger T$ gives the inversion formula. Decay of $[T\phi](\lambda)$ is controlled through the generating function $H(\lambda)$ of the commuting difference Hamiltonians and its symmetry under the bilinear form, and in the unitarity regimes with complex coupling the coupling-reflection symmetry connecting $\mu$ to the Sklyanin measure $\Delta$ plays the decisive role.

What would settle it

For $n=2$, pick parameters satisfying (2.1)-(2.2) with non-real $\omega_1=\overline{\omega_2}$, and compute the double limit in (5.15) against a symmetric Gaussian test function such as $e^{-|x|^2}$. If the limit is not $\mu^{-1}(x)$ times the symmetrized $\delta(x,y)$ for at least one such parameter triple, the inversion formula of Theorem 1 collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the function space $\mathcal{S}_{\omega,g}$ of symmetric functions analytic in strips and decaying exponentially in the variables and their differences, the paper proves $[T^\dagger T\phi](x)=\phi(x)$ and the identity $(\phi_1(-x),\phi_2(x))_\mu=([T\phi_1], [T\phi_2])_{\hat\mu}$, valid for complex parameters satisfying the positivity restrictions (2.1)-(2.2). These follow from the delta-sequence convergence of a regularized pairing of wave functions. In regime I, real periods and real coupling, this upgrading gives a unitary isomorphism $\mathrm{L}^2_{\mathrm{sym}}(\mathbb{R}^n,\mu)\to\mathrm{L}^2_{\mathrm{sym}}(\mathbb{R}^n,\hat\mu)$; regimes II-IV cover complex-conjugate periods and/or coupling with $\bar g=\omega_1+\omega_2-g$, in which the scalar product uses the Sklyanin measure $\Delta$. The paper further shows that a half-measure rescaling turns the unitary into an operator $U$ with $U^2=R$, the reflection operator, mirroring the Fourier transform.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the regularized pairing of wave functions converges to a delta function even for complex periods and coupling; the cited source proves this convergence only for real parameters, and the present paper invokes it for the complex case without supplying the proof.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The inversion formula gives a reconstruction theorem: any function in $\mathcal{S}_{\omega,g}$ is recovered from its spectral transform by integrating against the same wave functions, so the wave functions form a complete system for this function class.
  • The equivariance identity makes $T$ an isometry between the natural pairings; in the four unitarity regimes this upgrades to a unitary isomorphism between symmetric $L^2$ spaces with the measure $\mu$ or the Sklyanin measure $\Delta$.
  • Bispectral duality gives the reverse identity $TT^\dagger=\mathrm{Id}$, so the same wave functions are simultaneously complete in the spectral and spatial pictures.
  • At $g=\omega_2$ the transform reduces to a multidimensional Fourier transform between spaces of antisymmetric functions; after rescaling by half-measures in any regime, the unitary satisfies $U^2=R$, the reflection operator, exactly as the Fourier transform does.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if the complex-parameter delta-sequence assumption is supplied, the same proof scheme should extend the inversion formula to function classes with only polynomial decay, since the decay argument and the bounded regularizer are robust under weaker weights.
  • Editorial inference: the unitary isomorphisms give a Plancherel theorem and a spectral calculus: symmetric observables built from the commuting difference Hamiltonians can be conjugated to multiplication by their eigenvalues on the spectral side, a step the paper does not carry out.
  • Editorial inference: the $U^2=R$ structure suggests that in regimes II and IV the transform is a Fourier-type operator for modular-double structures of the underlying symmetry algebra; making that representation-theoretic interpretation precise is a natural next step beyond this paper.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper defines the Ruijsenaars spectral transform T with respect to the wave functions of the hyperbolic Ruijsenaars system and claims an inversion formula T†T = id on a Schwartz-type space S_{ω,g} for complex-valued parameters satisfying (2.1)–(2.2), together with an equivariance (orthogonality) identity. It further claims that in four regimes of parameters—real periods or complex-conjugate periods, with either real coupling or coupling satisfying ¯g = g∗—the transform extends to unitary isomorphisms of the corresponding L² spaces. The main theorems are Theorem 1 (inversion), Theorem 2 (equivariance), and Theorem 3 (unitarity in regimes I–IV). The proofs reduce the problem to a delta-sequence property of the regularized wave-function pairing, Eq. (5.15), which is imported from the authors' prior paper [BDKK3, Proposition 2].

Significance. If the missing step is supplied, the paper would provide a genuinely useful generalization: a spectral decomposition of the Ruijsenaars system for complex parameters, and a unified treatment of four unitarity regimes, including the less studied complex-conjugate-period cases. The structural strategy is attractive: it reduces unitarity to the inversion formula plus density of polynomial-type test functions, and the four regimes are organized clearly. The paper is also careful about convergence and bounds in Sections 3–4, and it makes explicit the dependence on the previously established delta-sequence result. The main value of the paper therefore hinges on whether that delta-sequence property is actually available for complex parameters; the present manuscript does not demonstrate this.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.2, Eq. (5.15)] The delta-sequence identity (5.15) is quoted from [BDKK3, Proposition 2] without any qualification, but the Introduction (p. 2) states that orthogonality and completeness of the wave functions were proved in [BDKK3] only for real ω_i and g, and that extending this result to complex parameters is one of the goals of the present note. The paper contains no proof of (5.15) under the complex-parameter hypotheses (2.1)–(2.2). This is not a minor technicality: (5.15) is exactly the completeness of the wave functions in distribution form, and it is used in the final step of (5.21) to replace the regularized pairing by μ^{-1}(x)δ(x,y). The analyticity of the individual wave functions in Corollary 1 does not by itself justify the distributional limit of the regularized pairing. Therefore the proof of Theorem 1 is incomplete for the stated parameter range.
  2. [§5.3–§5.4, Eqs. (5.17)–(5.21), (5.26)–(5.28)] The proof of Theorem 2 inherits the same gap. The first proof of Theorem 2 uses Theorem 1 directly, while the second, presented as independent, again uses the delta-sequence property (5.15) at Eq. (5.28). Since Theorem 2 is the equivariance/orthogonality statement needed for the L² extension in Section 6, the entire chain of results for complex parameters collapses without a proof of (5.15).
  3. [§6.3–§6.5, Eqs. (6.37)–(6.43), (6.61)–(6.65)] Theorem 3 is proved by reducing the scalar-product transform F to T through Eq. (6.37) and then invoking the inversion formula (6.43), so the unproved delta-sequence property (5.15) is load-bearing for the unitarity claims as well. In addition, the alternative route sketched in Section 6.5 for regimes III and IV is only a sketch: the reduction (6.61) and the claimed delta-sequence limit (6.65) are not proved. If Section 6.5 is meant to provide an independent proof of unitarity in regimes III and IV, it is incomplete; if it is meant only as a remark, this should be stated explicitly. Either way, the main theorem is not rescued by Section 6.5 because it relies on the inversion formula from Section 5.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Introduction, item 3] The sentence 'It was proved in [BDKK3, Proposition 2] that the regularized pairing ... forms a delta sequence' omits the parameter restrictions that are acknowledged in the same introduction; please reconcile this statement with the stated goal of extending the real-parameter result.
  2. [§6.5, Eq. (6.56)] In the formula for |R_{λ,ε}(λ)|², the meaning of the conjugate kernel K∗ is not fully specified for complex periods; a definition in terms of the double sine function would make the subsequent calculations in (6.61)–(6.65) more transparent.
  3. [§6.4, Eq. (6.48)] The notation λ/ω_1ω_2 is ambiguous; write λ/(ω_1ω_2).
  4. [§4, Proposition 2, Eq. (4.29)] In the displayed inequality, the left-hand side is written with [Tφ](x) but the argument should be λ; trivial typo.
  5. [§3.2, Corollary 2, Eqs. (3.40)–(3.41)] The constant C(g,ω) may depend on the arbitrary small δ introduced by the bound; please clarify the dependence.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Complex-parameter inversion formula rests on the delta-sequence property (5.15), which the paper itself says was proved only for real parameters; the central claim is carried by a load-bearing self-citation.

  1. self citation load bearing [Introduction, item 1; Section 5.2, Eq. (5.15); Section 5.3, Eq. (5.21)]
    "The exceptions so far were orthogonality and completeness of the wave functions, which were proved in [BDKK3] only for real ω_i,g. One of the goals of this note is to extend this result to complex values of parameters. ... Moreover, by [BDKK3, Proposition 2] it forms a delta sequence in the Schwartz space lim_{λ→∞} lim_{ε→0+} (Ψ_λ(y), Ψ_λ(x))^{λ,ε}_{ˆµ} = µ^{−1}(x)δ(x,y). The last formula is the key result needed for the proof of Theorem 1."

    Theorem 1 (Eq. (5.1)) is proved by using the delta-sequence identity (5.15) to pass from the regularized pairing to μ^{-1}(x)δ(x,y) in Eq. (5.21). The paper explicitly identifies (5.15) as '[BDKK3, Proposition 2]' and calls it 'the key result needed for the proof of Theorem 1'. But the Introduction states that orthogonality and completeness — whose distribution form is precisely (5.15)/(5.3) — were proved in [BDKK3] only for real ω_i,g. No proof of the complex-parameter version of (5.15) is supplied in Sections 5.3–5.4 or elsewhere; the same regularizing function R_{λ,ε} is reused and the complex delta-sequence property is asserted. Theorems 2 and 3 inherit this dependence, since they use Theorem 1 or the same delta sequence.

full rationale

The paper proves Theorems 1–3 for complex parameters. The inversion formula (Theorem 1) rests on the delta-sequence identity (5.15), cited from the authors' prior paper [BDKK3]. The Introduction explicitly states that orthogonality and completeness were proved in [BDKK3] only for real ω_i,g, and the paper does not prove the complex-parameter version of (5.15) in this text. Therefore the central claim for complex parameters is supported by a load-bearing self-citation. However, the paper does contain independent content: the bounds in Section 4 and the unitarity regimes III/IV reduction via coupling reflection symmetry are new arguments, and the regime I result for real parameters is externally established in [BDKK3] with a different proof. The paper is not fully circular because the derived unificatory structure and the regime II unitarity extension could in principle be proven if (5.15) for complex parameters were established elsewhere; yet as written the key step is an unproved imported result from the same authors. Hence score 4.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no fitted numerical parameters; ω1, ω2, g are model inputs. The main inputs are cited theorems from the authors' prior work. The most load-bearing is the delta-sequence property, which is used to prove the central inversion formula but whose complex-parameter validity is not demonstrated. Other inputs are bispectral duality, coupling reflection symmetry, Baxter operator identity, and uniform bounding estimates. Standard analytic theorems (dominated convergence, Fubini, Plancherel, weighted polynomial density) are used as usual.

assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Delta-sequence property (5.15) from [BDKK3, Proposition 2] holds for complex-valued parameters satisfying (2.1)-(2.2).
    Used in Section 5.3 to prove Theorem 1 (inversion). The Introduction says BDKK3 proved completeness/orthogonality only for real ω_i,g; the needed complex-parameter extension is neither proved nor stated as an assumption.
  • domain assumption Bispectral duality Ψλ(x;g|ω)=Ψx(λ;ĝ*|ω̂), [BDKK2, Theorem 5].
    Used for dual inversion and unitary isomorphism arguments (Sections 5.1, 6.2, 6.4). Taken as a black box from prior published work by the same group.
  • domain assumption Coupling reflection symmetry Ψλ(x;g*)=η(x)η̂(λ)Ψλ(x;g), [BDKK4, Theorem 5].
    Central for regimes III, IV with complex coupling (Sections 3.1, 6.3).
  • domain assumption Baxter Q-operator identity (6.60) from [BDKK4, Theorem 4].
    Used in Section 6.5 to relate the positive regularization for regimes III, IV to the known regularized pairing (5.13).
  • domain assumption Uniform bounds (3.32)-(3.33) on measure and kernel functions, from [BDKK1, Appendix A].
    These bounds support Propositions 1-2 and many convergence arguments; cited without proof from the authors' earlier work.
  • standard math Double sine function properties collected in Appendix A: difference equations (A.1), reflection (A.2)-(A.3), pole/zero locations (A.7), asymptotics (A.12).
    Standard special-function facts used throughout; stated in the appendix and attributed to known references.
  • standard math Standard analytic theorems: dominated convergence, Fubini, Plancherel, density of Gaussian-polynomial functions in weighted L2 spaces.
    Used in Sections 5.3, 5.4, 6.2 for inversion, orthogonality, and density arguments.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ruijsenaars spectral transform." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HHPKR34J

@misc{pith2026241119659,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ruijsenaars spectral transform},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HHPKR34J}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.19659}
}
abstract

Spectral decomposition with respect to the wave functions of Ruijsenaars hyperbolic system defines an integral transform, which generalizes classical Fourier integral. For a certain class of analytical symmetric functions we prove inversion formula and orthogonality relations, valid for complex valued parameters of the system. Besides, we study four regimes of unitarity, when this transform defines isomorphisms of the corresponding $L_2$ spaces.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    G. E. Andrews, R. Askey, R. Roy, Special Functions, Cambridge University Press (1999)

    work page 1999

  2. [2]

    Integral Representations of the Macdonald Symmetric Functions

    H. Awata, S. Odake, J. Shiraishi, Integral representations of the Macdonald symmetric polynomials, Communications in Mathematical Physics https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02100101 179 (1996) 647--666, arXiv:q-alg/9506006 https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.q-alg/9506006

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.q-alg/9506006 1996

  3. [3]

    E. W. Barnes, The theory of the double gamma function, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London https://www.jstor.org/stable/90809. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical or Physical Character 196 (1901) 265--387

    work page 1901

  4. [4]

    Baxter operators in Ruijsenaars hyperbolic system I. Commutativity of Q-operators

    N. Belousov, S. Derkachov, S. Kharchev, S. Khoroshkin, Baxter operators in Ruijsenaars hyperbolic system I: commutativity of Q -operators, Annales Henri Poincaré https://doi.org/10.1007/s00023-023-01364-4 25 (2024) 3207--3258, arXiv:2303.06383 [math-ph] https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.06383

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.06383 2024

  5. [5]

    Baxter operators in Ruijsenaars hyperbolic system II. Bispectral wave functions

    N. Belousov, S. Derkachov, S. Kharchev, S. Khoroshkin, Baxter operators in Ruijsenaars hyperbolic system II: bispectral wave functions, Annales Henri Poincaré https://doi.org/10.1007/s00023-023-01385-z 25 (2024) 3259--3296, arXiv:2303.06382 [math-ph] https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.06382

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.06382 2024

  6. [6]

    Baxter operators in Ruijsenaars hyperbolic system III. Orthogonality and completeness of wave functions

    N. Belousov, S. Derkachov, S. Kharchev, S. Khoroshkin, Baxter operators in Ruijsenaars hyperbolic System III: orthogonality and completeness of wave functions, Annales Henri Poincaré https://doi.org/10.1007/s00023-023-01406-x 25 (2024) 3297--3332, arXiv:2307.16817 [math-ph] https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2307.16817

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.16817 2024

  7. [7]

    Baxter operators in Ruijsenaars hyperbolic system IV. Coupling constant reflection symmetry

    N. Belousov, S. Derkachov, S. Kharchev, S. Khoroshkin, Baxter operators in Ruijsenaars hyperbolic system IV: coupling constant reflection symmetry, Communications in Mathematical Physics https://doi.org/10.1007/s00220-024-04952-5 405 (2024), arXiv:2308.07619 [math-ph] https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2308.07619

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2308.07619 2024

  8. [8]

    Bullimore, H

    M. Bullimore, H. C. Kim, P. Koroteev, Defects and quantum Seiberg-Witten geometry, Journal of High Energy Physics https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05(2015)095 2015 (2015) 95, arXiv:1412.6081 [hep-th] https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1412.6081

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1412.6081 2015

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    A. G. Bytsko, J. Teschner, R-operator, co-product and Haar-measure for the modular double of U_q( sl (2, R )) , Communications in mathematical physics https://doi.org/10.1007/s00220-003-0894-5 240 (2003) 171--196, arXiv:math/0208191 [math.QA] https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.mat...

    2003 doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    Di Francesco, R

    P. Di Francesco, R. Kedem, S. Khoroshkin, G. Schrader, A. Shapiro, Ruijsenaars wavefunctions as modular group matrix coefficients, arXiv:2402.14214 [math-ph] https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402.14214 (2024)

    2024 doi arXiv

  3. [11]

    S. E. Derkachov, K. K. Kozlowski, A. N. Manashov, On the separation of variables for the modular XXZ magnet and the lattice Sinh-Gordon models, Annales Henri Poincaré https://doi.org/10.1007/s00023-019-00806-2 20 (2019) 2623--2670, arXiv:1806.04487 [math-ph] https://doi.org/10...

    2019 doi arXiv

  4. [12]

    S. E. Derkachov, K. K. Kozlowski, A. N. Manashov, Completeness of SoV Representation for SL(2, R ) Spin Chains , SIGMA https://doi.org/10.3842/SIGMA.2021.063 17 (2021) 063, arXiv:2102.13570 [math-ph] https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2102.13570

    2021 doi arXiv

  5. [13]

    L. D. Faddeev, Discrete Heisenberg-Weyl Group and modular group, Letters in Mathematical Physics https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01872779 34 (1995) 249--254, arXiv:hep-th/9504111 https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.hep-th/9504111

    1995 doi arXiv

  6. [14]

    L. D. Faddeev, Modular double of quantum group, Mathematical Physics Studies 21 (2000), arXiv:math/9912078 [math.QA] https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.math/9912078

    2000 doi arXiv

  7. [15]

    L. D. Faddeev, Discrete series of representations for the modular double of U_q (sl (2, R )) , arXiv:0712.2747 [math.QA] https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.0712.2747 (2007)

    2007 doi arXiv

  8. [16]

    Halln\"as, S

    M. Halln\"as, S. Ruijsenaars, Joint eigenfunctions for the relativistic Calogero--Moser Hamiltonians of hyperbolic type. I. First steps, International Mathematics Research Notices https://doi.org/10.1093/imrn/rnt076 2014:16 (2014) 4400--4456, arXiv:1206.3787 [nlin.SI] https://...

    2014 doi arXiv

  9. [17]

    Halln\"as, S

    M. Halln\"as, S. Ruijsenaars, Joint eigenfunctions for the relativistic Calogero--Moser Hamiltonians of hyperbolic type. II. The two- and three-variable cases, International Mathematics Research Notices https://doi.org/10.1093/imrn/rnx020 2018:14 (2018) 4404--4449, arXiv:1607....

    2018 doi arXiv

  10. [18]

    Halln\"as, S

    M. Halln\"as, S. Ruijsenaars, Joint eigenfunctions for the relativistic Calogero--Moser Hamiltonians of hyperbolic type. III. Factorized asymptotics, International Mathematics Research Notices https://doi.org/10.1093/imrn/rnaa193 2021:6 (2021) 4679--4708, arXiv:1905.12918 [mat...

    2021 doi arXiv

  11. [19]

    A. N. Kolmogorov, S. V. Fomin, Elements of the theory of functions and functional analysis (Russian), Forth edition, Moscow, Nauka (1976)

    1976

  12. [20]

    Kurokawa, S-Y

    N. Kurokawa, S-Y. Koyama, Multiple sine functions, Forum Mathematicum https://doi.org/10.1515/form.2003.042 15 (2003) 839--876

    2003 doi

  13. [21]

    Kharchev, D

    S. Kharchev, D. Lebedev, M. Semenov-Tian-Shansky, Unitary representations of U_q( sl (2, R )) , the modular double and the multiparticle q -deformed Toda chain , Communications in mathematical physics https://doi.org/10.1007/s002200100592 225 (2002) 573--609, arXiv:hep-th/0102...

    2002 doi arXiv

  14. [22]

    Macdonald, Symmetric functions and Hall Polynomials, Second edition, Oxford, Oxford University Press (1995)

    I. Macdonald, Symmetric functions and Hall Polynomials, Second edition, Oxford, Oxford University Press (1995)

    1995

  15. [23]

    E. M. Opdam, Harmonic analysis for certain representations of graded Hecke algebras, Acta Mathematica https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02392487 175 (1995) 75--121

    1995 doi

  16. [24]

    S. N. M. Ruijsenaars, Complete integrability of relativistic Calogero-Moser systems and elliptic function identities, Communications in Mathematical Physics https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01207363 110 (1987) 191--213

    1987 doi

  17. [25]

    S. N. M. Ruijsenaars, First-order analytic difference equations and integrable quantum systems, Journal of Mathematical Physics https://doi.org/10.1063/1.531809 38 (1997) 1069--1146

    1997 doi

  18. [26]

    S. N. M. Ruijsenaars, A relativistic conical function and its Whittaker limits, SIGMA https://doi.org/10.3842/SIGMA.2011.101 7 (2011) 101, arXiv:1111.0115 [math.CA] https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1111.0115

    2011 doi arXiv

  19. [27]

    G. A. Sarkissian, V. P. Spiridonov, Complex hypergeometric functions and integrable many-body problems, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8121/ac88a4, 55 (2022), arXiv:2105.15031 [math-ph] https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2105.15031

    2022 doi arXiv

  20. [28]

    Schrader, A

    G. Schrader, A. Shapiro, On b -Whittaker functions, arXiv:1806.00747 [math-ph] https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1806.00747 (2018)

    2018 doi arXiv

  21. [29]

    J. Teschner, From Liouville theory to the quantum geometry of Riemann surfaces, in 14th International Congress on Mathematical Physics (2003), arXiv:hep-th/0308031 https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.hep-th/0308031

    2003 doi arXiv

  22. [30]

    Teschner, G

    J. Teschner, G. S. Vartanov, Supersymmetric gauge theories, quantization of M _ flat , and conformal field theory , Advances in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics https://dx.doi.org/10.4310/ATMP.2015.v19.n1.a1 19:1 (2015) 1--135, arXiv:1302.3778 [hep-th] https://doi.org/10.4...

    2015 doi arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.