Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 59 references

Integral formula for the propagator of the one-dimensional Hubbard model

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The multi-particle propagator of the one-dimensional Hubbard model equals an explicit multiple contour integral of nested Bethe wave functions, exact for all particle numbers, times, and complex interactions.

desk verdict First Yudson-type propagator for the Hubbard model at general N,M; a solid, new result whose proof has one load-bearing braid-cancellation step that needs a careful referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.21541 v2 pith:L5ED7KTB submitted 2026-02-25 cond-mat.stat-mech cond-mat.quant-gasmath-phmath.MP

Taiki Ishiyama , Kazuya Fujimoto , Tomohiro Sasamoto This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.quant-gasmath-phmath.MP MSC 82B23 PACS 71.10.Fd05.30.-d
keywords HubbardmodelnestedBetheansatzpropagatorcontourintegralexacttimeevolutionopenquantumsystemsdephasingnoisetwo-bodyloss
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 aims to prove that the full time evolution of any finite number of fermions in the one-dimensional Hubbard model can be written as a single explicit multiple contour integral, with no quantization conditions such as the string hypothesis. If true, any finite-particle initial wave function can be evolved exactly by plugging into that integral, which has so far been possible only for simpler integrable models. The formula also holds for complex interaction strengths, which is what makes it directly applicable to open quantum systems such as a tight-binding chain with dephasing noise and the Hubbard model with two-body loss. The authors show the contour integral solves the Schrödinger equation and, via nested residue calculus, that it returns the correct delta-function initial state at t=0.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the nested Bethe wave function (13)–(14), in which charge-plane waves are dressed by spin scattering amplitudes that are themselves Bethe states of an inhomogeneous XXX spin chain. Two structural identities carry the proof: the Y-operator relation (19), expressing scattering amplitudes for arbitrary permutations through adjacent transpositions, and the (braid) Yang–Baxter relation (26), which makes those expressions well-defined. The initial-condition check then proceeds by nested induction: spin-contour residues prove A_id=δ_{a,b}, and charge-contour residues with a graphical bookkeeping of Y-operators cancel all higher permutations, leaving the determinant (7).

What would settle it

For N=3, M=1, evaluate the right side of (21) at t=0 by numerical contour integration or by exact residue sums for distinct initial and final configurations with y_1−x_2≥0 and compare with the determinant δ_{x1,y1}δ_{x2,y2}δ_{x3,y3}δ_{a1,b1}δ_{a2,b2}δ_{a3,b3}; a nonzero result for any permutation P∈S_3^(3) would falsify Lemma 2 and hence Theorem 1.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For the N-particle, M-down-spin sector of the infinite-lattice Fermi–Hubbard model, the propagator ψ_t(x;a|y;b) is given by the multiple contour integral (21): product over charge rapidities z_j on small circles |z_j|=r^{N−j}, product over spin rapidities λ_k on contours enclosing s_{β_k}+iu, with the nested Bethe wave function φ(x;a|z;λ) and energy factor e^{−iE(z)t}. Each nested scattering amplitude is itself a Bethe wave function of an inhomogeneous XXX spin chain. The proof verifies the two defining properties of the propagator: the Schrödinger equation follows from the nested Bethe ansatz, and the initial condition is recovered by successive residues in spin and then charge rapidities,

Load-bearing premise

The initial-condition proof depends on a pole-cancellation identity (63) supported by a direct evaluation on local basis states, and on the assertion that for every permutation one can choose an adjacent-transposition decomposition making the cancellation appear; if that braid-cancellation fails for some particle number, the t=0 integral would not equal the required determinant.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any N-particle state can be evolved exactly by inserting the integral formula into the expansion (5)-(6), giving a microscopic handle on nonequilibrium dynamics of the Hubbard model.
  • Because the formula holds for complex u∈C∖{0}, it yields, through the appendix-A duality, exact density-matrix elements for the tight-binding chain with dephasing noise and loss probabilities for the Hubbard model with two-body loss.
  • The derivation bypasses the string hypothesis; no assumptions about bound-state rapidity patterns are needed.
  • The N=2, M=1 case has already given exact density profiles for dephased domain-wall states; the general formula provides the basis for the full counting statistics of the time-integrated current.
  • In the homogeneous limit s_j=0, the spin part of the identity reduces to a known exclusion-process integral identity, placing the result in the family of exact propagator integral representations known for other integrable systems.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The residue-induction structure (spin first, then charge) looks robust enough to survive extension to the SU(n) generalization of the Hubbard model mentioned in the outlook; the same Y-operator/Yang–Baxter machinery is expected to carry over.
  • If the thermodynamic limit of the formula can be taken for density-matrix elements, it would give exact finite-density transport coefficients for the dephased chain, going beyond the finite-particle sector treated here.
  • The complex-interaction version suggests a direct route to the distribution of particle-loss events in the dissipative Hubbard model: because the propagator encodes the no-jump evolution, counting statistics of loss should follow by summing over loss times.
  • At large times and for step initial states, the exact integral should reproduce the known diffusive/KPZ-type scaling of the dephased tight-binding chain; recovering that scaling from the formula would validate its use in the hydrodynamic regime.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper claims an exact multiple-contour integral formula for the N-particle propagator of the one-dimensional Fermi–Hubbard model on an infinite lattice, in the sector with M down spins, for arbitrary complex interaction u≠0. Theorem 1 (eq. (21)) expresses the propagator as N charge contour integrals over circles |z_j|=r^{N−j} and M spin contour integrals over small contours Γ_s around {s_j+iu}, applied to the nested Bethe wave function φ(x;a|z;λ). The proof verifies that the right-hand side satisfies the Schrödinger equation and, at t=0, reduces to the determinant initial condition (7). The t=0 reduction is carried out through Lemma 1 (spin amplitudes expressed by Y-operators) and Lemma 2 (charge integrations reproduce the determinant). The paper also applies the formula to a dephased tight-binding chain and to the two-body-loss Hubbard model via GKSL duality, and notes a homogeneous-limit check against the Tracy–Widom ASEP identity.

Significance. If correct, this is a significant technical advance: it provides the first Yudson-type integral representation for the Hubbard model, does not rely on the string hypothesis, and gives a concrete route to exact finite-particle nonequilibrium dynamics, including non-Hermitian and open-system applications. The proof strategy is sound in principle: it is a direct verification of the Schrödinger equation and the initial condition, rather than an assumed completeness of Bethe states. The paper also contains useful external benchmarks: the N=2, M=1 case reproduces earlier work, and the homogeneous limit reduces to the known Tracy–Widom ASEP identity. The main risk is the t=0 reduction, which depends on nontrivial braid/Y-operator cancellations; the manuscript does not yet make this part fully transparent or fully rigorous.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4.2, eqs. (59)–(63), Appendix C.2] The proof of identity (50) for n≥3 hinges on the assertion that, after the z_n and z_m residue integrations, the apparent pole of factor (59) at s_m=s_l+2iu cancels because a decomposition of P can be chosen so that the triangle factor (62) appears and the operator identity (63) holds. This is load-bearing: if the cancellation fails, the t=0 limit does not reduce to the determinant (7). However, the decomposition is not constructed for general P; Appendix C.2 treats only l<m<n with P^{-1}(m)<P^{-1}(l), and the decisive step is stated as a 'direct calculation' without displaying the calculation. The regularity of all remaining factors at s_m=s_l+2iu is asserted, not proved. The operator identity (63) is likewise said to be verifiable on three-site states, but the verification is not shown. I recommend turning this into a complete lemma: explicit construction of the decomposition, proof of
  2. [§4.2, eqs. (64)–(66), Appendix C.3] The cancellation T_c(l,m;P)+T_c(l,m;Π_{l,m}P)=0 is central to proving (50) and hence the initial condition. The proof of (66) in Appendix C.3 assumes 'without loss of generality' μ<ν and performs a one-line manipulation involving an ordered product of Y-operators. This step is not fully algebraic: it does not spell out how the decomposition of Π_{l,m}P is obtained from that of P, nor why the residues commute with the insertion of Y(0)=I and with the unitarity relation Y(λ)Y(−λ)=I. Since the whole cancellation argument depends on exact operator orderings, I ask for a fully detailed derivation, either algebraic or diagrammatic with all orderings explicit, rather than the schematic figure 4.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4.1, Proposition 1] The induction over M is compressed. In the passage after the λ_1 integration for R∈S_M^{(1)}, the relabeling of α_j, β_j and λ_2,...,λ_M that allows application of the induction hypothesis is not displayed. Please write out this reduction explicitly.
  2. [§4.2, below (53)] The statement that the 'omitted part' is holomorphic inside the z_1-contour relies on the chosen radii r^{N-j}; a short justification showing that the Y-operator denominators cannot vanish inside the contour would improve readability.
  3. [Remark 5] The homogeneous-limit check is valuable but the displayed derivation of (29) from (31) is terse. In particular, the sign in the scattering factor after the change of variables ξ_j=(λ_j−iu)/(λ_j+iu) is not obvious; please expand the computation.
  4. [General] No numerical or exact-diagonalization check for N≥3 is provided. Given the complexity of Lemma 2, a small benchmark (e.g., N=3, M=1 or M=2 on a finite lattice) would substantially increase confidence in the intricate residue cancellations.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No material circularity: Theorem 1 is verified against the external nested Bethe wave function and cross-checked with an independent Tracy–Widom identity; the only self-citation is a consistency check, not a load-bearing premise.

full rationale

The central claim is Theorem 1 (eq. (21)), an integral representation of the Hubbard propagator. Its proof verifies two conditions: (a) the Schrödinger equation and (b) the initial condition. Step (a) uses the standard nested Bethe eigenfunction as an external input: 'e^{-iE(z)t}ϕ(x;a|z;λ) is the solution to the Schrödinger equation (8) from the nested Bethe ansatz [1,2]'. That input is a known eigenfunction solution from the published Bethe-ansatz literature, not the propagator formula itself, so using it to verify a candidate propagator is not circular. Step (b) is an independent residue-calculus and induction proof (Lemma 1, Proposition 1, Lemma 2), with the homogeneous-limit identity cross-checked against an external benchmark: 'This identity is equivalent to the one derived by Tracy and Widom [33] for the asymmetric simple exclusion process'. Importantly, the paper does not import the Tracy–Widom result as a premise; it proves the identity by its own residue arguments and cites the equality only as confirmation. The only direct self-citation, Ref. [47], is used as a special-case consistency check: 'In our previous work [47], we derived the integral formula for the propagator for the specific case of N=2 and M=1 ... Theorem 1 constitutes a natural generalization'. This is not load-bearing. The genuine internal weakness—the asserted braid-algebra cancellation and 'direct evaluation' in eqs. (62)–(63), and the unconstructed decomposition for general P—is a proof-completeness or correctness risk, not circularity, because those assertions are not defined in terms of the target propagator and nothing is fitted or renamed. Therefore the derivation is not circular by construction, and the appropriate score is low.

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

The derivation fits no data: u is the arbitrary complex interaction strength, and r is a contour-size parameter. Structural inputs are the external nested Bethe ansatz [1,2] and the algebraic structure of the inhomogeneous XXX chain [1,46]; the homogeneous specialization reproduces the independent Tracy–Widom ASEP identity. No new entities are introduced.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The nested Bethe ansatz wave functions (12)-(14), with arbitrary rapidities z and λ on the infinite lattice, are a complete set of solutions of the first-quantized Schrödinger equation (8) outside singular rapidities (no string hypothesis needed).
    Input for Step (a) of the proof and for representing the propagator; taken from Essler et al. [1] and Lieb–Wu [2]. On the infinite lattice these states are non-normalizable (Remark 1), so 'completeness' is formal and justified by the resulting convergent contour representation.
  • standard math The amplitudes (14) satisfy the Y-operator relation (19), and the Y-operators obey the braid Yang–Baxter relation (26) and unitarity (27).
    Inherited from the inhomogeneous XXX spin chain [1,46]. Used to define A_P^{(s)} in (24) independent of the decomposition of P (Remark 4) and to produce the cancellations (62)-(66) in the proof of Lemma 2.
  • standard math Outside-residue identity (35): the contour integral of a rational function equals minus the sum of its residues outside the contour (including infinity).
    Used in the M=1 base case of Proposition 1 and in the λ_n-integrals of §4.2.
  • standard math At most two particles can occupy the same lattice site (spin-1/2 distinctness of pairs (x_j,a_j) and (y_j,b_j)).
    Implied by the setup in Section 4; needed for the exponent x_{P^{-1}(1)}−x_1+y_2−y_1−1 ≥ 0 used to establish (53).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Integral formula for the propagator of the one-dimensional Hubbard model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L5ED7KTB

@misc{pith2026260221541,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Integral formula for the propagator of the one-dimensional Hubbard model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L5ED7KTB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.21541}
}
read the original abstract

We present an exact integral formula for the multi-particle propagator of the one-dimensional Fermi--Hubbard model on an infinite lattice. The proof is based on the nested Bethe ansatz without relying on the string hypothesis. Our formula enables an explicit integral representation of the time evolution of arbitrary finite-particle wave functions and thereby provides a foundation for the exact analysis of nonequilibrium dynamics in the Hubbard model. It can further be applied to related open quantum models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.21541 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The integration contour Γs in the complex λ-plane, indicated by blue circles with arrows. (a) Inhomogeneous case, where sj are distinct. (b) Homogeneous case (sj = 0). The situation in Theorem 1 corresponds to the inhomogeneous case (a), since sj is defined in (15) and the choice of the z-contour, |zj | = r N−j with r ≪ 1, implies that sj are well-separated. In subsection 4.1, however, we treat s = (s1, · · · , sN )… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Graphical representations of A (s) P (a|b) for (a) P = Π1,2. (b) P = Π1,3. From Lemma 1, one has A (s) Π1,2 (a|b) = ⟨a|Y1,2(s1−s2)|b⟩ and A (s) Π1,3 (a|b) = ⟨a|Y1,2(s2−s3)Y2,3(s1− s3)Y1,2(s1 − s2)|b⟩. the (braid) Yang–Baxter relation (26) guarantees the invariance of the amplitude under a change in the order of intersections. We proceed by induction on N. The case N = 1 is obvious. Let us consider N = 2. In this cas… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Schematic illustration of Ressn=sm+2iu[A (s) P (a|b)]. The blue circles and diamonds represent the factors given in (59) and (60), respectively, while the red square corresponds to the pole-contributing factor in the zn-integration. The dashed triangle represents the factor given in (62). Interestingly the denominator of (59) cancels upon combination with other factors in Ressn=sm+2iu A (s) P (a|b). In other words, … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Schematic illustration of (66). The red square and blue diamonds represent the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Graphical representations of the L-matrix and monodromy matrix. (a) L-matrix Ln(λ − µ), (b) Monodromy matrix T(λ|zP) for the case of N = 4. Then one sees that this state is equivalent to (14): |sP;λ⟩ = Y 1≤m<n≤M h λm − λn λm − λn − 2iu i B(λ1|sP)· · · B(λM|sP)| ↑, · · …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Graphical representations of (a) the Y -operator and (b) the Yang-Baxter rela￾tion for the Y -operator and the L-matrix. The Y -operator can be regarded as the Rˇ-matrix acting on the quantum space rather than on the auxiliary space as depicted in figure 6 (a), and it …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Fabian H. L. Essler, Holger Frahm, Frank Gohmann, Andreas Klumper, and Vladimir E. Korepin.The One-Dimensional Hubbard Model. Cambridge University Press, 2005

    2005

  2. [2]

    Lieb and F

    Elliott H. Lieb and F. Y. Wu. Absence of mott transition in an exact solution of the short-range, one-band model in one dimension.Phys. Rev. Lett., 20:1445–1448, Jun

  3. [3]

    Many-body physics with ultracold gases.Rev

    Immanuel Bloch, Jean Dalibard, and Wilhelm Zwerger. Many-body physics with ultracold gases.Rev. Mod. Phys., 80:885–964, Jul 2008. URL:https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.80.885,doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.80.885

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.80.885 2008

  4. [4]

    Quantum simulations with ul- tracold atoms in optical lattices.Science, 357(6355):995–1001, 2017

    Christian Gross and Immanuel Bloch. Quantum simulations with ul- tracold atoms in optical lattices.Science, 357(6355):995–1001, 2017. URL:https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.aal3837,arXiv: https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.aal3837,doi:10.1126/ science.aal3837

    doi:10.1126/science.aal3837 2017

  5. [5]

    Efficient simulation of one-dimensional quantum many-body systems

    Guifr´ e Vidal. Efficient simulation of one-dimensional quantum many-body systems. Phys. Rev. Lett., 93:040502, Jul 2004. URL:https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.93.040502,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.040502

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.93.040502 2004

  6. [6]

    White and Adrian E

    Steven R. White and Adrian E. Feiguin. Real-time evolution using the density matrix renormalization group.Phys. Rev. Lett., 93:076401, Aug 2004. URL:https://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.076401,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.93. 076401

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.93.076401 2004

  7. [7]

    The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of ma- trix product states.Annals of Physics, 326(1):96–192, 2011

    Ulrich Schollw¨ ock. The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of ma- trix product states.Annals of Physics, 326(1):96–192, 2011. January 2011 Special Issue. URL:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0003491610001752,doi:10.1016/j.aop.2010.09.012

    doi:10.1016/j.aop.2010.09.012 2011

  8. [8]

    Manmana, Ulrich Schollw¨ ock, and Claudius Hubig

    Sebastian Paeckel, Thomas K¨ ohler, Andreas Swoboda, Salvatore R. Manmana, Ulrich Schollw¨ ock, and Claudius Hubig. Time-evolution methods for matrix-product states. 25 Annals of Physics, 411:167998, 2019. URL:https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S0003491619302532,doi:10.1016/j.aop.2019.167998

    arXiv 2019

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    Transport in out-of-equilibrium XXZ chains: Exact profiles of charges and currents.Phys

    Bruno Bertini, Mario Collura, Jacopo De Nardis, and Maurizio Fagotti. Transport in out-of-equilibrium XXZ chains: Exact profiles of charges and currents.Phys. Rev. Lett., 117:207201, Nov 2016. URL:https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.117.207201,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett...

    2016 doi

  2. [10]

    Castro-Alvaredo, Benjamin Doyon, and Takato Yoshimura

    Olalla A. Castro-Alvaredo, Benjamin Doyon, and Takato Yoshimura. Emergent hydrodynamics in integrable quantum systems out of equilibrium.Phys. Rev. X, 6:041065, Dec 2016. URL:https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevX.6. 041065,doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.6.041065

    2016 doi

  3. [11]

    Lecture notes on generalised hydrodynamics.SciPost Phys

    Benjamin Doyon. Lecture notes on generalised hydrodynamics.SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes, page 18, 2020. URL:https://scipost.org/10.21468/ SciPostPhysLectNotes.18,doi:10.21468/SciPostPhysLectNotes.18

    2020 doi

  4. [12]

    Kajala, F

    J. Kajala, F. Massel, and P. T¨ orm¨ a. Expansion dynamics in the one- dimensional Fermi–Hubbard model.Phys. Rev. Lett., 106:206401, May 2011. URL:https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.206401,doi:10. 1103/PhysRevLett.106.206401

    2011 doi

  5. [13]

    Langer, M

    S. Langer, M. J. A. Schuetz, I. P. McCulloch, U. Schollw¨ ock, and F. Heidrich- Meisner. Expansion velocity of a one-dimensional, two-component Fermi gas during the sudden expansion in the ballistic regime.Phys. Rev. A, 85:043618, Apr 2012. URL:https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103...

    2012 doi

  6. [14]

    Vidmar, S

    L. Vidmar, S. Langer, I. P. McCulloch, U. Schneider, U. Schollw¨ ock, and F. Heidrich- Meisner. Sudden expansion of mott insulators in one dimension.Phys. Rev. B, 88:235117, Dec 2013. URL:https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.88. 235117,doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.88.235117

    2013 doi

  7. [15]

    Karrasch, D

    C. Karrasch, D. M. Kennes, and F. Heidrich-Meisner. Thermal conductivity of the one-dimensional Fermi–Hubbard model.Phys. Rev. Lett., 117:116401, Sep

  8. [16]

    Diffusive high-temperature transport in the one-dimensional Hubbard model.Phys

    Tomaˇ z Prosen and Marko ˇZnidariˇ c. Diffusive high-temperature transport in the one-dimensional Hubbard model.Phys. Rev. B, 86:125118, Sep 2012. URL:https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.86.125118,doi:10.1103/ PhysRevB.86.125118

    2012 doi

  9. [17]

    KPZ scaling in the Hubbard model.Phys

    C˘ at˘ alin Pa¸ scu Moca, Mikl´ os Antal Werner, Angelo Valli, Tomaˇ z Prosen, and Gergely Zar´ and. KPZ scaling in the Hubbard model.Phys. Rev. B, 108:235139, Dec

  10. [18]

    Ballistic transport in the one-dimensional Hub- bard model: The hydrodynamic approach.Phys

    Enej Ilievski and Jacopo De Nardis. Ballistic transport in the one-dimensional Hub- bard model: The hydrodynamic approach.Phys. Rev. B, 96:081118, Aug 2017. URL:https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.96.081118,doi:10.1103/ PhysRevB.96.081118. 26

    2017 doi

  11. [19]

    Superdif- fusion in one-dimensional quantum lattice models.Phys

    Enej Ilievski, Jacopo De Nardis, Marko Medenjak, and Tomaˇ z Prosen. Superdif- fusion in one-dimensional quantum lattice models.Phys. Rev. Lett., 121:230602, Dec 2018. URL:https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.230602, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.230602

    2018 doi

  12. [20]

    Michele Fava, Brayden Ware, Sarang Gopalakrishnan, Romain Vasseur, and S. A. Parameswaran. Spin crossovers and superdiffusion in the one-dimensional Hubbard model.Phys. Rev. B, 102:115121, Sep 2020. URL:https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.102.115121,doi:10.1103/PhysRevB...

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    Generalized hydrodynamic approach to charge and energy currents in the one-dimensional Hubbard model.Phys

    Yuji Nozawa and Hirokazu Tsunetsugu. Generalized hydrodynamic approach to charge and energy currents in the one-dimensional Hubbard model.Phys. Rev. B, 101:035121, Jan 2020. URL:https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.101. 035121,doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.101.035121

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    Generalized hydrodynamics study of the one- dimensional Hubbard model: Stationary clogging and proportionality of spin, charge, and energy currents.Phys

    Yuji Nozawa and Hirokazu Tsunetsugu. Generalized hydrodynamics study of the one- dimensional Hubbard model: Stationary clogging and proportionality of spin, charge, and energy currents.Phys. Rev. B, 103:035130, Jan 2021. URL:https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.103.03513...

    2021 doi

  15. [23]

    V. I. Yudson. Dynamics of integrable quantum systems.Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz, 88(5):1757, 1985

    1985

  16. [24]

    photons + two-level atoms

    V. I. Yudson. Dynamics of the integrable one-dimensional system “photons + two-level atoms”.Physics Letters A, 129(1):17–20, 1988. URL:https: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0375960188904653,doi:10. 1016/0375-9601(88)90465-3

    1988

  17. [25]

    Tracy and Harold Widom

    Craig A. Tracy and Harold Widom. The dynamics of the one-dimensional delta-function bose gas.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 41(48):485204, oct 2008.doi:10.1088/1751-8113/41/48/485204

    2008 doi

  18. [26]

    Quench dynamics of the interacting bose gas in one dimension.Phys

    Deepak Iyer and Natan Andrei. Quench dynamics of the interacting bose gas in one dimension.Phys. Rev. Lett., 109:115304, Sep 2012. URL:https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.115304,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.115304

    2012 doi

  19. [27]

    Exact formalism for the quench dynam- ics of integrable models.Phys

    Deepak Iyer, Huijie Guan, and Natan Andrei. Exact formalism for the quench dynam- ics of integrable models.Phys. Rev. A, 87:053628, May 2013. URL:https://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.87.053628,doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.87.053628

    2013 doi

  20. [28]

    Quench dynamics of the anisotropic heisenberg model.Phys

    Wenshuo Liu and Natan Andrei. Quench dynamics of the anisotropic heisenberg model.Phys. Rev. Lett., 112:257204, Jun 2014. URL:https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.257204,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.257204

    2014 doi

  21. [29]

    Quench dynamics of the gaudin–yang model, 2018

    Huijie Guan and Natan Andrei. Quench dynamics of the gaudin–yang model, 2018. URL:https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.04846,arXiv:1803.04846

    2018 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Tracy, and Harold Widom.Domain Walls in the Heisenberg– Ising Spin-1 2 Chain, pages 9–47

    Axel Saenz, Craig A. Tracy, and Harold Widom.Domain Walls in the Heisenberg– Ising Spin-1 2 Chain, pages 9–47. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2022. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-13851-5_2. 27

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    Quantum transport in interacting spin chains: Exact derivation of the GUE tracy–widom distribution, 2024

    Kazuya Fujimoto and Tomohiro Sasamoto. Quantum transport in interacting spin chains: Exact derivation of the GUE tracy–widom distribution, 2024. URL:https: //arxiv.org/abs/2412.20147,arXiv:2412.20147

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Sch¨ utz

    Gunter M. Sch¨ utz. Exact solution of the master equation for the asymmetric ex- clusion process.Journal of Statistical Physics, 88(1):427–445, 1997.doi:10.1007/ BF02508478

    1997

  25. [33]

    Tracy and Harold Widom

    Craig A. Tracy and Harold Widom. Integral formulas for the asymmetric simple exclusion process.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 279(3):815–844, 2008. doi:10.1007/s00220-008-0443-3

    2008 doi

  26. [34]

    Sylvain Prolhac and Herbert Spohn. The propagator of the attractive delta- bose gas in one dimension.Journal of Mathematical Physics, 52(12):122106, 12 2011.arXiv:https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jmp/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/1. 3663431/15778610/122106_1_online.pdf,doi:10.1063/1.3663431

    2011 doi

  27. [35]

    Tracy and Harold Widom

    Craig A. Tracy and Harold Widom. The bose gas and asymmetric simple exclusion process on the half-line.Journal of Statistical Physics, 150(1):1–12, 2013.doi: 10.1007/s10955-012-0686-4

    2013 doi

  28. [36]

    Duality and hidden symmetries in interacting particle systems.Journal of Statistical Physics, 135(1):25–55, 2009.doi:10.1007/s10955-009-9716-2

    Cristian Giardin` a, Jorge Kurchan, Frank Redig, and Kiamars Vafayi. Duality and hidden symmetries in interacting particle systems.Journal of Statistical Physics, 135(1):25–55, 2009.doi:10.1007/s10955-009-9716-2

    2009 doi

  29. [37]

    Tracy and Harold Widom

    Craig A. Tracy and Harold Widom. A fredholm determinant representation in ASEP.Journal of Statistical Physics, 132(2):291–300, 2008.doi:10.1007/ s10955-008-9562-7

    2008

  30. [38]

    Tracy and Harold Widom

    Craig A. Tracy and Harold Widom. Asymptotics in ASEP with step initial con- dition.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 290(1):129–154, 2009.doi: 10.1007/s00220-009-0761-0

    2009 doi

  31. [39]

    From duality to determinants for q–TASEP and ASEP.The Annals of Probability, 42(6):2314–2382, 2014.doi: 10.1214/13-AOP868

    Alexei Borodin, Ivan Corwin, and Tomohiro Sasamoto. From duality to determinants for q–TASEP and ASEP.The Annals of Probability, 42(6):2314–2382, 2014.doi: 10.1214/13-AOP868

    2014 doi

  32. [40]

    Current fluctuations in one dimensional diffusive systems with a step initial density profile.Journal of Statistical Physics, 137(5):978–1000, 2009.doi:10.1007/s10955-009-9830-1

    Bernard Derrida and Antoine Gerschenfeld. Current fluctuations in one dimensional diffusive systems with a step initial density profile.Journal of Statistical Physics, 137(5):978–1000, 2009.doi:10.1007/s10955-009-9830-1

    2009 doi

  33. [41]

    Stochastic six-vertex model.Duke Mathematical Journal, 165(3):563–624, 2016.doi:10.1215/00127094-3166843

    Alexei Borodin, Ivan Corwin, and Vadim Gorin. Stochastic six-vertex model.Duke Mathematical Journal, 165(3):563–624, 2016.doi:10.1215/00127094-3166843

    2016 doi

  34. [42]

    Medvedyeva, Fabian H

    Mariya V. Medvedyeva, Fabian H. L. Essler, and Tomaˇ z Prosen. Exact bethe ansatz spectrum of a tight-binding chain with dephasing noise.Phys. Rev. Lett., 117:137202, Sep 2016. URL:https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.137202, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.137202

    2016 doi

  35. [43]

    Exact liouvillian spectrum of a one-dimensional dissipative Hubbard model.Phys

    Masaya Nakagawa, Norio Kawakami, and Masahito Ueda. Exact liouvillian spectrum of a one-dimensional dissipative Hubbard model.Phys. Rev. Lett., 126:110404, Mar

  36. [44]

    Liouvillian gap and single spin-flip dy- namics in the dissipative Fermi–Hubbard model.Phys

    Hironobu Yoshida and Hosho Katsura. Liouvillian gap and single spin-flip dy- namics in the dissipative Fermi–Hubbard model.Phys. Rev. A, 107:033332, Mar

  37. [45]

    Universality and two-body losses: Lessons from the effective non- hermitian dynamics of two particles.Phys

    Alice March´ e, Hironobu Yoshida, Alberto Nardin, Hosho Katsura, and Leonardo Mazza. Universality and two-body losses: Lessons from the effective non- hermitian dynamics of two particles.Phys. Rev. A, 110:033321, Sep

  38. [46]

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

    1993

  39. [47]

    Exact density profile in a tight-binding chain with dephasing noise.Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2025(3):033103, mar 2025

    Taiki Ishiyama, Kazuya Fujimoto, and Tomohiro Sasamoto. Exact density profile in a tight-binding chain with dephasing noise.Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2025(3):033103, mar 2025. URL:https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/ 1742-5468/adba43,doi:10.1088/1742-5468/adba43

    2025 doi

  40. [48]

    Tracy and Harold Widom

    Craig A. Tracy and Harold Widom. Erratum to: Integral formulas for the asymmetric simple exclusion process.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 304(3):875–878, 2011.doi:10.1007/s00220-011-1249-2

    2011 doi

  41. [49]

    URL:https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.107.033332,doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.107.033332

    doi

  42. [50]

    On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups.Commun

    Goran Lindblad. On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups.Commun. Math. Phys., 48:119–130, 1976.doi:10.1007/BF01608499

    1976 doi

  43. [51]

    Completely positive dynamical semigroups of N-level systems.J

    Vittorio Gorini, Andrzej Kossakowski, and Ennackal Chandy George Sudarshan. Completely positive dynamical semigroups of N-level systems.J. Math. Phys., 17(5):821–825, 1976. URL:https://doi.org/10.1063/1.522979

    1976 doi

  44. [52]

    Oxford University Press, 01 2007.doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199213900

    Heinz-Peter Breuer and Francesco Petruccione.The Theory of Open Quantum Sys- tems. Oxford University Press, 01 2007.doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199213900. 001.0001

    2007

  45. [53]

    Integrable nonunitary open quantum circuits.Phys

    Lucas S´ a, Pedro Ribeiro, and Tomaˇ z Prosen. Integrable nonunitary open quantum circuits.Phys. Rev. B, 103:115132, Mar 2021. URL:https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevB.103.115132,doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.103.115132. 29

    2021 doi

  46. [55]

    Maassarani

    Z. Maassarani. The su(n) hubbard model.Physics Letters A, 239(3):187– 190, 1998. URL:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0375960197009778,doi:10.1016/S0375-9601(97)00977-8

    1998 doi

  47. [1968]

    1103/PhysRevLett.20.1445

    URL:https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.20.1445,doi:10. 1103/PhysRevLett.20.1445

    doi

  48. [2016]

    URL:https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.116401,doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.116401

    doi

  49. [2021]

    URL:https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.110404,doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.110404. 28

    doi

  50. [2023]

    URL:https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.108.235139,doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.108.235139

    doi

  51. [2024]

    URL:https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.110.033321,doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.110.033321

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.