A discrete Smorodinsky--Winternitz II superintegrable system

Luc Vinet; Pierre-Antoine Bernard; Vutha Vichhea Chea

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 29 references

A discrete Smorodinsky--Winternitz II superintegrable system

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper constructs a finite-difference model on a triangular lattice that is maximally superintegrable with Krawtchouk-dual-Hahn eigenfunctions and whose continuum limit is the Smorodinsky-Winternitz II system.

desk verdict The finite SW II model is a real construction, but the continuum limit as written is broken by a Krawtchouk–Hermite normalization error, so the central eigenfunction claim does not hold. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.12909 v1 pith:OCHSC2MH submitted 2026-08-13 math-ph math.MP

Pierre-Antoine Bernard , Vutha Vichhea Chea , Luc Vinet This is my paper · ORCID

classification math-phmath.MP MSC 81R1233C4539A70

keywords superintegrablesystemsSmorodinsky-WinternitzIIfinite-differenceHamiltonianKrawtchoukpolynomialsdualHahnalgebraLaguerre-Heuncontinuumlimit

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 constructs a finite quantum system defined on a triangular region of the two-dimensional square lattice and claims it is an exact discrete analogue of the Smorodinsky-Winternitz II superintegrable system. The Hamiltonian is the sum of two commuting finite-difference number operators, so the model has three independent integrals of motion and is maximally superintegrable. Its eigenfunctions are given in closed form as products of Krawtchouk and dual Hahn polynomials of Tratnik type. Under a rescaling of the lattice variables with $p=N^{-\theta}$, the Hamiltonian, ladder operators, and eigenfunctions converge to the continuous Smorodinsky-Winternitz II Hamiltonian and its Hermite-Laguerre eigenfunctions. The paper further shows that the discrete symmetry algebra's Hahn presentation becomes singular in this limit, while the limiting symmetry operators close on the Laguerre-Heun algebra.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the pair of commuting finite-difference number operators $N_1,N_2$ of (2.9), whose commutativity and self-adjointness with respect to the factorized weight (2.12) force a finite spectrum on $\mathcal{R}(N)$. Around them are built the ladder operators $(a_1,a_2,a_1^\dagger,a_2^\dagger)$ with structure functions (3.5), which satisfy the dynamical algebra (3.6) and give the raising/lowering actions (3.18) on energy eigenstates; the symmetry operators $C_1=N_2+\alpha+1/2$ and $C_2=\{a_1,a_2^\dagger\}+\{a_1^\dagger,a_2\}$ are formed from these and close on the cubic algebra (3.9), which is brought to the Hahn algebra (3.15) by the renormalization (3.13). The continuum limit is carried by the Taylor expansion (4.4) of finite differences at shifted lattice points under the scaling $x_1=pN+\sqrt{2p(1-p)N}\,x$, $x_2=N-x_1-y/\sqrt{p}$, $p=N^{-\theta}$, followed by the gauge factor $g=\pi^{-1/4}e^{-x^2/2}y^{\alpha+1/2}e^{-y^2/4}$, which converts the limiting difference operators into Hermite and Laguerre differential operators.

What would settle it

Compute the limits directly: substitute the explicit ladder coefficients of Appendix A into the difference operators, apply the scaling (4.1) with $p=N^{-\theta}$, and keep the Taylor expansions through all orders that contribute to $O(1/p)$ and $O(1)$; if any non-cancelling term remains beyond the operators listed in (4.5), or if the gauge-transformed operators (4.13) differ from the stated Hermite and Laguerre forms, the continuum-limit claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the operator $H=N_1+N_2+\alpha/2+1$ with $N_1,N_2$ the finite-difference number operators of (2.9) acting on the triangular lattice $\mathcal{R}(N)$ and self-adjoint with respect to the weight (2.12) is a maximally superintegrable two-dimensional system whose symmetry algebra admits a Hahn-algebra presentation. The additional integrals are $C_1=N_2+\alpha+1/2$ and $C_2=\{a_1,a_2^\dagger\}+\{a_1^\dagger,a_2\}$, built from the ladder operators; together with $H$, they close on the cubic algebra (3.9), which the redefinition (3.13) brings to Hahn form. The energy eigenfunctions are exactly the bivariate Krawtchouk and dual Hahn polynomials of Tratnik type. Under the scaling (4.1) with $p=N^{-\theta}$ and the gauge transformation (4.12), the finite-difference operators converge to the differential operators (4.5) of the continuous Smorodinsky-Winternitz II system, and the polynomial eigenfunctions converge to Hermite-Laguerre products, so the finite model is a genuine realization rather than a finite-difference approximation. The Hahn presentation does not survive this limit; the limiting symmetry algebra is the Laguerre-Heun algebra.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Taylor expansion (4.4) of the finite differences at shifted lattice points, together with the scaling $p=N^{-\theta}$, produces exact cancellation of all singular terms of order $1/p$ and order $1$, so that $N_1,N_2$ and the ladder operators converge to the differential limits (4.5); if those cancellations fail, the claimed recovery of the continuous Smorodinsky-Winternitz II Hamiltonian and its Hermite-Laguerre eigenfunctions fails.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The model is maximally superintegrable: the three independent integrals $H,C_1,C_2$ on a two-dimensional configuration space imply maximal degeneracy of the finite spectrum.
The spectral problem is exactly solvable: eigenfunctions are explicit products of Krawtchouk and dual Hahn polynomials with orthogonality governed by the factorized weight (2.12).
The continuum limit recovers the continuous Smorodinsky-Winternitz II Hamiltonian, its Hermite-Laguerre eigenfunctions, and its separation of variables, so the finite model is a genuine realization rather than a finite-difference approximation of the equations of motion.
The Hahn presentation of the discrete symmetry algebra is not stable under the continuum limit: it becomes singular, while the limiting symmetry operators close on the Laguerre-Heun algebra.
The construction supplies a finite-dimensional origin for the Laguerre-Heun algebra, because the regular limit of the discrete symmetry algebra is exactly that continuous algebra.

Reading between the lines

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

Because the finite Hilbert space has dimension $(N+1)(N+2)/2$ and the ladder operators act by explicit square-root factors, the model offers a ready-made exactly solvable finite register; using it as a quantum-information platform is an extension not pursued in the paper.
The pattern seen here, regular operator limits coexisting with a singular algebraic presentation, could be a general feature of finite superintegrable models; a natural test is whether other bivariate orthogonal-polynomial systems attached to the Askey scheme exhibit the same presentation degeneration.
One could attempt to invert the construction: start from the Laguerre-Heun algebra of the continuous system and look for other finite-difference realizations whose limit is the same algebra, which would sharpen the sense in which this lattice model is canonical.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's the short version. The paper builds a finite-difference model of the Smorodinsky–Winternitz II system on a triangular lattice with two commuting number operators, a ladder structure, and eigenfunctions identified as Tratnik-type Krawtchouk/dual Hahn polynomials. That part is substantial and, as far as I can tell from the manuscript, the operators are explicit enough to verify. The Hahn-algebra presentation and the singular degeneration to the Laguerre–Heun algebra are also interesting and novel. So the paper is not a mirage.

The soft spot is not small, though. The stress-test note is right. Equation (B.14) is inconsistent with the definition (B.13) even at n=1: with x = pN + sqrt(2p(1-p)N) x, the LHS of (B.14) tends to -x sqrt(2(1-p)/p), while the printed RHS is -2 sqrt(2) x p/(1-p). The correct Krawtchouk–Hermite limit carries a factor ((1-p)/p)^{n/2} (or equivalent), and (B.14) as printed cannot be fixed by a mere sign. Worse, the normalization in (3.23) is off: for (n1,n2)=(1,0), the squared norm of P with respect to the weight (2.12) is p/(1-p), not 1, contradicting the stated orthonormality (3.20). This is not a cosmetic detail. The claimed limit (4.6) uses (B.14) and (3.23); under p = N^{-\theta} the prefactor leaves a vanishing factor (p/(1-p))^{n1} (or (p/(1-p))^{2n1} if you use their printed B.14) for every n1>0, so the Hermite–Laguerre wavefunctions are not recovered. In other words, the continuum limit of the eigenfunctions—one of the two headline results—does not follow from the manuscript as written. The Hamiltonian and ladder limits in (4.5) may well be fine; the problem is in the matching to the continuous wavefunctions.

I don't see fitted-parameter circularity. The model is constructed exactly, and the exact solution is imported from the independent Tratnik/Leonard-pair literature. That part is honest. The symmetry algebra and Casimir are asserted as 'direct computation' with no intermediate steps; that is a referee annoyance rather than a demonstrated error, but it compounds the difficulty of checking the paper.

The companion reference [4] is a placeholder with no arXiv identifier, which is a practical obstacle for a paper that leans on it.

Recommendation: this deserves a serious referee, not a desk reject, because the construction is real and the error looks localized to a normalization/limit formula. But as submitted the central claim about Hermite–Laguerre eigenfunctions is not established, and the orthonormality contradiction is load-bearing. I'd send it out, expecting major revision. I wouldn't cite it in its current form.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript constructs a finite-difference analogue of the two-dimensional Smorodinsky–Winternitz II superintegrable system on a triangular region of the square lattice. The Hamiltonian is written as the sum of two commuting number operators with a local weight function; the paper claims a pair of additional integrals of motion, a cubic symmetry algebra admitting a Hahn-algebra presentation, and an exact spectral solution in terms of bivariate Krawtchouk and dual Hahn polynomials of Tratnik type. A continuum limit is then claimed to recover the continuous Smorodinsky–Winternitz II Hamiltonian with Hermite–Laguerre eigenfunctions, while the Hahn presentation degenerates and the limiting symmetry algebra is identified with the Laguerre–Heun algebra. The exact-discrete part of the construction is explicit and largely self-contained, but the continuum-limit claims rest on a specific asymptotic relation for Krawtchouk polynomials that is incorrect as stated.

Significance. If the continuum-limit claims can be made correct, the paper would be a valuable contribution: it gives a fully explicit finite model with exact ladder operators and closed-form eigenfunctions, and it proposes a discrete origin for the Laguerre–Heun algebra of the continuous Smorodinsky–Winternitz II system. The exact discrete solution, the identification with Tratnik polynomials, and the algebraic presentation of the symmetry are attractive and likely of independent interest. However, the paper's advertised central claim—that the continuum limit recovers the continuous system with Hermite–Laguerre eigenfunctions—is not established by the present derivations, because the Krawtchouk–Hermite limit relation used in the proof is wrong and the normalization of the eigenfunctions is internally inconsistent. The paper therefore needs substantive revision before the main claims can be accepted.

major comments (3)

[Appendix B.4, Eq. (B.14)] Equation (B.14) is incorrect. For n=1, \hat K_1(x;p,N)=1-x/(Np), so with z=pN+\sqrt{2p(1-p)N}\,x the left-hand side of (B.14) equals \sqrt{N}\hat K_1(z;p,N)=-x\sqrt{2(1-p)/p}. The printed right-hand side is (-1)^1 H_1(x)\sqrt{2}\,(p/(1-p)) = -2\sqrt{2}\,x\,p/(1-p). These two expressions are not equal for fixed p. The correct fixed-p Hermite limit carries a factor ((1-p)/p)^{n/2}/\sqrt{2^n n!}, not (p/(1-p))^n. Since (B.14) is the only ingredient supplied for the first limit in (4.6), the claimed recovery of the Hermite factor in the eigenfunctions (4.15) is not established.
[Section 3.3, Eq. (3.23)] The normalization in (3.23) is inconsistent with the orthonormality stated in (3.20). For n_1=1, n_2=0, equations (3.22)-(3.24) give P_{1,0}(x_1,x_2)=-\sqrt{N}\,(p/(1-p))\,\hat K_1(x_1;p,N)/\sqrt{\Gamma(\alpha+1)}. Using the binomial variance for \hat K_1 and \sum_{x_2} w_2=\Gamma(\alpha+1), the weighted squared norm in (3.20) equals p/(1-p), not 1. Moreover, even if (B.14) is corrected, the factor (p/(1-p))^{n_1} in (3.23) multiplies the Hermite limit by an additional factor (p/(1-p))^{n_1/2}, which tends to zero for n_1>0 under p=N^{-\theta}; hence (4.6) cannot follow from the printed definitions. The prefactor in (3.23) appears to be missing a compensating factor ((1-p)/p)^{n_1/2}, and the normalization of the Krawtchouk factor must be reconsidered.
[Section 4.1, Eq. (4.5)] The limits in (4.5) are asserted after applying the Taylor expansion (4.4) to the number operators (2.9) and the ladder operators (3.3)-(3.4), but no expansion or cancellation is displayed. The coefficient functions in (2.9) and Appendix A contain several powers of N in numerators and denominators, and the expansion (4.4) produces contributions of different orders in N. The claimed convergence to the differential operators in (4.5) therefore requires an explicit leading-order computation showing that all singular contributions cancel. Since (4.5) is the basis for the continuum Hamiltonian in (4.14), this verification should be included.

minor comments (4)

[References, [4]] Reference [4] is listed as "arXiv:XXXX.XXXXX, 2026"; a placeholder arXiv identifier is not acceptable in a submitted manuscript and should be replaced before publication.
[Section 4.1, Eq. (4.8)] The Jacobian determinant in (4.8) is negative with the stated orientation of the change of variables; the absolute value should be taken before multiplying by the weight function.
[Section 1] The text says "what follows is self-contained," but the definition of superintegrability used throughout is deferred to the companion paper [4]; either include a precise definition or soften the self-containment claim.
[Appendix B.2 and B.3] The phrase "respectively as follow" should read "respectively as follows" in the sentences before (B.8) and (B.12).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: construction is externally benchmarked; self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central construction is not circular. The Hamiltonian (2.8) and number operators (2.9) are given explicitly as finite-difference operators; the weight (2.12) is fixed by the Hermiticity condition (2.11), not by the desired spectrum. The ladder operators (3.3)-(3.4) are obtained by solving the linear system imposed by (3.1), and the symmetry algebra (3.9)-(3.10) is computed from the explicit realization. The exact eigenfunctions are imported from the independent external results [6,28], and the paper explicitly says the spectral problem 'coincides with that studied in [6]', so the solvability is benchmarked rather than fitted. The continuum limit (4.5) and (4.13) is an asymptotic computation from the explicit coefficients, with no parameter adjusted to the continuous spectrum; the gauge factor (4.12) is an explicit change of frame, not a fit. Self-citations: [4] is used only for the common setting and for the gauge-rescaling procedure, and [5] only to name the quadratic algebra (4.19) as the Laguerre--Heun algebra; neither supplies a load-bearing theorem. Removing them leaves the computations in the paper intact. A separate correctness concern, not a circularity, is that the printed limit (B.14) appears inconsistent (at n=1 the left side is -x sqrt(2(1-p)/p), not -2x sqrt(2) p/(1-p)), so the claimed eigenfunction limit (4.6) is not established by the manuscript as written; this is a mathematical gap in the asymptotic analysis, not a reduction of the claim to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model has two continuous parameters alpha and p plus a scaling exponent theta, none fitted to data. The main working assumptions are the ladder-operator ansatz and the cancellation of singular terms in the continuum expansion. The spectral solution is imported from known Tratnik theory. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (3)

alpha = alpha > -1, arbitrary
Appears in the Hamiltonian, weight, and eigenfunctions as the centrifugal barrier parameter inherited from the continuous Smorodinsky-Winternitz II system. It is an input parameter, not fitted to data.
p = 0 < p < 1, arbitrary
Lattice parameter fixing the binomial factor of the weight and the peak of the Krawtchouk factor. Held fixed in the finite model and set to p=N^{-theta} in the continuum limit.
theta = 0 < theta < 1/2, arbitrary
Scaling exponent for the continuum limit p=N^{-theta}. The limit is independent of theta, but the proof requires this range for Np(1-p) to diverge.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Ladder operators a_i can be expressed as finite linear combinations of finite differences on R(N) with coefficient functions satisfying [N_i,a_j]=-delta_ij a_j.
Stated in Section 3.1 around (3.1)-(3.3). The ansatz is solved explicitly, so it is a construction rather than an external postulate, but its completeness and lowest-order choice are assumed.
domain assumption In the continuum limit, the Taylor expansion of finite differences and the cancellation of all singular terms produce the differential operators in (4.5).
Section 4, equations (4.4)-(4.5). The paper asserts the expansion and the resulting limits without displaying the cancellation of terms that diverge as p goes to zero.
standard math Standard hypergeometric limit relations (B.2)-(B.4) and the orthogonality and shift properties of Hermite and Laguerre polynomials hold as stated.
Used in Appendix B and Section 4 to pass from Krawtchouk and dual Hahn polynomials to Hermite and Laguerre polynomials.
standard math The Tratnik bivariate polynomial difference equations and orthogonality relations from references [6] and [28] apply to the present spectral problem.
Section 3.3 and Appendix C identify the model's spectral problem with the known Tratnik Krawtchouk and dual Hahn family. This is a cited external result.
domain assumption The constraints alpha > -1 and 0 < p < 1 make the weight function strictly positive on R(N).
Remark 2.2 states this requirement, which is needed for a positive-definite Hermitian scalar product.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A discrete Smorodinsky--Winternitz II superintegrable system." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OCHSC2MH

@misc{pith2026260812909,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A discrete Smorodinsky--Winternitz II superintegrable system},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OCHSC2MH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.12909}
}

abstract

We construct a discrete Smorodinsky--Winternitz II superintegrable system on a triangular region of the two-dimensional square lattice. The model is built from a pair of commuting finite-difference number operators with finite spectrum together with an associated ladder-operator structure. We show that it is maximally superintegrable and that its symmetry algebra admits a Hahn-algebra presentation. The spectral problem is solved exactly in terms of bivariate orthogonal polynomials of mixed Krawtchouk and dual Hahn type associated with the factorized $A_2$-Leonard pair. Finally, we show that the continuum limit recovers the continuous Smorodinsky--Winternitz II system together with its Hermite--Laguerre eigenfunctions. We further explain how the Hahn presentation of the discrete symmetry algebra becomes singular in this limit, while the limiting algebraic structure is naturally described by the Laguerre--Heun algebra associated with Cartesian and parabolic separation of variables.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.12909 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** The discrete position space R(N) of (2.1), an isosceles right triangular region of side length N in the first quadrant of the (x1, x2)-plane (here N = 5). Any operator acting on H is represented in the position basis by O |ψ⟩ = X (x1,x2)∈R(N) w(x1, x2)Oψ(x1, x2)|x1, x2⟩, Oψ(x1, x2) = ⟨x1, x2| O |ψ⟩. (2.6) Hermitian conjugation is taken with respect to the scalar product above, namely X (x1,x2)∈R(N) w(x1, x2)ϕ ∗ (x1,… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

[4]

Vutha Vichhea Chea and Luc Vinet,A discrete Smorodinsky–Winternitz I superintegrable system, arXiv:XXXX.XXXXX, 2026

work page 2026
[1]

Arthamonov and N

S. Arthamonov and N. Reshetikhin,Superintegrable systems on moduli spaces of flat con- nections, Communications in Mathematical Physics386(2021), no. 3, 1337–1381

work page 2021
[2]

N. M. Atakishiyev, G. S. Pogosyan, L. E. Vicent, and K. B. Wolf,Finite two-dimensional oscillator: I. The Cartesian model, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General34 (2001), no. 44, 9381–9398

work page 2001
[3]

The radial model, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General34(2001), no

,Finite two-dimensional oscillator: II. The radial model, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General34(2001), no. 44, 9399–9415

work page 2001
[5]

Vutha Vichhea Chea, Luc Vinet, and Alexei Zhedanov,The 2D Smorodinsky–Winternitz II system and the Laguerre–Heun algebra, arXiv:2606.00903, 2026

work page Pith review arXiv 2026
[6]

Nicolas Cramp´ e and Meri Zaimi,FactorizedA2-Leonard pair, The Ramanujan Journal66 (2025), no. 2, 25

work page 2025
[7]

15, L789–L794

Charis Daskaloyannis,Generalized deformed oscillator and nonlinear algebras, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General24(1991), no. 15, L789–L794

work page 1991
[8]

3, 1100–1119

,Quadratic Poisson algebras of two-dimensional classical superintegrable systems and quadratic associative algebras of quantum superintegrable systems, Journal of Mathe- matical Physics42(2001), no. 3, 1100–1119. 18

work page 2001

Show all 29 references

[9]

Hendrik De Bie, Vincent X. Genest, Jean-Michel Lemay, and Luc Vinet,A superintegrable model with reflections onS n−1 and the higher rank Bannai–Ito algebra, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical50(2017), no. 19, 195202

2017
[10]

14, 1531–1535

Luc Frappat, Julien Gaboriaud, Luc Vinet, St´ ephane Vinet, and Alexei Zhedanov,The Higgs and Hahn algebras from a Howe duality perspective, Physics Letters A383(2019), no. 14, 1531–1535

2019
[11]

Friˇ s, V

J. Friˇ s, V. Mandrosov, Ya. A. Smorodinsky, M. Uhl´ ıˇ r, and P. Winternitz,On higher symmetries in quantum mechanics, Physics Letters16(1965), no. 3, 354–356

1965
[12]

Genest, Jessica Lemieux, and Luc Vinet,A superintegrable discrete oscillator and two-variable Meixner polynomials, Journal of Physics A: Mathe- matical and Theoretical48(2015), no

Julien Gaboriaud, Vincent X. Genest, Jessica Lemieux, and Luc Vinet,A superintegrable discrete oscillator and two-variable Meixner polynomials, Journal of Physics A: Mathe- matical and Theoretical48(2015), no. 41, 415202

2015
[13]

Genest, Hiroshi Miki, Luc Vinet, and Guo-Fu Yu,A superintegrable discrete harmonic oscillator based on bivariate Charlier polynomials, Physics of Atomic Nuclei80 (2017), no

Vincent X. Genest, Hiroshi Miki, Luc Vinet, and Guo-Fu Yu,A superintegrable discrete harmonic oscillator based on bivariate Charlier polynomials, Physics of Atomic Nuclei80 (2017), no. 4, 794–800

2017
[14]

Genest and Luc Vinet,The multivariate Hahn polynomials and the singular oscillator, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical47(2014), no

Vincent X. Genest and Luc Vinet,The multivariate Hahn polynomials and the singular oscillator, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical47(2014), no. 45, 455201

2014
[15]

Genest, Luc Vinet, and Alexei Zhedanov,Superintegrability in two dimensions and the Racah–Wilson algebra, Letters in Mathematical Physics104(2014), no

Vincent X. Genest, Luc Vinet, and Alexei Zhedanov,Superintegrability in two dimensions and the Racah–Wilson algebra, Letters in Mathematical Physics104(2014), no. 8, 931– 952

2014
[16]

Ya. I. Granovskii, I. M. Lutzenko, and A. S. Zhedanov,Mutual integrability, quadratic algebras, and dynamical symmetry, Annals of Physics217(1992), no. 1, 1–20

1992
[17]

R. C. Griffiths,Orthogonal polynomials on the multinomial distribution, Australian Jour- nal of Statistics13(1971), no. 1, 27–35, Corrigenda:ibid.14(1972), 270

1971
[18]

Plamen Iliev,Symmetry algebra for the generic superintegrable system on the sphere, Journal of High Energy Physics2018(2018), no. 2, 044

2018
[19]

Plamen Iliev and Yuan Xu,Hahn polynomials on polyhedra and quantum integrability, Advances in Mathematics364(2020), 107032

2020
[20]

Kalnins, Willard Miller, Jr., and Sarah Post,Two-variable Wilson polynomials and the generic superintegrable system on the 3-sphere, SIGMA

Ernie G. Kalnins, Willard Miller, Jr., and Sarah Post,Two-variable Wilson polynomials and the generic superintegrable system on the 3-sphere, SIGMA. Symmetry, Integrability and Geometry: Methods and Applications7(2011), 051

2011
[21]

Lesky, and Ren´ e F

Roelof Koekoek, Peter A. Lesky, and Ren´ e F. Swarttouw,Hypergeometric orthogonal polynomials and theirq-analogues, Springer Monographs in Mathematics, Springer, Berlin, 2010

2010
[22]

Ian Marquette,Superintegrability with third order integrals of motion, cubic algebras, and supersymmetric quantum mechanics. I. Rational function potentials, Journal of Mathe- matical Physics50(2009), no. 1, 012101

2009
[23]

12, 125207

Hiroshi Miki, Sarah Post, Luc Vinet, and Alexei Zhedanov,A superintegrable finite oscil- lator in two dimensions with SU(2) symmetry, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical46(2013), no. 12, 125207. 19

2013
[24]

42, 423001

Willard Miller, Jr., Sarah Post, and Pavel Winternitz,Classical and quantum superinte- grability with applications, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical46(2013), no. 42, 423001

2013
[25]

Reshetikhin,Degenerately integrable systems, Journal of Mathematical Sciences213 (2016), no

N. Reshetikhin,Degenerately integrable systems, Journal of Mathematical Sciences213 (2016), no. 5, 769–785, Translated from Zap. Nauchn. Sem. POMI433(2015), 224–245; arXiv:1509.00730

2016 arXiv
[26]

Ryu Sasaki,Multivariate Hahn polynomials and difference equations, arXiv:2305.09170, 2023

2023 arXiv
[27]

Turbiner, and Pavel Winternitz,Exact solvability of superintegrable systems, Journal of Mathematical Physics42(2001), no

Piergiulio Tempesta, Alexander V. Turbiner, and Pavel Winternitz,Exact solvability of superintegrable systems, Journal of Mathematical Physics42(2001), no. 9, 4248–4257

2001
[28]

M. V. Tratnik,Some multivariable orthogonal polynomials of the Askey tableau—discrete families, Journal of Mathematical Physics32(1991), no. 9, 2337–2342

1991
[29]

Winternitz, Ya

P. Winternitz, Ya. A. Smorodinsky, M. Uhl´ ıˇ r, and I. Friˇ s,Symmetry groups in classical and quantum mechanics, Soviet Journal of Nuclear Physics4(1967), 444–450, English translation of Yad. Fiz.4(1966), 625–635. 20

1967

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [4]

Vutha Vichhea Chea and Luc Vinet,A discrete Smorodinsky–Winternitz I superintegrable system, arXiv:XXXX.XXXXX, 2026

work page 2026

[2] [1]

Arthamonov and N

S. Arthamonov and N. Reshetikhin,Superintegrable systems on moduli spaces of flat con- nections, Communications in Mathematical Physics386(2021), no. 3, 1337–1381

work page 2021

[3] [2]

N. M. Atakishiyev, G. S. Pogosyan, L. E. Vicent, and K. B. Wolf,Finite two-dimensional oscillator: I. The Cartesian model, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General34 (2001), no. 44, 9381–9398

work page 2001

[4] [3]

The radial model, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General34(2001), no

,Finite two-dimensional oscillator: II. The radial model, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General34(2001), no. 44, 9399–9415

work page 2001

[5] [5]

Vutha Vichhea Chea, Luc Vinet, and Alexei Zhedanov,The 2D Smorodinsky–Winternitz II system and the Laguerre–Heun algebra, arXiv:2606.00903, 2026

work page Pith review arXiv 2026

[6] [6]

Nicolas Cramp´ e and Meri Zaimi,FactorizedA2-Leonard pair, The Ramanujan Journal66 (2025), no. 2, 25

work page 2025

[7] [7]

15, L789–L794

Charis Daskaloyannis,Generalized deformed oscillator and nonlinear algebras, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General24(1991), no. 15, L789–L794

work page 1991

[8] [8]

3, 1100–1119

,Quadratic Poisson algebras of two-dimensional classical superintegrable systems and quadratic associative algebras of quantum superintegrable systems, Journal of Mathe- matical Physics42(2001), no. 3, 1100–1119. 18

work page 2001