Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 49 references

On finite-temperature Fredholm determinants

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 finite-temperature sine-kernel Fredholm determinants reduce to an explicit exponential of a quadratic phase functional times a Fredholm determinant of an integrable kernel, with the resolvent obtained from an exactly…

desk verdict Solid, technically useful paper; the RHP-based proof of the effective form factor identity is new and mostly sound, but the assumptions (meromorphic theta, nonzero Hankel determinants) and the missing constant-fixing argument in Appendix C need tightening before it is fully rigorous. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16401 v1 pith:TX2ECS4V submitted 2024-11-25 math-ph cond-mat.stat-mechmath.MPnlin.SI

Oleksandr Gamayun , Yuri Zhuravlev This is my paper · ORCID
classification math-phcond-mat.stat-mechmath.MPnlin.SI MSC 47B3545M05
keywords FredholmdeterminantToeplitzsinekernelRiemann-HilbertproblemfinitetemperatureresolventasymptoticexpansionHartwig-Fisherformula
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

This paper gives an elementary derivation of the large-distance asymptotics of finite-temperature sine kernel Fredholm determinants on a circle, including the case where the phase shift has nonzero winding. The authors deform the original kernel into an effective form-factor kernel whose resolvent can be written exactly from a matrix Riemann-Hilbert problem. From that resolvent they obtain the deformed determinant as an explicit exponential of a quadratic functional of the phase shift, and express the original Toeplitz determinant as that exponential times a Fredholm determinant of an integrable kernel. For nonzero winding, the same machinery reproduces the Hartwig-Fisher asymptotics and, through a second contour deformation, the Borodin-Okounkov formula. If correct, the paper turns the previously heuristic effective form-factor method for static correlations into a systematic and fully controllable asymptotic expansion.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the deformed kernel $V_C(q,p)$ of Eqs. (11)-(12), obtained from the original sine kernel by moving the contour and adding a correction built from $w_C(q)$. Its special feature is that the resolvent $R=(1+\hat V_C)^{-1}-1$ has the same integrable form, so the vector Riemann-Hilbert problem for the $2\times 2$ matrix $\chi_C$ can be solved explicitly as a product of elementary matrices (Eq. (23)) in terms of the scalar functions $\Omega_C$, $\varphi_C$, and $b_C$. This explicit resolvent is what turns the variational formula for $\ln\tau_C[\nu]$ into the exact exponential (36), and the difference $\hat\Delta = \hat V_C - \hat S$ between the deformed and original kernels into the Fredholm factor $\det_C(1-\hat K)$ in (59).

What would settle it

Take a concrete rational symbol, for instance $\theta(q)= c\, q^m$ or another meromorphic choice with known nonzero winding, compute the Toeplitz determinant numerically at several $x$, and compare with the right-hand side of (59) with $K$ from (60); any discrepancy beyond round-off would falsify the exact identity. Alternatively, for a smooth non-meromorphic $\theta$, check whether the contour deformation to zero winding actually preserves the determinant; if the deformed and original Fredholm determinants differ, the leading asymptotic (53) fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The load-bearing assertions are Eq. (36) and Eq. (59): for a meromorphic phase shift with zero winding on a contour $C$, the deformed determinant is $$\tau_C[\nu] = \exp\!\left( x\oint_C \frac{dq}{q}\nu(q) - \frac{1}{2}\iint_C \!\left(\frac{\nu(k)-\nu(q)}{k-q}\right)^2\! dk\, dq \right),$$ and the original Toeplitz determinant equals $\det_C(1-\hat K)$ times this exponential, with the integrable kernel $K$ given in Eq. (60). When the winding on the original circle is negative, deforming the contour to encircle the extra zeros of $1+\theta(q)$ and summing over contours gives the Hartwig-Fisher leading asymptotics, Eq. (53), with the product over the zeros $z_k$ of $(z_j-z_k)$ and $z_k^{-x}/\theta'(z_k)$. The subleading corrections are produced systematically by expanding the explicit resolvent, and the effective form-factor formula (99) is proven without recourse to the heuristic series.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation goes through only when the auxiliary measure $\mu(q)=e^{-\omega_>(q)-\omega_<(q)} q^{-x+n}$ has nonzero Hankel determinants $\Delta_k$ for $k=1,\dots,n$, and when $1+\theta(q)$ has distinct zeros; if a Hankel determinant vanishes, the orthogonal-polynomial solution collapses, and if $\theta$ is merely smooth rather than meromorphic, the contour deformation that removes the winding number is not justified.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Large-$x$ asymptotics, including all subleading orders, follow from one explicit resolvent instead of a nonlinear steepest-descent analysis.
  • The effective form-factor heuristic for static two-point functions is placed on a firm footing: its thermodynamic-limit expression equals a determinant whose Riemann-Hilbert problem is exactly solvable.
  • The Borodin-Okounkov formula emerges as the $\ell^2$ version of the same determinant, so the known subleading expansion is recovered as a special case.
  • The second Slavnov contour-sum formula (70) expresses the full Toeplitz determinant as a sum over tau functions of zero-winding contours, giving a closed expansion in the zeros of $1+\theta$.
  • The rank-one determinant identities (109)-(110) follow in the zero-winding case and are conjectured by the authors to hold generally.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The theory is stated for meromorphic $\theta$; if the intended smooth symbols are obtained as limits of meromorphic ones, the same formulas should hold, but the limiting procedure is not exhibited and could in principle move corrections into the exponent.
  • The $S^1$ to $\mathbb{R}$ limit, used to reach the physical sine kernel, is explicitly left unanalyzed; a natural check is to verify that the real-line asymptotics match the known mobile-impurity results in that limit.
  • The same solvable-resolvent mechanism should apply to Toeplitz+Hankel determinants and to kernels obtained by deforming $v_\pm$ by $e^{\pm g(q)}$, where the full expansion may fail but the leading asymptotics still follow.
  • The identity (110) for the full sine kernel suggests a direct Fredholm proof of the winding-shift relation, which the paper only proves in the zero-winding case; establishing it in general would give a purely determinant-theoretic derivation of the form-factor sum rule.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies Fredholm determinants of deformed sine kernels on S^1 (Eqs. (1)-(3)) with symbol 1+θ, where θ is a weight, and connects them with Toeplitz determinants (Eq. (6)). It introduces a deformed kernel V_C (Eqs. (11)-(12)) whose resolvent is found explicitly via a 2x2 Riemann-Hilbert problem (Eqs. (23)-(27)). A variational argument gives the closed formula (36) for the deformed determinant τ_C[ν], which for zero winding reduces to the strong Szegő formula (Eqs. (39)-(40)), and for nonzero winding n<0 after contour deformation yields the Hartwig-Fisher leading asymptotics (Eq. (53)). The full Toeplitz determinant is expressed in Eq. (59) as τ_C[ν] det_C(1-K) with an explicit integrable kernel K (Eq. (60)), leading to Slavnov-type and Borodin-Okounkov formulas. Section 5 identifies the deformed determinant with the effective form-factor expression (99), claimed as an exact identity for all x>0, and Appendix C attempts a direct proof via orthogonal polynomials.

Significance. The paper's strengths are its explicit resolvent construction, the closed variational formula (36), and the systematic derivation of the subleading kernel (60), which together reproduce the classical Szegő, Hartwig-Fisher, and Borodin-Okounkov results from one framework. The claimed exact identity (99) between the Fredholm determinant and the effective form-factor/Hartwig-Fisher expression would be a valuable bridge between heuristic form-factor methods and rigorous RHP analysis. However, the proof as written has load-bearing gaps: the orthogonal-polynomial solution in Appendix C assumes unproven Hankel non-degeneracy, and the equality of variations (C.53) determines the tau function only up to an undemonstrated constant. These issues must be fixed before the exactness claim is established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix C.1, after Eq. (C.13)] The proof of (99) hinges on the existence of monic orthogonal polynomials p_j with nonzero norms h_j (C.12), equivalently on the Hankel determinants Δ_k = det(μ_{i+j-2}) ≠ 0 for k=1,...,n. The measure μ(q)=e^{-ω_>(q)-ω_<(q)} q^{-x+n} depends on x, so Δ_k are functions of x and can vanish at isolated values even for generic meromorphic θ. The paper simply says 'We will assume that our measure function μ(q) is such that Δ_k ≠ 0' and provides no argument that this holds for the class of symbols considered, nor a limiting procedure to handle degeneracies. Without this, the RHP solution (C.14)-(C.16) and all subsequent formulas in Appendix C are not established. This is a load-bearing assumption for the exact identity (99); it needs to be either proved, explicitly incorporated as a hypothesis in the statement, or removed by an approximation argument.
  2. [Appendix C.2, Eq. (C.53)] Eq. (C.53) proves only equality of variations, δ log τ_eff = δ log τ_HF, which implies equality up to a ν-independent constant. The text states that the constant is fixed by comparing asymptotics in the main text, but the comparison is not carried out anywhere; Eq. (53) is derived for τ_C, not for τ_eff, and the asymptotic analysis of y_n(x) in Section 5 is only sketched. Since (99) claims exact equality for all x>0, the missing constant evaluation is a genuine gap. The authors should exhibit the explicit limiting argument (e.g., x→∞ or a special ν) that fixes the constant.
  3. [Sec. 2, after Eq. (8)] The introduction promises results for smooth θ decaying fast enough on R, and states that the R case is 'completely equivalent' to S1. The proofs, however, start with 'Let θ(q) in (1) be a meromorphic function in CP1' and assume all zeros of 1+θ are distinct; the contour deformation leading to (36) relies on these meromorphic zeros. No approximation argument is given for smooth θ, and the S1→R limit is explicitly declared out of scope ('We are not going to discuss the possible peculiarities'). Consequently the claimed scope is broader than what is proven. Please either restrict the theorem statements to the meromorphic setting or supply the missing limiting procedure.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 1 and Eq. (37)] There are several typos: 'As a sequence of that' should be 'As a consequence of that', and 'shrinked' in Eq. (37) should be 'shrunk'.
  2. [Eqs. (48)-(49) and (B.8)] The product notation ∏_{j,k}(z_j-z_k) is ambiguous/incorrect; the Hartwig-Fisher formula requires a product over ordered pairs or over j<k with appropriate powers. Please clarify the intended index ranges.
  3. [Sec. 3, Eq. (53)] The branch choice for the contour Uhat S^1 with φ∈[-π,π) introduces a cut for the logarithm; the text does not explain how the final result depends on this choice for ν that is not single-valued on S^1, and a remark on the branch-invariance would be helpful.
  4. [Sec. 4, Borodin-Okounkov formula] After Eq. (95), the statement that the kernel acts on l^2(x,x+1,...) after a shift of n and m is asserted without showing the index shift explicitly. A few more lines would make this step transparent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central identities (36), (53), (59), and (99) are derived from an explicit Riemann-Hilbert resolvent rather than assumed; only minor caveats remain, namely the unexhibited constant comparison closing Appendix C and the assumed Hankel non-degeneracy Δ_k≠0.

full rationale

Eq. (36) is not self-definitional: τ_C is defined as the Fredholm determinant of the deformed kernel V_C, while formula (36) is obtained by varying with respect to ν, computing δ ln τ = Tr(1−R)δV with a resolvent R obtained from the RHP solution (23), and integrating from ν=0 where τ_C=1. The exponential functional is the integral of the computed variation, not an input. Eq. (59) follows from the operator identity T_x = det(1+V_C−Δ) = τ_C det(1−(1−R)Δ), with the correction kernel K computed explicitly via (31)–(33); the prefactor is the already-derived τ_C and nothing is fitted. Eq. (53) (leading Hartwig-Fisher terms) is derived from (36) by contour transformation and residue evaluation in Appendix B, independently of the effective-form-factor formulas. Eq. (99) is quoted from the authors' [22] as motivation, but is re-derived in Appendix C from the orthogonal-polynomial solution of the RHP (C.10)–(C.11); the derivation yields equality of variations (C.53), i.e., equality up to a constant, and the paper fixes the constant by comparing asymptotics with (53). That comparison is asserted rather than exhibited, which is a presentation gap, and the Appendix C proof explicitly assumes the Hankel determinants Δ_k≠0 (C.13), an x-dependent condition whose degeneracies are not analyzed. The paper also flags that the distinct-zero restriction of Sec. 2 is lifted only by asserted limiting procedures and that the S1-to-R limit is not analyzed. These are correctness risks and conditional-derivation caveats, not circular reductions: no output formula was used as an input, self-citations [22]–[27] provide motivational context for the effective-form-factor interpretation but the central derivation chain does not rest on them, and the formulas are checked against external classical theorems (Szegő, Hartwig-Fisher, Borodin-Okounkov). Accordingly the circularity score is minimal.

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

No free parameters are fitted to data; ν(q) is the input phase shift and x is the physical separation. The central derivation rests on five assumptions: the Toeplitz-determinant equivalence, meromorphicity of θ, distinct zeros of 1+θ, non-degeneracy of auxiliary Hankel determinants, and the unproved S1 to R transfer. No new physical entities are introduced; the deformed kernel and effective form factors are mathematical tools. The gap between the promised generic smooth class and the meromorphic assumption is the main source of soundness risk.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Fredholm determinant (1) equals the Toeplitz determinant (6) for symbol 1+θ.
    Invoked at the start of Sec. 1 to connect kernels on S1 to Toeplitz determinants; cited to [32] and [22].
  • domain assumption θ is meromorphic on CP1 so that zeros and poles of 1+θ are finite and contour deformation is possible.
    Sec. 2 opening: 'Let θ(q) in (1) be a meromorphic function in CP1.' This restricts the claimed generic smooth class.
  • ad hoc to paper All zeros z_k of 1+θ are distinct and have distinct absolute values, and θ′(z_k)≠0.
    Sec. 2: 'we assume that all zeroes are distinct even by their absolute value... proper limiting procedures can easily lift this restriction.' The lift is not shown.
  • domain assumption Hankel determinants Δ_k of µ(q)=e^{−ω>(q)−ω<(q)}q^{−x+n} are nonzero for k=1,...,n.
    Appendix C.1, Eqs. (C.12)-(C.13): 'We will assume that our measure function µ(q) is such that Δ_k≠0.' Needed for the orthogonal-polynomial solution.
  • domain assumption The large-radius limit from S1 to R preserves the asymptotic formulas.
    Sec. 1: 'We are not going to discuss the possible peculiarities of taking such a limit... everything seems to work without any subtleties.'

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On finite-temperature Fredholm determinants." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TX2ECS4V

@misc{pith2026241116401,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On finite-temperature Fredholm determinants},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TX2ECS4V}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16401}
}
read the original abstract

We consider finite-temperature deformation of the sine kernel Fredholm determinants acting on the closed contours. These types of expressions usually appear as static two-point correlation functions in the models of free fermions and can be equivalently presented in terms of Toeplitz determinants. The corresponding symbol, or the phase shift, is related to the temperature weight. We present an elementary way to obtain large-distance asymptotic behavior even when the phase shift has a non-zero winding number. It is done by deforming the original kernel to the so-called effective form factors kernel that has a completely solvable matrix Riemann-Hilbert problem. This allows us to find explicitly the resolvent and address the subleading corrections. We recover Szego, Hartwig and Fisher, and Borodin-Okounkov asymptotic formulas.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16401 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic illustration of the contour C in definition of τC in Eq. (10) for n = −3. In this case we have to encircle points z1, z2 and z3, which lie outside the unit circle (|zk| > 1 ) and satisfy 1 + θ(zk) = 0. The smooth contraction of the contour C back to S 1 (|z| = 1) should not cross the poles of θ(q) schematically presented with cross marks. The dotted lines show the contours C > and C < that lie slightly abo… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The left panel shows the original contour [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Beisert, C

    N. Beisert, C. Ahn, L. F. Alday, Z. Bajnok, J. M. Drummond, L. Freyhult, N. Gromov, R. A. Janik, V . Kazakov, T. Klose, G. P. Korchemsky, C. Kristjansen, M. Magro, T. McLoughlin, J. A. Minahan, R. I. Nepomechie, A. Rej, R. Roiban, S. Sch¨afer-Nameki, C. Sieg, M. Staudacher, A. Torrielli, A. A. Tseytlin, P. Vieira, D. V olin, K. Zoubos, Review of AdS/CFT I...

    doi:10.1007/s11005-011-0529-2 2011

  2. [2]

    F. H. L. ESSLER, R. M. KONIK, APPLICATION OF MASSIVE INTEGRABLE QUANTUM FIELD THEORIES TO PROBLEMS IN CONDENSED MATTER PHYSICS, WORLD SCIENTIFIC, 2005, p. 684–830. doi:10.1 142/9789812775344_0020

    work page 2005

  3. [3]

    X.-W. Guan, P. He, New trends in quantum integrability: recent experiments with ultracold atoms, Reports on Progress in Physics 85 (11) (2022) 114001. doi:10.1088/1361-6633/ac95a9

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6633/ac95a9 2022

  4. [4]

    V . E. Korepin, N. M. Bogoliubov, A. G. Izergin, Quantum Inverse Scattering Method and Correlation Functions, Cambridge University Press, 1993. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511628832. 26

    doi:10.1017/cbo9780511628832 1993

  5. [5]

    De Nardis, B

    J. De Nardis, B. Doyon, M. Medenjak, M. Panfil, Correlation functions and transport coe fficients in generalised hydrodynamics, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2022 (1) (2022) 014002. doi:10.108 8/1742-5468/ac3658

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Caux, Correlation functions of integrable models: A description of the ABACUS algorithm, Journal of Math- ematical Physics 50 (9) (2009) 095214

    J.-S. Caux, Correlation functions of integrable models: A description of the ABACUS algorithm, Journal of Math- ematical Physics 50 (9) (2009) 095214. doi:10.1063/1.3216474

    doi:10.1063/1.3216474 2009

  7. [7]

    Giamarchi, Quantum Physics in One Dimension, Oxford University Press, 2003

    T. Giamarchi, Quantum Physics in One Dimension, Oxford University Press, 2003. doi:10.1093/acprof: oso/9780198525004.001.0001

    arXiv 2003

  8. [8]

    G ¨ohmann, Statistical mechanics of integrable quantum spin systems, SciPost Phys

    F. G ¨ohmann, Statistical mechanics of integrable quantum spin systems, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes (2020) 16 doi: 10.21468/SciPostPhysLectNotes.16

    work page doi:10.21468/scipostphyslectnotes.16 2020

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Dugave, F

    M. Dugave, F. G ¨ohmann, K. K. Kozlowski, Thermal form factors of theXXZchain and the large-distance asymp- totics of its temperature dependent correlation functions, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2013 (07) (2013) P07010. doi:10.1088/1742-5468/2013/07/p07010

    2013 doi

  2. [10]

    Dugave, F

    M. Dugave, F. G ¨ohmann, K. K. Kozlowski, Low-temperature large-distance asymptotics of the transversal two- point functions of the XXZ chain, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2014 (4) (2014) P04012. doi:10.1088/1742-5468/2014/04/p04012

    2014 doi

  3. [11]

    G ¨ohmann, M

    F. G ¨ohmann, M. Karbach, A. Kl ¨umper, K. K. Kozlowski, J. Suzuki, Thermal form-factor approach to dynami- cal correlation functions of integrable lattice models, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2017 (11) (2017) 113106. doi:10.1088/1742-5468/aa9678

    2017 doi

  4. [12]

    LeClair, G

    A. LeClair, G. Mussardo, Finite temperature correlation functions in integrable qft, Nuclear Physics B 552 (3) (1999) 624–642. doi:10.1016/s0550-3213(99)00280-1

    1999 doi

  5. [13]

    Saleur, A comment on finite temperature correlations in integrable QFT, Nuclear Physics B 567 (3) (2000) 602 – 610

    H. Saleur, A comment on finite temperature correlations in integrable QFT, Nuclear Physics B 567 (3) (2000) 602 – 610. doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(99)00665-3

    2000 doi

  6. [14]

    Pozsgay, I

    B. Pozsgay, I. Sz ´ecs´enyi, Leclair-mussardo series for two-point functions in integrable qft, Journal of High Energy Physics 2018 (5) (May 2018). doi:10.1007/jhep05(2018)170

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    Cort ´es Cubero, M

    A. Cort ´es Cubero, M. Panfil, Thermodynamic bootstrap program for integrable qft’s: form factors and correlation functions at finite energy density, Journal of High Energy Physics 2019 (1) (2019). doi:10.1007/jhep01(2019 )104

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    Cortes Cubero, M

    A. Cortes Cubero, M. Panfil, Generalized hydrodynamics regime from the thermodynamic bootstrap program, SciPost Physics 8 (1) (Jan. 2020). doi:10.21468/scipostphys.8.1.004

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    Caux, The Quench Action, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2016 (6) (2016) 064006

    J.-S. Caux, The Quench Action, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2016 (6) (2016) 064006. doi:10.1088/1742-5468/2016/06/064006

    2016 doi

  10. [18]

    Doyon, J

    B. Doyon, J. Myers, Fluctuations in ballistic transport from euler hydrodynamics, Annales Henri Poincar ´e 21 (1) (2019) 255–302. doi:10.1007/s00023-019-00860-w

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    P. A. Deift, A. R. Its, X. Zhou, Long-Time Asymptotics for Integrable Nonlinear Wave Equations, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1993, p. 181–204. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-58045-1_10

    1993 doi

  12. [20]

    P. A. Deift, A. R. Its, X. Zhou, A riemann-hilbert approach to asymptotic problems arising in the theory of random matrix models, and also in the theory of integrable statistical mechanics, The Annals of Mathematics 146 (1) (1997)

    1997

  13. [21]

    K. K. Kozlowski, Asymptotic analysis and quantum integrable models (2015). doi:10.48550/ARXIV.1508.06 085. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.06085

    2015 doi arXiv

  14. [22]

    Gamayun, N

    O. Gamayun, N. Iorgov, Y . Zhuravlev, Effective free-fermionic form factors and the XY spin chain, SciPost Phys. 10 (2021) 070. doi:10.21468/SciPostPhys.10.3.070

    2021 doi

  15. [23]

    Chernowitz, O

    D. Chernowitz, O. Gamayun, On the dynamics of free-fermionic tau-functions at finite temperature, SciPost Phys. Core 5 (2022) 006. doi:10.21468/SciPostPhysCore.5.1.006

    2022 doi

  16. [24]

    Zhuravlev, E

    Y . Zhuravlev, E. Naichuk, N. Iorgov, O. Gamayun, Large-time and long-distance asymptotics of the thermal corre- lators of the impenetrable anyonic lattice gas, Physical Review B 105 (8) (Feb. 2022). doi:10.1103/physrevb .105.085145

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    Gamayun, M

    O. Gamayun, M. Panfil, F. T. Sant’Ana, Mobile impurity in a one-dimensional gas at finite temperatures, Physical Review A 106 (2) (2022). doi:10.1103/physreva.106.023305

    2022 doi

  18. [26]

    Gamayun, M

    O. Gamayun, M. Panfil, F. Taha Sant’Ana, Kubo-martin-schwinger relation for an interacting mobile impurity, Physical Review Research 5 (4) (Dec. 2023). doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.5.043265

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    Gamayun, A

    O. Gamayun, A. Hutsalyuk, B. Pozsgay, M. Zvonarev, Finite temperature spin di ffusion in the hubbard model in the strong coupling limit, SciPost Physics 15 (2) (Aug. 2023). doi:10.21468/scipostphys.15.2.073

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    Bornemann, On the numerical evaluation of fredholm determinants, Mathematics of Computation 79 (270) (2009) 871–915

    F. Bornemann, On the numerical evaluation of fredholm determinants, Mathematics of Computation 79 (270) (2009) 871–915. doi:10.1090/s0025-5718-09-02280-7

    2009 doi

  21. [29]

    Xu, Asymptotics of the finite-temperature sine kernel determinant (2024)

    S.-X. Xu, Asymptotics of the finite-temperature sine kernel determinant (2024). doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2403. 06722

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    Claeys, S

    T. Claeys, S. Tarricone, On the integrable structure of deformed sine kernel determinants, Mathematical Physics, 27 Analysis and Geometry 27 (1) (Jan. 2024). doi:10.1007/s11040-024-09476-x

    2024 doi

  23. [31]

    N. A. Slavnov, Integral operators with the generalized sine kernel on the real axis, Theoretical and Mathematical Physics 165 (1) (2010) 1262–1274. doi:10.1007/s11232-010-0108-1

    2010 doi

  24. [32]

    Deift, Integrable operators, American Mathematical Society Translations 189 (2) (1999) 69–84

    P. Deift, Integrable operators, American Mathematical Society Translations 189 (2) (1999) 69–84

    1999

  25. [33]

    Szeg ˝o, Ein Grenzwertsatz uber die Toeplitzschen Determinanten einer reellen positiven Funktion, Mathematis- che Annalen 76 (4) (1915) 490–503

    G. Szeg ˝o, Ein Grenzwertsatz uber die Toeplitzschen Determinanten einer reellen positiven Funktion, Mathematis- che Annalen 76 (4) (1915) 490–503. doi:10.1007/bf01458220

    1915 doi

  26. [34]

    Grenander, G

    U. Grenander, G. Szeg ˝o, Toeplitz Forms and Their Applications, AMS Chelsea Publishing Series, American Math- ematical Society, 2001

    2001

  27. [35]

    R. E. Hartwig, M. E. Fisher, Asymptotic behavior of Toeplitz matrices and determinants, Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis 32 (3) (1969) 190–225. doi:10.1007/bf00247509

    1969 doi

  28. [36]

    B ¨ottcher, H

    A. B ¨ottcher, H. Widom, Szeg ¨o via jacobi, Linear Algebra and its Applications 419 (2–3) (2006) 656–667. doi: 10.1016/j.laa.2006.06.009

    2006 doi

  29. [37]

    Borodin, A

    A. Borodin, A. Okounkov, A fredholm determinant formula for toeplitz determinants, Integral Equations and Op- erator Theory 37 (4) (2000) 386–396. doi:10.1007/bf01192827

    2000 doi

  30. [38]

    N. A. Slavnov, Fredholm determinants and τ-functions, Theoretical and Mathematical Physics 109 (3) (1996) 1523–1535. doi:10.1007/bf02073869

    1996 doi

  31. [39]

    I. R. Shafarevich, A. O. Remizov, Linear Algebra and Geometry, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2013. doi:10.100 7/978-3-642-30994-6

    2013

  32. [40]

    A. Its, A. Izergin, V . Korepin, N. Slavnov, Di fferential equations for quantum correlation functions, International Journal of Modern Physics B 04 (05) (1990) 1003–1037. doi:10.1142/s0217979290000504

    1990 doi

  33. [41]

    D. S. Dean, P. Le Doussal, S. N. Majumdar, G. Schehr, Finite-Temperature Free Fermions and the Kardar-Parisi- Zhang Equation at Finite Time, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (2015) 110402.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.110402

    2015 doi

  34. [42]

    D. S. Dean, P. Le Doussal, S. N. Majumdar, G. Schehr, Noninteracting fermions in a trap and random matrix theory, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 52 (14) (2019) 144006. doi:10.1088/1751-8121/ab098d

    2019 doi

  35. [43]

    Cafasso, T

    M. Cafasso, T. Claeys, A ¡scp¿riemann-hilbert¡ /scp¿ approach to the lower tail of the ¡scp¿kardar-parisi- zhang¡/scp¿ equation, Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics 75 (3) (2021) 493–540. doi:10.1 002/cpa.21978

    2021

  36. [44]

    Liechty, D

    K. Liechty, D. Wang, Asymptotics of free fermions in a quadratic well at finite temperature and the Moshe–Neuberger–Shapiro random matrix model, Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincar´e, Probabilit´es et Statistiques 56 (2) (May 2020). doi:10.1214/19-aihp994

    2020 doi

  37. [45]

    Gharakhloo, A

    R. Gharakhloo, A. Its, A Riemann-Hilbert Approach to Asymptotic Analysis of Toeplitz +Hankel Determinants, Symmetry, Integrability and Geometry: Methods and Applications (Oct. 2020).doi:10.3842/sigma.2020.100

    2020 doi

  38. [46]

    Betea, Correlations for symplectic and orthogonal Schur measures (2018)

    D. Betea, Correlations for symplectic and orthogonal Schur measures (2018). doi:10.48550/ARXIV.1804.08 495

    2018 doi

  39. [47]

    Bertola, The malgrange form and fredholm determinants, Symmetry, Integrability and Geometry: Methods and Applications (Jun

    M. Bertola, The malgrange form and fredholm determinants, Symmetry, Integrability and Geometry: Methods and Applications (Jun. 2017). doi:10.3842/sigma.2017.046

    2017 doi

  40. [48]

    T. S. Chihara, An Introduction to Orthogonal Polynomials (Mathematics and Its Applications), Routledge; 1st edition, 1978

    1978

  41. [49]

    Simon, The Christo ffel-Darboux Kernel (2008)

    B. Simon, The Christo ffel-Darboux Kernel (2008). doi:10.48550/ARXIV.0806.1528. 28

    2008 doi arXiv

Pith tools

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