Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 61 references

Exact spin helix eigenstates in the anisotropic spin-$s$ Heisenberg model with arbitrary dimensions

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The XYZ Heisenberg model, which is generally non-integrable, hosts exact spin helix eigenstates for arbitrary spin and in arbitrary spatial dimension, with a closed-form energy whenever the anisotropy is commensurate with the lattice.

desk verdict Real extension of spin-helix eigenstates to d-dimensional arbitrary-spin XYZ, but the core proof leans on two unproved theta identities that need checking before I'd fully trust it. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.14994 v2 pith:UQZTOIVL submitted 2025-05-21 math-ph cond-mat.str-elmath.MP

Mingchen Zheng , Chenguang Liang , Shu Chen , Xin Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification math-phcond-mat.str-elmath.MP MSC 81R1282B2082B23 PACS 75.10.Jm
keywords spinhelixeigenstatesXYZHeisenbergmodelquantummany-bodyscarsJacobithetafunctionsspin-coherentstatesnon-integrablesystemsexactarbitrary
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 claims that the anisotropic XYZ Heisenberg model, a generically non-integrable quantum spin model, has exact tensor-product eigenstates—spin helix states—in any spatial dimension and for any spin quantum number s, provided the anisotropy parameter and system sizes satisfy an elliptic commensurability condition. For each allowed parameter choice, the product of local spin-coherent states with linearly varying phase is an eigenstate with a closed-form energy. This matters because exact non-thermal eigenstates in non-integrable systems are rare and serve as tractable benchmarks for many-body physics. The paper also derives the limiting XXZ and XY cases, where the states simplify to chiral magnon towers with computable entanglement entropy. If correct, the result broadens the class of analytically solvable exact states and gives a concrete family of quantum many-body scar states that can be probed in simulators.

What carries the argument

The engine is the local divergence condition for the two-site interaction acting on the product of spin-coherent states: $H_{i,j}\,\psi_i(u)\psi_j(u\pm\eta) = s^2 b(\pm u)\,\psi_i(u)\psi_j(u\pm\eta) \pm s\left[a(u)S^z_i - a(u\pm\eta)S^z_j\right]\psi_i(u)\psi_j(u\pm\eta)$, with $a$ and $b$ built from ratios of Jacobi $\theta$ functions. This identity, proven in Appendix C using elliptic-function identities (A16) and (A17), turns every bond into an eigen-contribution plus a boundary term that telescopes or cancels when the helical phase winds compatibly with the periodic boundary conditions. The tensor-product state then becomes an exact eigenstate because the leftover spin terms sum to zero; the energy is the sum of the $b$-coefficients.

What would settle it

Compute exact diagonalization of the XYZ Hamiltonian on a small periodic lattice (e.g., a 1D spin-1 chain with $L=4$ and $\eta=2\tau/L$, or a 2D spin-$1/2$ lattice with $L\times L=4\times4$) at a commensurate $\eta$; evaluate $H|\Psi\rangle$ and check whether the normalized residual vector vanishes and the energy matches Eq. (14). Also verify identities (A16) and (A17) numerically at a few values of $u$ and $\eta$; a single counterexample would invalidate the local divergence condition.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1: on a d-dimensional hypercubic lattice with periodic boundary conditions, the tensor product state $|\Psi^{(s)}(u,\epsilon)\rangle = \bigotimes_j \psi^{(s)}_j(u + \eta\, \epsilon\cdot n_j)$ is an exact eigenstate of the XYZ Hamiltonian $H = \sum_{\langle i,j\rangle} (J_x S^x_i S^x_j + J_y S^y_i S^y_j + J_z S^z_i S^z_j)$, with energy $E = d\, s^2 \frac{\theta'_1(\eta)}{\theta'_1(0)}\, V + 4i\pi\, s^2 \frac{\theta_1(\eta)}{\theta'_1(0)} \sum_\beta p_\beta \prod_{\alpha\neq\beta} L_\alpha$, whenever $L_\alpha \eta = 2p_\alpha \tau + 2q_\alpha$ for integers $p_\alpha, q_\alpha$. The local vector $\psi^{(s)}(u)$ is a spin-coherent state determined by the ratio $\tilde\theta_4(u)/\tilde\theta_1(u)$, and the phase $u + \eta\, \epsilon\cdot n_j$ varies linearly along each lattice direction. The proof rests on a two-site divergence identity that reduces the action of each bond to an eigenterm plus two boundary-like spin terms that cancel under the periodic boundary and commensurability conditions. The author would state it as showing that the fully anisotropic XYZ model, which has no continuous symmetry and is non-integrable in general, still hosts exact, non-thermal, analytically constructed eigenstates for arbitrary spin and dimension.

Load-bearing premise

The proof depends on two unproved elliptic theta-function identities (A16) and (A17) that make the two-site divergence condition exact, plus the assertion that the leftover boundary terms cancel in $d>1$; if either identity fails or the cancellation fails, the eigenstate claim collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The XYZ Heisenberg model, although generically non-integrable, contains exact non-thermal eigenstates for arbitrary spin $s$ and arbitrary spatial dimension $d$.
  • The states form a degenerate manifold parameterized by $u$, with energy independent of $u$, so the spectrum contains flat, exactly constructible subspaces.
  • In the XXZ limit the helix reduces to a tower of chiral magnon eigenstates generated by nonlocal ladder operators, allowing analytic computation of bipartite entanglement entropy that grows logarithmically with volume, a scar signature.
  • The construction extends to long-range couplings, direction-dependent anisotropy, and triangular and kagome lattices under the same commensurability condition, so the mechanism is robust to lattice geometry changes.
  • For the XY model, the helix becomes a periodic sequence of the four polarized states $|\pm s\rangle_x$, $|\pm s\rangle_y$, giving zero-energy eigenstates whenever each side length is a multiple of 4.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The energy formula's dependence on arbitrary integers $p_\beta$ suggests that the spectrum at commensurate anisotropy contains an infinite ladder of exact states as $p_\beta$ varies, possibly connected by a hidden algebra in the XYZ case analogous to the XXZ quantum-group symmetry.
  • The same divergence condition might produce exact eigenstates for anisotropic spin chains with fields or Dzyaloshinskii–Moriya terms chosen to compensate the boundary terms, yielding a family of solvable non-integrable models.
  • A direct numerical check—exact diagonalization of small lattices for $s=1/2$ and $s=1$ in $d=1,2$ at commensurate $\eta$—could verify both the eigenstate property and the predicted energy independently of the unproven theta identities.
  • The construction suggests that spin helix eigenstates are a symmetry-based, not integrability-based, phenomenon, so similar exact states should exist in other anisotropic models whose two-site interaction admits a divergence identity.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs exact spin helix eigenstates for the fully anisotropic spin-s XYZ Heisenberg model on a d-dimensional hypercubic lattice with periodic boundary conditions. The central object is a tensor product of local spin-coherent states ψ(s)(u+η ε·n_j), and the main result (Theorem 1) asserts that this state is an eigenstate whenever the elliptic commensurability condition L_α η = 2p_α τ + 2q_α holds. The proof rests on a two-site divergence identity, Eq. (11), which is proved in Appendix C for arbitrary spin s using elliptic theta-function identities. Degenerate XXZ and XY limits, the structure of the invariant subspace, long-range and direction-dependent generalizations, and triangular/kagome settings are also discussed.

Significance. If the central theorem is correct, the paper establishes a genuine extension of spin helix exact eigenstates beyond spin-1/2 and beyond one dimension, in a regime where the XYZ model is generally non-integrable. This is a noteworthy result, since exact nonthermal eigenstates in non-integrable many-body systems are relatively rare and are relevant to quantum many-body scars. The explicit ansatz makes the claim falsifiable, and the energy formula (14) is concrete. The derivation is not numerical or machine-checked, but it is analytic and structured: the 1D proof is explicit, and the arbitrary-spin divergence condition is reduced in Appendix C to a set of elliptic identities. The main value of the paper lies in the breadth and concreteness of the construction, provided the unproved elliptic and multi-dimensional steps are satisfactorily completed.

major comments (4)
  1. [Appendix A, Eqs. (A16) and (A17); Appendix C, Eq. (C13)] The derivation of the two-site divergence condition (11) depends critically on identities (A16) and (A17), but these identities are stated without proof or citation. In particular, Eq. (C13) uses (A16) and (A17) to collapse F_{s,s}(u) into g(η)+g(u)-g(u+η); if either identity contains a sign or factor error, the whole eigenstate proof and the energy formula (14) fail. The authors should either provide a full derivation of (A16) and (A17) from standard theta-function properties, or cite a reference where they appear, and should include a numerical check of both identities over a parameter range.
  2. [Section III, proof of Theorem 1 for d>1] The d-dimensional proof is only sketched: after the one-dimensional case, the paper states that the non-eigen terms 'cancel out across the lattice' without displaying the explicit telescoping sum. This is load-bearing, because in d dimensions the boundary contributions from bonds in each direction combine with the phase factors ε_α and the periodic boundary conditions in a way that must be checked carefully. A line-by-line derivation of the boundary cancellation, analogous to the 1D derivation leading to Eq. (19), is needed.
  3. [Section V, invariant subspace of the XYZ model] The claim that the u-independent states |Φ~_n(s)(ε)> and |Φbar_n(s)(ε)> in the expansion (50) are eigenstates of Hamiltonian (3) is asserted as 'straightforwardly proven' rather than demonstrated. This is a nontrivial claim, particularly because P(u) has a sign ambiguity in Eq. (49) and the argument that varying u and choosing the ± sign independently forces the coefficients of Q^n(u) and P(u)Q^n(u) to vanish must be spelled out. Please provide a complete proof or clearly relegate these states to conjectural status.
  4. [Section VI, long-range and direction-dependent generalizations] The extensions to long-range interactions in Eq. (56) and to direction-dependent couplings in Eq. (59) are stated as straightforward consequences of Eq. (11), but no proof is given. Since these models are presented as part of the main results rather than as a passing remark, the authors should at least outline how Eq. (11) is applied for each k-th neighbor bond and how the commensurability conditions (15) and (61) enforce the relevant periodicity.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typographical and formatting errors, including 'Thet a functions' in a section heading and the typeset 'NL' in the proof of Theorem 1; these should be corrected.
  2. [Figure 3 caption] The caption is incomplete: it appears to contain a leftover fragment ('Local spin expectation values L = 27') and should state the plotted quantities and all parameters clearly.
  3. [Section V, Eq. (46)-(47)] The identities (46) and (47) for Q and P are introduced without derivation or reference; adding a short derivation or a citation would help the reader verify the u-independent-basis argument.
  4. [Note added and references] The note added mentions overlapping work [58-60] and states that similar eigenstates date back to 1985, but the main text does not discuss this historical connection except in the note. A brief comment in the introduction or in Section III would place the novelty claim on a clearer footing.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the eigenstate construction and energy are derived by direct algebra from the Hamiltonian, not fitted or imported by self-citation.

full rationale

The central result, Theorem 1, is a direct verification: the tensor-product ansatz (13) is inserted into H, and Eq. (11) is used to convert each bond action into a diagonal term plus boundary terms that cancel under the periodicity condition (15). The energy (14) is obtained by summing the explicit coefficients b and g, not by fitting. Eq. (11) itself is proved for arbitrary s in Appendix C by reducing the overlap to the four functions F_{s,s}, F_{s,m}, F_{s,n}, F_{m,n} and evaluating them via elliptic identities; the s=1/2 citation to Refs. [53-55] is historical and non-load-bearing because the general proof is given in the paper. The unproved status of identities (A16) and (A17) and the compressed d>1 boundary cancellation are genuine support/completeness risks, but they are not circular: they are assumptions or lemmas independent of the theorem being proved. Section V's invariant-subspace eigenstates and Section VI's extensions are asserted more sketchily, and the Note added acknowledges prior 1D high-spin results, but none of these makes the derivation reduce to its own inputs. The paper's parametrization of couplings by theta functions is an ansatz, not a fit renamed as a prediction.

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

No numbers are fitted to data: eta and tau are Hamiltonian parameters taken from the theta-function parameterization, u is an arbitrary phase in the eigenstate manifold that does not affect the energy, and the integers p_alpha and q_alpha are quantization conditions rather than fitted values. No new physical entities are introduced; the chiral ladder operator J_epsilon is a constructed mathematical object built from existing spin operators. The load-bearing inputs are the standard theta-function identities and the specific ansatz for the local coherent state.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math Jacobi theta function identities (A6)-(A10), (A16)-(A17) and quasi-periodicity (A3)-(A4) hold.
    Listed in Appendix A without proof; used intensively in Appendix C to establish the divergence condition (11).
  • domain assumption Exchange couplings are parameterized by theta functions: Jx = theta_4(eta)/theta_4(0), Jy = theta_3(eta)/theta_3(0), Jz = theta_2(eta)/theta_2(0).
    Adopted from the integrable XYZ literature (Ref. [52]); this exact form is required for the cancellation to work.
  • domain assumption The local vector psi(s)(u) takes the spin-coherent-state form of Eq. (7) and is a highest-weight state of S(gamma,beta) as shown in Appendix B.
    This ansatz is the building block of the tensor-product eigenstate; its validity as a spin coherent state is established in Appendix B.
  • domain assumption For d>1, the non-eigen boundary terms in Eq. (11) telescope to zero across each lattice direction under periodic boundary conditions.
    The higher-dimension proof of Theorem 1 states the cancellation without writing out the d-dimensional sum; this is an assertion about the algebraic structure of the boundary terms.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exact spin helix eigenstates in the anisotropic spin-$s$ Heisenberg model with arbitrary dimensions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UQZTOIVL

@misc{pith2026250514994,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exact spin helix eigenstates in the anisotropic spin-$s$ Heisenberg model with arbitrary dimensions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UQZTOIVL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.14994}
}
abstract

Spin helix states-characterized by their spatially modulated spin textures-are exact eigenstates of the one-dimensional anisotropic spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ Heisenberg model under specific parameter conditions. In this work, we extend this framework by constructing exact spin helix eigenstates for the fully anisotropic XYZ Heisenberg model with arbitrary spatial dimensions and arbitrary spin quantum numbers. Our results demonstrate that some non-trivial exact eigenstates can persist beyond the integrable regime. The XXZ and XY cases are also analyzed to clarify the conditions for the emergence of spin helix eigenstates and their key properties. Our results broaden the class of analytically tractable exact eigenstates in non-integrable systems and deepen understanding of spin modulation states in many-body systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.14994 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The spatial variation of the phase factor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) Local spin configuration of a spin helix eigenstate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Visualization of the spin helix structure in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. A 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Sutherland, Beautiful models:70 years of exactly solved quantum many-body problems (World Scientific Publish- ing Company)

    B. Sutherland, Beautiful models:70 years of exactly solved quantum many-body problems (World Scientific Publish- ing Company)

    work page

  2. [2]

    Amico, R

    L. Amico, R. Fazio, A. Osterloh, and V. Vedral, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 517 (2008)

    2008

  3. [3]

    R. J. Baxter, Exactly solved models in statistical mechan- ics (Elsevier, 2016)

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    (44) is valid solely for the spin-1 XY system, whereas we demonstrate a universal result applicable to arbitrary spin-s systems

    Most importantly, the eigenstate introduced in Eq. (44) is valid solely for the spin-1 XY system, whereas we demonstrate a universal result applicable to arbitrary spin-s systems. See Appendix D for more details. V. EXACT EIGENST A TES IN THE INTEGRABLE SUBSP ACE OF XYZ MODEL As discussed in the preceding sections, the SHS in the XYZ spin chain belongs to...

    work page 1985

  5. [5]

    V. E. Korepin, V. E. Korepin, N. Bogoliubov, and A. Iz- ergin, Quantum inverse scattering method and correlation functions, Vol. 3 (Cambridge university press, 1997)

    work page 1997

  6. [6]

    Ilievski, J

    E. Ilievski, J. De Nardis, B. Wouters, J.-S. Caux, F. H. L. Essler, and T. Prosen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 157201 (2015)

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Ilievski, M

    E. Ilievski, M. Medenjak, T. Prosen, and L. Zadnik, J. Stat. Mech. 2016, 064008 (2016)

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    F. H. L. Essler and M. Fagotti, J. Stat. Mech. 2016, 064002 (2016)

    work page 2016

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    Vidmar and M

    L. Vidmar and M. Rigol, J. Stat. Mech. 2016, 064007 (2016)

    2016

  2. [10]

    Cecile, J

    G. Cecile, J. De Nardis, and E. Ilievski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 130401 (2024)

    2024

  3. [11]

    O. A. Castro-Alvaredo, B. Doyon, and T. Yoshimura, Phys. Rev. X 6, 041065 (2016)

    2016

  4. [12]

    Bertini, M

    B. Bertini, M. Collura, J. De Nardis, and M. Fagotti, 10 Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 207201 (2016)

    2016

  5. [13]

    Bastianello, B

    A. Bastianello, B. Bertini, B. Doyon, and R. Vasseur, J. Stat. Mech. 2022, 014001 (2022)

    2022

  6. [14]

    V. Alba, B. Bertini, M. Fagotti, L. Piroli, and P. Rug- giero, J. Stat. Mech. 2021, 114004 (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    De Nardis, B

    J. De Nardis, B. Doyon, M. Medenjak, and M. Panfil, J. Stat. Mech. 2022, 014002 (2022)

    2022

  8. [16]

    Doyon, S

    B. Doyon, S. Gopalakrishnan, F. Møller, J. Schmied- mayer, and R. Vasseur, Phys. Rev. X 15, 010501 (2025)

    2025

  9. [17]

    Serbyn, D

    M. Serbyn, D. A. Abanin, and Z. Papi´ c, Nature Physics 17, 675 (2021)

    2021

  10. [18]

    Moudgalya, B

    S. Moudgalya, B. A. Bernevig, and N. Regnault, Rep. Prog. Phys. 85, 086501 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    Chandran, T

    A. Chandran, T. Iadecola, V. Khemani, and R. Moessner, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 14, 443 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    C. J. Turner, A. A. Michailidis, D. A. Abanin, M. Serbyn, and Z. Papi´ c, Nature Physics14, 745 (2018)

    2018

  13. [21]

    C. J. Turner, A. A. Michailidis, D. A. Abanin, M. Serbyn, and Z. Papi´ c, Phys. Rev. B98, 155134 (2018)

    2018

  14. [22]

    Lin and O

    C.-J. Lin and O. I. Motrunich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 173401 (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    D. K. Mark, C.-J. Lin, and O. I. Motrunich, Phys. Rev. B 101, 195131 (2020)

    2020

  16. [24]

    Moudgalya, S

    S. Moudgalya, S. Rachel, B. A. Bernevig, and N. Reg- nault, Phys. Rev. B 98, 235155 (2018)

    2018

  17. [25]

    Moudgalya, N

    S. Moudgalya, N. Regnault, and B. A. Bernevig, Phys. Rev. B 98, 235156 (2018)

    2018

  18. [26]

    Schecter and T

    M. Schecter and T. Iadecola, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 147201 (2019)

    2019

  19. [27]

    Chattopadhyay, H

    S. Chattopadhyay, H. Pichler, M. D. Lukin, and W. W. Ho, Phys. Rev. B 101, 174308 (2020)

    2020

  20. [28]

    Shibata, N

    N. Shibata, N. Yoshioka, and H. Katsura, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 180604 (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    O’Dea, F

    N. O’Dea, F. Burnell, A. Chandran, and V. Khemani, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 043305 (2020)

    2020

  22. [30]

    Pakrouski, P

    K. Pakrouski, P. N. Pallegar, F. K. Popov, and I. R. Klebanov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 230602 (2020)

    2020

  23. [31]

    J. Ren, C. Liang, and C. Fang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 120604 (2021)

    2021

  24. [32]

    A. N. Ivanov and O. I. Motrunich, arXiv:2503.16327

    arXiv

  25. [33]

    Eisert, M

    J. Eisert, M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 277 (2010)

    2010

  26. [34]

    Cerezo, R

    M. Cerezo, R. Rossignoli, and N. Canosa, Phys. Rev. B 92, 224422 (2015)

    2015

  27. [35]

    Cerezo, R

    M. Cerezo, R. Rossignoli, and N. Canosa, Phys. Rev. A 94, 042335 (2016)

    2016

  28. [36]

    Gerken, I

    F. Gerken, I. Runkel, C. Schweigert, and T. Posske, Phys. Rev. Res. 7, L012008 (2025)

    2025

  29. [37]

    Cerezo, R

    M. Cerezo, R. Rossignoli, N. Canosa, and E. R ´ ıos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 220605 (2017)

    2017

  30. [38]

    D’Alessio, Y

    L. D’Alessio, Y. Kafri, A. Polkovnikov, and M. Rigol, Adv. Phys. 65, 239 (2016)

    2016

  31. [39]

    Nandkishore and D

    R. Nandkishore and D. A. Huse, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 6, 15 (2015)

    2015

  32. [40]

    D. A. Abanin, E. Altman, I. Bloch, and M. Serbyn, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 021001 (2019)

    2019

  33. [41]

    Sierant, M

    P. Sierant, M. Lewenstein, A. Scardicchio, L. Vidmar, and J. Zakrzewski, Rep. Prog. Phys. 88, 026502 (2025)

    2025

  34. [42]

    Bernien, S

    H. Bernien, S. Schwartz, A. Keesling, H. Levine, A. Om- ran, H. Pichler, S. Choi, A. S. Zibrov, M. Endres, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Nature 551, 579 (2017)

    2017

  35. [43]

    Bluvstein, A

    D. Bluvstein, A. Omran, H. Levine, A. Keesling, G. Se- meghini, S. Ebadi, T. T. Wang, A. A. Michailidis, N. Maskara, W. W. Ho, S. Choi, M. Serbyn, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Science371, 1355 (2021)

    2021

  36. [44]

    Popkov, X

    V. Popkov, X. Zhang, and A. Kl¨ umper, Phys. Rev. B 104, L081410 (2021)

    2021

  37. [45]

    P. N. Jepsen, Y. K. . Lee, H. Lin, I. Dimitrova, Y. Mar- galit, W. W. Ho, and W. Ketterle, Nature Physics 18, 899 (2022)

    2022

  38. [46]

    Baxter, Ann

    R. Baxter, Ann. Phys. 76, 1 (1973)

    1973

  39. [47]

    Baxter, Ann

    R. Baxter, Ann. Phys. 76, 25 (1973)

    1973

  40. [48]

    Baxter, Ann

    R. Baxter, Ann. Phys. 76, 48 (1973)

    1973

  41. [49]

    Pasquier and H

    V. Pasquier and H. Saleur, Nucl. Phys. B 330, 523 (1990)

    1990

  42. [50]

    Deguchi, K

    T. Deguchi, K. Fabricius, and B. M. McCoy, J. Stat. Phys. 102, 701 (2001)

    2001

  43. [51]

    P. N. Jepsen, W. W. Ho, J. Amato-Grill, I. Dimitrova, E. Demler, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. X 11, 041054 (2021)

    2021

  44. [52]

    E. T. Whittaker and G. N. Watson, A Course of Modern Analysis (Cambridge University Press, 1950)

    1950

  45. [53]

    Wang, W.-L

    Y. Wang, W.-L. Yang, J. Cao, and K. Shi, Off-Diagonal Bethe Ansatz for Exactly Solvable Models (Springer, 2016)

    2016

  46. [54]

    Popkov, X

    V. Popkov, X. Zhang, and T. Prosen, Phys. Rev. B 105, L220302 (2022)

    2022

  47. [55]

    Zhang, A

    X. Zhang, A. Kl¨ umper, and V. Popkov, Phys. Rev. B 106, 075406 (2022)

    2022

  48. [56]

    Zhang, A

    X. Zhang, A. Kl¨ umper, and V. Popkov, Phys. Rev. B 109, 115411 (2024)

    2024

  49. [57]

    Shiraishi and H

    N. Shiraishi and H. Tasaki, arXiv:2412.18504

    arXiv

  50. [58]

    P. N. Jepsen, Y. K. E. Lee, H. Lin, I. Dimitrova, Y. Mar- galit, W. W. Ho, and W. Ketterle, Nature Physics 18, 899 (2022)

    2022

  51. [59]

    Bhowmick, V

    D. Bhowmick, V. B. Bulchandani, and W. W. Ho, arXiv:2505.05435

    arXiv

  52. [60]

    Y. I. Granovskii and A. Zhedanov, JETP Lett. 41, 382 (1985)

    1985

  53. [61]

    ˜θ4(u)˜θ1(u + η) ˜θ1(u)˜θ4(u + η) + ˜θ1(u)˜θ4(u + η) ˜θ4(u)˜θ1(u + η) # (A16) = θ1(η) θ′ 1(0) [ζ(η) − 2˜ζ(η)] + ˜θ4(η)˜θ1(η + τ ) ˜θ4(0)˜θ1(τ )

    Y. I. Granovskii and A. Zhedanov, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz 89, 2156 (1985). 11 Appendix A: Jacobi theta functions Some useful identities for the elliptic functions used in this paper are θ2(u) = θ1(u + 1 2 ), θ 3(u) = eiπ(u+ τ 4 )θ1(u + 1+τ 2 ), θ 4(u) = −eiπ(u+ τ 4 + 1 2 )θ1(u + τ...

    1985

Pith tools

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