SciPost Submission Page
Dissipationdriven integrable fermionic systems: from graded Yangians to exact nonequilibrium steady states
by Enej Ilievski
This is not the latest submitted version.
This Submission thread is now published as
Submission summary
Authors (as Contributors):  Enej Ilievski 
Submission information  

Arxiv Link:  http://arxiv.org/abs/1612.04352v3 (pdf) 
Date submitted:  20170509 02:00 
Submitted by:  Ilievski, Enej 
Submitted to:  SciPost Physics 
Ontological classification  

Academic field:  Physics 
Specialties: 

Approach:  Theoretical 
Abstract
Using the Lindblad master equation approach, we investigate the structure of steadystate solutions of open integrable quantum lattice models, driven far from equilibrium by incoherent particle reservoirs attached at the boundaries. We identify a class of boundary dissipation processes which permits to derive exact steadystate density matrices in the form of graded matrixproduct operators. All the solutions factorize in terms of vacuum analogues of Baxter's Qoperators which are realized in terms of nonunitary representations of certain finite dimensional subalgebras of graded Yangians. We present a unifying framework which allows to solve fermionic models and naturally incorporates higherrank symmetries. This enables to explain underlying algebraic content behind most of the previouslyfound solutions.
Current status:
Author comments upon resubmission
Submission & Refereeing History
You are currently on this page
Reports on this Submission
Anonymous Report 3 on 201773 (Invited Report)
 Cite as: Anonymous, Report on arXiv:1612.04352v3, delivered 20170703, doi: 10.21468/SciPost.Report.181
Strengths
.
Weaknesses
.
Report
Dear Editor,
I have read the replay of the author, the modifications made and read once again the manuscript. While I can find some improvements my previous judgment of the main manuscript problem stays:
"I find that the presentation of several main objects is poor and somewhere uncertain leaving the reader missing of several operative definitions and so unable to reproduce by himself the material presented in the manuscript."
Once again for me the author has missed the opportunity to use the examples of open quantum models presented (now) in Section 5 of its manuscript to clarify its definitions.
In point I) of his replay for the definition of the "vacua state" the author use some general statement speaking of "extremalweight states belonging to the irreducible subspaces" and arguing that "This can be considered as a definition, and is sufficient to unambiguously define the solutions.".
Well these "extremalweight states" are not clear for me and the author should identify them explicitly for any examples of open quantum models presented in Section 5.
Requested changes
I think that this is a minimal clarification required to make the material presented in this manuscript understandable for a general audiance and so in the interest of SciPost and of the author himself.
Anonymous Report 2 on 2017630 (Invited Report)
 Cite as: Anonymous, Report on arXiv:1612.04352v3, delivered 20170630, doi: 10.21468/SciPost.Report.179
Strengths
the paper is technically precise
the results are correct
the paper provides an overview of the subject
the previous results are put into a nice algebraic structure
Weaknesses
The paper is hard to read.
Report
This is about the recent highprofile works on building exact nonequilibrium steady states in driven quantum integrable spin chains. The manuscript reviews some of the work, and puts it in a common algebraic framework. The structure identified is based on Yangians.
Again, this is an interesting work, it is important to clarify the underlying algebraic structure in order to eventually connects with advanced concepts of integrability. There is a lot of material, and a lot of interesting ideas.
However, there is no way out of the fact that the paper is somewhat hard to read. Many aspects are developed in different parts, and it is easy to get lost (in the notation, in the concepts, in what it is that the author is trying to do). Perhaps, it it were possible, if there was a section where all aspects were put together in a simple way, the fundamental ideas being explained, so that we could have a big picture, that would be helpful. But I understand that the author has made an effort to improve the text, and this is certainly improved on the first version (I think everything is defined, at least somewhere, even if sometimes we have to search a little bit for the definition).
Here are some small things that I found unclear / inaccurate:
p 7, bottom: can the author be more precise about what a "representation label" is.
p10: the dissipator acting on Omega cancels right the hand side of (20) (that is, it gives a term that equates the negative of rhs of (20); it does not annihilate rhs of (20) in the sense that acting on rhs of (20) with it does not give zero)
p 9 before eq 18: the hamiltonian density does not coincide with the permutation, as in 18 there is an extra factor of derivative of R.
p9: "the differential equation (19)" : should be (18) instead? "A general solution to eq 18" should be eq 17 instead?
p9 in paragraph after eq 18: which one is physical space and which is auxiliary space? please specify
p9 just after eq 19: in expression of ${\cal H}_{\rm aux}$ why is index now $n$ instead of $n+m$?
p10: what does it mean that two copies of a Hilbert space are "mutually conjugate" (just above eq 21)? A Hilbert space is either isomorphic or not to another Hilbert space, but I don't see how it can be conjugate.
p 11 top: "pertains to the conjugate dual" > does it really mean "is the conjugate dual"? I don't understand the use of "pertain".
p 11 bottom: "a general solution of condition (19)"... but (19) is not a condition, it is a definition.
p12 fig 5: it is a bit strange to put 2A where it is: why not a factor 2 for this term instead?
p14: why are level0 grassmann numbers? they seem to commute in eq 32.
p14: how is eq 33 linear in z? there is z^{1}, so it is rather linear in z^{1}
p 20, footnote 13: where is the JordanWigner transformation used? It is not clear in the main text where it would be involved. Why is it involved in the dissipator?
Requested changes
If possible, a section where all aspects are put together in a simple way, the fundamental ideas and basic formulae being explained, so that we could have a big picture.
Anonymous Report 1 on 201766 (Invited Report)
 Cite as: Anonymous, Report on arXiv:1612.04352v3, delivered 20170605, doi: 10.21468/SciPost.Report.158
Strengths
1. technically strong
Weaknesses
1. still no clear separation between new results and the rest
Report
The author has made modifications to his manuscript. He has reorganized his sections 1, 2 and 3,
and added diagrams to illustrate the main equations. While I find that the quality of the presentation
has improved, the main issue of the manuscript remains: it is still not clear to me what exactly is the novelty
brought by the paper.
What are the important results? What are the equations that the author wants to emphasize? This should
be made obvious to the reader. It should be explained clearly, both in the introduction and in the conclusion,
or perhaps in a separate section that could summarize the results.
For a start, the paper could easily gain clarity if the introduction was focused on the content of the paper,
instead of consisting in a long list of remotely connected topics (e.g., is it really necessary to start with the
traditional sentence about «remarkable progress in experiments in cold atoms», while the
paper is actually about graded Yangians? Wouldn’t it be more helpful and less confusing for the reader
to get to the point more quickly?).
Overall, the new results must be exposed clearly, and contrasted with the ones that are already available in the literature.
For instance, in his reply to my report, the author writes
« We disagree with the referee that having two separate sections, one for the nongraded and another for the graded algebras, would be better. The former are just a special case of the latter when the grading is trivial. We find it much better to treat everything on equal footing. Apart from this, we wish to inform the referee that the su(n) spin chains with this class of integrable dissipative boundaries have been solved before. »
But this is precisely what I am talking about! The fact that the author presents the graded and nongraded cases together,
as if the whole thing was his own contribution, is confusing because the nonexpert reader cannot possibly see what is new and
what isn’t. A better, clearer, more readerfriendly presentation, would be to start by recalling the existing result for the nongraded
case, and then explain why it is possible and interesting to generalize this preexisting result to the graded case.
Since the author did not yet make all the necessary changes to make his manuscript clearer and more accessible,
I am still unsure about the relevance of the results it contains. I am still unable to recommend its publication
on Scipost.
Requested changes
1. reorganize the paper, in particular with a separate section containing a short review of the existing results. Then, in later sections, contrast those results with the new ones in the paper
2. the new version contains many typos, missing words, etc. Please proofread and make corrections
3. I suggest that the introduction be rewritten. Make it less broad, get to the point more quickly.