SciPost Submission Page
Thermodynamic limit and boundary energy of the spin1 Heisenberg chain with nondiagonal boundary fields
by Zhihan Zheng, Pei Sun, Xiaotian Xu, Tao Yang, Junpeng Cao, WenLi Yang
This is not the latest submitted version.
This Submission thread is now published as
Submission summary
Authors (as registered SciPost users):  Xiaotian Xu 
Submission information  

Preprint Link:  scipost_202106_00001v1 (pdf) 
Date submitted:  20210602 13:26 
Submitted by:  Xu, Xiaotian 
Submitted to:  SciPost Physics 
Ontological classification  

Academic field:  Physics 
Specialties: 

Approach:  Theoretical 
Abstract
The thermodynamic limit and boundary energy of the isotropic spin1 Heisenberg chain with nondiagonal boundary fields are studied. The finite size scaling properties of the inhomogeneous term in the T − Q relation at the ground state are analyzed. Based on the reduced Bethe ansatz equations (BAEs), we obtain the boundary energy of the system. These results can be generalized to the SU(2) symmetric high spin Heisenberg model directly.
Current status:
Submission & Refereeing History
You are currently on this page
Reports on this Submission
Anonymous Report 3 on 2021722 (Invited Report)
 Cite as: Anonymous, Report on arXiv:scipost_202106_00001v1, delivered 20210722, doi: 10.21468/SciPost.Report.3280
Strengths
Some new interesting results.
Weaknesses
The main results derived are for boundary conditions different from those declared from the author, the numerical analysis developed is mainly stated without presenting in the manuscript enough data
Report
The manuscript presents some interesting and apparently new results on the surface energy of the open integrable spin1 Heisenberg chain while the authors also claim to have derived some interesting numerical results for large chains. The presentation of the material is however strongly misleading if not even incorrect, leading to state analytic results not for the proper boundary conditions. I found moreover, that the manuscript is rather scarce in the citation of the relevant literature and too much centered on the previous production of the authors. It is my opinion that the manuscript needs a detailed rewriting to take into account the critics of the previous referees as well as those that I will detail in the following. After that, one can evaluate if the manuscript fulfills the minimal requirement for the publication on SciPost or, as suggested by the second referee, a subthematic one.
I will focus my comments on the presentation of the material and the results in the manuscript. The authors dedicate the section 2 to introduce the open spin1 XXX chain with some general boundary conditions and then they recall the TQequations for the transfer matrix eigenvalues according to their ODBA Ansatz method. These TQequations contains an “inhomogeneous term” the thermodynamic analysis of the associated Bethe equations is not known currently and so the authors implement this analysis for the Bethe equations associated to the homogeneous TQequation. They call this the “reduced Bethe equation”, but in fact they are just the Bethe equations of the same open spin1 XXX chain for different boundary conditions. This changes the boundary conditions in “diagonal ones”. This changes the u (spectral parameter) asymptotic behavior of the transfer matrix allowing to the eigenvalues of the (1/2,1) transfer matrix to satisfy the homogeneous TQequation. Then, the analysis developed in section 3 and 4 on the Bethe roots and the boundary energy in the thermodynamic limit, in fact, are for these “diagonal boundary conditions” and not for the un nondiagonal boundary magnetic fields case. Indeed, in section 4, for all the considered regimes IIV, they always refer to the Bethe equations associated to the homogeneous TQequations. This is very different from what the authors write already in the title and in their abstract, see also for example the statements at the beginning of section 4:
“In this section, we study the physical effects induced by the unparallel boundary magnetic fields and compute the boundary energy”.
For the nondiagonal case, the authors have just the numerical analysis by DRMG that they claim to have developed for long chains up to 200 sites. In fig. 2, the result of this numerical analysis is the convergence like N^{\beta}, with \beta around 1, of the ground state energy density for the nondiagonal and diagonal one. In fig.3, they claim to have extrapolated the thermodynamic limit of their DMRG results of the ground state boundary energy for the nondiagonal case and shown the coincidence with the explicit functions (68) found for the diagonal case. It would be nice and useful to have more detailed data of their DMRG analysis and a figure, for each chosen values of p and q for which they have done their computations. In particular, they should plot the DMRG results for the chain of N=4, 14, …,194 and from which the asymptotic values are extrapolated. Let me say, that while I am not a specialist of numerical analysis, like DMRG, and so I am unable to verify even for shorter chains the numerical claims of the authors what they present looks reasonable from a physical point of view. However, one should stress that the thermodynamic convergence of the ground state boundary energy density of the nondiagonal and diagonal cases does not imply that in general one can just consider the “reduced” Bethe equations to develop the thermodynamic analysis of the relevant physical quantities in the nondiagonal case. This has been stressed already by the second referee and I agree with the first one on the relevance of having an analytic derivation of the \beta as functions of the boundary parameters. For example, this type of finite size analysis can be important for relevant physical quantities such as the correlation functions where a modification of order 1/N in the ground state Bethe root density can produce a modification of the correlation functions; e.g. this is clearly the case if one thinks to the exact results for the XXZ spin 1/2 chain.
The authors should also look for misprints, e.g. in “The model Hamiltonian is generalized from the transfer matrix t(u) as” it is “generated” and not “generalized”. Then about the Hamiltonian, there are more strange things. The definition of H in terms of the transfer matrix in the first line of (15) is apparently singular in u=0. Moreover, it produces a term which is the logarithmic derivative of the transfer matrix which is not the standard definition for the open chain. There is some strange asymmetry between the expressions of the boundary magnetic fields in the site 1 and site N with respect to the boundary parameters minus and plus. A part an overall 1/\eta in the site N there is also a different behavior with respect to the boundary parameters \alpha_{} and \alpha_{+}. One expects that when these two values are zero one gets back the diagonal case, i.e., the two boundary fields parallel and oriented along the zdirection. However, for \alpha_{}=0 the boundary magnetic field in the site 1 become oriented along the zdirection while this is not the case for \alpha_{+}=0 for the boundary magnetic field in the site N. Even more strange, with the current parametrization, the boundary magnetic field in the site N seems to be orientable in the zdirection only for specific values of both the boundary parameters, e.g. (\alpha{+}=0,p_{+}^2=3\eta^2/4). If there are no mistakes the authors should comment why from a symmetric writing of the transfer matrix with respect to the boundary matrices (and so the boundary parameters) one gets such asymmetric Hamiltonian.
Requested changes
See above
Anonymous Report 2 on 202177 (Invited Report)
 Cite as: Anonymous, Report on arXiv:scipost_202106_00001v1, delivered 20210707, doi: 10.21468/SciPost.Report.3210
Strengths
1 New results on the dependence of the surface energy of the integrable spin1 Heisenberg model on (diagonal!) boundary fields
Weaknesses
1 The effect of nondiagonal boundary fields to the ground state energy is of order $O(L^{1})$ and therefore not captured in the "reduced" TQ or Bethe equations.
Report
The authors study the bulk and surface contributions to the ground state energy of the integrable spin1 Heisenberg chain with open boundary conditions. Nonparallel boundary fields break the $U(1)$ symmetry of the system and a complete solution requires the use of the socalled offdiagonal Bethe ansatz (ODBA) based on an inhomogeneous extension of the TQequation.
The ODBA solution from Ref. [40] leading to the inhomogeneous TQequation (17,18) for the transfer matrix eigenvalues is presented in Section 2. (NB: the general offdiagonal boundary matrices should be contain 3 parameters for strenght and direction).
In Section 3 this equation is approximated to give a "reduced TQrelation" which, in fact, are nothing but the (homogeneous) eigenvalue equation obtained by means of the algebraic Bethe ansatz for parallel boundary fields (which can be seen by comparing (27)(29) with, e.g., the rational limit of the corresponding equations in Ref. [26]). The boundary parameters $p$ and $q$ appearing in the reduced equations are the combinations of the original nondiagonal parameters obtained by rotation of the boundary matrices (see Ref. [29]).
From their analysis of the "reduced" Bethe equations (29) the authors therefore obtain the bulk $\sim O(L^1)$ and surface energy $\sim O(L^0)$ of the spin1 model as function of (diagonal) boundary fields parameterized by $p$ and $q$. In the thermodynamic limit the boundary contributions $\sim O(L^0)$ from the two ends of the chain decouple, therefore it is not surprising that these quantities coincide with the numerical results obtained from the full ODBA solution or DRMG calculation for nonparallel fields. The effect of the latter will only show up in a true finite size scaling analysis, i.e. considering
$O(L^{1})$ corrections.
The identification of root configurations to the reduced Bethe equations and the calculation of the boundary contribution (68) to the ground state energy as function of the diagonal boundary fields $p$ and $q$, however, is new (to my knowledge). Putting this into the context of the more general model and its solution by means of the ODBA, however, is misleading.
A revision focussed on the boundary energy of the model with parallel fields is worth to be published, although it might be more suitable for SciPost Physics Core.
Author: Xiaotian Xu on 20210812 [id 1661]
(in reply to Report 2 on 20210707)
Thank you very much for your many helpful points raised about our paper and we really appreciate your support. We believe that these comments and suggestions have significantly improved our manuscript. To these comments we respond as follows. The page numbers and equation numbers refer to revised version, unless specify.

Reviewer: In Section 3 this equation is approximated to give a "reduced TQrelation" which, in fact, are nothing but the (homogeneous) eigenvalue equation obtained by means of the algebraic Bethe ansatz for parallel boundary fields (which can be seen by comparing (27)(29) with, e.g., the rational limit of the corresponding equations in Ref. [26]). The boundary parameters p and q appearing in the reduced equations are the combinations of the original nondiagonal parameters obtained by rotation of the boundary matrices (see Ref. [29]). The identification of root configurations to the reduced Bethe equations and the calculations of the boundary contribution (68) to the ground state energy as function of the diagonal boundary fields $p$ and $q$, however, is new (to my knowledge). Putting this into the context of the more general model and its solution by means of the ODBA, however, is misleading. Authors: Thank you very much! The motivation of this paper is that we want to calculate the physical quantities such as the boundary energy of the spin1 Heisenberg chain induced by the unparallel boundary magnetic fields. The exact energy spectrum of the system is characterized by the inhomogeneous $TQ$ relations (17)(23) and associated Bethe ansatz equations (24) for any finite $N$. Due to the existence of inhomogeneous terms in Eq.(24) induced by the unparallel boundary fields, the traditional thermodynamic Bethe asnatz method does not work. By using the density matrix renormalization group simulation, we find that the contribution of inhomogeneous terms in the $TQ$ relations can be neglected at the ground state only in the thermodynamic limit. Namely, one of most important results of this paper is that we show here the inhomogeneous $TQ$ relation (17)(23) and Bethe ansatz equations (24) for the spin1 Heisenberg chain with the unparallel boundary fields, only in the thermodynamic limit, can be simulated by the homogeneous ones (27)(29) (which are equivalent to those with diagonal boundary fields). The physical picture is that the two boundary fields can not "see" each other only in the thermodynamic limit (i.e., the contributions to the boundary energy of the two boundary fields independently). [We shall note that the eigenstates with diagonal and those with nondiagonal boundary fields are quite different.] From this equivalent diagonal boundary fields (only in thermodynamic limit), we then obtain the analytical expression for the boundary energy. We note that the boundary energy (68) includes the contribution of offdiagonal boundary parameters $\alpha_{\pm}$. All the results are reasonable and consistent with each other.

Reviewer: The ODBA solution from Ref.[40] leading to the inhomogeneous TQequation (17,18) for the transfer matrix eigenvalues is presented in Section 2. (NB: the general offdiagonal boundary matrices should be contain 3 parameters for strength and direction). Authors: Thank you very much for pointing the fact that the general offdiagonal boundary matrices should be contain 3 parameters for strength and direction. We use the general offdiagonal boundary matrix $K^(u)$ in (7)(8) with the boundary parameters ${p_,\,\alpha_,\phi_}$ characterizing the strength and direction of the boundary field (resp. $K^+(u)$ in (10) with the boundary parameters ${p_+,\,\alpha_+,\phi_+}$ ). The eigenvalues $\Lambda(u)$ of the transfer matrix is given by the inhomogeneous $TQ$ relations (17)(23) for any finite $N$, which implies that the energy of the ground state may depend on the boundary parameters through the values: $p_{\pm},\,\alpha_{\pm}$ and $\phi_\phi_+$. However, in the thermodynamic limit, the boundary energy only depends on the boundary parameters through the values: $p=\frac{p_{}}{\sqrt{1+\alpha^2_{}}}\frac{1}{2}$ and $q=\frac{p_{+}}{\sqrt{1+\alpha^2_{+}}}\frac{1}{2}$ (see (63), (67) and (68)).
Anonymous Report 1 on 2021629 (Invited Report)
 Cite as: Anonymous, Report on arXiv:scipost_202106_00001v1, delivered 20210629, doi: 10.21468/SciPost.Report.3147
Strengths
1) the vanishing of the contribution of the inhomogeneous term to the groundstate energy is shown
2) new results for the surface energies are derived.
Weaknesses
1) the finite size correction term const.N^beta is not evaluated (analytically)
Report
The authors study the ZamolodchikovFateev model resp. the TakhtajanBabujian
model with spin1 on a chain with open boundary conditions and boundary fields
that break the conservation of magnetization.
Section 2 is devoted to the demonstration of integrability of the model by a
compilation of results of the literature. This section ends with a
presentation of the ODBA result for the eigenvalue of the transfer matrix with
spin1/2 representation in the auxiliary space and the fusion relation of this
eigenvalue to the physically interesting one.
Section 3 is entitled "Finite size scaling behavior", but in fact it shows that a
certain homogeneous approximation to the inhomogeneous TQ relation yields the
correct bulk O(N) and surface O(1) contributions to the energy. Technically,
the reduction of the complete inhomogeneous TQ relation to the homogeneous
one (28) leads to homogeneous Bethe ansatz equations (29) which allow for an
analytic solution in the thermodynamic limit which is presented in section
4. For the homogeneous approximation the formulas (32,35) are evaluated for
system sizes up to N=200 and compared to the full results either by solving
the inhomogeneous BAEs (24,25) directly or by density matrix renormalization
group (DMRG) calculations. The difference is shown in figure 2 and is
obviously an algebraically decaying function const.N^beta with negative values
for beta in the neighbourhood of 1.
The authors should comment on the possibility of evaluating the finite size
correction term const.N^beta by analytic means. For periodic boundary
conditions the model of interest has been investigated long ago by nonlinear
integral equations
A. Kl"umper, M. T. Batchelor, P. A. Pearce: Central charges of the 6 and 19vertex
models with twisted boundary conditions J. Phys. A 24, 31113133 (1991)
J Suzuki: Spinons in magnetic chains of arbitrary spins at finite temperatures,
J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 32 2341 (1999)
Is a similar treatment conceivable for open boundary conditions?
In section 4 the formulas (32,35) are evaluated by integral equations for
density functions and yield the (known) bulk energy and for the six identified
regions explicit expressions for the surface energies are obtained.
In summary, the manuscript may qualify for publication in SciPost, because the
vanishing of the contribution of the inhomogeneous term to the groundstate
energy is shown and new results for the surface energies are derived. However
the authors should respond satisfactorily to the above formulated question and
the following questions/suggestions:
After (1) in line 28 the authors write "the SU(2) symmetry survives". I
suggest to drop "survives" as model (1) is everywhere SU(2) invariant, just at
the points J2/J1 = 1 and at J1=0 the model has higher SU(3) invariance.
In line 33 "J2 /J1 = 1/3, the Hamiltonian (1) degenerates into a projector
operator" should be made more explicit: the "projector operator" is in fact
the projection onto the sum of the spin0 and spin1 subspaces.
In line 82 the authors write "η is the crossing parameter", but here we are
dealing with the isotropic model and there is no nontrivial crossing
parameter. This parameter can be scaled out as is done in line 123. This
should be indicated already in line 82.
In eq (6) and line 85 the operator P_12^0 is called antisymmetry but also
"projector in the total spin0 channel". What is really meant? The
antisymmetric states are the spin1 states!
In line 107 "hierarchy fusion" should be called "fusion hierarchy".
On page 7 and later the terminology "boundary string" is somewhat
confusing. It always refers to a single Bethe root.
The word "subfigure" should be replaced by "inset".
Line 213. "Meanwhile" should be replaced by a different word or simply by
saying "Note that two holes λ^h1 and λ^h2 are introduced..."
spin long zdirection > spin along the zdirection
Typo in caption to Fig.3: (68) pand the red points > (68) and the red points
Requested changes
see above
Author: Xiaotian Xu on 20210812 [id 1660]
(in reply to Report 1 on 20210629)
Thank you very much for your many helpful points raised about our paper and we really appreciate your support. We believe that these comments and suggestions have significantly improved our manuscript. To these comments we respond as follows. The page numbers and equation numbers refer to revised version, unless specify.
$~\textbf{1. Reviewer:}$ After (1) in line 28 the authors write "the $SU(2)$ symmetry survives". I suggest to drop "survives" as model (1) is everywhere $SU(2)$ invariant, just at the points $J_2/J_1=1$ and at $J_1=0$ the model has higher $SU(3)$ invariance.
$\quad~\textbf{Authors:}$ You are right. In the Hamiltonian (1), the spinexchanging interaction in the bulk is $J_1\vec{S}_k\cdot \vec{S}_{k+1}+J_2(\vec{S}_k\cdot \vec{S}_{k+1})^2$, which has $SU(2)$ symmetries with arbitrary coupling constants. If $J_2/J_1=1$ or $J_1=0$, the model has the $SU(3)$ invariance. So we change the word "survives" by "exists".
$~\textbf{2. Reviewer:}$ In line 33 "$J_2/J_1=1/3$, the Hamiltonian (1) degenerates into a projector operator" should be made more explicit: the "projector operator" is in fact the projection onto the sum of the spin0 and spin1 subspaces.
$\quad~\textbf{Authors:}$ According to your suggestion, we adjust the explanation of projector operator. We modify the sentence in line 33 "the Hamiltonian (1) degenerates into a projector operator" into "the Hamiltonian (1) degenerates into a projector operator that is in fact the projection onto the sum of the spin0 and spin1 subspaces".
$~\textbf{3. Reviewer:}$ In line 82 the authors write "$\eta$ is the crossing parameter", but here we are dealing with the isotropic model and there is nontrivial crossing parameter. This parameter can be scaled out as is done in line 123. This should be indicated already in line 82.
$\quad~\textbf{Authors:}$ Thank you very much for your suggestion. In line 82, we have indicated that $\eta$ can be scaled out.
$~\textbf{4. Reviewer:}$ In eq(6) and line 85 the operator $\textbf{P}_{12}^{(0)}$ is called antisymmetry but also "projector in the total spin0 channel". What is really meant? The antisymmetric states are the spin1 states!
$\quad~\textbf{Authors:}$ Thank you for your kind advice. At the point of $u=\eta$, the $R$matrix (2) is a singular matrix which only has one nonzero eigenvalue. Therefore, when the spectral parameter $u$ equals to $\eta$, the $R$matrix (2) degenerates into a onedimensional projector operator $\textbf{P}_{12}^{(0)}=\psi_0\rangle\langle\psi_0$ and the corresponding basis vector is $\psi_0\rangle=\frac{1}{\sqrt 3}(1,1\rangle0,0\rangle+1,1\rangle)$, where $1\rangle$, $0\rangle$ and $1\rangle$ are the eigenstates of spin1 operator $S^z$ with the eigenvalues 1, 0 and 1, respectively. The operator $\textbf{P}_{12}^{(0)}$ projects the tensor space $\mathbb{V} \otimes \mathbb{V}$ into spin0 subspace. We modified "Antisymmetry" to "Fusion condition" in Eq.(6).
$~\textbf{5. Reviewer:}$ In line 107 "hierarchy fusion" should be called "fusion hierarchy".
$\quad~\textbf{Authors:}$ Thank you for your careful reading. We have modified "hierarchy fusion" as "fusion hierarchy".
$~\textbf{6. Reviewer:}$ On page 7 and later the terminology "boundary string" is somewhat confusing. It always refers to a single Bethe root.
$\quad~\textbf{Authors:}$ The boundary strings mean that the values of Bethe roots are determined by the boundary parameters. They could be the single value or the bound pairs. For example, the boundary strings in regime II are {$pi, (p1)i, pi, (p1)i$}, which are clearly related with the boundary fields and distribute symmetrically around the zero point. Due to the symmetry, the boundary strings {$pi, (p1)i$} and the {$pi, (p1)i$} have the same contribution to the boundary energy.
$~\textbf{7. Reviewer:}$ The word "subfigure" should be replaced by "inset".
$\quad~\textbf{Authors:}$ We have replaced the word "subfigure" with "inset".
$~\textbf{8. Reviewer:}$ Line 213. "Meanwhile" should be replaced by a different word simply by saying "Note that two holes $\lambda_1^h$ and $\lambda_2^h$ are introduced $\cdots$"
$\quad~\textbf{Authors:}$ Thank you for your kind advice. We have replaced "Meanwhile, two holes $ \lambda_1^h $ and $ \lambda_2^h $ should be introduced" with "Note that two holes $\lambda_1^h$ and $\lambda_2^h$ are introduced".
$~\textbf{9. Reviewer:}$ spin long $z$direction $\rightarrow$ spin along the $z$direction.
$\quad~\textbf{Authors:}$ Thank you for your careful reading. We have replaced all the "spin long $z$direction" with "spin along the $z$direction".
$~\textbf{10. Reviewer:}$ Typo in caption to Fig.3: (68) pand the red points $\rightarrow$ (68) and the red points.
$\quad~\textbf{Authors:}$ Thank you for your careful reading. We have corrected the typo.
$~\textbf{11. Reviewer:}$ The authors should comment on the possibility of evaluating the finite size correction term const.$N^{\beta}$ by analytic means. For periodic boundary conditions the model of interest has been investigated long ago by nonlinear integral equations.
A. Klumper, M. T. Batchelor, P. A. Pearce: Central charges of the 6 and 19vertex models with twisted boundary conditions. J. Phys. A 24, 31113133 (1991).
J Suzuki: Spinons in magnetic chains of arbitrary spins at finite temperatures, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 32 2341 (1999).
Is a similar treatment conceivable for open boundary conditions?
$\quad~\textbf{Authors:}$ Very good suggestion! The finite size correction of quantum integrable system is an interesting issue. Based on the logarithmic and integral forms of Bethe ansatz equations, some physical quantities such as the longrange correlation function, elementary excitation, dressed energy, ground state energy correction, susceptibility and Drude weight can be calculated. In the references mentioned by the referee, the results of some models with periodic boundary condition have been obtained. We think that this method is also valid for the open boundary conditions, if the Bethe ansatz equations are homogeneous. Because the starting points of this method are the energy spectrum and Bethe ansatz equations, and the processes of treating are the same. Obviously, the finial physical properties could be different.
$\quad$Focus on the present model (15). Starting from the reduced Bethe ansatz equation (29), we can analytically compute the finite size corrections and obtain the approximate solutions. The more accurate solutions should be obtained from the Bethe ansatz equations (24). However, due to the existence of inhomogeneous terms in Eq.(24), it is hard to analytically calculate the finite size correction. We think that this difficulty could be overcome by using the recently proposed $tW$ relation [Phys. Rev. B 102, 085115 (2020)] or the fusion hierarchy at the special points of $u=\{\theta_k,k=1,\cdots,N\}$ [Phys. Rev. B 103, L220401 (2021)]. The main idea is that the eigenvalue of transfer matrix $t(u)$ can also be characterized by its zero points, instead of the Bethe roots. The zero points satisfy the homogeneous Bethe ansatz equations. Based on them, we can analytically calculate the finite size correction.
Author: Xiaotian Xu on 20210812 [id 1662]
(in reply to Report 3 on 20210722)Thank you very much for your many helpful points raised about our paper and we really appreciate your support. We believe that these comments and suggestions have significantly improved our manuscript. To these comments we respond as follows. The page numbers and equation numbers refer to revised version, unless specify.
Reviewer: The main results derived are for boundary conditions different from those declared from the author. $\quad$The manuscript presents some interesting and apparently new results on the surface energy of the open integrable spin1 Heisenberg chain while the authors also claim to have derived some interesting numerical results for large chains. The presentation of the material is however strongly misleading if not even incorrect, leading to state analytic results not for the proper boundary conditions. $\quad$They call this the "reduced Bethe equation", but in fact they are just the Bethe equations of the same open spin1 XXX chain for different boundary conditions. This changes the boundary conditions in "diagonal ones". This changes the u (spectral parameter) asymptotic behavior of the transfer matrix allowing to the eigenvalues of the (1/2,1) transfer matrix to satisfy the homogeneous TQequation. Then, the analysis developed in section 3 and 4 on the Bethe roots and the boundary energy in the thermodynamic limit, in fact, are for these "diagonal boundary conditions" and not for the un nondiagonal boundary magnetic fields case. Indeed, in section 4, for all the considered regimes IIV, they always refer to the Bethe equations associated to the homogeneous TQequations. This is very different from what the authors write already in the title and in their abstract, see also for example the statements at the beginning of section 4: “In this section, we study the physical effects induced by the unparallel boundary magnetic fields and compute the boundary energy”. Authors: The motivation of this paper is that we want to calculate the physical quantities such as the boundary energy of the spin1 Heisenberg chain induced by the unparallel boundary magnetic fields. The exact energy spectrum of the system is characterized by the inhomogeneous $TQ$ relations (17)(23) and associated Bethe ansatz equations (24) for any finite $N$. Due to the existence of inhomogeneous terms in Eq.(24) induced by the unparallel boundary fields, the traditional thermodynamic Bethe asnatz method does not work. By using the density matrix renormalization group simulation, we find that the contribution of inhomogeneous terms in the $TQ$ relations can be neglected at the ground state only in the thermodynamic limit. Namely, one of most important results of this paper is that we show here the inhomogeneous $TQ$ relation (17)(23) and Bethe ansatz equations (24) for the spin1 Heisenberg chain with the unparallel boundary fields, only in the thermodynamic limit, can be simulated by the homogeneous ones (27)(29) (which are equivalent to those with diagonal boundary fields). The physical picture is that the two boundary fields can not "see" each other only in the thermodynamic limit (i.e., the contributions to the boundary energy of the two boundary fields independently). [We shall note that the eigenstates with diagonal and those with nondiagonal boundary fields are quite different.] From this equivalent diagonal boundary fields (only in thermodynamic limit), we then obtain the analytical expression for the boundary energy. We note that the boundary energy (68) includes the contribution of offdiagonal boundary parameters $\alpha_{\pm}$. All the results are reasonable and consistent with each other.
Reviewer: I found moreover, that the manuscript is rather scarce in the citation of the relevant literature and too much centered on the previous production of the authors. Authors: Thank you for your kind advice. We deleted some selfcitations and added three new references: [33] J. Cao, W.L. Yang, K. Shi and Y. Wang, Offdiagonal Bethe ansatz solution of the XXX spinchain with arbitrary boundary conditions, Nucl. Phys. B 875, 152 (2013). [34] R.I. Nepomechie, An inhomogeneous $TQ$ equation for the open XXX chain with general boundary terms: completeness and arbitrary spin, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 46, 442002 (2013). [35] R.I. Nepomechie and C. Wang, Boundary energy of the open XXX chain with a nondiagonal boundary term, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 47, 032001 (2014).
Reviewer: However, one should stress that the thermodynamic convergence of the ground state boundary energy density of the nondiagonal and diagonal cases does not imply that in general one can just consider the "reduced" Bethe equations to develop the thermodynamic analysis of the relevant physical quantities in the nondiagonal case. This has been stressed already by the second referee and I agree with the first one on the relevance of having an analytic derivation of the $\beta$ as functions of the boundary parameters. For example, this type of finite size analysis can be important for relevant physical quantities such as the correlation functions where a modification of order 1/N in the ground state Bethe root density can produce a modification of the correlation functions; e.g. this is clearly the case if one thinks to the exact results for the XXZ spin 1/2 chain. Authors: Very good suggestion! The finite size correction of quantum integrable system is an interesting issue. Based on the logarithmic and integral forms of Bethe ansatz equations, some physical quantities such as the longrange correlation function, elementary excitation, dressed energy, ground state energy correction, susceptibility and Drude weight can be calculated. In the references [A. Klumper, M. T. Batchelor and P. A. Pearce, Central charges of the 6 and 19vertex models with twisted boundary conditions, J. Phys. A 24, 3111 (1991); J Suzuki, Spinons in magnetic chains of arbitrary spins at finite temperatures, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 32, 2341 (1999)], the results of some models with periodic boundary condition have been obtained. We think that this method is also valid for the open boundary conditions, if the Bethe ansatz equations are homogeneous. Because the starting points of this method are the energy spectrum and Bethe ansatz equations, and the processes of treating are the same. Obviously, the finial physical properties could be different. $\quad$Focus on the present model (15). Starting from the reduced Bethe ansatz equation (29), we can analytically compute the finite size corrections and obtain the approximate solutions. The more accurate solutions should be obtained from the Bethe ansatz equations (24). However, due to the existence of inhomogeneous terms in Eq.(24), it is hard to analytically calculate the finite size correction. We think that this difficulty could be overcome by using the recently proposed $tW$ relation [Phys. Rev. B 102, 085115 (2020)] or the fusion hierarchy at the special points of $u={\theta_k,k=1,\cdots,N}$ [Phys. Rev. B 103, L220401 (2021)]. The main idea is that the eigenvalue of transfer matrix $t(u)$ can also be characterized by its zero points, instead of the Bethe roots. The zero points satisfy the homogeneous Bethe ansatz equations. Based on them, we can analytically calculate the finite size correction.
Reviewer: The numerical analysis developed is mainly stated without presenting in the manuscript enough data. $\quad$It would be nice and useful to have more detailed data of their DMRG analysis and a figure, for each chosen values of $p$ and $q$ for which they have done their computations. In particular, they should plot the DMRG results for the chain of N=4, 14, …,194 and from which the asymptotic values are extrapolated. Authors: Very good suggestion! According to your suggestion, we have added the Figure 4 to show the DMRG analysis. The corresponding description in the manuscript is also revised. $\quad$In order to check the correction of analytical expression of boundary energy (68), we perform the numerical simulation with DMRG algorithm. The ground state energy $E_g(N)$ of the model (15) with finite system size $N$ can be calculated by using the DMRG method. Then we consider the physical quantity
where $e_g=1$ is the ground state energy density of the system with periodic boundary condition [Please see Eq.(55) in the manuscript]. Obviously, in the thermodynamic limit, the value of $e_b(N\rightarrow\infty)$ gives the boundary energy. $\quad$In the following Figs.14 (please see attachment), we show the numerical results. The quantity $e_b(N)$ is calculated with the system size $N = 10(n1)+4$ and $n=1,2,\cdots, 20$. The boundary parameters $p$ and $q$ take the values as those given by Fig.3 in the manuscript. The red points are the numerical values of $e_b(N)$, the blue solid lines are the fitting curves, and the red solid lines are the extrapolated boundary energies. From the data, we find that the $e_b(N)$ and $N$ satisfy the power law relation, i.e., $e_b(N)=aN^b+c$. Due to the fact that $b<0$, in the thermodynamic limit, the asymptotic value $c$ determines the boundary energy. Comparing $c$ with the analytical result (68), we find that all the results agree with each other very well. $~$ 5. Reviewer: In "The model Hamiltonian is generalized from the transfer matrix $t(u)$ as" it is "generated" and not "generalized". Authors: Thank you for your careful reading. We have replaced the word "generalized" with "generated". $~$ 6. Reviewer: The definition of $H$ in terms of the transfer matrix in the first line of (15) is apparently singular in $u=0$. Moreover, it produces a term which is the logarithmic derivative of the transfer matrix which is not the standard definition for the open chain. Authors: Thank you very much for pointing out our misprints. We have corrected the misprint of the definition of the Hamiltonian (15). $~$ 7. Reviewer: There is some strange asymmetry between the expressions of the boundary magnetic fields in the site 1 and site $N$ with respect to the boundary parameters minus and plus. A part an overall $1/\eta$ in the site $N$ there is also a different behavior with respect to the boundary parameters $\alpha_{}$ and $\alpha_{+}$. One expects that when these two values are zero one gets back the diagonal case, i.e., the two boundary fields parallel and oriented along the $z$direction. However, for $\alpha_{}=0$ the boundary magnetic field in the site 1 become oriented along the $z$direction while this is not the case for $\alpha_{+}=0$ for the boundary magnetic field in the site $N$. Even more strange, with the current parametrization, the boundary magnetic field in the site $N$ seems to be orientable in the $z$direction only for specific values of both the boundary parameters, e.g. ($\alpha{+}=0,p_{+}^2=3\eta^2/4$). If there are no mistakes the authors should comment why from a symmetric writing of the transfer matrix with respect to the boundary matrices (and so the boundary parameters) one gets such asymmetric Hamiltonian. Authors: When the nondiagonal boundary parameters $\alpha_\pm=0$, the Hamiltonian reads
$$ \begin{eqnarray} H&=&\frac{1}{\eta}\sum_{k=1}^{N1} \left[\vec S_{k} \cdot \vec S_{k+1} (\vec S_{k} \cdot \vec S_{k+1})^2 \right] + \frac{1}{p_^2\frac{1}{4}\eta^2}\left[ 2p_S_{1}^z \eta (S_{1}^z )^2 \right] \\ && +\frac{1}{(p_+^2\frac{1}{4}\eta^2)\eta} \left[ 2p_+ \eta S_{N}^z \frac{2}{3}p_+^2 [(S_{N}^x )^2+(S_{N}^y )^2+(S_{N}^z )^2] +\frac{\eta^2}{2}[ (S_{N}^x )^2+(S_{N}^y )^2(S_{N}^z )^2 ]\right] \\ && +\frac{\eta}{3p_+^2\frac{3}{4}\eta^2} +\frac{\eta}{p_^2\frac{1}{4}\eta^2}+\frac1{\eta}3N+\frac{4}{\eta} \tag{2} \\ &=&\frac{1}{\eta}\sum_{k=1}^{N1} \left[\vec S_{k} \cdot \vec S_{k+1} (\vec S_{k} \cdot \vec S_{k+1})^2 \right] + \frac{1}{p_^2\frac{1}{4}\eta^2}\left[ 2p_S_{1}^z \eta (S_{1}^z )^2 \right] \\ && +\frac{1}{p_+^2\frac{1}{4}\eta^2} \left[ 2p_+ S_{N}^z \eta (S_{N}^z )^2\right] \\ && +\frac{\eta}{p_^2\frac{1}{4}\eta^2} + \frac{4\eta^24p_+^2}{(3p_+^2\frac{3}{4}\eta^2)\eta}+\frac1{\eta}3N+\frac{4}{\eta},\tag{3} \end{eqnarray} $$where we have used the identity $(S^x)^2+(S^y)^2+(S^z)^2=2$. We see that in the fused Hamiltonian $(3)$, the boundary fields are indeed parallel and both of them are along the $z$direction. Putting $\eta=1$ and changing the signs of boundary parameters at one side, the Hamiltonian $(3)$ can also be written into the symmetric form. The asymmetry of the Hamiltonian $(2)$ is apparent.
Attachment:
Figs.14.pdf