SciPost Submission Page
Algebraic Bethe Ansatz for spinor Rmatrices
by Vidas Regelskis
This is not the latest submitted version.
This Submission thread is now published as SciPost Phys. 12, 067 (2022)
Submission summary
As Contributors:  Vidas Regelskis 
Preprint link:  scipost_202108_00062v1 
Date submitted:  20210825 11:21 
Submitted by:  Regelskis, Vidas 
Submitted to:  SciPost Physics 
Academic field:  Physics 
Specialties: 

Approach:  Theoretical 
Abstract
We present a supermatrix realisation of $q$deformed spinorspinor and spinorvector $R$matrices. These $R$matrices are then used to construct transfer matrices for $U_{q^2}(\mathfrak{so}_{2n+1})$ and $U_{q}(\mathfrak{so}_{2n+2})$symmetric closed spin chains. Their eigenvectors and eigenvalues are computed.
Current status:
Submission & Refereeing History
Published as SciPost Phys. 12, 067 (2022)
You are currently on this page
Reports on this Submission
Anonymous Report 3 on 20211025 (Invited Report)
 Cite as: Anonymous, Report on arXiv:scipost_202108_00062v1, delivered 20211025, doi: 10.21468/SciPost.Report.3731
Strengths
1 New construction of Rmatrices (of type spinorvector and spinorspinor) for the quantum algebras $U_q(\widehat{so_N})$ using the formalism of supermatrices.
2 Calculation of the the transfer matrices of closed spinchains based on these algebras
3 Explicit diagonalization by the algebraic Bethe ansatz (which is new)
4 Clearly written
Weaknesses
1 Rather technical
Report
The paper is interesting and clearly written, despite its technicality.
I think it is worth publishing
Requested changes
1 I find surprising that the $R$matrices corresponding to $N$ even have a deformation parameter $q^2$, while the ones corresponding to $N$ odd have a deformation parameter $q$. There should be an explanation for this point.
In particular, it seems to me that removing the index 0 from the construction for $so(2n+2)$,
one should get the construction for $so(2n+1)$. Then, how the change in the deformation parameter occurs?
2It would be nice to present also a supermatrix construction of the vectorvector $R$matrix. In particular, the fusion of spinorvector $R$matrices should go back to the vectorvector $R$matrix in a supermatrix form.
3Since the presentation is quite technical, it is better not to use the same notation for different objects.
 It is the case for the transposition $w$, defined in eq. 2.3 and differently on eq. 2.6. Then, in eq. 2.55, one does not know which transposition is used. On the transposition, the one introduced eq. 2.30 should be related to the ones already introduced.
 In the same way, the operators in eq. 3.9 have nothing to do with the function $\beta$ used in eq. 2.36. A variation on the letter b (e.g. the mathfrak or mathbb styles, or any other style) would be better.
 The notation used in eq. following line 138 is ambiguous: from what I understand $x_j^{m}$ is not $x_j$ to some power, but rather $x_j^{(m)}$ (which would be more consistent with the notation used elsewhere).
4In the same spirit, some points should be precised to ease the reading of the manuscript:
 When writing products of noncommuting operators, it should be indicated that the product is from left to right starting from the bottom index to the upper one in the product sign. This is particularly important for instance in eq. 3.8 (and should be reminded here), but it should be already stated in eq. 3.2
 If I understand correctly, the notation $(\dot{a}\ddot{a})_n^j$ in eq. 3.10 means $\dot{a}_n^j\,\ddot{a}_n^j$. It should be stated explicitly.
 I think also that it would be fair to indicate in the title that the article deals with $U_q(\widehat{so_N})$ algebras, but I leave it to the author.
Anonymous Report 2 on 20211012 (Invited Report)
 Cite as: Anonymous, Report on arXiv:scipost_202108_00062v1, delivered 20211012, doi: 10.21468/SciPost.Report.3654
Strengths
1 Gives a new formula for the Bethe vectors of such models
2 All calculations are well described
Report
I do recommend the publication of the paper.
Requested changes
The author should precise the way he move the twist matrix trough the R matrix in the proof of Theorem 3.3 (from 3.22 and 3.23 to the nested transfert matrix in the next equation) and in the proof of Theorem 4.4 (from 4.29 and 4.30 to the nested transfert matrices in the next equation).
Author: Vidas Regelskis on 20211101 [id 1899]
(in reply to Report 2 on 20211012)I thank the referee for raising the point about way the twist matrices are moved through the Rmatrices in the proof of Theorem 3.3 and Theorem 4.4. This was indeed overlooked in the first version paper. This issue has been fixed. The twist matrices are now included in the definition of the monodromy matrices, given by eqs. (3.2) and (4.3). (Tables on pages 19 and 26 were updated accordingly.) This is a valid construction since the twist matrices satisfy the fundamental exchange relations, (2.65) and (2.70). This yields the wanted results without needing to deal with the twist matrices explicitly.
Anonymous Report 1 on 202195 (Invited Report)
 Cite as: Anonymous, Report on arXiv:scipost_202108_00062v1, delivered 20210905, doi: 10.21468/SciPost.Report.3497
Report
I think that the paper "Algebraic Bethe Ansatz for spinor Rmatrices" meets the requirements of the SciPost Physics Journal.
Author: Vidas Regelskis on 20211101 [id 1898]
(in reply to Report 1 on 20210905)I thank the referee for the point they have raised. I have provided an answer the attached pdf.
Author: Vidas Regelskis on 20211101 [id 1900]
(in reply to Report 3 on 20211025)I thank the referee for the points they have raised. I have provided an answer in the attached pdf.
Attachment:
referee_3.pdf