Skip to content

Why does a local identity involving three tensor factors produce conserved operators for an entire spin chain? For the finite periodic spin-½ XXX chain, the rational Yang–Baxter equation implies an exchange relation for the monodromy matrix. Its auxiliary trace gives commuting transfer matrices, and a derivative at a special spectral parameter recovers the nearest-neighbor Hamiltonian. This article proves that chain of implications, including the periodic closing bond, and checks it explicitly for three sites. It establishes a commuting operator family; independence of charges and completeness of Bethe states are separate questions.

Required background. Multiply matrices and tensor products, distinguish an operator from its matrix entries, and use the XXX Hamiltonian. Helpful background. The lessons Check a rational R-matrix and Build monodromy and transfer matrices develop the tensor notation. The convention reference collects the normalizations used here.

The rational R-matrix and its tensor factors

Section titled “The rational R-matrix and its tensor factors”

Let the physical Hilbert space be

H=V1⊗⋯⊗VN,Vn=C2,N≥3.\mathcal H=V_1\otimes\cdots\otimes V_N, \qquad V_n=\mathbb C^2, \qquad N\geq3.

We use ordinary, ungraded tensor products, periodic sites N+1≡1N+1\equiv1, and spin operators Snα=σnα/2S_n^\alpha=\sigma_n^\alpha/2. Set ℏ=1\hbar=1 and the lattice spacing to one. Spectral parameters are dimensionless complex numbers; J>0J\gt0 sets the energy scale. The Hamiltonian is

H=J∑n=1N(14I−Sn⋅Sn+1)=J2∑n=1N(I−Pn,n+1),\begin{aligned} H&=J\sum_{n=1}^N \left(\frac14I-\mathbf S_n\cdot\mathbf S_{n+1}\right)\\ &=\frac J2\sum_{n=1}^N(I-P_{n,n+1}), \end{aligned}

where PijP_{ij} swaps factors i,ji,j and acts as the identity elsewhere. The equality follows from

Pij=12I+2Si⋅Sj.P_{ij}=\frac12I+2\mathbf S_i\cdot\mathbf S_j.

Thus the fully polarized states have zero energy. For N=2N=2, the written periodic sum counts the same unordered bond twice; we examine that distinct convention in the exercises.

Introduce two additional copies Va,VbV_a,V_b of C2\mathbb C^2, called auxiliary spaces. They are temporary tensor factors, not extra physical sites. On two factors define

Rij(u)=uI+iPij.R_{ij}(u)=uI+iP_{ij}.

Products act on states from right to left. In a tensor product containing many factors, a subscript specifies the only two factors on which an RR or PP acts nontrivially. In particular, RabR_{ab} has numerical matrix entries on Va⊗VbV_a\otimes V_b and acts as the identity on H\mathcal H. This distinction will justify the trace argument.

The local operator and ordered monodromy are

Lan(λ)=Ran(λ−i/2),Ta(λ)=LaN(λ)⋯La1(λ),τ(λ)=tr⁡aTa(λ).\begin{aligned} L_{an}(\lambda)&=R_{an}(\lambda-i/2),\\ T_a(\lambda)&=L_{aN}(\lambda)\cdots L_{a1}(\lambda),\\ \tau(\lambda)&=\operatorname{tr}_a T_a(\lambda). \end{aligned}

Thus TaT_a acts on Va⊗HV_a\otimes\mathcal H, while τ\tau acts on H\mathcal H. These conventions agree with Faddeev 1996, v1 PDF, § 3, equations (31)–(37) and (42)–(46). Faddeev’s Hamiltonian has the opposite sign and no factor JJ: H=−JHFH=-JH_{\mathrm F}.

Proving the rational Yang–Baxter equation

Section titled “Proving the rational Yang–Baxter equation”

Work first on three copies of C2\mathbb C^2 and abbreviate

p=P12,q=P13,r=P23.p=P_{12},\qquad q=P_{13},\qquad r=P_{23}.

Each swap squares to the identity. Applying products to v1⊗v2⊗v3v_1\otimes v_2\otimes v_3 gives two cyclic permutations:

pq=qr=rp:(v1,v2,v3)⟼(v2,v3,v1),qp=rq=pr:(v1,v2,v3)⟼(v3,v1,v2).\begin{aligned} pq=qr=rp &: (v_1,v_2,v_3)\longmapsto(v_2,v_3,v_1),\\ qp=rq=pr &: (v_1,v_2,v_3)\longmapsto(v_3,v_1,v_2). \end{aligned}

The ordered triple products also obey pqr=rqp=qpqr=rqp=q. These identities hold on arbitrary tensor vectors, so they are operator identities. They are the permutation algebra behind the local exchange relation; compare Faddeev, § 3, equations (38)–(39).

To see why the spectral arguments matter, initially take three unrelated complex numbers α,ζ,β\alpha,\zeta,\beta. Expand

Δ=R12(α)R13(ζ)R23(β)−R23(β)R13(ζ)R12(α).\Delta=R_{12}(\alpha)R_{13}(\zeta)R_{23}(\beta) -R_{23}(\beta)R_{13}(\zeta)R_{12}(\alpha).

The scalar and one-swap terms cancel directly. The three-swap terms cancel because pqr=rqppqr=rqp. The remaining two-swap terms give

Δ=−β(pq−qp)−ζ(pr−rp)−α(qr−rq)=(ζ−α−β)(pq−qp).\begin{aligned} \Delta &=-\beta(pq-qp)-\zeta(pr-rp)-\alpha(qr-rq)\\ &=(\zeta-\alpha-\beta)(pq-qp). \end{aligned}

Consequently, setting ζ=α+β\zeta=\alpha+\beta proves the Yang–Baxter equation

R12(α)R13(α+β)R23(β)=R23(β)R13(α+β)R12(α).\begin{aligned} &R_{12}(\alpha)R_{13}(\alpha+\beta)R_{23}(\beta)\\ &\qquad=R_{23}(\beta)R_{13}(\alpha+\beta)R_{12}(\alpha). \end{aligned}

This is an exact polynomial identity for every complex α,β\alpha,\beta, including singular values of individual RR matrices. It does not require an inverse. Replacing the middle argument by an unrelated number generally destroys the identity: for example, (pq−qp)∣001⟩=∣010⟩−∣100⟩≠0(pq-qp)|001\rangle=|010\rangle-|100\rangle\ne0.

Take the three tensor factors to be a,b,na,b,n and choose the spectral arguments

α=λ−μ,ζ=λ−i/2,β=μ−i/2.\alpha=\lambda-\mu,\qquad \zeta=\lambda-i/2,\qquad \beta=\mu-i/2.

Since ζ=α+β\zeta=\alpha+\beta, the identity becomes

Rab(λ−μ)Lan(λ)Lbn(μ)=Lbn(μ)Lan(λ)Rab(λ−μ).\begin{aligned} &R_{ab}(\lambda-\mu)L_{an}(\lambda)L_{bn}(\mu)\\ &\qquad=L_{bn}(\mu)L_{an}(\lambda)R_{ab}(\lambda-\mu). \end{aligned}

This is the local exchange relation. The two LL factors share physical site nn; their entries cannot generally be interchanged. The RR matrix is exactly what permits the displayed reordering.

For different physical sites m≠nm\ne n, the supports of Lam(λ)L_{am}(\lambda) and Lbn(μ)L_{bn}(\mu) are disjoint: they involve (a,m)(a,m) and (b,n)(b,n). Therefore these two operators commute. This permits the interleaving

Ta(λ)Tb(μ)=(LaNLbN)⋯(La1Lb1),T_a(\lambda)T_b(\mu) =\bigl(L_{aN}L_{bN}\bigr)\cdots\bigl(L_{a1}L_{b1}\bigr),

where every aa factor has parameter λ\lambda and every bb factor has parameter μ\mu. No same-site exchange has been made.

Multiply by Rab(λ−μ)R_{ab}(\lambda-\mu) from the left. The local relation moves this RR through the block at site NN while reversing that block’s two LL factors. Repeat at sites N−1,…,1N-1,\ldots,1. Finally, commute only disjoint pairs to collect all bb factors before all aa factors. The result is

Rab(λ−μ)Ta(λ)Tb(μ)=Tb(μ)Ta(λ)Rab(λ−μ).\boxed{ R_{ab}(\lambda-\mu)T_a(\lambda)T_b(\mu) =T_b(\mu)T_a(\lambda)R_{ab}(\lambda-\mu). }

This is the RTT relation. The proof explains why a local identity survives a chain of any finite length: different physical sites allow precisely the interchanges needed to concatenate the local relations. It is the argument in Faddeev, § 3, equation (44) and its two-site derivation.

The inverse of R(u)R(u) is

R(u)−1=uI−iPu2+1,u≠±i,R(u)^{-1}=\frac{uI-iP}{u^2+1}, \qquad u\ne\pm i,

because P2=IP^2=I. At u=iu=i it vanishes on the antisymmetric subspace; at u=−iu=-i it vanishes on the symmetric subspace. We first work at λ−μ≠±i\lambda-\mu\ne\pm i, where RTT gives

Tb(μ)Ta(λ)=RabTa(λ)Tb(μ)Rab−1.T_b(\mu)T_a(\lambda) =R_{ab}T_a(\lambda)T_b(\mu)R_{ab}^{-1}.

For an auxiliary-only numerical matrix SS and an arbitrary operator XX on Va⊗Vb⊗HV_a\otimes V_b\otimes\mathcal H,

tr⁡ab(SX)=tr⁡ab(XS).\operatorname{tr}_{ab}(SX)=\operatorname{tr}_{ab}(XS).

Indeed, if SijS_{ij} are complex numbers and XijX_{ij} are operators on H\mathcal H, the two expressions are ∑i,jSijXji\sum_{i,j}S_{ij}X_{ji} and ∑i,jXijSji\sum_{i,j}X_{ij}S_{ji}. Relabel the indices and commute the scalar coefficients. That proof fails if the entries of SS are noncommuting physical operators.

Apply this valid cyclicity to RabR_{ab} and Rab−1R_{ab}^{-1}. Also note, without changing any physical operator order, that

tr⁡ab(TaTb)=τ(λ)τ(μ),tr⁡ab(TbTa)=τ(μ)τ(λ).\begin{aligned} \operatorname{tr}_{ab}(T_aT_b)&=\tau(\lambda)\tau(\mu),\\ \operatorname{tr}_{ab}(T_bT_a)&=\tau(\mu)\tau(\lambda). \end{aligned}

For example, writing Ta=∑Eij(a)⊗Tij(λ)T_a=\sum E_{ij}^{(a)}\otimes T_{ij}(\lambda) makes the first equality the sum ∑i,kTii(λ)Tkk(μ)\sum_{i,k}T_{ii}(\lambda)T_{kk}(\mu). Thus

[τ(λ),τ(μ)]=0when λ−μ≠±i.[\tau(\lambda),\tau(\mu)]=0 \qquad\text{when }\lambda-\mu\ne\pm i.

Every entry of this commutator is a polynomial in λ,μ\lambda,\mu. Since it vanishes away from the exceptional differences, continuity, or the polynomial identity theorem, extends it to those differences as well:

[τ(λ),τ(μ)]=0for all λ,μ∈C.\boxed{[\tau(\lambda),\tau(\mu)]=0 \quad\text{for all }\lambda,\mu\in\mathbb C.}

The resulting commuting family is stated in Faddeev, § 3, equations (46)–(48). Here the inverse and trace steps have been made explicit. In particular, neither the singularity of R(±i)R(\pm i) nor an unjustified cyclic permutation of physical operators leaves a gap in the argument.

Regularity turns the transfer matrix into translation

Section titled “Regularity turns the transfer matrix into translation”

At the regular point λ0=i/2\lambda_0=i/2,

Lan(λ0)=iPan,τ0≡τ(λ0)=iNtr⁡a(PaN⋯Pa1).L_{an}(\lambda_0)=iP_{an}, \qquad \tau_0\equiv\tau(\lambda_0) =i^N\operatorname{tr}_a(P_{aN}\cdots P_{a1}).

Evaluate the trace in a basis. Start with auxiliary state rr and physical states (s1,…,sN)(s_1,\ldots,s_N). The rightmost swap acts first:

OperationAuxiliary statePhysical states
Before any swaprr(s1,s2,…,sN)(s_1,s_2,\ldots,s_N)
After Pa1P_{a1}s1s_1(r,s2,…,sN)(r,s_2,\ldots,s_N)
After Pa2P_{a2}s2s_2(r,s1,s3,…,sN)(r,s_1,s_3,\ldots,s_N)
After PaNP_{aN}sNs_N(r,s1,…,sN−1)(r,s_1,\ldots,s_{N-1})

The auxiliary trace imposes r=sNr=s_N and sums over rr. Hence

τ0=iNU,U∣s1,…,sN⟩=∣sN,s1,…,sN−1⟩.\begin{aligned} \tau_0&=i^N U,\\ U|s_1,\ldots,s_N\rangle&=|s_N,s_1,\ldots,s_{N-1}\rangle. \end{aligned}

The transfer matrix at this point is invertible because UU is a unitary cyclic shift. Equivalently U=P12P23⋯PN−1,NU=P_{12}P_{23}\cdots P_{N-1,N} and UN=IU^N=I. This is the regularity construction in Faddeev, § 3, equations (49)–(59).

For a state ∣x⟩|x\rangle with one down spin at site xx, U∣x⟩=∣x+1⟩U|x\rangle=|x+1\rangle. Therefore our Fourier convention gives

∣k⟩=1N∑x=1Neikx∣x⟩,k=2πmN,U∣k⟩=e−ik∣k⟩.\begin{aligned} |k\rangle&=\frac1{\sqrt N}\sum_{x=1}^Ne^{ikx}|x\rangle, \qquad k=\frac{2\pi m}{N},\\ U|k\rangle&=e^{-ik}|k\rangle. \end{aligned}

The minus sign in the translation eigenvalue follows by changing the summation variable to x+1x+1. Reversing the order of the monodromy reverses this shift, so its orientation must be checked before comparing momentum conventions.

The spectral parameter of a creation block also needs a conversion: for this monodromy order, B(λB)∣0⟩B(\lambda_B)|0\rangle has adjacent one-magnon coefficients in the ratio (λB−i/2)/(λB+i/2)(\lambda_B-i/2)/(\lambda_B+i/2), so its coordinate rapidity is λcoord=−λB\lambda_{\rm coord}=-\lambda_B. The convention reference derives the ratio and checks a four-site state with translation phase ii; an energy check or a symmetric pair alone would miss this reversal.

Differentiate the ordered product before evaluating the trace. Since Lan′(λ)=IL'_{an}(\lambda)=I,

τ0′=iN−1∑n=1NQn,Qn=tr⁡a(PaN⋯Pan^⋯Pa1),\tau'_0=i^{N-1}\sum_{n=1}^N Q_n, \qquad Q_n=\operatorname{tr}_a \bigl(P_{aN}\cdots\widehat{P_{an}}\cdots P_{a1}\bigr),

where the hat means that the swap at site nn is omitted. This is the product differentiation in Faddeev, § 3, equations (61)–(62).

The omitted swap leaves the state at site nn untouched and cyclically shifts the states at the other sites. Compare this action with a full cyclic shift: exchanging the two input states at n−1,nn-1,n first produces exactly the same output. Thus, with 0≡N0\equiv N,

Qn=UPn−1,n.Q_n=U P_{n-1,n}.

For the endpoint n=1n=1, this says Q1=UPN,1Q_1=UP_{N,1}: the unchanged first site is obtained by swapping input sites N,1N,1 before translating. The boundary term is therefore part of the trace construction, not an extra interaction inserted afterward.

Using τ0−1=i−NU−1\tau_0^{-1}=i^{-N}U^{-1} gives

τ0−1τ0′=−i∑n=1NPn,n+1.\boxed{ \tau_0^{-1}\tau'_0 =-i\sum_{n=1}^NP_{n,n+1}. }

Consequently,

H=JN2I−iJ2τ0−1τ0′.\boxed{ H=\frac{JN}{2}I-\frac{iJ}{2}\tau_0^{-1}\tau'_0. }

In particular, (−i)(−i)=−1(-i)(-i)=-1 supplies the negative coefficient of the swap sum. The identity term fixes the polarized-state energy to zero. This is Faddeev, § 3, equations (63)–(65), with H=−JHFH=-JH_{\mathrm F} as specified above.

Differentiate the commuting-transfer identity in one parameter. It follows that τ0′\tau'_0, τ0\tau_0 and τ0−1\tau_0^{-1} commute with every τ(μ)\tau(\mu). Therefore

[H,τ(μ)]=0.[H,\tau(\mu)]=0.

The transfer family consists of conserved operators for this Hamiltonian. Conservation here means that their Heisenberg evolution eitHτ(μ)e−itHe^{itH}\tau(\mu)e^{-itH} is constant. A generic complex τ(μ)\tau(\mu) need not itself be a Hermitian observable.

To define a logarithmic expansion without choosing a global branch, put

B(s)=τ0−1τ(λ0+s),B(0)=I.B(s)=\tau_0^{-1}\tau(\lambda_0+s), \qquad B(0)=I.

In finite dimension, continuity ensures ∥B(s)−I∥<1\|B(s)-I\|\lt1 for sufficiently small complex ss. In that neighborhood the matrix series

log⁡B(s)=∑m=1∞(−1)m+1m(B(s)−I)m=∑r=1∞srCr\begin{aligned} \log B(s) &=\sum_{m=1}^\infty \frac{(-1)^{m+1}}m\bigl(B(s)-I\bigr)^m\\ &=\sum_{r=1}^\infty s^r C_r \end{aligned}

converges in an operator norm. All B(s)B(s) commute, so the logarithms commute; taking Taylor coefficients proves [Cr,Cq]=0[C_r,C_q]=0. They also commute with HH. The first two coefficients are

C1=τ0−1τ0′,C2=12(τ0−1τ0′′−(τ0−1τ0′)2).\begin{aligned} C_1&=\tau_0^{-1}\tau'_0,\\ C_2&=\frac12\left( \tau_0^{-1}\tau''_0-(\tau_0^{-1}\tau'_0)^2\right). \end{aligned}

The word “local” in this logarithm refers to its neighborhood in the spectral parameter. It does not by itself prove locality of every CrC_r as an operator on the lattice. We proved the nearest-neighbor form for HH explicitly. Independence, suitable Hermitian normalizations, and support properties of further charges require further arguments. At fixed finite NN, an infinite list of series coefficients cannot be an infinite linearly independent set of matrices on the finite-dimensional space H\mathcal H.

Set N=3N=3 and write z=λ−i/2z=\lambda-i/2. Expand the three factors before tracing. The needed partial traces are

tr⁡aI=2I,tr⁡aPan=I,tr⁡a(PamPan)=Pmn(m≠n),tr⁡a(Pa3Pa2Pa1)=U.\begin{aligned} \operatorname{tr}_a I&=2I, & \operatorname{tr}_aP_{an}&=I,\\ \operatorname{tr}_a(P_{am}P_{an})&=P_{mn}\quad(m\ne n), & \operatorname{tr}_a(P_{a3}P_{a2}P_{a1})&=U. \end{aligned}

The pair identity follows by following the two swaps and closing the auxiliary index, just as in the translation table. Define Σ=P12+P13+P23\Sigma=P_{12}+P_{13}+P_{23}. The result is the exact polynomial

τ3(λ)=(2z3+3iz2)I−zΣ−iU.\boxed{ \tau_3(\lambda)=(2z^3+3iz^2)I-z\Sigma-iU. }

In particular, τ3(i/2)=−iU\tau_3(i/2)=-iU and τ3′(i/2)=−Σ\tau'_3(i/2)=-\Sigma. To check their logarithmic derivative directly, observe that the totally antisymmetric subspace of three copies of C2\mathbb C^2 is zero: every three-spin basis state repeats at least one of the two spin values, so antisymmetrizing it cancels its terms in pairs. The antisymmetrizer is proportional to

I−Σ+U+U−1=0.I-\Sigma+U+U^{-1}=0.

Since U3=IU^3=I, this implies U−1Σ=ΣU^{-1}\Sigma=\Sigma. Therefore τ0−1τ0′=−iΣ\tau_0^{-1}\tau'_0=-i\Sigma, exactly as the general proof requires, and

HJ=12(3I−Σ).\frac HJ=\frac12(3I-\Sigma).

We can check all eight energies without a Bethe ansatz. In the one-down-spin basis ∣1⟩,∣2⟩,∣3⟩|1\rangle,|2\rangle,|3\rangle,

HJ=(1−1/2−1/2−1/21−1/2−1/2−1/21).\frac HJ= \begin{pmatrix} 1&-1/2&-1/2\\ -1/2&1&-1/2\\ -1/2&-1/2&1 \end{pmatrix}.

The vector (1,1,1)(1,1,1) has eigenvalue zero, and its two-dimensional orthogonal complement has eigenvalue 3/23/2. Flipping every spin gives the same spectrum in the two-down-spin sector. The fully up and fully down states supply two more zero eigenvalues. Thus H/JH/J has eigenvalues 00 and 3/23/2, each with multiplicity four. The count exhausts dim⁡H=8\dim\mathcal H=8 for this example; it is not a general Bethe-completeness argument.

The charge-extraction lesson includes a downloadable short-chain experiment that tests the tensor construction, analytic product derivative, and this polynomial independently. Its numerical residuals check an implementation; the identities above establish the finite-chain result without a floating-point assumption.

A scalar normalization is consequential for extracting an energy. If

L~an(λ)=g(λ)Lan(λ),g(λ0)≠0,\widetilde L_{an}(\lambda)=g(\lambda)L_{an}(\lambda), \qquad g(\lambda_0)\ne0,

with gg analytic near λ0\lambda_0, the scalar factors cancel from the exchange relation and τ~=gNτ\widetilde\tau=g^N\tau still commutes. Its logarithmic derivative is

τ~0−1τ~0′=τ0−1τ0′+Ng′(λ0)g(λ0)I.\widetilde\tau_0^{-1}\widetilde\tau'_0 =\tau_0^{-1}\tau'_0 +N\frac{g'(\lambda_0)}{g(\lambda_0)}I.

Thus commutativity survives while the identity term in a Hamiltonian extraction must be adjusted. A zero or pole of gg at the regular point invalidates this particular inverse formula.

For site-dependent inhomogeneities ξn\xi_n, replacing Lan(λ)L_{an}(\lambda) by Ran(λ−ξn−i/2)R_{an}(\lambda-\xi_n-i/2) preserves the local exchange relation: both spectral arguments at site nn have the same shift, so their difference remains λ−μ\lambda-\mu. The RTT and trace proofs therefore still apply. If the ξn\xi_n differ, there is generally no single spectral point where every factor becomes iPaniP_{an}. The homogeneous translation and nearest-neighbor Hamiltonian derivation cannot then be copied unchanged.

The auxiliary trace also closes the chain periodically. Simply deleting PN,1P_{N,1} from the Hamiltonian while keeping this transfer matrix does not establish an open-chain commuting family; open boundaries need an appropriate boundary construction. Finally, neither RTT nor the three-site spectrum constructs all Bethe eigenvectors, proves their completeness for general NN, or settles a thermodynamic limit.

Why unrestricted partial-trace cyclicity fails

Section titled “Why unrestricted partial-trace cyclicity fails”

Let Eij=∣i⟩⟨j∣E_{ij}=|i\rangle\langle j| act on a two-dimensional auxiliary space. On its tensor product with a physical spin take

X=E01⊗σx,Y=E10⊗σz.X=E_{01}\otimes\sigma_x, \qquad Y=E_{10}\otimes\sigma_z.

Calculate tr⁡a(XY)\operatorname{tr}_a(XY) and tr⁡a(YX)\operatorname{tr}_a(YX). Explain why this does not contradict the RTT trace proof.

Solution

Since E01E10=E00E_{01}E_{10}=E_{00} and E10E01=E11E_{10}E_{01}=E_{11},

tr⁡a(XY)=σxσz=−iσy,tr⁡a(YX)=σzσx=iσy.\begin{aligned} \operatorname{tr}_a(XY)&=\sigma_x\sigma_z=-i\sigma_y,\\ \operatorname{tr}_a(YX)&=\sigma_z\sigma_x=i\sigma_y. \end{aligned}

These are different. Both XX and YY have nontrivial, noncommuting physical entries. The proof used cyclicity only for a matrix acting exclusively on the traced auxiliary factors, whose entries are scalars on the physical space.

A harmless scalar factor can change the energy zero

Section titled “A harmless scalar factor can change the energy zero”

Multiply every LL by g(λ)=eic(λ−λ0)g(\lambda)=e^{ic(\lambda-\lambda_0)}, with real cc. Keep the same displayed formula JNI/2−iJτ~0−1τ~0′/2JN I/2-iJ\widetilde\tau_0^{-1}\widetilde\tau'_0/2 without correcting its constant. What operator results, and what correction recovers the original HH?

Solution

Here g′/g=icg'/g=ic, so the logarithmic derivative changes by iNcIiNcI. Substitution gives

H~=H+JNc2I.\widetilde H=H+\frac{JNc}{2}I.

Subtract JNcI/2JNcI/2 to recover the original polarized-state energy zero. Eigenvectors and energy differences are unchanged. This illustrates why specifying RR or LL only “up to a scalar” is insufficient when quoting absolute energy formulas.

Use the same ordered trace with N=2N=2. Find τ2(λ)\tau_2(\lambda) and its logarithmic derivative at λ0\lambda_0. Compare the extracted Hamiltonian with a single bond J(I−P12)/2J(I-P_{12})/2.

Solution

Expanding two factors, with z=λ−i/2z=\lambda-i/2, gives

τ2(λ)=(2z2+2iz)I−P12,τ0=−P12,τ0′=2iI,τ0−1τ0′=−2iP12.\begin{aligned} \tau_2(\lambda)&=(2z^2+2iz)I-P_{12},\\ \tau_0&=-P_{12},\qquad \tau'_0=2iI,\\ \tau_0^{-1}\tau'_0&=-2iP_{12}. \end{aligned}

The extraction therefore gives H=J(I−P12)H=J(I-P_{12}), twice the single-bond operator. This agrees with the periodic sum, which includes both (1,2)(1,2) and (2,1)(2,1). Its triplet energy is zero and its singlet energy is 2J2J, whereas the single-bond singlet energy is JJ. Specify the bond convention before using a two-site check to judge a many-site formula.

  • Faddeev, L. D. How Algebraic Bethe Ansatz works for integrable model. arXiv:hep-th/9605187v1 [hep-th], 1996. Version record; open PDF. Section 3, equations (31)–(39), (42)–(48), (49)–(60), and (61)–(65). The site convention is H=−JHFH=-JH_{\mathrm F}; citations use equation numbers in this version.