Skip to content

How does a transfer matrix encode the Hamiltonian and further conserved operators? The exchange relation yields a commuting family, while regularity at one spectral point makes its logarithmic derivative a sum of local spin exchanges. You will prove both steps, recover the closing bond of the ring, and reproduce finite-chain checks. Commutativity is the result established here; independence of every charge and completeness of Bethe eigenstates are separate questions.

Required background. Build monodromy and transfer matrices derives RTT and τ(i/2)=iNU\tau(i/2)=i^NU. Check a rational R-matrix identifies the inverse and exceptional values of RR.

Helpful background. The XXX model fixes the ferromagnetic energy zero. The Library proof collects the general finite-chain argument.

Keep the finite homogeneous spin-1/21/2 chain with N≥3N\geq3, J>0J\gt0, ℏ=1\hbar=1, and

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

All matrices are finite-dimensional. JJ carries the energy scale; the spectral parameter is dimensionless. We will recover

H=J2∑n=1N(I−Pn,n+1),PN,N+1=PN,1.H=\frac J2\sum_{n=1}^N(I-P_{n,n+1}),\qquad P_{N,N+1}=P_{N,1}.

For N=2N=2, a literal periodic sum contains the same unordered pair twice: (1,2)(1,2) and (2,1)(2,1). Its Hamiltonian is J(I−P12)J(I-P_{12}), whereas a single bond is J(I−P12)/2J(I-P_{12})/2. Our examples keep N≥3N\geq3; a two-site comparison must state which convention it uses.

If L1(λ),L2(λ),L3(λ)L_1(\lambda),L_2(\lambda),L_3(\lambda) do not commute, how many terms appear in the derivative of L3L2L1L_3L_2L_1, and in what order?

Repair. The product rule keeps every factor in place:

(L3L2L1)′=L3′L2L1+L3L2′L1+L3L2L1′.(L_3L_2L_1)'=L_3'L_2L_1+L_3L_2'L_1+L_3L_2L_1'.

It does not give three copies of the same term. Here each Ln′=IL_n'=I, but deleting factors at different sites still leaves different ordered products. Their traces will encode different bonds.

The established RTT relation is

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

For d=λ−μ≠±id=\lambda-\mu\ne\pm i, R(d)R(d) is invertible. Take the trace over both auxiliary factors:

τ(λ)τ(μ)=tr⁡ab(TaTb)=tr⁡ab(R−1TbTaR)=tr⁡ab(TbTa)=τ(μ)τ(λ).\begin{aligned} \tau(\lambda)\tau(\mu) &=\operatorname{tr}_{ab}(T_aT_b)\\ &=\operatorname{tr}_{ab}(R^{-1}T_bT_aR)\\ &=\operatorname{tr}_{ab}(T_bT_a) =\tau(\mu)\tau(\lambda). \end{aligned}

The product order in the first equality is retained: expanding the auxiliary matrix units gives the physical product τ(λ)τ(μ)\tau(\lambda)\tau(\mu), not a freely reordered expression. The third equality is valid because RR and R−1R^{-1} act only on the traced auxiliary spaces. If SS is such an auxiliary matrix and XX has physical operator entries, then

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

as follows by summing its numerical matrix elements and relabeling the two auxiliary indices. This does not license cyclic permutation of arbitrary factors with noncommuting physical entries.

Each entry of [τ(λ),τ(μ)][\tau(\lambda),\tau(\mu)] is a polynomial in the two complex parameters. It vanishes when λ−μ≠±i\lambda-\mu\ne\pm i, hence identically, including the exceptional differences. We have proved

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

This supplies the trace step behind Faddeev 1996, § 3, equations (44)–(48), PDF. An inverse-based proof at the exceptional points would be invalid, even though the resulting polynomial identity remains true there.

Set λ0=i/2\lambda_0=i/2, τ0=τ(λ0)\tau_0=\tau(\lambda_0) and τ0′=τ′(λ0)\tau'_0=\tau'(\lambda_0). The previous lesson showed

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

Thus τ0\tau_0 is invertible. Differentiating the monodromy at this point replaces one factor iPaniP_{an} by the identity:

τ0′=iN−1∑n=1Ntr⁡a(PaN⋯P^an⋯Pa1).\tau'_0=i^{N-1}\sum_{n=1}^N \operatorname{tr}_a \left(P_{aN}\cdots\widehat P_{an}\cdots P_{a1}\right).

The hat means omission. With site indices modulo NN,

tr⁡a(PaN⋯P^an⋯Pa1)=UPn−1,n.\operatorname{tr}_a \left(P_{aN}\cdots\widehat P_{an}\cdots P_{a1}\right) =UP_{n-1,n}.

Why this particular bond? Skipping site nn leaves its spin unchanged and sends the preceding visited spin directly to site n+1n+1. The same effect is obtained by exchanging input spins at n−1,nn-1,n before the full shift. For n=1n=1, the preceding site is NN, so the missing factor produces the closing bond.

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

τ0−1τ0′=1i∑nPn−1,n=−i∑nPn,n+1.\tau_0^{-1}\tau'_0 =\frac1i\sum_nP_{n-1,n} =-i\sum_nP_{n,n+1}.

Therefore

H=JN2I−iJ2τ0−1τ0′=J2∑n(I−Pn,n+1).\begin{aligned} H &=\frac{JN}{2}I-\frac{iJ}{2}\tau_0^{-1}\tau'_0\\ &=\frac J2\sum_n(I-P_{n,n+1}). \end{aligned}

Since Pn,n+1=2Sn⋅Sn+1+I/2P_{n,n+1}=2\mathbf S_n\cdot\mathbf S_{n+1}+I/2, this is precisely J∑n(1/4−Sn⋅Sn+1)J\sum_n(1/4-\mathbf S_n\cdot\mathbf S_{n+1}). The all-up energy is zero. Our Hamiltonian equals −J-J times the source Hamiltonian in Faddeev 1996, § 3, equations (61)–(65), PDF.

Because τ0\tau_0, τ0′\tau'_0 and τ(λ)\tau(\lambda) commute, [H,τ(λ)]=0[H,\tau(\lambda)]=0. This establishes conserved operators for the stated Hamiltonian, beyond the earlier construction of particular one- and two-magnon states.

Define higher charges near the regular point

Section titled “Define higher charges near the regular point”

To avoid choosing a global logarithm of τ\tau, normalize the family locally:

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

For sufficiently small complex ss, ∥B(s)−I∥<1\|B(s)-I\|\lt1 in an operator norm. The convergent series

log⁡B(s)=∑m=1∞(−1)m+1m[B(s)−I]m\log B(s)=\sum_{m=1}^{\infty} \frac{(-1)^{m+1}}{m}[B(s)-I]^m

defines the logarithm near the identity. The commuting transfer family makes these logarithms commute at different small arguments; their Taylor coefficients therefore commute. With Qr=drlog⁡B(s)/dsr∣s=0Q_r=\left.d^r\log B(s)/ds^r\right|_{s=0}, the first two are

Q1=τ0−1τ0′,Q2=τ0−1τ0′′−(τ0−1τ0′)2.\begin{aligned} Q_1&=\tau_0^{-1}\tau'_0,\\ Q_2&=\tau_0^{-1}\tau''_0-(\tau_0^{-1}\tau'_0)^2. \end{aligned}

The absence of noncommutative ordering corrections here follows from the already proved commutativity of the transfer family and its derivatives. Each QrQ_r commutes with HH. The first charge Q1=−i∑PQ_1=-i\sum P is anti-Hermitian; iQ1iQ_1 is Hermitian. A conserved algebraic operator need not itself be a Hermitian observable without a suitable normalization or combination.

No argument above establishes that every coefficient is independent, that every coefficient has a fixed finite interaction range, or that a Bethe parametrization reaches every eigenstate. For fixed NN, arbitrarily many Taylor coefficients cannot all be linearly independent in a finite-dimensional operator space.

The three-site result from the preceding lesson provides an exact target. With z=λ−i/2z=\lambda-i/2, S=P12+P13+P23S=P_{12}+P_{13}+P_{23},

τ3(λ)=(2z3+3iz2)I−zS−iU,H/J=3I−S2.\tau_3(\lambda)=(2z^3+3iz^2)I-zS-iU, \qquad H/J=\frac{3I-S}{2}.

On three spin-1/21/2 sites, S=Stot2−3I/4S=\mathbf S_{\mathrm{tot}}^2-3I/4. The total-spin 3/23/2 quartet therefore has H=0H=0, and the two total-spin 1/21/2 doublets have H=3J/2H=3J/2. Each energy has multiplicity four. This gives an analytic target independent of differentiating a transfer matrix numerically.

Download and extract the complete transfer-matrix experiment (ZIP), then open its xxx-algebra folder. Individual files are also available: Python experiment, inputs, saved results, requirements, and instructions. With the dependencies installed, run:

Terminal window
python3 experiment.py --check

Within the website checkout the corresponding command is:

Terminal window
python3 public/computations/xxx-algebra/experiment.py --check

The experiment builds swaps from tensor-basis actions and compares the extracted Hamiltonian against an independently constructed spin Hamiltonian on N=3,4,5N=3,4,5. It checks local Yang–Baxter and exchange identities, RTT, commuting traces, the shift direction and analytic product differentiation. Generic complex spectral values and the exceptional differences λ−μ=±i\lambda-\mu=\pm i are separate cases. Negative controls use a wrong middle spectral argument, an omitted closing bond and an invalid partial-trace interchange.

For matrix identities the normalized residual is

ρ(A,B)=∥A−B∥Fmax⁡(1,∥A∥F,∥B∥F),\rho(A,B)=\frac{\|A-B\|_{\mathrm F}} {\max(1,\|A\|_{\mathrm F},\|B\|_{\mathrm F})},

where ∥⋅∥F\|\cdot\|_{\mathrm F} is the Frobenius norm. The Hamiltonian discrepancy is scaled by max⁡(J,∥Hspin∥F)\max(J,\|H_{\mathrm{spin}}\|_{\mathrm F}); translation on a normalized plane wave uses the Euclidean vector norm. The saved report records the inputs, environment and individual checks. These finite calculations test the implementation of the formulas; the general proof comes from the permutation and trace arguments above.

The recorded Python 3.9.6 / NumPy 2.0.2 run uses binary64 arithmetic, J=1J=1, and two generic pairs (λ,μ)=(0.37+0.21i,−0.42+0.13i)(\lambda,\mu)=(0.37+0.21i,-0.42+0.13i) and (1.2−0.4i,−0.2+0.6i)(1.2-0.4i,-0.2+0.6i). Exceptional cases use μ=0.25+0.125i\mu=0.25+0.125i and λ=μ±i\lambda=\mu\pm i. The largest accepted residual, including plane-wave phases, is below 8.64×10−168.64\times10^{-16}. Regularity, the logarithmic derivative and the independent Hamiltonian agree exactly in this floating-point run. Every negative control exceeds 0.1570.157. These zeros describe the recorded computation, not additional mathematical proofs; inspect the saved report for each norm and parameter. The instructions specify Python 3.9–3.12 with the pinned NumPy version, and --check compares fresh calculations with the saved inputs and results without rewriting them.

Guided practice: find the forbidden trace step

Section titled “Guided practice: find the forbidden trace step”

On one auxiliary spin and one physical spin, let X=∣↑⟩⟨↑∣a⊗σxX=|\uparrow\rangle\langle\uparrow|_a\otimes\sigma_x and Y=∣↑⟩⟨↑∣a⊗σzY=|\uparrow\rangle\langle\uparrow|_a\otimes\sigma_z. Compute tr⁡a(XY)\operatorname{tr}_a(XY) and tr⁡a(YX)\operatorname{tr}_a(YX). Why does this not invalidate the auxiliary R-matrix step in the proof?

Hint

The auxiliary projector has trace one. Use σxσz=−iσy\sigma_x\sigma_z=-i\sigma_y and σzσx=iσy\sigma_z\sigma_x=i\sigma_y.

Solution

The partial traces are −iσy-i\sigma_y and iσyi\sigma_y, so they differ. Both XX and YY contain physical operators whose order matters. In the valid similarity step, the moved matrix RR has only numerical auxiliary entries and acts as the identity on the physical space. Index relabeling moves those numbers without exchanging physical operator products. Full trace cyclicity must not be applied indiscriminately to a partial trace.

Independent practice: recover the closing bond

Section titled “Independent practice: recover the closing bond”

For N=3N=3, omit Pa1P_{a1} from the regular monodromy. Show that its traced derivative contribution is −P23-P_{23} and that multiplication by τ0−1\tau_0^{-1} gives −iP31-iP_{31}. Repeat for the other two omissions. What Hamiltonian term would be lost by treating the chain as open?

Hint

Here U=P12P23U=P_{12}P_{23}, τ0=−iU\tau_0=-iU, and τ0−1=iU−1\tau_0^{-1}=iU^{-1}. Use the two-swap trace from the preceding lesson.

Solution

The remaining scalar is i2=−1i^2=-1, and tr⁡a(Pa3Pa2)=P23\operatorname{tr}_a(P_{a3}P_{a2})=P_{23}. Since U−1P23=P31U^{-1}P_{23}=P_{31}, the contribution to τ0−1τ0′\tau_0^{-1}\tau'_0 is −iP31-iP_{31}. Omitting factors 22 and 33 similarly gives −iP12-iP_{12} and −iP23-iP_{23}. Their sum is −iS-iS, as required.

The open-chain operator would omit J(I−P31)/2J(I-P_{31})/2. This is not merely an additive constant: it acts with eigenvalue JJ on a singlet of sites 3,13,1 and zero on their triplet. Dropping that bond changes the physical dynamics as well as the constant in the energy convention.

Replace every local factor by L~an(λ)=f(λ)Lan(λ)\widetilde L_{an}(\lambda)=f(\lambda)L_{an}(\lambda), with scalar ff analytic and nonzero near λ0\lambda_0. Find τ~0−1τ~0′\widetilde\tau_0^{-1}\widetilde\tau'_0. If the original Hamiltonian extraction formula is used unchanged, how does the resulting operator differ from HH?

Hint

There are NN local factors, so τ~=fNτ\widetilde\tau=f^N\tau. Differentiate before substituting λ0\lambda_0.

Solution

One obtains

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

Using the same displayed extraction formula would therefore give

H~=H−iJN2f′(λ0)f(λ0)I.\widetilde H =H-\frac{iJN}{2}\frac{f'(\lambda_0)}{f(\lambda_0)}I.

The eigenvectors and commutators are unchanged, but the energy zero shifts. For arbitrary complex ff, even that scalar shift need not be real, so recovering the chosen Hermitian Hamiltonian requires explicitly subtracting it. Nonvanishing f(λ0)f(\lambda_0) is essential for this inverse and logarithmic derivative. Scalar freedom in the Yang–Baxter equation is not freedom to ignore Hamiltonian normalization.

You have proved a commuting transfer family and identified the periodic XXX Hamiltonian inside it. Next, construct regular Bethe vectors: act with one or two creation blocks, derive the unwanted terms and cancel them with Bethe equations. The coordinate course gives the wave interpretation, while the Library article summarizes the operator proof and its hypotheses. General completeness and thermodynamic limits require further arguments.

After the regular construction, investigate the singular-state reproduction: recover a known four-site eigenstate by regularization, and use the transfer matrix at its regular point to reject the same formal root pair on five sites.

  • Faddeev, L. D. How Algebraic Bethe Ansatz works for integrable model. Les Houches lectures, arXiv:hep-th/9605187v1, 1996, 59 pp. Version record. Open PDF. Section and equation numbers identify the cited locations in this version.