format: text

text:
# Difference equations for correlation functions of Belavin’s ℤ_𝑛-symmetric model with boundary reflection

## 1 Introduction

Integrable models with a boundary have been studied in massive quantum theories  and half infinite lattice models . The boundary interaction is specified by the boundary $`S`$-matrix for massive quantum theories , and by the reflection matrix $`K`$ for lattice models . The integrability in the presence of reflecting boundary is ensured by the reflection equation (boundary Yang–Baxter equation) , in addition to the Yang–Baxter equation for bulk (i.e., without boundary) theory .

It was shown in  that the boundary vacuum of boundary integrable theories can be expressed in terms of the vacuum and the creation operators in the bulk theory. In  the explicit bosonic formulae of the boundary vacuum of the boundary XXZ model were obtained by using the bosonization of the vertex operators associated with the bulk XXZ model .

The quantum Knizhnik-Zamolodchikov equations  are satisfied by both correlation functions and form factors for bulk field theories  and for bulk lattice models  with the affine quantum group symmetry. It is shown in  that correlation functions and form factors in semi-infinite XXZ/XYZ spin chains with integrable boundary conditions satisfy the boundary analogue of the quantum Knizhnik-Zamolodchikov equation .

In this paper we study Belavin’s $`_n`$-symmetric vertex model  with integrable boundary condition, the boundary Belavin model. The $`R`$-matrix of Belavin’s model is expressed in terms of elliptic functions of the spectral parameter $`z`$ so that the $`R`$-matrix has doubly quasi periodicity. Thus we expect that the $`K`$-matrix of the boundary Belavin model also possesses appropriate transformation properties with respect to $`z`$ compatible to those of the $`R`$-matrix. We shall show that under such assumption the $`K`$-matrix of the boundary Belavin model is inevitably non-diagonal for $`n>2`$. Our solution is diagonal for $`n=2`$ but different from the one used in .

On the basis of boundary CTM bootstrap  we find that the correlation functions for the boundary Belavin model satisfy a set of difference equations, the boundary analogue of the quantum Knizhnik–Zamolodchikov equation. Furthermore, by solving the simplest difference equations, we obtain the boundary spontaneous polarization which turns out to be the square of that for the bulk $`_n`$-symmetric model .

The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we review Belavin’s $`_n`$-symmetric model, thereby fixing our notations. In section 3 we give two non-diagonal solutions to the reflection equation, one is a constant $`K`$-matrix, and the other is an elliptic $`K`$-matrix. Furthermore, we consider the boundary analogue of the vertex-face correspondence to discuss the connection between our $`K`$-matrix and the boundary weights of the $`A_{n1}^{(1)}`$ model . In section 4 we construct lattice realization of the boundary vacuum states and vertex operators from the boundary CTM bootstrap approach. In section 5 we derive difference equations for $`N`$-point functions of the boundary Belavin model. We solve the simplest difference equations with $`N=1`$ for free boundary condition to obtain the explicit expression of the boundary spontaneous polarization. The result gives the higher rank generalization of that for the boundary eight vertex model . In section 6 we summarize the results obtained in this paper, and give some concluding remarks.

## 2 Belavin’s vertex model and the reflection equation

### 2.1 Elliptic theta functions

For a complex number $`\tau `$ in the upper half-plane, let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\tau :=+\tau `$ be the lattice generated by $`1`$ and $`\tau `$, and $`E_\tau :=/\mathrm{\Lambda }_\tau `$ the complex torus which can be identified with an elliptic curve. For $`a,b`$, introduce the Jacobi theta function

$$\vartheta \left[\begin{array}{c}a\\ b\end{array}\right](z,\tau ):=\underset{m}{}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\pi \sqrt{1}(m+a)\left[(m+a)\tau +2(z+b)\right]\right\}.$$
(2.1)
Hereafter a positive integer $`n2`$ is fixed and we will use the following compact symbols

$$\sigma _𝜶^{(n)}(z)=\vartheta \left[\begin{array}{c}\alpha _2/n+1/2\\ \alpha _1/n+1/2\end{array}\right](z,\tau ),\theta _n^{(j)}(z)=\vartheta \left[\begin{array}{c}1/2j/n\\ 1/2\end{array}\right](z,n\tau ),$$
(2.2)
for $`𝜶=(\alpha _1,\alpha _2)`$ and for $`j_n`$; and

$$h(z):=\underset{j=0}{\overset{n1}{}}\theta ^{(j)}(z)/\underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}\theta ^{(j)}(0).$$

The superscript $`(n)`$ and the subscript $`n`$ will be often suppressed when we have no fear of confusion.

The elliptic theta functions are expressed in terms of the product series

$$\begin{array}{c}\theta ^{(j)}(z)=\sqrt{1}\omega ^{j/2}t^{n(1/2j/n)^2}u^{1+2j/n}(t^{2n};t^{2n})_{\mathrm{}}(t^{2j}u^2;t^{2n})_{\mathrm{}}(t^{2(nj)}u^2;t^{2n})_{\mathrm{}},\\ h(z)=t^{(n1)/4}\frac{(t^{2n};t^{2n})_{\mathrm{}}^3}{(t^2;t^2)_{\mathrm{}}^3}\sigma _\mathrm{𝟎}(z,\tau )=\sqrt{1}t^{n/4}\frac{(t^{2n};t^{2n})_{\mathrm{}}^3}{(t^2;t^2)_{\mathrm{}}^2}u^1(u^2;t^2)_{\mathrm{}}(t^2u^2;t^2)_{\mathrm{}},\end{array}$$
(2.3)
where

$$(a;q_1,\mathrm{},q_k)_{\mathrm{}}:=\underset{m_1=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{}\underset{m_k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1aq_1^{m_1}\mathrm{}q_k^{m_k}).$$

### 2.2 Belavin’s vertex model

Let $`V=^n`$ and $`\{v_i\}_{i_n}`$ be the standard orthonormal basis of $`V`$ with the inner product $`(v_j,v_k)=\delta _{jk}`$. Let $`V_z`$ be a copy of $`V`$ with a spectral parameter $`z`$. The $`_n`$-Baxter model is a vertex model on a two-dimensional square lattice $``$ such that the state variables take on values of $`_n`$-spin. Each oriented line of $``$ carries a spectral parameter varying from line to line. We assign a $`_n`$-valued local state on each edge. Let

be a local Boltzmann weight for a single vertex with bond states $`i,j,k,l_n`$. Arrows denotes orientations of lines. We now define the linear map on $`V_{z_1}V_{z_2}`$ called the $`R`$-matrix as follows:

$`R^{V_{z_1},V_{z_2}}(v_jv_l)={\displaystyle \underset{i,k_n}{}}(v_iv_k)R(z_1z_2)_{jl}^{ik}.`$
Belavin  considered the $`_n`$-symmetric model satisfying

$$\begin{array}{cc}\text{(i)}& R(z)_{jl}^{ik}=0,\text{ unless }i+k=j+l\text{,  mod }n,\hfill \\ \text{(ii)}& R(z)_{j+pl+p}^{i+pk+p}=R(z)_{jl}^{ik},\text{ for every }i,j,k,l\text{ and }p_n.\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.4)
In terms of two linear map in $`V`$

$$gv_i=\omega ^iv_i,hv_i=v_{i1},$$
(2.5)
where $`\omega =\mathrm{exp}(2\pi \sqrt{1}/n)`$, the conditions (2.4) can be rephrased as follows:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill R(z)(gg)& =& (gg)R(z),\hfill \\ \hfill R(z)(hh)& =& (hh)R(z).\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.6)
Thus the $`R`$-matrix of Belavin’s $`_n`$-symmetric model is of the form

$$R(z)=\frac{1}{\kappa (z)}\overline{R}(z),\overline{R}(z)=\underset{𝜶G_n}{}u_𝜶(z)I_𝜶I_𝜶^1.$$
(2.7)
Here $`G_n=_n_n`$, and $`I_𝜶=g^{\alpha _1}h^{\alpha _2}`$ for $`𝜶=(\alpha _1,\alpha _2)`$. The normalization factor $`\kappa (z)`$ will be given lator. The coefficient function $`u_𝜶(z)`$ is determined by imposing the $`R`$-matrix satisfies the Yang-Baxter equation

$`R_{12}(z_1z_2)R_{13}(z_1z_3)R_{23}(z_2z_3)=R_{23}(z_2z_3)R_{13}(z_1z_3)R_{12}(z_1z_2),`$ (2.8)
where $`R_{ij}(z)`$ denotes the matrix on $`V^3`$, which acts as $`R(z)`$ on the $`i`$-th and $`j`$-th components and as identity on the other one. Belavin’s solution to (2.8) is given as follows:

$$u_𝜶(z)=u_𝜶^{(n)}(z,w):=\frac{1}{n}\frac{\sigma _𝜶(z+w/n)}{\sigma _𝜶(w/n)},$$
(2.9)
where $`w(0\text{mod }\mathrm{\Lambda }_\tau )`$ is a constant. It is obvious that the following initial condition holds:

$$\overline{R}(0)=P,P(xy)=yx.$$
(2.10)
In order to facilitate the derivation of the similar results for the $`K`$-matrix of the boundary $`_n`$-symmetric model, we give brief sketches of proofs of several well known properties for Belavin’s $`R`$-matrix.

###### Proposition 2.1

The Boltzmann weights or the elements of $`R`$-matrix are given as follows :

$$\overline{R}(z)_{jl}^{ik}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{h(z)\theta ^{(ik)}(z+w)}{\theta ^{(jk)}(z)\theta ^{(ij)}(w)}\hfill & \text{if }i+k=j+l\text{, mod }n\text{,}\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.11)
\[Proof\] Because of the $`_n`$-symmetry,

$`R_{0lj}^{ijkj}(z)=R_{jl}^{ik}(z)={\displaystyle \underset{𝜶G_n}{}}u_𝜶(z)(I_𝜶)_j^i(I_𝜶^1)_l^k=\delta _{j+l}^{i+k}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha _1_n}{}}u_{(\alpha _1,ji)}(z)\omega ^{(il)\alpha _1}.`$
Set $`^{ab}(z)=R_{0a+b}^{ab}(z)`$. Then we have

$$_n^{ab}(z,v)=\underset{\alpha _1_n}{}u_{(\alpha _1,a)}^{(n)}(z,v)\omega ^{b\alpha _1}.$$
(2.12)
The transformation property of $`^{ab}(z)`$ and the initial condition $`^{ab}(0)=\delta ^{b0}`$ imply that

$$^{ab}(z)=0,\text{at }z=c\tau \text{ (}cb\text{, mod }n\text{) and }z=(ab)\tau w\text{, mod }\mathrm{\Lambda }_{n\tau }.$$
(2.13)
Hence $`^{ab}(z)`$ has the form

$`^{ab}(z)=C^{ab}(w)\theta ^{(ab)}(z+w){\displaystyle \underset{cb}{}}\theta ^{(c)}(z).`$
By substituting $`z=b\tau `$ we have

$`C^{ab}(w)^1=\theta ^{(a)}(w){\displaystyle \underset{c0}{}}\theta ^{(c)}(0),`$
which concludes that (2.11) holds. $`\mathrm{}`$

As a corollary of Proposition 2.11 we have

$$PR(w)=R(w),R(w)P=R(w).$$
(2.14)
Now we assume that $`0<t<q<u<1`$, where $`t:=\mathrm{exp}(\pi \sqrt{1}\tau ),q:=\mathrm{exp}(\pi \sqrt{1}w)`$, and $`u:=\mathrm{exp}(\pi \sqrt{1}z)`$. Following Baxter  we call such domain of parameters the principal regime. Note that (2.11) is weights of the eight-vertex model when $`n=2`$.

### 2.3 Unitarity and crossing symmetry

Belavin’s $`R`$-matrix satisfies the unitarity and crossing symmetry relations .

###### Proposition 2.2

Belavin’s $`R`$-matrix satisfies the following unitarity relation or the first inversion relation:

$$\overline{R}_{21}(z)\overline{R}_{12}(z)=\rho _1(z,w)II,$$
(2.15)
where

$$\rho _1(z,w)=\frac{\sigma (z+w)\sigma (z+w)}{\sigma ^2(w)}.$$
(2.16)
\[Proof\] Note that

$`\overline{R}_{21}(z)\overline{R}_{12}(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{𝜶G_n}{}}u_𝜶^{(n)}(z,w)I_𝜶^1I_𝜶{\displaystyle \underset{𝜷G_n}{}}u_𝜷^{(n)}(z,w)I_𝜷I_𝜷^1`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{𝜶𝜷G_n}{}}u_𝜶^{(n)}(z)u_𝜷^{(n)}(z)I_𝜶^1I_𝜷I_𝜶I_𝜷^1`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{𝒂G_n}{}}f_𝒂^{(n)}(z,w)I_𝒂I_𝒂^1,`$
where

$$f_𝒂^{(n)}(z,w)=\underset{𝜶G_n}{}\omega ^{𝜶,𝒂}u_𝜶^{(n)}(z,w)u_{𝒂+𝜶}^{(n)}(z,w),$$
(2.17)
and $`𝜶,𝒂=\alpha _1a_2\alpha _2a_1`$. Proposition 2.16 is thus reduced to

$$f_𝒂^{(n)}(z,w)=\rho _1(z,w)\delta _{𝒂\mathrm{𝟎}}.$$
(2.18)
Concerning the proof of (2.18), see Theorem 3.3 and Lemma 3.2 in . $`\mathrm{}`$

Next we describe the crossing symmetry for Belavin’s $`_n`$-symmetric model. For that purpose let us recall the $`R`$-matrix on $`KL`$, where $`K=V_{z_1}\mathrm{}V_{z_k}`$ and $`L=V_{z_1^{}}\mathrm{}V_{z_l^{}}`$:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill R^{K,V_z^{}}:=& R_{1;k+1}^{V_{z_1},V_z^{}}\mathrm{}R_{k;k+1}^{V_{z_k},V_z^{}},\hfill \\ \hfill R^{K,L}:=& R_{1\mathrm{}k;k+l}^{K,V_{z_l^{}}}\mathrm{}R_{1\mathrm{}k;k+1}^{K,V_{z_1^{}}}.\hfill \end{array}$$

YBE holds for $`R^{K,L}`$ by virtue of YBE for $`R^{V,V}`$ (2.8)

$`R_{12}^{K,L}R_{13}^{K,M}R_{23}^{L,M}=R_{23}^{L,M}R_{13}^{K,M}R_{12}^{K,L},`$ (2.19)
as a linear map on $`KLM`$.

For special $`K_z^k=V_{z_1}\mathrm{}V_{z_k}`$ such that $`z_j=z+(k+1j)w`$ ($`1jk`$), the fusion operator $`\pi `$ associated with $`K_z^k`$ is given as follows :

$$\pi :=R_{k1;k}^{V_{z_1},V_{z_2}}R_{k2,k1;k}^{V_{z_1}V_{z_2},V_{z_3}}\mathrm{}R_{1,\mathrm{},k1;k}^{V_{z_1}\mathrm{}V_{z_{k1}},V_{z_k}}.$$
(2.20)
From the first equation of (2.14) and the Yang–Baxter equation (2.8) we have

$$\pi (K_z^k)=\mathrm{\Lambda }^k(V)=\text{Anti}(K_z^k).$$
(2.21)
Let $`V^{}`$ be the dual space of $`V`$ and $`\{v_i^{}\}_{i_n}`$ be the dual basis of $`\{v_i\}_{i_n}`$. Then we have the isomorphism $`C:V_{z+nw/2}^{}\text{Anti}(K_z^{n1})`$

$`Cv_i^{}={\displaystyle \underset{i_1,\mathrm{},i_{n1}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_i^{i_1\mathrm{}i_{n1}}}{\sqrt{(n1)!}}}v_{i_1}\mathrm{}v_{i_{n1}},`$ (2.22)
where $`ϵ_i^{i_1\mathrm{}i_{n1}}`$ is the $`n`$-th order completely antisymmetric tensor. The spectral parameter $`z+nw/2`$ associated with the dual space $`V^{}`$ refers to the mean value of $`n1`$ spectral parameters $`z+(n1)w`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`z+w`$ of $`V`$111Note that the spectral parameter of $`V^{}`$ is shifted by $`nw/2`$ from the one in . . Then the $`R`$-matrices on $`VV^{}`$ and $`V^{}V`$ are defined as follows:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill R^{V_{z_1},V_{z_2+nw/2}^{}}& =& (IC)^1R^{V_{z_1},V_{z_2+(n1)w}\mathrm{}V_{z_2+w}}(IC),\hfill \\ \hfill R^{V_{z_1+nw/2}^{},V_{z_2}}& =& (CI)^1R^{V_{z_1+(n1)w}\mathrm{}V_{z_1+w},V_{z_2}}(CI).\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.23)
The un-normalized $`\overline{R}`$ on $`VV^{}`$ and $`V^{}V`$ are also defined in a similar manner.

###### Proposition 2.3

The $`R`$-matrix on $`VV^{}`$ and $`V^{}V`$ defined in (2.23) meet the crossing symmetry :

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \overline{R}_{21}^{V_{z_2},V_{z_1+nw/2}^{}}& =& (\overline{R}_{12}^{V_{z_1},V_{z_2}})^{t_1}\underset{p=2}{\overset{n1}{}}\frac{h(z_1+z_2+pw)}{h(w)},\hfill \\ \hfill \overline{R}_{12}^{V_{z_1+nw/2}^{},V_{z_2}}& =& (\overline{R}_{21}^{V_{z_2},V_{z_1+nw}})^{t_1}\underset{p=1}{\overset{n2}{}}\frac{h(z_1+z_2pw)}{h(w)},\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.24)
where $`t_i`$ denotes the transposition of the $`i`$-th space.

\[Proof\] Let

$$\overline{R}_{21}^{V_{z_2},V_{z_1+nw/2}^{}}(v_jv_l^{})=\underset{i,k}{}(v_iv_k^{})a_{jl}^{ik}(z_1+z_2)$$

Because of the initial condition (2.10) and the second equation of (2.14), the element $`a_{jl}^{ik}(z)`$ vanishes at $`z=pw`$, where $`p=2,\mathrm{},n1`$. Thus we have an entire function $`b_{jl}^{ik}(z)`$ from $`a_{jl}^{ik}(z)`$ devided by $`h(z2w)\mathrm{}f(z(n1)w)`$.

The transformation property of $`b_{jl}^{ik}(z)`$ are the same as $`\overline{R}_{kj}^{li}(z)`$. It follows from the second equation of (2.14) that $`b_{jl}^{ik}(z)=0`$ at $`z=c\tau `$ for $`cjk`$ and at $`z=(ik)\tau w`$, which coincide the zeros of $`\overline{R}_{kj}^{li}(z)`$ (2.13). Thus $`b_{jl}^{ik}(z)`$ equals $`\stackrel{ˇ}{R}_{ij}^{kl}(z)`$ up to a scalar factor, which is determined by substituting $`z=(ki)\tau `$. The second equation of (2.24) can be shown in a similar way. $`\mathrm{}`$

From (2.16) and (2.24), we have the following second inversion relation

$$\underset{jl}{}\overline{R}_{12}^{t_1}(z)\overline{R}_{21}^{t_1}(znw)=\rho _2(z,w)I,$$
(2.25)
where

$$\rho _2(z,w)=\frac{h(z)h(z+nw)}{h^2(w)}.$$
(2.26)
Imposing the unitarity and crossing symmetry condition with respect to the normalized $`R`$-matrix:

$$R_{21}(z)R_{12}(z)=II,$$
(2.27)
$$R_{21}^{V_{z_2},V_{z_1+nw/2}^{}}=(R_{12}^{V_{z_1},V_{z_2}})^{t_1},R_{12}^{V_{z_1+nw/2}^{},V_{z_2}}=(R_{21}^{V_{z_2},V_{z_1+nw}})^{t_1},$$
(2.28)
the normalization factor $`\kappa (z)`$ should obey the following functional equations:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \kappa (z)\kappa (z)& =& \rho _1(z,w),\hfill \\ \hfill \kappa (z)\kappa (znw)& =& \rho _2(z,w).\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.29)
Hereafter $`\kappa (z)`$ is often denoted by $`\kappa (u)`$ through the relation $`u=\mathrm{exp}(\pi \sqrt{1}z)`$. In the principal regime using (2.3) the following expression solves (2.29)

$$\kappa (u)=u^{(n2)/n}\frac{(u^2;t^2)_{\mathrm{}}(t^2u^2;t^2)_{\mathrm{}}}{(q^2;t^2)_{\mathrm{}}(t^2q^2;t^2)_{\mathrm{}}}\overline{\kappa }(u),$$
(2.30)
where

$$\overline{\kappa }(u)=\frac{(q^2u^2;t^2,q^{2n})_{\mathrm{}}(q^{2n}u^2;t^2,q^{2n})_{\mathrm{}}(t^2q^2u^2;t^2,q^{2n})_{\mathrm{}}(t^2q^{2n}u^2;t^2,q^{2n})_{\mathrm{}}}{(q^{2+2n}u^2;t^2,q^{2n})_{\mathrm{}}(u^2;t^2,q^{2n})_{\mathrm{}}(t^2q^{2+2n}u^2;t^2,q^{2n})_{\mathrm{}}(t^2u^2;t^2,q^{2n})_{\mathrm{}}}.$$

From $`\kappa (1)=1`$ the initial condition for $`R`$ also holds:

$$R(0)=P.$$
(2.31)
## 3 Boundary Belavin model

### 3.1 Reflection equation for the boundary Belavin model

In this section we consider the following reflection equation or the boundary Yang–Baxter equation:

$$K_2(z_2)R_{21}(z_1+z_2)K_1(z_1)R_{12}(z_1z_2)=R_{21}(z_1z_2)K_1(z_1)R_{12}(z_1+z_2)K_2(z_2).$$
(3.1)
The reflection equation (3.1) is valid when $`z_1=z_2`$ because $`R(0)=P`$. Furthermore, the following Lemma holds:

###### Lemma 3.1

The reflection equation $`(\text{3.1})`$ is valid when $`(1)`$ $`z_1=0;`$ $`(2)`$ $`z_1=z_2`$ provided

$$\begin{array}{cc}(1)\text{ Boundary initial condition}:\hfill & K(0)=I;\hfill \\ (2)\text{ Boundary unitarity relation}:\hfill & K(z)K(z)=I,\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.2)
respectively.

\[Proof\] It is evident from the unitarity (2.27) and the initial condition (2.31) for $`R`$-matrix. $`\mathrm{}`$

Here we notice that Belavin’s $`R`$-matrix have the following quasi-periodic properties

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \overline{R}(z+1)& =& (gI)^1\overline{R}(z)(gI)=(Ig)\overline{R}(z)(Ig)^1,\hfill \\ \hfill \overline{R}(z+\tau )& =& (hI)^1\overline{R}(z)(hI)\times \mathrm{exp}\left\{2\pi \sqrt{1}\left(z+\frac{\tau }{2}+\frac{w}{n}\right)\right\}\hfill \\ & =& (Ih)\overline{R}(z)(Ih)^1\times \mathrm{exp}\left\{2\pi \sqrt{1}\left(z+\frac{\tau }{2}+\frac{w}{n}\right)\right\}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.3)
Thus we have the following Proposition:

###### Proposition 3.2

Let

$$K(z)=\frac{1}{\lambda (z)}\overline{K}(z),$$

where $`\lambda (z)`$ is a scalor function. Suppose (3.2) and the following quasi transformation property:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \overline{K}(z+1)& =& g\overline{K}(z)g,\hfill \\ \hfill \overline{K}(z+\tau )& =& h\overline{K}(z)h\times \mathrm{exp}\left\{2\pi \sqrt{1}\left(z+\frac{\tau }{2}+c\right)\right\},\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.4)
where $`c`$ is a constant. Then $`\overline{K}(z)`$ solves (3.1).

\[Proof\] Let $`F(z_1,z_2)`$ stand for the difference of the LHS and the RHS of (3.1). Then we have

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill F(z_1+1,z_2)& =& (gI)F(z_1,z_2)(gI),\hfill \\ \hfill F(z_1+\tau ,z_2)& =& (hI)F(z_1,z_2)(hI)\times \mathrm{exp}(2\pi \sqrt{1}B),\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.5)
where $`B=3z_1+3\tau /2+2w/n+c`$. The second equation of (3.5) implies that the $`(ik,jl)`$-th element of $`F(z_1,z_2)`$ satisfies

$$F(z_1+\tau ,z_2)_{jl}^{ik}=F(z_1+\tau ,z_2)_{j1l}^{i+1k}\times (2\pi \sqrt{1}B).$$
(3.6)
Thus we find that $`F(p\tau ,z_2)_{jl}^{ik}F(0,z_2)_{jpl}^{i+pk}=0`$ for $`0pn1`$ from Lemma 3.1. Similarly, we have $`F(z_2+p\tau ,z_2)_{jl}^{ik}=F(z_2+p\tau ,z_2)_{jl}^{ik}=0`$ for $`0pn1`$:

$$F(p\tau ,z_2)_{jl}^{ik}=F(z_2+p\tau ,z_2)_{jl}^{ik}=F(z_2+p\tau ,z_2)_{jl}^{ik}=0,(0pn1).$$
(3.7)
Assume that $`F(z_1+\tau ,z_2)_{jl}^{ik}`$ is not identically zero. From Richey-Tracy’s lemma (see section 3 in  or Lemma 2.4 in ) we conclude that $`F(z_1+\tau ,z_2)_{jl}^{ik}`$ has $`3n`$ zeros in $`E_{n\tau }`$ whose sum is equal to $`nc2w3n(n1)\tau (i+j)\tau `$. The contradiction to (3.7) implies the claim of this Proposition. $`\mathrm{}`$

### 3.2 Solutions of the reflection equation

Under the assumption of the quasi periodicity (3.4) compatible to (3.3) we find that the $`K(z)`$ is not a diagonal matrix for $`n>2`$. When $`n=2`$ we can take $`K(z)`$ diagonal because of $`g^1=g`$ and $`h^1=h`$. The most general and non-diagonal solution for $`n=2`$ is given in . Other non-diagonal solutions for $`D_n^{(2)}`$-vertex model are given in .

In this paper we consider the following two solutions of (3.1), which can be also found in .

#### 3.2.1 Constant $`K`$-matrix

###### Proposition 3.3

Let

$$𝒦_0v_j=v_{nj},$$
(3.8)
where $`v_n=v_0`$. Then $`𝒦_0`$ solves (3.1).

\[Proof\] It is easy to see $`g𝒦_0g=h𝒦_0h=𝒦_0`$. Hence we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}& K_2(z_2)R_{21}(z_1+z_2)K_1(z_1)R_{12}(z_1z_2)\hfill \\ =& I𝒦_0\underset{𝜶}{}u_𝜶(z_1+z_2)(I_𝜶^1I_𝜶)(𝒦_0I)\underset{𝜷}{}u_𝜷(z_1z_2)(I_𝜷I_𝜷^1)\hfill \\ =& 𝒦_0𝒦_0\underset{𝜶}{}\omega ^{\alpha _1\alpha _2}u_𝜶(z_1+z_2)I_𝜶I_𝜶\underset{𝜷}{}\omega ^{\beta _1\beta _2}u_𝜷(z_1z_2)I_𝜷I_𝜷\hfill \\ =& 𝒦_0𝒦_0\underset{𝜷}{}\omega ^{\beta _1\beta _2}u_𝜷(z_1z_2)I_𝜷I_𝜷\underset{𝜶}{}\omega ^{\alpha _1\alpha _2}u_𝜶(z_1+z_2)I_𝜶I_𝜶\hfill \\ =& \underset{𝜷}{}\omega ^{\beta _1\beta _2}u_𝜷(z_1z_2)(I_𝜷I_𝜷)(𝒦_0I)\underset{𝜶}{}\omega ^{\alpha _1\alpha _2}u_𝜶(z_1+z_2)(I_𝜶I_𝜶)(I𝒦_0)\hfill \\ =& R_{21}(z_1z_2)K_1(z_1)R_{12}(z_1+z_2)K_2(z_2),\hfill \end{array}$$

that implies this Proposition. $`\mathrm{}`$

#### 3.2.2 Elliptic $`K`$-matrix

Let

$$m=\{\begin{array}{cc}n\hfill & \text{if }n\text{ is odd,}\hfill \\ n/2\hfill & \text{if }n\text{ is even},\hfill \end{array}$$

and let

$$𝒦(z)=\underset{𝜶G_m}{}\omega ^{2\alpha _1\alpha _2}u_{2𝜶}^{(n)}(z,v)I_{2𝜶}=\underset{𝜶G_m}{}u_{2𝜶}^{(n)}(z,v)J_𝜶,$$
(3.9)
where

$$J_𝜶=h^{\alpha _2}g^{2\alpha _1}h^{\alpha _2}$$

for $`𝜶=(\alpha _1,\alpha _2)`$, and $`v(0\text{mod }\mathrm{\Lambda }_\tau )`$ is a constant. Using the identity

$$\frac{1}{m}\underset{\alpha _1=0}{\overset{m1}{}}\omega ^{2\alpha _1(i\alpha _2)}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\delta _{\alpha _2,i}\hfill & \text{if }n\text{ is odd,}\hfill \\ \delta _{\alpha _2,i}+\delta _{\alpha _2,im}\hfill & \text{if }n\text{ is even,}\hfill \end{array}$$

we have $`𝒦(0)=𝒦_0`$.

###### Lemma 3.4

The following quasi transformation property holds:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill 𝒦(z+1)& =& g^1𝒦(z)g;\hfill \\ \hfill 𝒦(z+\tau )& =& h^1𝒦(z)h\times \mathrm{exp}\left\{2\pi \sqrt{1}\left(z+\frac{\tau }{2}+\frac{v}{m}\right)\right\}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.10)
\[Proof\] This is based on the transformation properties of the elliptic theta function. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 3.5

Let $`\overline{K}(z)=𝒦_0𝒦(z)`$. Then the boundary inversion relation holds:

$$\overline{K}(z)\overline{K}(z)=\rho _1(z,v)I.$$
(3.11)
\[Proof\] Direct calculation shows

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \overline{K}(z)\overline{K}(z)& =& 𝒦_0\underset{𝜶G_m}{}u_{2𝜶}^{(n)}(z,v)J_𝜶𝒦_0\underset{𝜷G_m}{}u_{2𝜷}^{(n)}(z,v)J_𝜷\hfill \\ & =& \underset{𝜶G_m}{}u_{2𝜶}^{(n)}(z,v)J_𝜶\underset{𝜷G_m}{}u_{2𝜷}^{(n)}(z,v)J_𝜷\hfill \\ & =& \underset{𝜶G_m}{}\underset{𝜷G_m}{}\omega ^{2𝜶,𝜷}u_{\text{2}𝜶}^{(n)}(z,v)u_{2𝜷}^{(n)}(z,v)J_{𝜶𝜷}\hfill \\ & =& \underset{𝒂G_m}{}g_𝒂^{(n)}(z,v)I_𝒂,\hfill \end{array}$$

where

$$g_𝒂^{(n)}(z,v)=\underset{𝜶G_m}{}\omega ^{2𝜶,𝒂}u_{2𝜶}^{(n)}(z,v)u_{2(𝒂+𝜶)}^{(n)}(z,v).$$
(3.12)
By comparing $`g_𝒂^{(n)}(z,v)`$ with $`f_𝒂^{(n)}(z,w)`$ defined in (2.17), we easily have $`g_𝒂^{(n)}(z,v)=f_𝒂^{(m)}(z,v)`$ and hence (3.11) holds for even $`n`$. Repeating the similar argument in Proposition 2.16 we can also obtain (3.11) for odd $`n`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Theorem 3.6

Let $`\overline{K}(z)=𝒦_0𝒦(z)`$. Then $`\overline{K}(z)`$ solves the reflection equation (3.1).

\[Proof\] From Lemma 3.10 we find that $`\overline{K}(z)`$ satisfies (3.4) with $`c=v/m`$. Since $`\overline{K}(0)=𝒦_0{}_{}{}^{2}=I`$, the $`\overline{K}(z)`$ also satisfies the first equation of (3.2). It follows from Lemma 3.11 that $`\overline{K}(z)`$ satisfies the second one of (3.2). Thus $`\overline{K}(z)`$ is a solution to the reflection equation (3.1) from Proposition 3.2. $`\mathrm{}`$

Remark. Our $`K`$-matrix for $`n=2`$ is different from the one used in  so that the readers should be careful to compare our results with those of $`n=2`$.

### 3.3 Matrix elements of $`K`$-matrix

In this subsection we calculate the $`(j,k)`$-th element of $`\overline{K}(z)`$:

$$\overline{K}(z)v_k=\underset{j_n}{}v_j\overline{K}(z)_k^j.$$

Note that

$$\overline{K}(z)_k^j=𝒦(z)_k^{nj}=\underset{\alpha _2_m}{}\delta _{j+k}^{2\alpha _2}\underset{\alpha _1_m}{}u_{(2\alpha _1,j+k)}^{(n)}(z,v)\omega ^{(jk)\alpha _1}$$

When $`n`$ is even, thanks to the sum over $`\alpha _2`$, $`\overline{K}(z)_k^j=0`$ if $`j+k`$ is odd. By comparing (2.12) we obtain

$$\overline{K}(z)_k^j=\{\begin{array}{cc}_m^{\frac{j+k}{2},\frac{jk}{2}}(z,v)\hfill & \text{if }j+k\text{ is even},\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{if }j+k\text{ is odd},\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.13)
for even $`n`$,

$$\overline{K}(z)_k^j=\{\begin{array}{cc}_n^{jk,\frac{jk}{2}}(z,v)\hfill & jk\text{ is even},\hfill \\ _n^{jk,\frac{jk+n}{2}}(z,v)\hfill & jk\text{ is odd},\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.14)
for odd $`n`$.

We are now in a position to determine the normalization factor $`\lambda (z)`$. The boundary inversion relation (3.11) implies

$$\lambda (z)\lambda (z)=\rho _1(z,v).$$
(3.15)
Furthermore, the boundary crossing symmetry holds for $`n=2`$ :

$$K(z)_k^j=\underset{j^{},k^{}}{}R(2zw)_{1jk}^{j^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}k^{}}K(zw)_j^{}^k^{},$$
(3.16)
which implies that

$$\frac{\lambda (zw)}{\lambda (z)}=\frac{1}{\overline{\kappa }(u^2)}\frac{(q^2u^2;t^2)_{\mathrm{}}(t^2q^2u^2;t^2)_{\mathrm{}}}{(u^2;t^2)_{\mathrm{}}(t^2u^2;t^2)_{\mathrm{}}}.$$
(3.17)
Since $`V^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{n1}(V)\overline{)}V`$ for $`n>2`$, the LHS of (3.16) for higher $`n`$ should be replaced by the $`(j,k)`$-th element of the dual $`K`$-matrix. We wish to discuss this point again in section 4.

Here we assume the following functional relation holds for $`n2`$:

$$\frac{\lambda (z\frac{n}{2}w)}{\lambda (z)}=\frac{1}{\overline{\kappa }(u^2)}\frac{(q^nu^2;t^2)_{\mathrm{}}(t^2q^nu^2;t^2)_{\mathrm{}}}{(u^2;t^2)_{\mathrm{}}(t^2u^2;t^2)_{\mathrm{}}}.$$
(3.18)
Not (3.18) but (3.15) is important to calculate the spontaneous polarization in section 5, so that we proceed further under the assumption (3.18). By solving (3.15) and (3.17) we obtain

$$\lambda (z)=\frac{1}{(r^2;t^2)_{\mathrm{}}(t^2r^2;t^2)_{\mathrm{}}}\frac{(r^2u^2;t^2,q^{2n})_{\mathrm{}}(t^2r^2u^2;t^2,q^{2n})_{\mathrm{}}}{(r^2q^{2n}u^2;t^2,q^{2n})_{\mathrm{}}(t^2r^2q^{2n}u^2;t^2,q^{2n})_{\mathrm{}}}\frac{\varphi (u^2)}{\varphi (u^2)},$$
(3.19)
where $`r=\mathrm{exp}(\pi \sqrt{1}v)`$, and

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \varphi (x)& =& \frac{(q^nx;t^2,q^{2n})_{\mathrm{}}(t^2q^nx;t^2,q^{2n})_{\mathrm{}}}{(q^{2n}x;t^2,q^{2n})_{\mathrm{}}(t^2x;t^2,q^{2n})_{\mathrm{}}(r^2q^nx;t^2,q^{2n})_{\mathrm{}}(t^2r^2q^nx;t^2,q^{2n})_{\mathrm{}}}\hfill \\ & \times & \frac{(q^{2n+2}x^2;t^2,q^{4n})_{\mathrm{}}(t^2q^{2n2}x^2;t^2,q^{4n})_{\mathrm{}}}{(q^{2n}x^2;t^2,q^{4n})_{\mathrm{}}(t^2q^{2n}x^2;t^2,q^{4n})_{\mathrm{}}}.\hfill \end{array}$$

### 3.4 Comments on boundary weights for the boundary $`A_{n1}^{(1)}`$ face model

In this subsection we wish to discuss the boundary analogue of the vertex-face correspondence. Concerning the case $`n=2`$, see . Let us consider the bulk $`A_{n1}^{(1)}`$-face model whose local state takes on values of $`P`$, the weight lattice of $`A_{n1}^{(1)}`$ . An ordered pair $`(a,b)P^2`$ is called admissible if $`b=a+\widehat{j}`$, for a certain $`j_n`$, where

$$\widehat{j}=v_j\frac{1}{n}\underset{k=0}{\overset{n1}{}}v_k.$$

Let

be the local Boltzmann weight for a state configuration $`(a,b,c,d)`$ round a face. Then $`W\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ d& c\end{array}|z\right)=0`$ unless all the four pairs $`(a,b),(a,d),(b,c)`$ and $`(d,c)`$ are admissible. Non-zero Boltzmann weights are given as follows:

$$W\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ d& c\end{array}|z\right)=\frac{1}{w(z,w)}\overline{W}\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ d& c\end{array}|z\right),$$
(3.20)
where $`w(z,w)`$ is a scalar function and

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \overline{W}\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& a+\widehat{j}\\ a+\widehat{j}& a+2\widehat{j}\end{array}|z\right)& =& \frac{h(z+w)}{h(w)},\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill \overline{W}\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& a+\widehat{j}\\ a+\widehat{j}& a+\widehat{j}+\widehat{k}\end{array}|z\right)& =& \frac{h(a_{jk}wz)}{h(a_{jk}w)}(jk),\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill \overline{W}\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& a+\widehat{k}\\ a+\widehat{j}& a+\widehat{j}+\widehat{k}\end{array}|z\right)& =& \frac{h(z)}{h(w)}\frac{h(a_{jk}w+w)}{h(a_{jk}w)}(jk).\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.21)
Here

$$a_{jk}=\overline{a_j}\overline{a_k},\overline{a_j}=(a+\rho ,v_j),$$

and $`\rho ={\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}(n1j)\widehat{j}`$ is the half sum of the positive roots.

Jimbo, Miwa and Okado  introduced the intertwining vectors to show the equivalence between the $`_n`$-symmetric model and the $`A_{n1}^{(1)}`$ model. Let

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill t_b^a(z):=& {}_{}{}^{t}(t_b^{a(0)}(z),\mathrm{},t_b^{a(n1)}(z)),\hfill \\ \hfill t_b^{a(i)}(z):=& \{\begin{array}{cc}\theta ^{(i)}(z+\delta nw\overline{a}_j)\hfill & \text{if }b=a+\overline{ϵ}_j,\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise,}\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.22)
where $`\delta `$ is an arbitrary constant. Then we have the so-called vertex-face correspondence :

$$\overline{R}(z_1z_2)t_d^a(z_1)t_c^d(z_2)=\underset{b}{}\overline{W}\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ d& c\end{array}|z_1z_2\right)t_c^b(z_1)t_b^a(z_2).$$
(3.23)
Thanks to (3.23) the Boltzmann weights (3.21) solve the face-type Yang-Baxter equation :

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \underset{g}{}\overline{W}\left(\begin{array}{cc}b& c\\ g& d\end{array}|z_1z_2\right)\overline{W}\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ f& g\end{array}|z_1z_3\right)\overline{W}\left(\begin{array}{cc}f& g\\ e& d\end{array}|z_2z_3\right)\\ & \\ =& \underset{g}{}\overline{W}\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ g& c\end{array}|z_2z_3\right)\overline{W}\left(\begin{array}{cc}g& c\\ e& d\end{array}|z_1z_3\right)\overline{W}\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& g\\ f& e\end{array}|z_1z_2\right).\end{array}$$
(3.24)
Let us now consider the boundary $`A_{n1}^{(1)}`$-face model. By analogy with the bulk case, we find the following Proposition:

###### Proposition 3.7

Assume that the existence of boundary weights $`V`$’s satisfying

$$\overline{K}(z)t_c^a(z)=\underset{b}{}\overline{V}\left(a\begin{array}{c}b\\ c\end{array}|z\right)t_b^a(z).$$
(3.25)
Then $`\overline{V}`$ solves the face-type reflection equation

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \underset{b,e}{}\overline{V}\left(f\begin{array}{c}g\\ e\end{array}|z_2\right)\overline{W}\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& f\\ b& e\end{array}|z_1+z_2\right)\overline{V}\left(b\begin{array}{c}e\\ c\end{array}|z_1\right)\overline{W}\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ d& c\end{array}|z_1z_2\right)\hfill \\ & \\ =& \underset{b,e}{}\overline{W}\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& f\\ b& g\end{array}|z_1z_2\right)\overline{V}\left(b\begin{array}{c}g\\ e\end{array}|z_1\right)\overline{W}\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ d& e\end{array}|z_1+z_2\right)\overline{V}\left(d\begin{array}{c}e\\ c\end{array}|z_2\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.26)
In order to solve (3.25), let us recall the dual intertwining vectors

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill t_a^b(z):=& (t_{a(0)}^b(z),\mathrm{},t_{a(n1)}^b(z)),\hfill \\ \hfill t_{a(i)}^{a+\widehat{j}}(z):=& (\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^a(z))_j^i/det\mathrm{\Phi }^a(z).\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.27)
Here $`\mathrm{\Phi }^a(z)`$ is a matrix whose $`(i,j)`$-component is $`t_{a+\widehat{j}}^{a(i)}(z)`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^a(z)`$ is a cofactor matrix of $`\mathrm{\Phi }^a(z)`$. Note that $`t_b^a(z)`$ is a column vector while $`t_a^b(z)`$ is a row vector. Thus by the rule of multiplication of matrices, $`t_a^b(z)t_d^c(z^{})`$ represents a scalar function while $`t_b^a(z)t_d^c(z^{})`$ does a function-valued matrix. Since $`t_b^a(z)`$ and $`t_a^b(z)`$ enjoy the following orthogonal properties

$`t_a^{a+\widehat{j}}(z)t_{a+\widehat{k}}^a(z)`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{jk},`$ (3.28)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}t_{a+\overline{ϵ}_j}^a(z)t_a^{a+\widehat{j}}(z)`$ $`=`$ $`I_n,`$ (3.29)
the boundary analogue of the vertex-face correspondence (3.25) is equivalent to

$$\overline{V}\left(a\begin{array}{c}b\\ c\end{array}|z\right)=t_a^b(z)K(z)t_c^a(z)=\underset{j,k}{}t_{a(j)}^b(z)K(z)_k^jt_c^{a(k)}(z).$$
(3.30)
###### Proposition 3.8

Let

$$V\left(a\begin{array}{c}b\\ c\end{array}|z\right)=\frac{1}{\lambda (z)}\overline{V}\left(a\begin{array}{c}b\\ c\end{array}|z\right),$$

where $`\lambda (z)`$ is the same scalar function as for $`K(z)`$, and $`\overline{V}`$ is defined by (3.30). Then the boundary weights $`V`$’s satisfy the initial condition

$$V\left(a\begin{array}{c}b\\ c\end{array}|0\right)=\delta _c^b,$$
(3.31)
and the inversion relation

$$\underset{g}{}V\left(a\begin{array}{c}b\\ g\end{array}|z\right)V\left(a\begin{array}{c}g\\ c\end{array}|z\right)=\delta _c^b.$$
(3.32)
\[Proof\] The initial condition (3.31) follows from that for $`K(z)`$ and (3.28). The inversion relation (3.32) follows from (3.29), (3.11) and (3.28). $`\mathrm{}`$

The boundary weights $`V\left(a\begin{array}{c}b\\ c\end{array}|z\right)`$ are non-diagonal in the sense that they do not vanish even for $`bc`$ as a function of $`z`$. Hence (3.30) does not coincide with the diagonal solution of (3.26) involving the bulk Boltzmann weights for the $`A_{n1}^{(1)}`$-face model given in  for $`n2`$. Such disagreement indicates that there may exist unknown solution to (3.1) corresponding to the solution given in  and also unknown solution to (3.26) corresponding to our $`K`$-matrix, throughout the boundary vertex-face correspondence.

### 3.5 Commuting transfer matrix

The transfer matrix with $`L`$ columns,

is expressed in terms of $`R`$ and $`K`$-matrices as follows :

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill T_L(z_1,z_2)& =& \text{Tr}_0K_+(z_1)𝒯(z_1,z_2)\hfill \\ \hfill 𝒯(z_1,z_2)& =& \text{Tr}_0𝒯(z_1z_2)^1K_{}(z_1)𝒯(z_1z_2).\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.33)
Here

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill 𝒯(z_1z_2)& =& R_{01}^{V_{z_1},V_{z_2}}\mathrm{}R_{0L}^{V_{z_1},V_{z_2}}\text{End}(V_0V_1\mathrm{}V_L),\hfill \\ \hfill 𝒯(z_1z_2)^1& =& R_{L0}^{V_{z_2},V_{z_1}}\mathrm{}R_{10}^{V_{z_2},V_{z_1}}\text{End}(V_0V_1\mathrm{}V_L),\hfill \end{array}$$

are monodromy matrices satisfying

$$R_{12}(z_1z_2)𝒯_1(z_1)𝒯_2(z_2)=𝒯_2(z_2)𝒯_1(z_1)R_{12}(z_1z_1^{}),$$
(3.34)
and $`\text{T}r_0`$ signifies the trance on the auxiliary space associated with the spectral parameters $`z_1`$ and $`z_1`$. Note that the boundary monodromy matrix $`𝒯(z,z^{})`$ is a solution to the reflection equation:

$$𝒯_2(z_1^{},z_2)R_{21}(z_1+z_2)𝒯_1(z_1,z_2)R_{12}(z_1z_2)=R_{21}(z_1^{}z_1)𝒯_1(z_1,z_2)R_{12}(z_1+z_1^{})𝒯_2(z_1^{},z_2).$$
(3.35)
###### Proposition 3.9

If one takes

$$K_{}(z)=K(z,v),K_+(z)=K(z\frac{n}{2}w,v^{})\text{End}(V_0),$$
(3.36)
where $`v`$ and $`v^{}`$ are arbitrary parameters, the transfer matrices (3.33) commute each other :

$$[T_L(z_1,z_2),T_L(z_1^{},z_2)]=0.$$
(3.37)
\[Proof\] From the crossing symmetry (2.28) and the unitarity (2.27) we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}& T_L(z_1,z_2)T_L(z_1^{},z_2)\hfill \\ =& \text{Tr}_1K_1(z_1\frac{n}{2}w)𝒯_1(z_1,z_2)\text{Tr}_2K_2(z_1^{}\frac{n}{2}w)𝒯_2(z_1^{},z_2)\hfill \\ =& \text{Tr}_1\text{Tr}_2K_2(z_1^{}\frac{n}{2}w)K_1^{t_1}(z_1\frac{n}{2}w)𝒯_1^{t_1}(z_1,z_2)𝒯_2(z_1^{},z_2)\hfill \\ =& \text{Tr}_1\text{Tr}_2K_2(z_1^{}\frac{n}{2}w)K_1^{t_1}(z_1\frac{n}{2}w)R_{21}^{t_1}(z_1z_2nw)R_{12}^{t_1}(z_1+z_2)𝒯_1^{t_1}(z_1,z_2)𝒯_2(z_1^{},z_2)\hfill \\ =& \text{Tr}_1\text{Tr}_2K_2(z_1^{}\frac{n}{2}w)(R_{21}(z_1z_2nw)K_1(z_1\frac{n}{2}w))^{t_1}(𝒯_1(z_1,z_2)R_{12}(z_1+z_2))^{t_1}𝒯_2(z_1^{},z_2)\hfill \\ =& \text{Tr}_1\text{Tr}_2K_2(z_1^{}\frac{n}{2}w)R_{21}(z_1z_2nw)K_1(z_1\frac{n}{2}w)R_{12}(z_2z_1)\hfill \\ \times & R_{21}(z_1z_2)𝒯_1(z_1,z_2)R_{12}(z_1+z_2)𝒯_2(z_1^{},z_2),\hfill \end{array}$$

where we use $`\text{Tr}AB=\text{Tr}A^tB^t`$. Furthermore, from (3.35) we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}=& \text{Tr}_1\text{Tr}_2R_{21}(z_2z_1)K_1(z_1\frac{n}{2}w)R_{12}(z_1z_2nw)K_2(z_1^{}\frac{n}{2}w)\hfill \\ \times & 𝒯_2(z_1^{},z_2)R_{21}(z_1+z_2)𝒯_1(z_1,z_2)R_{12}(z_1z_2)\hfill \\ =& \text{Tr}_1\text{Tr}_2K_1(z_1\frac{n}{2}w)(K_2(z_1^{}\frac{n}{2}w)R_{12}(z_1z_2nw))^{t_2}(R_{21}(z_1+z_2)𝒯_2(z_1^{},z_2))^{t_2}𝒯_1(z_1,z_2)\hfill \\ =& \text{Tr}_1\text{Tr}_2K_1(z_1\frac{n}{2}w)(R_{12}(z_1z_2nw)K_2(z_1^{}\frac{n}{2}w))^{t_2}(𝒯_2(z_1^{},z_2)R_{21}(z_1+z_2))^{t_2}𝒯_1(z_1,z_2)\hfill \\ =& \text{Tr}_1\text{Tr}_2K_1(z_1\frac{n}{2}w)K_2^{t_2}(z_1^{}\frac{n}{2}w)𝒯_2^{t_2}(z_1^{},z_2)𝒯_1(z_1,z_2)\hfill \\ =& T_L(z_1^{},z_2)T_L(z_1,z_2),\hfill \end{array}$$

that implies the commutativity (3.37). $`\mathrm{}`$

## 4 Boundary CTM bootstrap

In this section we construct lattice realization of vertex operators and the boundary vacuum states for the boundary Belavin model.

### 4.1 Partition function

Let us consider the inhomogeneous lattice $`_{LM}`$ with $`2M`$ horizontal lines carrying alternating spectral parameters $`z_1`$ and $`z_1`$ and $`L(0`$ mod $`n`$) vertical lines carrying the spectral parameter $`z_2`$ as below:

The lattice $`_{LM}`$ and the $`i`$-th ground state.

The arrows stand for the orientation of the spectral parameters. The dots $``$’s stand for the boundary interaction $`K(z)`$.

For the sake of simplicity, we here denote the state $`i\pm 1`$ and $`i\pm 2`$ by $`i_\pm `$ and $`i_{\pm \pm }`$, respectively.

A zigzag line on which the state variables take $`i+1`$ is presented for transparency.

In this paper we restrict ourselves to the principal regime $`0<t<q<r<u_\pm <1`$, where $`u_\pm =\mathrm{exp}\left(\pi \sqrt{1}(z_1\pm z_2)\right)`$. In this regime of parameters, the bulk Boltzmann weights of the type $`R(z)_{j,j+1}^{j+1,j}`$ dominates the others; and the boundary Boltzmann weight $`K_i^i(z)`$ is the largest among $`K_i^j(z)`$ for fixed $`i`$. Thus in the low temperature limit $`t,q0`$, only the configuration such that the spin variables take the same value along the zigzag line (see the above figure) and increase by one in the direction from West to East, is possible. We call it a configuration of the ground state labeled by the boundary state $`i_n`$. Actually, the boundary weight $`K_0^0(z)`$ (and $`K_m^m(z)`$ if $`n`$ is even) are the largest among $`K_i^i(z)`$. We therefore have only one real ground state for odd $`n`$ and two for even $`n`$. Nevertheless, we regard all $`n`$ kinds of configurations as the ground states.

In what follows, we fix one of them (say, $`i`$) and define all the correlation functions in terms of the low-temperature series expansion (i.e., the formal power series of $`t`$ and $`q`$). Then the lowest order of them comes from the $`i`$-th ground state configuration. Furthermore, any finite order contribution is derived from the configurations which differ from that of the $`i`$-th ground state by altering a finite number of spins. It is equivalent to taking the GNS representation obtained from the $`i`$-th ground state ($`i`$-th GNS representation) as the Hilbert space. It is expected that the correlation function defined in such a way is an analytic function which has a finite convergence radius if there exists the phase transition at a finite temperature.

Following  we conjecture the partition function $`Z_{LM}^{(i)}(z_1,z_2)`$ of this model behaves in the thermodynamic limit $`L,M\mathrm{}`$ as

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \mathrm{log}Z_{LM}^{(i)}(z_1,z_2)& & LM\left(\mathrm{log}\mu ^{(i)}(z_1z_2)+\mathrm{log}\mu ^{(i)}(z_1+z_2)\right)\hfill \\ & +& M\left(\mathrm{log}\nu ^{(i)}(z_1)+\mathrm{log}\nu ^{(i)}(z_1\frac{n}{2}w)\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.1)
Here $`\mu ^{(i)}(z)`$ is the partition function per cite for the bulk theory, and $`\nu ^{(i)}(z)`$ is the that per boundary cite, which are normalized as follows:

$$\mu ^{(i)}(z)=1,\nu ^{(0)}(z)=1,\nu ^{(m)}(z)=1,\text{if }n\text{ is even}.$$
(4.2)
Next we consider the boundary CTM lattice as below:

The inhomogeneous CTM lattice split into four sections.

We denote the SW and NW corner transfer matrices by $`A_{SW}^{(i)}(z_1,z_2)`$ and $`A_{NW}^{(i)}(z_1,z_2)`$, respectively; and also denote the upper and lower lines of $`K(z)`$ by $`{}_{i}{}^{}B|`$ and $`|B_i`$, respectively. Let

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill ^{(i)}& :=& \{\mathrm{}v_{p(3)}v_{p(2)}v_{p(1)}|p(j)_n,p(j)=i+1j\text{ (mod }n\text{) for }j1\},\hfill \\ \hfill \overline{}^{(i)}& :=& \{\mathrm{}v_{p(3)}v_{p(2)}v_{p(1)}|p(j)_n,p(j)=i\text{ (mod }n\text{) for }j1\},\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.3)
and $`^{(i)}`$ and $`\overline{}^{(i)}`$ be their dual spaces. Then in the infinite lattice limit we conclude that $`|B_i\overline{}`$, $`{}_{i}{}^{}B|\overline{}^{(i)}`$, and

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill A_{SW}^{(i)}(z_1,z_2):& \overline{}^{(i)}^{(i)},\hfill \\ \hfill A_{NW}^{(i)}(z_1,z_2):& ^{(i)}\overline{}^{(i)}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.4)
The partition function is given as follows:

$$Z^{(i)}(z_1,z_2)={}_{i}{}^{}B|A_{NW}^{(i)}(z_1,z_2)A_{SW}^{(i)}(z_1,z_2)|B_{i}^{}.$$
(4.5)
### 4.2 Vertex operators

Let us introduce the type I vertex operators

where the sub/superscripts $`(i\pm 1,i)`$ specify the spaces intertwined by the vertex operators. We often suppress these sub/superscripts when we have no fear of confusion.

It follows from the Yang–Baxter equation that these vertex operators satisfy the following commutation relations :

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \varphi ^{j_2}(z_2)\varphi ^{j_1}(z_1)& =& \underset{j_1^{},j_2^{}}{}(R^{V_{z_1},V_{z_2}})_{j_1^{}j_2^{}}^{j_1j_2}\varphi ^{j_1^{}}(z_1)\varphi ^{j_2^{}}(z_2),\hfill \\ \hfill \varphi ^{j_2}(z_2)\varphi ^{j_1}(z_1)& =& \underset{j_1^{},j_2^{}}{}(R^{V_{z_1},V_{z_2}^{}})_{j_1^{}j_2^{}}^{j_1j_2}\varphi ^{j_1^{}}(z_1)\varphi ^{j_2^{}}(z_2),\hfill \\ \hfill \varphi ^{j_2}(z_2)\varphi ^{j_1}(z_1)& =& \underset{j_1^{},j_2^{}}{}(R^{V_{z_1}^{},V_{z_2}^{}})_{j_1^{}j_2^{}}^{j_1j_2}\varphi ^{j_1^{}}(z_1)\varphi ^{j_2^{}}(z_2).\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.6)
Furthermore, the unitarity relations for $`R`$-matrices imply the inversion relation of the vertex operators:

$$\underset{j}{}\varphi _j(z)\varphi ^j(z)=1,\underset{j}{}\varphi _j^{}(z)\varphi ^j(z)=1.$$
(4.7)
From the crossing symmetry we have

$$\varphi ^j(z)=\varphi _j(z\frac{n}{2}w),\varphi _j^{}(z)=\varphi ^j(z\frac{n}{2}w).$$
(4.8)
Using these vertex operators, the transfer matrix for the semi-infinite lattice is defined as follow:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill T_B(z_1,z_2)& =& \underset{j,k}{}\varphi _j(z_1+z_2)K_k^j(z_1)\varphi ^k(z_1z_2)\hfill \\ & =& \underset{j,k}{}\varphi ^j(z_1\frac{n}{2}wz_2)K_k^j(z_1)\varphi ^k(z_1z_2).\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.9)
If the $`i`$-th vauuam states $`|\text{vac}_i`$ and $`{}_{i}{}^{}\text{vac}|`$ satisfy the following reflection properties:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \underset{k}{}K_k^j(z)\varphi ^k(z)|\text{vac}_i& =& \nu ^{(i)}(z)\varphi ^j(z)|\text{vac}_i,\hfill \\ \hfill {}_{i}{}^{}\text{vac}|\underset{k}{}\varphi _k(z)K_j^k(z)& =& \nu ^{(i)}(z){}_{i}{}^{}\text{vac}|\varphi _j(z),\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.10)
these vacuums are the eigenstates of $`T_B(z,0)`$ associated with the eigenvalues $`\nu ^{(i)}(z)`$, respectively:

$$T_B(z,0)|\text{vac}_i=\nu ^{(i)}(z)|\text{vac}_i,_i\text{vac}|T_B(z,0)=\nu ^{(i)}(z){}_{i}{}^{}\text{vac}|.$$

For $`n=2`$, it is suffices to consider only two types vertex operators $`\varphi ^j(z)`$ and $`\varphi _j(z)`$ because of $`\varphi ^j(z)=\varphi _{1j}(zw)`$ and $`\varphi _j^{}(z)=\varphi ^{1j}(zw)`$ . Furthermore, from $`T_B(z_1,z_2)=T_B(z_1w,z_2)`$ for $`n=2`$, we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \underset{j,k}{}\varphi ^{1j}(z_1wz_2)K_k^j(z_1)\varphi ^k(z_1z_2)\hfill \\ =& \underset{j^{},k^{}}{}\varphi ^{1k^{}}(z_1z_2)K_j^{}^k^{}(z_1w)\varphi ^j^{}(z_1wz_2)\hfill \\ =& \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{j,k}{j^{},k^{}}}{}R(2z_1w)_{1jk}^{j^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}k^{}}\varphi ^{1j}(z_1wz_2)\varphi ^k(z_1z_2)K_k^{}^j^{}(z_1w),\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.11)
which implies the boundary crossing symmetry (3.16).

The crucial point in (4.11) consists in the self-duality $`\varphi _j^{}(z)=\varphi ^{1j}(z)`$ for $`n=2`$. Thus the boundary crossing symmetry (3.16) does not have a simple generalization for $`n>2`$. We should rather regard the RHS of (3.16) for general $`n`$ as the definition of the dual $`K`$-matrix. In order to see that, let us repeat the reduction (4.11) for general $`n`$. Using eqs. (4.8), (4.10), (4.6) and (4.7) we have

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \nu ^{(i)}(z)& =& \underset{j^{},k^{}}{}{}_{i}{}^{}\text{vac}|\varphi ^k^{}(z\frac{n}{2}w)K_j^{}^k^{}(z)\varphi ^j^{}(z)|\text{vac}_{i}^{}\hfill \\ & =& \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{j,k}{j^{},k^{}}}{}{}_{i}{}^{}\text{vac}|\varphi ^j(z)(R^{V_z,V_{znw/2}^{}})_{jk}^{j^{}k^{}}K_j^{}^k^{}(z)\varphi ^k(z\frac{n}{2}w)|\text{vac}_{i}^{}\hfill \\ & =& \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{j,k}{j^{},k^{}}}{}{}_{i}{}^{}\text{vac}|\varphi _j^{}(z\frac{n}{2}w)(R^{V_z,V_{znw/2}^{}})_{jk}^{j^{}k^{}}K_j^{}^k^{}(z)\varphi ^k(z\frac{n}{2}w)|\text{vac}_{i}^{}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Thus, if we define the dual $`K`$-matrix by

$$K^{}(z\frac{n}{2}w)_k^j:=\underset{j^{},k^{}}{}(R^{V_z,V_{znw/2}^{}})_{jk}^{j^{}k^{}}K(z)_j^{}^k^{},$$
(4.12)
then the following dual reflection properties hold:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \underset{k}{}K^{}(z)_k^j\varphi ^k(z)|\text{vac}_i& =& \nu ^{(i)}(z\frac{n}{2}w)\varphi ^j(z)|\text{vac}_i,\hfill \\ \hfill {}_{i}{}^{}\text{vac}|\underset{k}{}\varphi _k^{}(z)K^{}(z)_j^k& =& \nu ^{(i)}(z\frac{n}{2}w){}_{i}{}^{}\text{vac}|\varphi _j^{}(z).\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.13)
The associativity condition of the algebra (4.6) and (4.13) implies the reflection equations involving $`K^{}`$-matrices:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill K_2(z_2)R_{21}^{V_{z_2},V_{z_1}^{}}K_1^{}(z_1)R_{12}^{V_{z_1}^{},V_{z_2}}& =& R_{21}^{V_{z_2},V_{z_1}^{}}K_1^{}(z_1)R_{12}^{V_{z_1}^{},V_{z_2}}K_2(z_2),\hfill \\ \hfill K_2^{}(z_2)R_{21}^{V_{z_2}^{},V_{z_1}^{}}K_1^{}(z_1)R_{12}^{V_{z_1}^{},V_{z_2}^{}}& =& R_{21}^{V_{z_2}^{},V_{z_1}^{}}K_1^{}(z_1)R_{12}^{V_{z_1}^{},V_{z_2}^{}}K_2^{}(z_2).\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.14)
### 4.3 Derivation of the reflection properties

In this subsection we derive the reflection properties (4.10,4.13). For that purpose we introduce following further two types of vertex operators:

where the sub/superscripts $`(i\pm 1,i)`$ specify the spaces intertwined by the vertex operators. Hereafter we also suppress these sub/superscripts.

From the reflection equation (3.1)

we have the following relation:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}K(z_3)_k^j\phi ^k(z_1,z_3)|B_i`$ $`=`$ $`\nu ^{(i)}(z_3)\phi ^j(z_1,z_3)|B_i.`$ (4.15)
By similar argument we have

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}{}_{i}{}^{}B|\phi _k(z_1,z_3)K(z_3)_j^k`$ $`=`$ $`\nu ^{(i)}(z_3){}_{i}{}^{}B|\phi _j(z_1,z_3),`$ (4.16)
Furthermore, we have the relations

$`A_{SW}^{(i1)}(z_1,z_2)\phi ^j(z_1,z_3)|B_i`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi ^j(z_3z_2)A_{SW}^{(i)}(z_1,z_2)|B_i,`$ (4.17)
$`{}_{i}{}^{}B|\phi _j(z_1,z_3)A_{NW}^{(i1)}(z_1,z_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{}_{i}{}^{}B|A_{NW}^{(i)}(z_1,z_2)\varphi _j(z_2z_3).`$ (4.18)
These are based on the unitarity and Yang-Baxter relation of $`R`$-matrix in the thermodynamic limit. The unitarity (2.28) allows us to obtain

Using the Yang–Baxter equation (2.8) we get

By successive use of the YBE and the unitarity we can bring the line associated with the spectral parameter $`z_3`$ to the directions pointed by dotted lines in the above figure as far as we like. Thus we find

Those manipulation implies (4.17) because the contribution of Boltzmann weights along the tail graphically represented in the figure by the dotted line is unity in the thermodynamic limit. The relation (4.18) can be similarly obtained.

Applying $`A_{SW}^{(i1)}(z_1,z_2)`$ (resp. $`A_{NW}^{(i1)}(z_1,z_2)`$) from the left (resp. right) to both sides of (4.15) (resp. (4.16)) and using (4.17) (resp. (4.18)) we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}K(z_3)_k^j\varphi ^k(z_3z_2)A_{SW}^{(i)}(z_1,z_2)|B_i`$ $`=`$ $`\nu ^{(i)}(z_3)\varphi ^j(z_3z_2)A_{SW}^{(i)}(z_1,z_2)|B_i,`$ (4.19)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}{}_{i}{}^{}B|A_{NW}^{(i)}(z_1,z_2)\varphi _k(z_2+z_3)K(z_3)_j^k`$ $`=`$ $`\nu ^{(i)}(z_3){}_{i}{}^{}B|A_{NW}^{(i)}(z_1,z_2)\varphi _j(z_2z_3).`$ (4.20)
Taking account of (4.19) and (4.20) with (4.10) we find the following identification

$$|\text{vac}_i=A_{SW}^{(i)}(z_1,z_2=0)|B_i,_i\text{vac}|={}_{i}{}^{}B|A_{SW}^{(i)}(z_1,z_2=0).$$
(4.21)
From the identification (4.21) and the definition of the dual $`K`$-matrix (4.12) we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}K^{}(z_3)_k^j\varphi ^k(z_3z_2)A_{SW}^{(i)}(z_1,z_2)|B_i`$ $`=`$ $`\nu ^{(i)}(z_3\frac{n}{2}w)\varphi ^j(z_3z_2)A_{SW}^{(i)}(z_1,z_2)|B_i,`$ (4.22)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}{}_{i}{}^{}B|A_{NW}^{(i)}(z_1,z_2)\varphi _k^{}(z_2+z_3)K^{}(z_3)_j^k`$ $`=`$ $`\nu ^{(i)}(z_3\frac{n}{2}w){}_{i}{}^{}B|A_{NW}^{(i)}(z_1,z_2)\varphi _j^{}(z_2z_3).`$ (4.23)
## 5 Correlation functions and difference equations

The relations appeared in the previous section are not rigorous because all the objects are defined on the infinite lattice. Nevertheless we assume that eqs. (4.1–4.23) are exactly correct on the basis of the CTM bootstrap method, which is supported by some numerical calculations  and consistency with the vertex operator method .

### 5.1 Local state probabilities

Let us consider the correlation function on the dislocated CTM lattice

Thanks to (4.17) and (4.18) we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}& G_N^{(i)}(z,z^{}|z_1^{},\mathrm{},z_N^{},z_N,\mathrm{},z_1)^{j_1^{},\mathrm{},j_N^{},j_N,\mathrm{},j_1}\hfill \\ =& {}_{i}{}^{}B|A_{SW}^{(i)}(z,z^{})\varphi _{j_1^{}}(z^{}z_1^{})\mathrm{}\varphi _{j_N^{}}(z^{}z_N^{})\varphi ^{j_N}(z_Nz^{})\mathrm{}\varphi ^{j_1}(z_1z^{})A_{SW}^{(i)}(z,z^{})|B_{i}^{}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(5.1)
Thus the correlation function $`G_N^{(i)}(z,z^{}|z_1^{},\mathrm{},z_N^{},z_N,\mathrm{},z_1)^{j_1^{},\mathrm{},j_N^{},j_N,\mathrm{},j_1}`$ normalized by the partition function (4.5) is called the $`N`$-point local state probability of the boundary Belavin model if we set $`z_l=z_l^{}=z^{}=0`$, $`j_l=j_l^{}`$ ($`1lN`$). Owing to the unitarity (4.7) we have

$$Z^{(i)}(z_1,z_2)=\underset{j_1,\mathrm{}j_N}{}G_N^{(i)}(z,z^{}|z_1,\mathrm{},z_N,z_N,\mathrm{},z_1)^{j_1,\mathrm{},j_N,j_N,\mathrm{},j_1}.$$
(5.2)
Thus we obtain the expression of the $`n`$-point local state probability:

$$P_N^{(i)}(j_1,\mathrm{},j_N)=\frac{G_N^{(i)}(z,0|0,\mathrm{},0)^{j_1,\mathrm{},j_N,j_N,\mathrm{},j_1}}{{\displaystyle \underset{j_1,\mathrm{}j_N}{}}G_N^{(i)}(z,0|0,\mathrm{},0)^{j_1,\mathrm{},j_N,j_N,\mathrm{},j_1}}$$
(5.3)
### 5.2 Boundary analogue of the quantum Knizhnik–Zamolodchikov equation

Only for $`n=2`$, the $`N`$-point function (5.1) is reduced to the following $`2N`$-point function of the form

$$\begin{array}{cc}& F_{2N}^{(i)}(z,z^{}|y_1,\mathrm{},y_N,z_N,\mathrm{},z_1)^{j_1^{},\mathrm{},j_N^{},j_N,\mathrm{},j_1}\hfill \\ =& {}_{i}{}^{}B|A_{SW}^{(i)}(z,z^{})\varphi ^{k_1}(y_1z^{})\mathrm{}\varphi ^{k_N}(y_Nz^{})\varphi ^{j_N}(z_Nz^{})\mathrm{}\varphi ^{j_1}(z_1z^{})A_{SW}^{(i)}(z,z^{})|B_{i}^{},\hfill \end{array}$$
(5.4)
by putting $`y_l=z_l^{}w`$ and $`k_l=1j_l^{}`$ for $`1lN`$ .

It is nothing to do with any local state probabilities for $`n>2`$, however, we can consider the correlation function of (5.4)-type:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill F_N^{(i)}(z,z^{}|z_1,\mathrm{},z_N)& =& \underset{j_1,\mathrm{},j_N}{}v_{j_1}\mathrm{}v_{j_N}F_N^{(i)}(z,z^{}|z_1,\mathrm{},z_N)^{j_1,\mathrm{},j_N},\hfill \\ \hfill F_N^{(i)}(z,z^{}|z_1,\mathrm{},z_N)^{j_1,\mathrm{},j_N}& =& {}_{i}{}^{}B|A_{SW}^{(i)}(z,z^{})\varphi ^{j_1}(z_1z^{})\mathrm{}\varphi ^{j_N}(z_Nz^{})A_{SW}^{(i)}(z,z^{})|B_{i}^{}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(5.5)
Here we assume that $`N0`$ mod $`n`$ for simplicity.

From the same discussion as in , we obtain

###### Proposition 5.1

The correlation function (5.5) satisfies the following relations:

$`1.R\text{-matrix symmetry}:\text{ }`$
$`P_{jj+1}F_N^{(i)}(z,z^{}|\mathrm{},z_{j+1},z_j,\mathrm{})`$ $`=`$ $`R_{jj+1}^{V_{z_j},V_{z_{j+1}}}F_N^{(i)}(z,z^{}|\mathrm{},z_j,z_{j+1},\mathrm{}),`$ (5.6)
$`2.\text{Reflection property }I:`$
$`K_N(z_N)F_N^{(i)}(z,z^{}|z_1,\mathrm{},z_{N1},z_N)`$ $`=`$ $`\nu ^{(i)}(z_N)F_N^{(i)}(z,z^{}|z_1,\mathrm{},z_{N1},z_N),`$ (5.7)
$`3.\text{Reflection property }II:`$
$`\widehat{K}_1(z_1)F_N^{(i)}(z,z^{}|z_1,z_2,\mathrm{},z_N)`$ $`=`$ $`\nu ^{(i)}(z_1)F_N^{(i)}(z,z^{}|z_1nw,z_2,\mathrm{},z_N),`$ (5.8)
where

$$\widehat{K}(z)v_k=\underset{j}{}v_jK^{}(z\frac{n}{2}w)_j^k.$$

\[Proof\] The first equation (5.6) follows from the commutation relation (4.6), while the second one (5.7) follows from (4.19). Finally, from the crossing relation (4.8) and (4.23)

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \widehat{K}_1(z_1)F_N^{(i)}(z,z^{}|z_1,z_2,\mathrm{},z_N)\hfill \\ \hfill =& \underset{j_1^{},j_1,\mathrm{},j_N}{}v_{j_1}\mathrm{}v_{j_N}{}_{i}{}^{}B|A_{SW}^{(i+N)}(z,z^{})\varphi _{j_1^{}}^{}(z^{}z_1\frac{n}{2}w)\mathrm{}A_{SW}^{(i)}(z,z^{})|B_{i}^{}K_1^{}(z_1\frac{n}{2}w)_{j_1}^{j_1^{}}\hfill \\ \hfill =& \nu ^{(i)}(z_1)\underset{j_1,\mathrm{},j_N}{}v_{j_1}\mathrm{}v_{j_N}{}_{i}{}^{}B|A_{SW}^{(i+N)}(z,z^{})\varphi _{j_1}^{}(z^{}+z_1+\frac{n}{2}w)\mathrm{}A_{SW}^{(i)}(z,z^{})|B_{i}^{},\hfill \end{array}$$

we obtain the last equation (5.8). $`\mathrm{}`$

Owing to the equations (5.65.8) we obtain

###### Theorem 5.2

The correlation function (5.5) satisfies the following difference equation:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill T_jF_N^{(i)}(z,z^{}|z_1,\mathrm{},z_N)& =& R_{jj1}^{V_{z_jnw},V_{z_{j1}}}\mathrm{}R_{j1}^{V_{z_jnw},V_{z_1}}\widehat{K}_j(z_j)\hfill \\ & \times & R_{1j}^{V_{z_1,V_{z_j}}}\mathrm{}R_{j1j}^{V_{z_{j1},V_{z_j}}}R_{j+1j}^{V_{z_{j+1},V_{z_j}}}\mathrm{}R_{Nj}^{V_{z_N,V_{z_j}}}\hfill \\ & \times & K_j(z_j)R_{jN}^{V_{z_j},V_{z_N}}\mathrm{}R_{jj+1}^{V_{z_j},V_{z_{j+1}}}F_N^{(i)}(z,z^{}|z_1,\mathrm{},z_N),\hfill \end{array}$$
(5.9)
where

$$T_jf(z,z^{}|z_1,\mathrm{},z_j,\mathrm{},z_N)=f(z,z^{}|z_1,\mathrm{},z_jnw,\mathrm{},z_N).$$

Using the crossing symmetries we have another expression of the correlation function on the dislocated CTM lattice for general $`n2`$:

$$\begin{array}{cc}& G_N^{(i)}(z,z^{}|z_1^{},\mathrm{},z_N^{},z_N,\mathrm{},z_1)^{j_1^{},\mathrm{},j_N^{},j_N,\mathrm{},j_1}\hfill \\ =& {}_{i}{}^{}B|A_{SW}^{(i)}(z,z^{})\varphi ^{j_1^{}}(z_1^{}z^{})\mathrm{}\varphi ^{j_N^{}}(z_N^{}z^{})\varphi ^{j_N}(z_Nz^{})\mathrm{}\varphi ^{j_1}(z_1z^{})A_{SW}^{(i)}(z,z^{})|B_{i}^{},\hfill \end{array}$$
(5.10)
where $`z_l^{}=z_l^{}\frac{n}{2}w`$ for $`1lN`$. We thus introduce the $`V^nV^n`$-valued correlation function

$$\begin{array}{cc}& G_N^{(i)}(z,z^{}|z_1^{},\mathrm{},z_N^{},z_N,\mathrm{},z_1)\hfill \\ =& \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{j_1,\mathrm{},j_N}{j_1^{},\mathrm{}j_n^{}}}{}v_{j_1^{}}^{}\mathrm{}v_{j_N^{}}^{}v_{j_N}\mathrm{}v_{j_1}G_N^{(i)}(z,z^{}|z_1^{},\mathrm{},z_N^{},z_N,\mathrm{},z_1)^{j_1^{},\mathrm{},j_N^{},j_N,\mathrm{},j_1}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(5.11)
Let us describe the $`R`$-matrix symmetry corresponding to (5.6).

###### Proposition 5.3

Let

$$\begin{array}{cc}& G_N^{(\sigma i)}(z,z^{}|x_{\sigma (1)},\mathrm{},x_{\sigma (2N)})\hfill \\ =& \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{j_1,\mathrm{},j_N}{j_1^{},\mathrm{}j_n^{}}}{}v_{j_1^{}}^{}\mathrm{}v_{j_N^{}}^{}v_{j_N}\mathrm{}v_{j_1}G_N^{(i)}(z,z^{}|x_{\sigma (1)},\mathrm{},x_{\sigma (2N)})^{k_{\sigma (1)},\mathrm{},k_{\sigma (N)}},\hfill \\ & G_N^{(\sigma i)}(z,z^{}|x_{\sigma (1)},\mathrm{},x_{\sigma (2N)})^{k_{\sigma (1)},\mathrm{},k_{\sigma (2N)}}\hfill \\ =& {}_{i}{}^{}B|A_{SW}^{(i)}(z,z^{})\mathrm{\Phi }^{\sigma (1)}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }^{\sigma (2N)}A_{SW}^{(i)}(z,z^{})|B_{i}^{}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(5.12)
Here $`\sigma `$ be the permutation of $`(1,\mathrm{},2N)`$, and

$$x_l=\{\begin{array}{cc}z_l^{}=z_l^{}\frac{n}{2}w,\hfill & (1lN);\hfill \\ z_{2N+1l},\hfill & (N+1l2N);\hfill \end{array}k_l=\{\begin{array}{cc}j_l^{},\hfill & (1lN);\hfill \\ j_{2N+1l},\hfill & (N+1l2N);\hfill \end{array}$$

and

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^l=\{\begin{array}{cc}\varphi ^{k_l}(x_lz^{}),\hfill & (1lN);\hfill \\ \varphi ^{k_l}(x_lz^{}),\hfill & (N+1l2N).\hfill \end{array}$$

Then the following $`R`$-matrix symmetry holds:

$$G_N^{(\sigma _ji)}(z,z^{}|\mathrm{},x_{\sigma (j+1)},x_{\sigma (j)},\mathrm{})=R_{\sigma (j),\sigma (j+1)}^{V^{\sigma (j)},V^{\sigma (j+1)}}G_N^{(\sigma i)}(z,z^{}|\mathrm{},x_{\sigma (j)},x_{\sigma (j+1)},\mathrm{}),$$
(5.13)
where

$$V^l=\{\begin{array}{cc}V_{x_l}^{}\hfill & (1lN);\hfill \\ V_{x_l}\hfill & (N+1l2N);\hfill \end{array}$$

and $`\sigma _j`$ is the permutation of $`(1,\mathrm{},2N)`$ obtained from $`\sigma `$ by transposing $`\sigma (j)`$ and $`\sigma (j+1)`$.

The reflection properties can be similarly shown as before:

###### Proposition 5.4

The following relations holds:

$`K_{2N}(z_1)G_N^{(\pi i)}(z,z^{}|\mathrm{},z_1)`$ $`=`$ $`\nu ^{(i)}(z_1)G_N^{(\pi i)}(z,z^{}|\mathrm{},z_1),`$ (5.14)
$`\widehat{K}_{2N}(z_1)G_N^{(\rho i)}(z,z^{}|z_1,\mathrm{})`$ $`=`$ $`\nu ^{(i)}(z_1)T_1G_N^{(\rho i)}(z,z^{}|z_1,\mathrm{}),`$ (5.15)
$`\widehat{K}_1^{}(z_1^{})G_N^{(\varsigma i)}(z,z^{}|z_1^{},\mathrm{})`$ $`=`$ $`\nu ^{(i)}(z_1^{}\frac{n}{2}w)T_1G_N^{(\varsigma i)}(z,z^{}|z_1^{},\mathrm{}),`$ (5.16)
$`K_1^{}(z_1^{})G_N^{(\tau i)}(z,z^{}|\mathrm{},z_1^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\nu ^{(i)}(z_1^{}\frac{n}{2}w)G_N^{(\tau i)}(z,z^{}|\mathrm{},z_1^{}),`$ (5.17)
Here,

$$\widehat{K}^{}(z)v_k^{}=\underset{j}{}v_j^{}K(z\frac{n}{2}w)_j^k,$$

and $`\pi `$, $`\rho `$, $`\varsigma `$, $`\tau 𝔖_{2N}`$ such that

$$\pi (2N)=2N,\rho (1)=2N,\varsigma (1)=1,\tau (2N)=1.$$

\[Proof\] The relation (5.13) is evident from the commutation relations (4.6). The last two (5.16) and (5.17) follow from (4.20), (4.8) and (4.22). $`\mathrm{}`$

From Propositions 5.3 and 5.4, we have

###### Theorem 5.5

Let $`V_1^l=V_{x_l}`$, $`V_2^l=V_{x_lnw}`$. Then the following difference equations holds

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill T_lG_N^{(i)}(z,z^{}|x_1,\mathrm{},x_{2N})& =& R_{ll1}^{V_2^l,V^{l1}}\mathrm{}R_{l\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}^{V_2^l,V^1}\widehat{K}_l^{}(x_l)\hfill \\ & \times & R_{1l}^{V^1,V_1^l}\mathrm{}R_{l1l}^{V^{l1},V_1^l}R_{l+1l}^{V^{l+1},V_1^l}\mathrm{}R_{2Nl}^{V^{2N},V_1^l}\hfill \\ & \times & K_l^{}(x_l)R_{l\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}N}^{V^l,V^{2N}}\mathrm{}R_{ll+1}^{V^l,V^{l+1}}G_N^{(i)}(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{2N}),\hfill \end{array}$$
(5.18)
for $`1lN`$, and

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill T_lG_N^{(i)}(z,z^{}|x_1,\mathrm{},x_{2N})& =& R_{ll1}^{V_2^l,V^{l1}}\mathrm{}R_{l\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}^{V_2^l,V^1}\widehat{K}_l(x_l)\hfill \\ & \times & R_{1l}^{V^1,V_1^l}\mathrm{}R_{l1l}^{V^{l1},V_1^l}R_{l+1l}^{V^{l+1},V_1^l}\mathrm{}R_{2Nl}^{V^{2N},V_1^l}\hfill \\ & \times & K_l(x_l)R_{l\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}N}^{V^l,V^{2N}}\mathrm{}R_{ll+1}^{V^l,V^{l+1}}G_N^{(i)}(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{2N}),\hfill \end{array}$$
(5.19)
for $`N+1l2N`$.

Theorem 5.5 gives an elliptic generalization of the corresponding difference equations for the boundary $`U_q(\widehat{sl_n})`$-symmetric model .

### 5.3 Boundary spontaneous polarization

Applying the similar argument as in (5.9) to the simplest case $`N=1`$ we obtain the following difference equations:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill T_1G_1^{(i)}(z,z^{}|z_1^{},z_2)& =& \widehat{K}_1^{}(z_1^{})R_{21}^{V_{z_2},V_{z_1^{}}^{}}K_1^{}(z_1^{})R_{12}^{V_{z_1^{}}^{},V_{z_2}}G_1^{(i)}(z,z^{}|z_1^{},z_2),\hfill \\ \hfill T_2G_1^{(i)}(z,z^{}|z_1^{},z_2)& =& R_{21}^{V_{z_2nw},V_{z_1^{}}^{}}\widehat{K}_2(z_2)R_{12}^{V_{z_1^{}}^{},V_{z_2}}K_2(z_2)G_1^{(i)}(z,z^{}|z_1^{},z_2),\hfill \end{array}$$
(5.20)
where $`z_1^{}=z_1\frac{n}{2}w`$. It is difficult to get each element of $`G_1^{(i)}(z,z^{}|z_1,z_2)`$, however, it is possible to obtain the expression of the following sums:

$$P_m^{(i)}(z,z^{}|z_1,z_2)=\underset{j=0}{\overset{n1}{}}\omega ^{mj}G_1^{(i)}(z,z^{}|z_1\frac{n}{2}w,z_2)^{jj}.$$
(5.21)
Note that the boundary spontaneous polarization as the vacuum expectation value of the operator $`g`$ at boundary is expressed in terms of (5.21) as follows:

$$g^{(i)}=\frac{P_1^{(i)}(z,z^{}=0|z_1,z_2)}{P_0^{(i)}(z,z^{}=0|z_1,z_2)}|_{z_1=z_2=z^{}}.$$
(5.22)
Now we restrict ourselves to the free boundary condition $`r1`$ for simplicity. Since $`\underset{r1}{lim}𝒦(0)𝒦_0`$, the initial condition does not hold if we take $`\overline{K}(z)=𝒦_0𝒦(z)`$. Thus we should regard the $`K`$-matrix in this limit as $`\overline{K}(z)=𝒦(0)𝒦(z)`$. Under this identification the $`K`$-matrix behaves as

$$K(z)k(z)I_n,$$

where $`k(z)`$ is a scalar function of $`z`$.

Here we cite the following sum formula from 222 Note that there are typographical errors in the formula .

$$\underset{j=0}{\overset{n1}{}}\omega ^{mj}\frac{\theta ^{(j)}(z+w)}{\theta ^{(j)}(w)}=n\frac{h((zm)/n+w)_{lm}h((z+l)/n)}{h(w)_{l0}h(l/n)},$$
(5.23)
Then we see the dual $`K`$-matrix in the free boundary limit $`r1`$ behaves as

$$K^{}(z\frac{n}{2}w)k(z)f_0(u^2q^n)I_n,$$

where

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill f_m(u)& \hfill :=& \underset{j=0}{\overset{n1}{}}\omega ^{mj}R(z)_{0j}^{j0}\hfill \\ & \hfill =& \frac{1}{\overline{\kappa }(u)}\frac{(\omega ^mq^2u^{2/n};t^2)_{\mathrm{}}(t^2\omega ^mq^2u^{2/n};t^2)_{\mathrm{}}}{(\omega ^mu^{2/n};t^2)_{\mathrm{}}(t^2\omega ^mu^{2/n};t^2)_{\mathrm{}}}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(5.24)
The difference equations (5.20) are therefore reduced to

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill T_1G_1^{(i)}(z,z^{}|z_1^{},z_2)^{jj}& =& f_0(u_1^2q^n)\underset{k,l}{}R_{12}(z_1z_2)_{jk}^{kj}R_{21}(z_2z_1)_{kl}^{lk}G_1^{(i)}(z,z^{}|z_1^{},z_2)^{ll},\hfill \\ \hfill T_2G_1^{(i)}(z,z^{}|z_1^{},z_2)^{jj}& =& f_0(u_2^2q^n)\underset{k,l}{}R_{12}(z_1z_2)_{jk}^{kj}R_{21}(z_1z_2)_{kl}^{lk}G_1^{(i)}(z,z^{}|z_1^{},z_2)^{ll},\hfill \end{array}$$
(5.25)
where $`z_1^{}=z_1\frac{n}{2}w`$, and we use (2.28) and (3.11). Substituting (5.25) into (5.21) we obtain

$$P_m^{(i)}(z,z^{}|z_1,z_2)=C_m^{(i)}A(u_1)A(u_2)B_m(u_+)B_m(u_{}).$$
(5.26)
Here $`C_m^{(i)}`$ is a constant, and $`A(u)`$ and $`B_m(u)`$ are solutions to the following difference equations:

$$\frac{A(uq^n)}{A(u)}=f_0(u^2q^n),\frac{B_m(uq^n)}{B_m(u)}=f_m(u).$$
(5.27)
By solving these difference equations we obtain

$$A(u)=\psi (u^2)\frac{(q^2u^{4/n};t^2,q^4)_{\mathrm{}}(q^4u^{4/n};t^2,q^4)_{\mathrm{}}}{(t^2u^{4/n};t^2,q^4)_{\mathrm{}}(t^2q^2u^{4/n};t^2,q^4)_{\mathrm{}}},$$
(5.28)
where

$$\psi (u):=g_0(uq^{n/2})g(u^1q^{n/2}),g_0(u):=\frac{(q^{2+3n}u^2;t^2,q^{2n},q^{4n})_{\mathrm{}}(t^2q^{2+3n}u^2;t^2,q^{2n},q^{4n})_{\mathrm{}}}{(q^{3n}u^2;t^2,q^{2n},q^{4n})_{\mathrm{}}(t^2q^{3n}u^2;t^2,q^{2n},q^{4n})_{\mathrm{}}};$$

and

$$B_m(u)=\phi (u)\frac{(t^2\omega ^mu^{2/n};t^2)_{\mathrm{}}(t^2\omega ^mu^{2/n};t^2)_{\mathrm{}}}{(q^2\omega ^mu^{2/n};q^2)_{\mathrm{}}(q^2\omega ^mu^{2/n};q^2)_{\mathrm{}}},$$
(5.29)
where

$$\phi (u):=g(uq^{n/2})g(u^1q^{n/2}),g(u):=\frac{(q^{3n}u^2;t^2,q^{2n},q^{2n})_{\mathrm{}}(t^2q^{3n}u^2;t^2,q^{2n},q^{2n})_{\mathrm{}}}{(q^{2+n}u^2;t^2,q^{2n},q^{2n})_{\mathrm{}}(t^2q^{2+n}u^2;t^2,q^{2n},q^{2n})_{\mathrm{}}}.$$

Note that $`B_m(u)`$ is essentially the same as $`G^{(m)}(u)`$ in , which corresponds to the quantity (5.21) in the bulk theory.

From (5.26) we have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{P_1^{(i)}(z,z^{}=0|z_1,z_2)}{P_0^{(i)}(z,z^{}=0|z_1,z_2)}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_1^{(i)}}{C_0^{(i)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{B_1(u_+)B_1(u_{})}{B_0(u_+)B_0(u_{})}}.`$ (5.30)
Taking the low temperature limit $`t,q0`$, we find that the ratio $`C^{(i)}/C_0^{(i)}`$ should be equal to $`\omega ^i`$. We therefore obtain the boundary spontaneous polarization from (5.30) and (5.29) by putting $`u_+=u_{}=1`$

$$g^{(i)}=\omega ^i\frac{(q^2;q^2)_{\mathrm{}}^4}{(t^2;t^2)_{\mathrm{}}^4}\frac{(t^2\omega ;t^2)_{\mathrm{}}^2(t^2\omega ^1;t^4)_{\mathrm{}}^2}{(q^2\omega ;q^2)_{\mathrm{}}^2(q^2\omega ^1;q^4)_{\mathrm{}}^2}.$$
(5.31)
When $`n=2`$ this expression coincides with the previous result obtained in . We also emphasize that the boundary spontaneous polarization for the boundary Belavin model is exactly the square of that for the bulk Belavin model obtained in , up to a phase factor.

## 6 Summary and discussion

In this paper we have obtained two non-diagonal solutions of the reflection equation associated with Belavin’s $`_n`$-symmetric elliptic model. Unfortunately, our elliptic $`K`$-matrix is not connected with the diagonal boundary Boltzmann weights for the $`A_{n1}^{(1)}`$-face model  but the non-diagonal ones. It is thus an open problem to obtain the $`K`$-matrix corresponding to the boundary Boltzmann weights given in .

On the basis of the boundary CTM bootstrap we have derived a set of difference equations for correlation functions of the boundary Belavin model. By solving the simplest difference equations, we have obtained the boundary spontaneous polarization of the boundary Belavin model. Our result is consistent with the one given in  when $`n=2`$. The boundary spontaneous polarization is equal to the square of the bulk spontaneous polarization  up to a phase factor. The same phenomena were observed in .

In this paper we have shown that correlation functions of the boundary model satisfy the $`R`$-matrix symmetry and the reflection properties, which are the boundary analogue of Smirnov’s first two axioms . It may be interesting to construct integral formulae for correlation functions such that the integrand possesses the determinant structure as in Smirnov’s integral .

In  integral formulae for correlation functions of the boundary $`XYZ`$ model by using bosonization of vertex operators . In order to obtain the higher $`n`$ generalization of , the construction of free field realization of the boundary Belavin model is required. It is a very hard but important work.

## Acknowledgement

The author would like to thank A. Kuniba and A. Nakayashiki for discussion.


text:
# Untitled Document

McGILL-00-02
UA/NPPS-01-00

Polarized Photoproduction of Heavy Quarks in Next-to-Leading Order+

A.P. Contogourisa,b,1, Z. Merebashvilia,∗,2 and G. Grisposb,3

a. Department of Physics, McGill University, Montreal, Qc., H3A 2T8, Canada
b. Nuclear and Particle Physics, University of Athens, Athens 15771, Greece

ABSTRACT

The results of a next-to-leading order calculation of heavy quark production in longitudinally polarized photon-nucleon collisions are presented. At c.m. energy $`\sqrt{S}=10`$ GeV, for $`\stackrel{}{\gamma }+\stackrel{}{p}c+X`$, cross sections differential in the transverse momentum and rapidity of the charmed quark $`c`$ and the corresponding asymmetries are presented; also, as functions of $`\sqrt{S}`$, integrated cross sections, $`K`$-factors and the corresponding asymmetries are given. Errors in the asymmetries are estimated and the possibility to distinguish between three scerarios differing essentially in the polarized gluon distribution is discussed. ++footnotetext: Also supported by the Secretariat of Research and Technology of Greece and by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Counsil of Canada. **footnotetext: Present address: High Energy Physics Institute, Tbilisi State University, University St. 9, 380086 Tbilisi, Republic of Georgia. 11footnotetext: e-mail: apcont@physics.mcgill.ca, acontog@cc.uoa.gr 22footnotetext: e-mail: mereb@sun20.hepi.edu.ge 33footnotetext: e-mail: ggrispos@cc.uoa.gr

In spite of the welth of data on polarized deep inelastic scattering, the size and shape of the polarized gluon distribution $`\mathrm{\Delta }g(x)`$ remains a central problem in Spin Physics. Important progress needs experiments on processes with longitudinally polarized initial particles dominated by subprocesses with initial gluons. Such a process is

$$\stackrel{}{\gamma }+\stackrel{}{p}Q\overline{(Q)}+X,$$
(1)
where $`Q\overline{(Q)}`$ denotes heavy quark (antiquark), and, in general, it is dominated by the subprocess

$$\stackrel{}{\gamma }+\stackrel{}{g}Q+\overline{Q}$$
(2)
Proposals on experiments closely related to, or in, (1) exist in various stages of approval $`[`$1$`]`$.

On the other hand, the importance of determining higher order corrections (HOC) is well known. In this Letter we report the essential results of a calculation of the (next-to-leading) HOC.

The subprocesses contributing to (1) are as follows:

* At leading order (LO, $`\alpha \alpha _s`$) $`[`$2, 3$`]`$
* The Born subprocess of (2).
* The resolved $`\gamma `$ via $`\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{\overline{q}}Q\overline{Q}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{g}\stackrel{}{g}Q\overline{Q}`$. These involve the polarized photon structure functions $`\mathrm{\Delta }F_{q/\gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }F_{g/\gamma }`$, known only theoretically; hopefully, more information will eventually come from experiments on (1).
* At next-to-leading order (NLO, $`\alpha \alpha _s^2`$)
* The loop and Bremsstrahlung (Brems, i.e. $`\stackrel{}{\gamma }\stackrel{}{g}Q\overline{Q}g`$) associated with (2).
* The subprocess $`\stackrel{}{\gamma }\stackrel{}{q}Q\overline{Q}q`$

At NLO, scheme independent cross sections can be rigorously obtained only for the sum of resolved and direct contributions.

Notice, that the Abelian part of (B1) provides the HOC to

$$\stackrel{}{\gamma }\stackrel{}{\gamma }Q\overline{Q};$$
(3)
these HOC have been determined $`[`$4, 5$`]`$. HOC to the process (3) are of interest in themselves: In searches of the Higgs boson (mass $`m_H`$), for $`90`$ GeV$`m_H2m_W`$, in future $`\gamma \gamma `$ colliders, the dominant decay mode is $`Hb\overline{b}`$. With polarized $`\gamma `$’ s, the Born contribution to the background $`\stackrel{}{\gamma }\stackrel{}{\gamma }b\overline{b}`$ is much suppressed; however, due to gluon Brems, HOC have an important effect $`[`$4, 5$`]`$.

A calculation of NLO corrections for (1) already exists $`[`$6$`]`$. Our work, however, makes use of a different regularization scheme; also, in the treatment of the soft and collinear contributions, contrary to $`[`$6$`]`$ which separates them from the hard parts via a cut parameter, we apply more conventional methods $`[`$4$`]`$. Thus, in view of the importance of (1), we believe that an independent calculation is worthwhile. Comparisons, as much as possible, with the results of $`[`$6$`]`$ will be also reported.

Most conveniently, singularities are eliminated by dimensional methods. For polarized reactions this requires extension of the Dirac matrix $`\gamma _5`$ in $`n=42\epsilon `$ dimensions. There are several schemes for this, and, as in $`[`$4$`]`$, we follow that of dimensional reduction. This scheme violates the Ward identity between the vertex and quark self energy functions, but care has been taken by introducing a (finite) counterterm, as discussed in $`[`$4$`]`$. The wave function and mass renormalizations are carried on shell $`[`$4$`]`$.

In the present case charge renormalization is also required. We introduce

$$A_\epsilon \left(m\right)=\left(\frac{g}{4\pi }\right)^2\left(\frac{4\pi \mu ^2}{m^2}\right)^\epsilon \mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1+\epsilon \right)$$
(4)
where $`\mu `$ is an arbitrary mass scale entering in $`n=42\epsilon `$ dimensions via the change $`gg\mu ^\epsilon `$. Let $`N_{lf}=`$ number of light flavors and $`b\left(11N_c2N_{lf}\right)/6`$. Then we carry charge renormalization by introducing the counterterm

$$\frac{1}{\epsilon }\left(A_\epsilon \left(\mu _R\right)b\frac{1}{3}A_\epsilon \left(m\right)\right)$$
(4a)
where $`\mu _R`$ is a regularization mass. In this scheme graphs containing internal loops of the heavy quark $`Q`$ are subtracted out, so that $`Q`$ is decoupled. This is consistent with parton distributions of which the evolution is determined from split functions involving only light quarks, as is our case.

Finally, the $`gQ\overline{Q}`$ vertex was renormalized via the Slavnov-Taylor identities $`[`$7$`]`$.

Now, loop contributions to (B1) were determined via Passarino-Veltman techniques $`[`$8$`]`$; and $`23`$ parton contributions by going to the c.m. (Gottfried-Jackson) frame of $`\overline{Q}(Q)`$ and final $`g`$ $`[`$9, 4$`]`$. Also, (B2) was treated by going to the c.m. frame of $`\overline{Q}(Q)`$ and final $`q`$. The integrals listed in the Appendices A and C of $`[`$9$`]`$ have been very useful. Some remaining integrals are given in an Appendix of $`[`$10$`]`$.

Singularities $`1/\epsilon ^2`$ appearing in the cross sections of (B1) are cancelled by adding loops and Brems. The cancellation of singularities $`1/\epsilon `$ appearing in (B1) and (B2) required the addition of factorization counterterms. With $`p_1,p_2,p_3`$ the 4-momenta of $`\gamma `$, initial parton and observed $`Q(\overline{Q})`$, define

$$s=(p_1+p_2)^2,t=(p_3p_1)^2m^2,u=(p_3p_2)^2m^2.$$

Our counterterms are defined in the $`\overline{MS}`$ scheme and have the general form:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\frac{d\sigma _{cter}}{dtdu}=\frac{1}{\epsilon }\frac{K(\epsilon )}{s}\mathrm{\Delta }P_{ab}(x)\left(\frac{m^2}{M^2}\right)^\epsilon \mathrm{\Delta }\frac{d\widehat{\sigma }_B}{dt}$$
(5)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }P_{ab}(x)`$ split function (in $`n=4`$ dimensions, see below), $`x`$ proper dimensionless variable, $`M`$ the factorization scale, $`K(\epsilon )`$ a kinematic factor determined from phase-space and color and $`\mathrm{\Delta }d\widehat{\sigma }_B/dt`$ the Born cross section of a $`22`$ subprocess with $`s`$ and either $`t`$ or $`u`$ replaced by $`xs`$ and either $`xt`$ or $`xu`$. For $`\stackrel{}{\gamma }\stackrel{}{g}Q\overline{Q}g`$ the $`22`$ subprocess is (2); for $`\stackrel{}{\gamma }\stackrel{}{q}Q\overline{Q}q`$ one needs two counterterms, one involving (2) and another involving $`\stackrel{}{\overline{q}}\stackrel{}{q}Q\overline{Q}`$ $`[`$11$`]`$.

The resulting finite cross sections are convoluted with polarized parton distributions whose evolution is determined by 2-loop anomalous dimensions $`[`$12, 13$`]`$. On their basis, several groups have constructed sets of such distributions, differing mainly in the shape and size of $`\mathrm{\Delta }g`$. We use throughout the NLO sets of one group $`[`$14$`]`$. Also, we use the NLO expression of the running coupling constant $`\alpha _s(\mu )`$ with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=231`$ MeV and $`N=N_{lf}+1=4`$ flavours.

The scheme for extending $`\gamma _5`$ in $`n`$ dimensions used in $`[`$12, 13$`]`$ is not dimensional reduction, so the addition of certain conversion terms is necessary. The form of the conversion terms is easily given in terms of Eq. (5): In $`n`$ dimensions the split functions have the form:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }P_{ba}^n(x,\epsilon )=\mathrm{\Delta }P_{ba}\left(x\right)+\epsilon \mathrm{\Delta }P_{ba}^\epsilon \left(x\right);$$
(6)
it is $`\mathrm{\Delta }P_{ba}^\epsilon \left(x\right)`$ that depends on the scheme. The conversion terms are determined from the difference of $`\mathrm{\Delta }P_{ba}^\epsilon \left(x\right)`$ in the different schemes. In dimensional reduction $`\mathrm{\Delta }P_{ba}^\epsilon \left(x\right)\left(=P_{ba}^\epsilon \left(x\right)\right)`$ $`=0`$. Refs. $`[`$12, 13$`]`$ use the t’ Hooft-Veltman scheme, modified so that $`\mathrm{\Delta }P_{qq}^n(x,\epsilon )=P_{qq}^n(x,\epsilon )`$; then $`\mathrm{\Delta }P_{ab}^\epsilon (x,)0`$. In terms of these $`\mathrm{\Delta }P_{ab}^\epsilon \left(x\right)`$, the conversion terms are

$$\frac{d\sigma _{conv}}{dtdu}=\frac{K(0)}{s}\mathrm{\Delta }P_{ab}^\epsilon (x)\frac{d\widehat{\sigma }_B}{dt}$$
(7)
where $`d\widehat{\sigma }_B/dt`$ the Born cross section of (5) scaled in the same way.

For the polarized parton distributions we use the sets A, B and C of Ref. 14 and for the unpolarized the most recent version CTEQ5 $`[`$15$`]`$.

Finally, in the absence of any experimental information, as an estimate of the resolved $`\gamma `$ contributions, we have used the maximal and minimal saturation LO sets of $`\mathrm{\Delta }F_{q/\gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }F_{g/\gamma }`$ of $`[`$16$`]`$, as well as the set of the asymptotic solutions $`[`$17$`]`$. In brief, those of $`[`$17$`]`$ give the largest contributions, whereas those of the minimal saturation set give the smallest.

The analytical calculations were carried with REDUCE and to some extent with FORM.

Subsequently we present results for $`Q=`$c-quark with $`m=1.5`$ GeV only at $`\sqrt{S_{\gamma p}}=\sqrt{S}=10`$ GeV, relevant to the experiments (a) and (b) of $`[`$1$`]`$. Higher energies and $`Q=`$b-quark are considered elsewhere $`[`$10$`]`$. Also, in relation with (4a), we take $`\mu _R=\mu `$.

Fig. 1 presents results related with the differential cross sections $`\mathrm{\Delta }d\sigma /dp_T`$ versus $`x_T2p_T/\sqrt{S}`$, where $`p_T`$ the transverse momentum of $`Q`$; measurement of such cross sections is possible in (b) of $`[`$1$`]`$. Subsequently we denote by $`\mathrm{\Delta }d\sigma _B/dp_T`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }d\sigma _{res}/dp_T`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }d\sigma _{\gamma q}/dp_T`$ the contributions to the physical cross section of (A1), (A2), and (B2) correspondingly, and by $`\mathrm{\Delta }d\sigma /dp_T`$ that of the sum (A1), (B1) and (B2). We use the scale $`\mu =M=\left(p_T^2+m^2\right)^{1/2}`$; the stability of our results against variations of $`\mu `$ and $`M`$ is studied in $`[`$10$`]`$. In Fig. 1(a) the cross sections $`\mathrm{\Delta }d\sigma /dp_T`$ and the corresponding $`\mathrm{\Delta }d\sigma _B/dp_T`$ (denoted by a $``$) are determined for sets A, B and C of $`[`$14$`]`$. The presented $`\mathrm{\Delta }d\sigma _{res}/dp_T`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }d\sigma _{\gamma q}/dp_T`$ correspond to set B and the former to the maximal saturation set of $`[`$16$`]`$. In calculating $`\mathrm{\Delta }d\sigma _B/dp_T`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }d\sigma _{res}/dp_T`$ we use the NLO sets of $`[`$14$`]`$.(a)

(a)(a)footnotetext: In this way the effect of the perturbative HOC, as it is reflected e.g. in the magnitude of $`K`$-factors (see Eqs. (10)), is made more clear. This is particularly true for polarized reactions, in which the LO and NLO $`\mathrm{\Delta }g`$ differ significantly.

Fig. 1(b) presents the asymmetries

$$A_{LL}(p_T)=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }d\sigma /dp_T}{d\sigma /dp_T}$$
(8)
for sets A, B and C. The resolved $`\gamma `$ contributions have been left out in view of their smallness and of the fact that the stage of their present knowledge does not permit a scheme independent calculation. Following usual practice in calculating $`d\sigma /dp_T`$ we average over $`n2`$ spin degrees of freedom for every incoming boson. Finally, the errors in Fig. 1(b) have been estimated from:

$$\delta A_{LL}=\frac{1}{P_BP_T\sqrt{L\sigma ϵ}}$$
(9)
In (9) we use unpolarized cross section $`\sigma `$ integrated over a bin of $`x_T`$ corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Delta }p_T=0.5`$ GeV and the conditions of $`[`$1$`a]`$ ($`P_B=80\%`$, $`P_T=25\%`$, $`ϵ=0.014`$ and $`L=2`$ $`fb^1`$). Note that the proposal $`[`$1$`b]`$ amounts to better conditions and thus smaller $`\delta A_{LL}`$.

On the basis of our calculations and Fig. 1 we remark the following:

* Defining by $`\mathrm{\Delta }d\sigma _{\gamma g}/dp_T`$ the contribution of (A1) and (B1) we may introduce the $`K`$-factors

$$K=\mathrm{\Delta }\frac{d\sigma }{dp_T}/\mathrm{\Delta }\frac{d\sigma _B}{dp_T},K_{\gamma g}=\mathrm{\Delta }\frac{d\sigma _{\gamma g}}{dp_T}/\mathrm{\Delta }\frac{d\sigma _B}{dp_T}$$
(10)
For sets A and B and $`x_T0.3`$, where perturbative QCD is more trustworthy, the $`K`$-factors are $`>1`$ and, in particular $`K_{\gamma g}`$, fairly large. The largeness of $`K_{\gamma g}`$ is partly due to the fact that $`\sqrt{S}=10`$ GeV is fairly low, so $`\alpha _s(\mu )`$ is fairly large.
* $`\mathrm{\Delta }d\sigma _{\gamma q}/dp_T`$ are found to change little between sets A, B and C; the reason is that the valence distributions $`\mathrm{\Delta }u`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }d`$ vary little. Thus Fig. 1(a) presents $`\mathrm{\Delta }d\sigma _{\gamma q}/dp_T`$ for only one set (B).
* In general, $`\mathrm{\Delta }d\sigma _{\gamma q}/dp_T`$ are significantly smaller than $`\mathrm{\Delta }d\sigma _{\gamma g}/dp_T`$ for sets A and B. Note that also in unpolarized photoproduction we find that $`\gamma qQ\overline{Q}q`$ contributes much less than the NLO $`\gamma gQ\overline{Q}`$, in full accord with $`[`$18$`]`$.
* Most importantly, Fig. 1(b) shows that at $`x_T0.4`$ one can distinguish sets A and C and perhaps also all A, B, C.

Fig. 2 presents results related with the distributions $`\mathrm{\Delta }d\sigma /dY`$ where $`Y`$ the c.m. rapidity of $`Q`$ with respect to the photon. The subsequent notation is equivalent to the above and parts (a) and (b) are equivalent to these of Fig. 1. Here we use the scale $`\mu =M=2m`$. The errors in Fig. 2(b) have been estimated using Eq. (9) with the conditions of $`[`$1$`a]`$ and the unpolarized cross section integrated over a bin $`\mathrm{\Delta }Y=1`$.

On the basis of Fig. 2 we remark:

* At $`Y>0`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }d\sigma /dY`$ for sets A, B are significantly larger than for C and than $`\mathrm{\Delta }d\sigma _{\gamma q}/dY`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }d\sigma _{res}/dY`$. (Fig. 2(a))
* Taking into account the errors, Fig. 2(b) suggests that $`Y1.251.5`$ is the best region to distinguish set C from A or B. The region $`Y<0`$ leads to large errors because $`d\sigma /dY`$, like $`\mathrm{\Delta }d\sigma /dY`$ (Fig. 2(a)), is small.
* Figs 2(a) and 2(b) suggest that integrating the cross sections in the range $`1Y1.5`$ offers perhaps the best possibility to distinguish A or B form C.

Finally, Fig. 3 presents results related with the integrated cross sections $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma `$ versus the c.m. energy $`\sqrt{S_{\gamma p}}=\sqrt{S}`$ in a range including $`\sqrt{S}=10`$ GeV. This quantity will be measured in both experiments $`[`$1$`a]`$ and $`[`$1$`b]`$. Here the scale is again $`\mu =M=2m`$.

To show clearly the NLO effects, we present $`K`$-factors (Fig. 3(a)) in addition to integrated cross sections (Fig. 3(b)). At $`\sqrt{S}=10`$ GeV the $`K`$-factors for all sets exceed $`K=1`$. In the range $`7<\sqrt{S}<14`$ GeV for sets A and B, $`K`$ are smooth, but for C, $`K`$ is discontinuous due to the vanishing of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _B`$ at $`\sqrt{S}11`$ GeV.

Most important is Fig. 3(c), which presents NLO asymmetries. The error at $`\sqrt{S}=10`$ GeV is estimated using in (9) again the conditions of $`[`$1$`a]`$. Under these conditions our results show that sets A and C can be distinguished, but not sets A and B or B and C. Perhaps the proposed SLAC experiment $`[`$1$`b]`$, which will give results at somewhat lower $`\sqrt{S}`$ and, as stated, amounts to better conditions, can distinguish also B and C.

At $`\sqrt{S}10`$ GeV of importance is the precise knowledge of the charmed quark mass $`m`$. We understand that recently the uncertainity in $`m`$ has been somewhat reduced(b). Using the set B, we find that varying $`m`$ in the range $`1.35m1.65`$ changes $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma `$ in the range $`27.11\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma 13.34`$ nb and the asymmetry in $`6.26\%A_{LL}8.88\%`$.

(b)(b)footnotetext: We would like to thank A. Despande for this information.

Ref. $`[`$6$`]`$ works in the scheme of Ref. 19 and presents most of its results using the ”standard” set of $`[`$20$`]`$ (GRSVst); for integrated cross sections (Fig. 3), it also presents results for sets A and C of $`[`$14$`]`$. Also, as stated, they treat their soft and collinear gluon parts by the phase space slicing method of $`[`$18$`]`$, which separates them from the hard gluon parts via a cut parameter. First, we have checked that our virtual, soft and collinear contributions are in complete agreement (Appendix C of the first reference of $`[`$6$`]`$). Second, with respect to numerical comparisons, care is needed in convoluting the LO cross sections with proper (LO or NLO) parton distributions. Using also GRSVst, and comparing with their corrected results, regarding differential cross sections we find differences not exceeding $`3\%`$; however, regarding asymmetries of integrated cross sections, although in fair agreement, our differences are somewhat larger.

In conclusion, the COMPASS experiment $`[`$1$`a]`$ is expected to provide useful information on $`\mathrm{\Delta }g`$. This may be said with more emphasis for the proposed SLAC experiment $`[`$1$`b]`$.

*

We thank I. Bojak for providing us with the results for several quantities we are comparing and for taking his part in doing comparisons. Thanks are also due to G. Bunce, D. de Florian, B. Kamal and J. Körner for discussions, to W. Vogelsang for discussions and for providing us the sets of $`[`$20$`]`$, to P. Bosted for several communications, to A. Despande for useful information and remarks and to V. Spanos and G. Veropoulos for participating in part of the calculation.

REFERENCES

* (a) G. Baum et al, COMPASS Collaboration: CERN/SPLC 96-14 and 96-30; (b) P. Bosted, SLAC-PROPOSAL-E156, 1997; (c) W.-D. Nowak, DESY 96-095; (d) A. de Roeck and T. Gehrmann, DESY-Proceedings-1998-1.
* M. Gluck and E. Reya, Z. Phys. C39 (1988) 569; M. Stratmann and W. Vogelsang, Z. Phys. C74 (1997) 641; A. Watson, ibid C12 (1982) 123.
* B. Lampe and E. Reya, MPI-PhT/98-23 and DO-TH $`98/02^{(+)}`$. (+)(+)footnotetext: This is also the most up to date review of polarized particle reactions
* B. Kamal, Z. Merebashvili and A.P. Contogouris, Phys. Rev. D51 (1995) 4808; ibid D55 (1997) 3229 (E).
* G. Jikia and A. Tkabladze, ibid D54 (1996) 2030.
* I. Bojak and M. Stratmanm: Nucl. Phys. B540 (1999) 345 and Erratum (to be published); Phys. Lett. B433 (1998) 411.
* T. Muta, ”Foundations of Quantum Chromodynamics” (World Scientific, 1987)
* G. Passarino and M. Veltman, Nucl. Phys. B160 (1979) 151.
* W. Beenakker et al, Phys. Rev. D40 (1989) 54.
* Z. Merebashvili, A.P. Contogouris and G. Grispos, in preparation. See also proceedings of ”Spin 99” International Workshop, Prague, 8-12 September 1999.
* A.P. Contogouris, S. Papadopoulos and B. Kamal, Phys. Lett. B246 (1990) 523.
* R. Mertig and W. van Neerven, Z. Phys. C70 (1996) 637.
* W. Vogelsang, Phys. Rev. D54 (1996) 2023; Nucl. Phys. B475 (1996) 47.
* T. Gehrmann and W. Stirling, Phys. Rev. D53 (1996) 6100.
* H. Lai et al, Eur. Phys. J. C12 (2000) 375.
* M. Gluck and W. Vogelsang, Z. Phys. C55 (1992) 353 and C57 (1993) 309; M. Gluck, M. Stratmann and W. Vogelsang, Phys. Lett. B187 (1994) 373.
* J. Hassan and D. Pilling, Nucl. Phys. B187 (1981) 563.
* J. Smith and W.L. van Neerven, Nucl. Phys. B374 (1992) 36.
* G. t’ Hooft and M. Veltman, ibid B44 (1972) 189.
* M. Gluck, E. Reya, M. Stratmann and W. Vogelsang, Phys. Rev. D53 (1996) 4775.

FIGURE CAPTIONS

* Quantities related with the $`p_T`$-distributions versus $`x_T=2p_T/\sqrt{S}`$: (a) Polarized differential cross sections. The LO cross sections are indicated by $``$. (b) NLO asymmetries for sets A, B and C.
* Quantities related with the rapidity distributions: (a) and (b) as in Fig. 1.
* Quantities related with the integrated cross sections for sets A, B and C: (a) Factors $`K=\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma /\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _B`$ (b) LO (indicated by $``$) and NLO cross sections. The presented cross section for $`\stackrel{}{\gamma }\stackrel{}{q}Q\overline{Q}q`$ corresponds to set B. (c) NLO asymmetries.