text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In integrable models of statistical mechanics , an important object is the $``$-matrix $`(u)`$, where $`u`$ is the spectral parameter. It acts on the tensor product $`V^1V^2`$ for a given vector space $`V`$ and it is the solution of the Yang-Baxter (YB) equation

$$_{12}(u)_{13}(u+v)_{23}(v)=_{23}(v)_{13}(u+v)_{12}(u)$$
(1.1)
in $`V^1V^2V^3`$, where $`_{12}=`$, $`_{23}=`$, etc. and $``$ is the identity matrix. If $``$ depends on a Planck-type parameter $`\eta `$ so that $`(u,\eta )=1+2\eta r(u)+\mathrm{o}(\eta ^2)`$, then the “classical $`r`$-matrix” obeys the classical YB equation

$$[r_{12}(u),r_{13}(u+v)+r_{23}(v)]+[r_{13}(u+v),r_{23}(v)]=0.$$
(1.2)
Nondegenerate solutions of (1.2) in the tensor product of two copies of simple Lie algebra g , $`r_{ij}(u)\mathrm{g}_i\mathrm{g}_j`$ , $`i,j=1,2,3`$, were classified by Belavin and Drinfeld .

The classical YB equation interplays with conformal field theory in the following way: In the skew-symmetric case $`r_{ji}(u)+r_{ij}(u)=0`$, it is the compatibility condition for the system of linear differential equations

$$\kappa \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }(z_1,\mathrm{},z_N)}{z_i}=\underset{ji}{}r_{ij}(z_iz_j)\mathrm{\Psi }(z_1,\mathrm{},z_N)$$
(1.3)
in $`N`$ complex variables $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_N`$ for vector-valued functions $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ with values in the tensor space $`V=V^1\mathrm{}V^N`$ and $`\kappa `$ is a coupling constant.

In the rational case , very simple skew-symmetric solutions are known: $`r(u)=\mathrm{C}_2/u`$, where $`\mathrm{C}_2\mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}`$ is a symmetric invariant tensor of a finite dimensional Lie algebra $`\mathrm{g}`$ acting on a representation space $`V`$. Then the corresponding system of linear differential equations (1.3) is the Knizhnik-Zamolodchikov (KZ) equation for the conformal blocks of the Wess-Zumino-Novikov-Witten (WZNW) model of conformal theory on the sphere .

The algebraic Bethe Ansatz  is the powerful method in the analysis of integrable models. Besides describing the spectra of quantum integrable systems, the Bethe Ansatz also is used to construct exact and manageable expressions for correlation functions . Various representations of correlators in these models were found by Korepin , using this method.

Recently, Babujian and Flume  developed a method which reveals a link to the algebraic Bethe Ansatz for the theory of the Gaudin model. In their method the wave vectors of the Bethe Ansatz equation for inhomogeneous lattice model render in the semi-classical limit solutions of the KZ equation for the case of simple Lie algebras of higher rank. More precisely, the algebraic quantum inverse scattering method permits us write the following equation

$$t(u|z)\mathrm{\Phi }(u_{1,\mathrm{},}u_p)=\mathrm{\Lambda }(u,u_1,\mathrm{},u_p|z)\mathrm{\Phi }(u_1,\mathrm{},u_p)\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{p}{}}\frac{_\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }^\alpha }{uu_\alpha }.$$
(1.4)
Here $`t(u|z)`$ denotes the transfer matrix of the rational vertex model in an inhomogeneous lattice acting on an $`N`$-fold tensor product of $`SU(2)`$ representation spaces. $`\mathrm{\Phi }^\alpha =\mathrm{\Phi }(u_1,\mathrm{}u_{\alpha 1},u,u_{\alpha +1},\mathrm{},u_p)`$. $`_\alpha (u_1,\mathrm{},u_p|z)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(u,u_1,\mathrm{},u_p|z)`$ are $`c`$ numbers. The vanishing of the so-called unwanted terms, $`_\alpha =0`$, is enforced in the usual procedure of the algebraic Bethe Ansatz by choosing the parameters $`u_1,\mathrm{},u_p`$. In this case the wave vector $`\mathrm{\Phi }(u_1,\mathrm{},u_p)`$ becomes an eigenvector of the transfer matrix with eigenvalue $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(u,u_1,\mathrm{},u_p|z)`$. If we keep all unwanted terms, i.e. $`_\alpha 0`$, then the wave vector $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in general satisfies the equation (1.4), named in  as off-shell Bethe Ansatz equation (OSBAE). There is a neat relationship between the wave vector satisfying the OSBAE (1.4) and the vector-valued solutions of the KZ equation (1.3): The general vector valued solution of the KZ equation for an arbitrary simple Lie algebra was found by Schechtman and Varchenko . It can be represented as a multiple contour integral

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(z_1,\mathrm{},z_N)=\mathrm{}𝒳(u_1,\mathrm{},u_p|z)\varphi (u_1,\mathrm{},u_p|z)𝑑u_1\mathrm{}𝑑u_p.$$
(1.5)
The complex variables $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_N`$ of (1.5) are related with the disorder parameters of the OSBAE . The vector valued function $`\varphi (u_1,\mathrm{},u_p|z)`$ is the semi-classical limit of the wave vector $`\mathrm{\Phi }(u_1,\mathrm{},u_p|z)`$. In fact, it is the Bethe wave vector for Gaudin magnets , but off mass shell. The scalar function $`𝒳(u_1,\mathrm{},u_p|z)`$ is constructed from the semi-classical limit of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(u=z_k;u_1,\mathrm{},u_p|z)`$ and $`_\alpha (u_1,\mathrm{},u_p|z)`$. This representation of the $`N`$-point correlation function shows a deep connection between the inhomogeneous vertex models and the WZNW theory.

In this work we generalize previous results applying the Babujian-Flume ideas for $`osp(2|1)`$ rational solution of the graded version of the YB equation . It is shown that this ideas persists for the case of semi-classical limit which corresponds to the $`osp(2|1)`$ trigonometric $`r`$-matrix.

The paper is organized as follows. In Section $`2`$ we present the algebraic structure of the $`osp(2|1)`$ vertex model. Here the inhomogeneous Bethe Ansatz is read from the homogeneous case previously known . We also derive the Off-shell Bethe Ansatz equation for the fundamental representation of the $`osp(2|1)`$ algebra. In Section $`3`$ , taking into account the semi-classical limit of the results presented in the Section $`2`$, we describe the algebraic structure of the corresponding Gaudin model. In Section $`4`$, data of the off-shell Gaudin equation are used to construct solutions of the trigonometric KZ equation. In Section $`5`$, our results are extended for the highest representations of the algebra $`osp(2|1)`$. Conclusions are reserved for Section $`6`$.

## 2 Structure of the $`\mathrm{𝐨𝐬𝐩}(\mathrm{𝟐}|\mathrm{𝟏})`$ Vertex Model

We recall that the $`osp(2|1)`$ algebra is the simplest superalgebra and it can be viewed as the graded version of $`sl_2`$. It has three even (bosonic) generators $`H,`$ $`X^\pm `$ generating a Lie subalgebra $`sl_2`$ and two odd (fermionic) generators $`V^\pm `$ , whose non-vanishing commutation relations in the Cartan-Weyl basis reads as

$`[H,X^\pm ]`$ $`=`$ $`\pm X^\pm ,[X^+,X^{}]=2H,`$
$`[H,V^\pm ]`$ $`=`$ $`\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}V^\pm ,[X^\pm ,V^{}]=V^\pm ,[X^\pm ,V^\pm ]=0,`$
$`\{V^\pm ,V^\pm \}`$ $`=`$ $`\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}X^\pm ,\{V^+,V^{}\}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}H.`$ (2.1)
The quadratic Casimir operator is

$$C_2=H^2+\frac{1}{2}\{X^+,X^{}\}+[V^+,V^{}],$$
(2.2)
where $`\{,\}`$ denotes the anticommutator and $`[,]`$ the commutator.

The irreducible finite-dimensional representations $`\rho _j`$ with the highest weight vector are parametrized by half-integer $`s=j/2`$ or by the integer $`jN`$. Their dimension is dim$`(\rho _j)=2j+1`$ and the corresponding value of $`C_2`$ is $`j(j+1)/4=s(s+1/2)`$, $`s=0,1/2,1,3/2,\mathrm{}`$

The representation corresponding to $`s=0`$ is the trivial one-dimensional representation. The $`s1/2`$ representation contains two isospin multiplets which belong to isospin $`s`$ and $`s1/2`$, denoted by $`|s,s,m`$ and $`|s,s1/2,m`$, respectively. The first quantum number characterizes the representation and the second and third quantum numbers give the isospin and its third component. After a convenient normalization of the states , a given $`s`$-representation is defined by

$`H|s,s,m`$ $`=`$ $`m|s,s,m,`$
$`X^\pm |s,s,m`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{(sm)(s\pm m+1)}|s,s,m\pm 1,`$
$`V^\pm |s,s,m`$ $`=`$ $`\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{(sm)}|s,s1/2,m\pm 1/2,`$
$`H|s,s1/2,m`$ $`=`$ $`m|s,s1/2,m,`$
$`X^\pm |s,s1/2,m`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{(s1/2m)(s1/2\pm m+1)}|s,s1/2,m\pm 1,`$
$`V^\pm |s,s1/2,m`$ $`=`$ $`\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{(s1/2\pm m+1)}|s,s,m\pm 1/2.`$ (2.3)
The fundamental representation has $`s=1/2`$ and is given by

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 1\hfill \end{array}\right),X^+=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0\hfill & 0\hfill & 1\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \end{array}\right),X^{}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 1\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \end{array}\right),`$ (2.13)
$`V^+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0\hfill & 1\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 1\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \end{array}\right),V^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 1\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 1\hfill & 0\hfill \end{array}\right).`$ (2.20)
In (2.20) the basis is $`|\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},|\frac{1}{2},0,0,|\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}`$. The first and third vectors will be considered as even and the second as odd, i.e., our grading is BFB.

In the $`j`$-representation the odd part has the form :

$$V^+=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}0& V_{j1}& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ 0& 0& V_{j2}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& V_j\\ 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right),V^{}=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 0\\ W_j& 0& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& W_{j1}& \mathrm{}& 0& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 0& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{}& 0& W_{j+1}& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(2.21)
where

$`(V_{j1},V_{j2},V_{j3},\mathrm{},V_j)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\sqrt{j},\sqrt{1},\sqrt{j1},\sqrt{2},\mathrm{},\sqrt{1},\sqrt{j}),`$
$`(W_j,W_{j1},W_{j2},\mathrm{},W_{j+1})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\sqrt{j},\sqrt{1},\sqrt{j1},\sqrt{2,}\mathrm{},\sqrt{1},\sqrt{j}).`$ (2.22)
For the even part we can see from (2.3) that $`H`$ is diagonal and always has eigenvalue $`0`$ due to isospin integer:

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{diag}(j,j1,\mathrm{},1,0,1,\mathrm{},j).$$
(2.23)
Moreover, $`X^\pm `$ are given by the $`sl_2`$ composition which results in a clear relation with the odd part: $`X^\pm =\pm 4(V^\pm )^2`$.

### 2.1 Off-Shell Bethe Ansatz Equation

Consider $`V=V_0V_1`$ a $`Z_2`$-graded vector space where $`0`$ and $`1`$ denote the even and odd parts respectively. The components of a linear operator $`A\stackrel{s}{}B`$ in the graded tensor product space $`V\stackrel{s}{}V`$ result in matrix elements of the form

$$(A\stackrel{s}{}B)_{\alpha \beta }^{\gamma \delta }=()^{p(\beta )(p(\alpha )+p(\gamma ))}A_{\alpha \gamma }B_{\beta \delta }$$
(2.24)
and the action of the permutation operator $`𝒫`$ on the vector $`|\alpha \stackrel{s}{}|\beta V\stackrel{s}{}V`$ is given by

$$𝒫|\alpha \stackrel{s}{}|\beta =()^{p(\alpha )p(\beta )}|\beta \stackrel{s}{}|\alpha (𝒫)_{\alpha \beta }^{\gamma \delta }=()^{p(\alpha )p(\beta )}\delta _{\alpha \beta }\delta _{\gamma \delta },$$
(2.25)
where $`p(\alpha )=1(0)`$ if $`|\alpha `$ is an odd (even) element.

Besides $``$ we have to consider matrices $`R=𝒫`$ which satisfy

$$R_{12}(u)R_{23}(u+v)R_{12}(v)=R_{23}(v)R_{12}(u+v)R_{23}(u).$$
(2.26)
The regular solution of the graded YB equation for the fundamental representation of $`osp(2|1)`$ algebra was found by Bazhanov and Shadrikov in . It has the form

$$R(u,\eta )=\left(\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}x_1& 0& 0& & 0& 0& 0& & 0& 0& 0\\ 0& y_5& 0& & x_2& 0& 0& & 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& y_7& & 0& y_6& 0& & x_3& 0& 0\\ & & & & & & & & & & \\ 0& x_2& 0& & x_5& 0& 0& & 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& y_6& & 0& x_4& 0& & x_6& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& & 0& 0& y_5& & 0& x_2& 0\\ & & & & & & & & & & \\ 0& 0& x_3& & 0& x_6& 0& & x_7& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& & 0& 0& x_2& & 0& x_5& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& & 0& 0& 0& & 0& 0& x_1\end{array}\right),$$
(2.27)
where

$`x_1`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sinh}(u+2\eta )\mathrm{sinh}(u+3\eta ),x_2=\mathrm{sinh}u\mathrm{sinh}(u+3\eta ),`$
$`x_3`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sinh}u\mathrm{sinh}(u+\eta ),x_4(u)=\mathrm{sinh}u\mathrm{sinh}(u+3\eta )\mathrm{sinh}2\eta \mathrm{sinh}3\eta ,`$
$`x_5`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^u\mathrm{sinh}2\eta \mathrm{sinh}(u+3\eta ),y_5=\mathrm{e}^u\mathrm{sinh}2\eta \mathrm{sinh}(u+3\eta ),`$
$`x_6`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ\mathrm{e}^{u2\eta }\mathrm{sinh}2\eta \mathrm{sinh}u,y_6=ϵ\mathrm{e}^{u+2\eta }\mathrm{sinh}2\eta \mathrm{sinh}u,`$
$`x_7`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^u\mathrm{sinh}2\eta \left(\mathrm{sinh}(u+3\eta )+\mathrm{e}^\eta \mathrm{sinh}u\right),`$
$`y_7`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^u\mathrm{sinh}2\eta \left(\mathrm{sinh}(u+3\eta )+\mathrm{e}^\eta \mathrm{sinh}u\right).`$ (2.28)
where $`ϵ=\pm 1`$. Here we have assumed that the grading of threefold space is $`p(1)=p(3)=0`$ and $`p(2)=1`$ and we will choose the solution with $`ϵ=1`$.

Let us consider the inhomogeneous vertex model, where to each vertex we associate two parameters: the global spectral parameter $`u`$ and the disorder parameter $`z`$. In this case, the vertex weight matrix $``$ depends on $`uz`$ and consequently the monodromy matrix will be a function of the disorder parameters $`z_i`$.

The graded quantum inverse scattering method is characterized by the monodromy matrix $`T(u|z)`$ satisfying the equation

$$R(uv)\left[T(u|z)\stackrel{s}{}T(v|z)\right]=\left[T(v|z)\stackrel{s}{}T(u|z)\right]R(uv),$$
(2.29)
whose consistency is guaranteed by the graded version of the YB equation (1.1). $`T(u|z)`$ is a matrix in the space $`V`$ (the auxiliary space) whose matrix elements are operators on the states of the quantum system (the quantum space, which will also be the space $`V`$). The monodromy operator $`T(u|z)`$ is defined as an ordered product of local operators $`_n`$ (Lax operator), on all sites of the lattice:

$$T(u|z)=_N(uz_N)_{N1}(uz_{N1})\mathrm{}_1(uz_1).$$
(2.30)
The Lax operator on the $`n^{th}`$ quantum space is given the normalized graded permutation of (2.27):

$`_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x_2}}\left(\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}x_1& 0& 0& & 0& 0& 0& & 0& 0& 0\\ 0& x_2& 0& & x_5& 0& 0& & 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& x_3& & 0& x_6& 0& & x_7& 0& 0\\ & & & & & & & & & & \\ 0& y_5& 0& & x_2& 0& 0& & 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& y_6& & 0& x_4& 0& & x_6& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& & 0& 0& x_2& & 0& x_5& 0\\ & & & & & & & & & & \\ 0& 0& y_7& & 0& y_6& 0& & x_3& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& & 0& 0& y_5& & 0& x_2& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& & 0& 0& 0& & 0& 0& x_1\end{array}\right)`$ (2.42)
$`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}L_{11}^{(n)}(uz_n)\hfill & L_{12}^{(n)}(uz_n)\hfill & L_{13}^{(n)}(uz_n)\hfill \\ L_{21}^{(n)}(uz_n)\hfill & L_{22}^{(n)}(uz_n)\hfill & L_{23}^{(n)}(uz_n)\hfill \\ L_{31}^{(n)}(uz_n)\hfill & L_{32}^{(n)}(uz_n)\hfill & L_{33}^{(n)}(uz_n)\hfill \end{array}\right)`$ (2.46)
Note that $`L_{\alpha \beta }^{(n)}(u),\alpha ,\beta =1,2,3`$ are $`3`$ by $`3`$ matrices acting on the $`n^{th}`$ site of the lattice. It means that the monodromy matrix has the form

$$T(u|z)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}A_1(u|z)\hfill & B_1(u|z)\hfill & B_2(u|z)\hfill \\ C_1(u|z)\hfill & A_2(u|z)\hfill & B_3(u|z)\hfill \\ C_2(u|z)\hfill & C_3(u|z)\hfill & A_3(u|z)\hfill \end{array}\right),$$
(2.47)
where

$`T_{ij}(u|z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k_1,\mathrm{},k_{N1}=1}{\overset{3}{}}}L_{ik_1}^{(N)}(uz_N)\stackrel{s}{}L_{k_1k_2}^{(N1)}(uz_{N1})\stackrel{s}{}\mathrm{}\stackrel{s}{}L_{k_{N1}j}^{(1)}(uz_1).`$
$`i,j`$ $`=`$ $`1,2,3.`$ (2.48)
The vector in the quantum space of the monodromy matrix $`T(u|z)`$ that is annihilated by the operators $`T_{ij}(u|z)`$, $`i>j`$ ($`C_i(u|z)`$ operators, $`i=1,2,3`$) and it is also an eigenvector for the operators $`T_{ii}(u|z)`$ ( $`A_i(u|z)`$ operators, $`i=1,2,3`$) is called a highest vector of the monodromy matrix $`T(u|z)`$.

The transfer matrix $`\tau (u|z)`$ of the corresponding integrable spin model is given by the supertrace of the monodromy matrix in the space $`V`$

$$\tau (u|z)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}(1)^{p(i)}T_{ii}(u|z)=A_1(u|z)A_2(u|z)+A_3(u|z).$$
(2.49)
Algebraic Bethe Ansatz solution for the inhomogeneous $`osp(2|1)`$ vertex model can be obtained from the homogeneous case . The only modification is a local shift of the spectral parameter $`uuz_i`$.

Here we will define some functions that will be used in the calculations of the Bethe Ansatz:

$`z(u)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{x_1(u)}{x_2(u)}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}(u+2\eta )}{\mathrm{sinh}u}},y(u)={\displaystyle \frac{x_3(u)}{y_6(u)}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}(u+\eta )}{\mathrm{e}^{u+2\eta }\mathrm{sinh}2\eta }},`$
$`\omega (u)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{x_1(u)x_3(u)}{x_4(u)x_3(u)x_6(u)y_6(u)}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}(u+\eta )}{\mathrm{sinh}(u\eta )}},`$
$`𝒵(u_ku_j)`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{c}z(u_ku_j)\mathrm{if}k>j\\ z(u_ku_j)\omega (u_ju_k)\mathrm{if}k<j\end{array}.`$ (2.52)
We start defining the highest vector of the monodromy matrix $`T(u|z)`$ in a lattice of $`N`$ sites as the even (bosonic) completely unoccupied state

$$|0=_{a=1}^N(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\\ 0\end{array})_a.$$
(2.53)
Using (2.48) we can compute the normalized action of the monodromy matrix entries on this state

$`A_i(u|z)|0`$ $`=`$ $`X_i(u|z)|0,C_i(u|z)|0=0,B_i(u|z)|0\{0,|0\},`$
$`X_i(u|z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_i(uz_a)}{x_2(uz_a)}},i=1,2,3.`$ (2.54)
The Bethe vectors are defined as normal ordered states $`\mathrm{\Psi }_n(u_1,\mathrm{},u_n)`$ which can be written with aid of a recurrence formula :

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_n(u_1,\mathrm{},u_n|z)=B_1(u_1|z)\mathrm{\Psi }_{n1}(u_2,\mathrm{},u_n|z)`$
$`B_2(u_1|z){\displaystyle \underset{j=2}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{X_1(u_j|z)}{y(u_1u_j)}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=2,kj}{\overset{n}{}}}𝒵(u_ku_j)\mathrm{\Psi }_{n2}(u_2,\mathrm{},\underset{j}{\overset{}{u}},\mathrm{},u_n|z),`$ (2.55)
with the initial condition $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0=|0,\mathrm{\Psi }_1(u_1|z)=B_1(u_1|z)|0`$. Here $`\underset{j}{\overset{}{u}}`$ denotes that the rapidity $`u_j`$ is absent: $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\underset{j}{\overset{}{u}}|z)=\mathrm{\Psi }(u_1,\mathrm{},u_{j1},u_{j+1},\mathrm{},u_n|z)`$.

The action of the transfer matrix $`\tau (u|z)`$ on these Bethe vectors gives us the following off-shell Bethe Ansatz equation for the $`osp(2|1)`$ vertex model

$$\tau (u|z)\mathrm{\Psi }_n(u_1,\mathrm{},u_n|z)=\mathrm{\Lambda }_n\mathrm{\Psi }_n(u_1,\mathrm{},u_n|z)\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}_j^{(n1)}\mathrm{\Psi }_{(n1)}^j+\underset{j=2}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{l=1}{\overset{j1}{}}_{lj}^{(n2)}\mathrm{\Psi }_{(n2)}^{lj}.$$
(2.56)
Let us now describe each term which appear in the right hand side of (2.56) ( for more details the reader can see ): In the first term the Bethe vectors (2.55) are multiplied by $`c`$-numbers $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n=\mathrm{\Lambda }_n(u,u_1,\mathrm{},u_n|z)`$ given by

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_n=X_1(u|z)\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}z(u_ku)()^nX_2(u|z)\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{z(uu_k)}{\omega (uu_k)}+X_3(u|z)\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{x_2(uu_k)}{x_3(uu_k)}.$$
(2.57)
The second term is a sum of new vectors

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{(n1)}^j=\left(\frac{x_5(u_ju)}{x_2(u_ju)}B_1(u|z)+\frac{1}{y(uu_j)}B_3(u|z)\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_{n1}(\underset{j}{\overset{}{u}}),$$
(2.58)
multiplied by scalar functions $`_j^{(n1)}`$ given by

$$_j^{(n1)}=X_1(u_j|z)\underset{kj}{\overset{n}{}}𝒵(u_ku_j)+()^nX_2(u_j|z)\underset{kj}{\overset{n}{}}𝒵(u_ju_k).$$
(2.59)
Finally, the last term is a coupled sum of a third type of vector-valued functions

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{(n2)}^{lj}=B_2(u|z)\mathrm{\Psi }_{n2}(\underset{l}{\overset{}{u}},\underset{j}{\overset{}{u}}),$$
(2.60)
with intricate coefficients

$`_{lj}^{(n2)}`$ $`=`$ $`G_{lj}X_1(u_l|z)X_1(u_j|z){\displaystyle \underset{k=1,kj,l}{\overset{n}{}}}𝒵(u_ku_l)𝒵(u_ku_j)`$ (2.61)
$`()^nY_{lj}X_1(u_l|z)X_2(u_j|z){\displaystyle \underset{k=1,kj,l}{\overset{n}{}}}𝒵(u_ku_l)𝒵(u_ju_k)`$
$`()^nF_{lj}X_1(u_j|z)X_2(u_l|z){\displaystyle \underset{k=1,kj,l}{\overset{n}{}}}𝒵(u_lu_k)𝒵(u_ku_j)`$
$`+H_{lj}X_2(u_l|z)X_2(u_j|z){\displaystyle \underset{k=1,kj,l}{\overset{n}{}}}𝒵(u_ju_k)𝒵(u_lu_k).`$
where $`G_{lj}`$ , $`Y_{lj}`$ , $`F_{lj}`$ and $`H_{lj}`$ are additional ratio functions defined by

$`G_{lj}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{x_7(u_lu)}{x_3(u_lu)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y(u_lu_j)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{z(u_lu)}{\omega (u_lu)}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_5(u_ju)}{x_2(u_ju)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y(uu_l)}},`$
$`H_{lj}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{y_7(uu_l)}{x_3(uu_l)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y(u_lu_j)}}{\displaystyle \frac{y_5(uu_l)}{x_3(uu_l)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y(uu_j)}},`$
$`Y_{lj}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y(uu_l)}}\left\{z(uu_l){\displaystyle \frac{y_5(uu_j)}{x_2(uu_j)}}{\displaystyle \frac{y_5(uu_l)}{x_2(uu_l)}}{\displaystyle \frac{y_5(u_lu_j)}{x_2(u_lu_j)}}\right\},`$
$`F_{lj}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{y_5(uu_l)}{x_2(uu_l)}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{y_5(u_lu_j)}{x_2(u_lu_j)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y(uu_l)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{z(uu_l)}{\omega (uu_l)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y(uu_j)}}`$ (2.62)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{y_5(uu_l)}{x_2(uu_l)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y(u_lu_j)}}\}.`$
In the usual Bethe Ansatz method, the next step consist in impose the vanishing of the so-called unwanted terms of (2.56) in order to get an eigenvalue problem for the transfer matrix:

We impose $`_j^{(n1)}=0`$ and $`_{lj}^{(n2)}=0`$ into (2.56) to recover the eigenvalue problem. This means that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_n(u_1,\mathrm{},u_n|z)`$ is an eigenstate of $`\tau (u|z)`$ with eigenvalue $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n`$ , provided the rapidities $`u_j`$ are solutions of the inhomogeneous Bethe Ansatz equations

$`{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}}z(u_jz_a)`$ $`=`$ $`()^{n+1}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1,kj}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{z(u_ju_k)}{z(u_ku_j)}}\omega (u_ku_j),`$
$`j`$ $`=`$ $`1,2,\mathrm{},n.`$ (2.63)
## 3 Structure of the $`\mathrm{𝐨𝐬𝐩}(\mathrm{𝟐}|\mathrm{𝟏})`$ Gaudin Model

In this section we will consider the theory of the Gaudin model. To do this we need to calculate the semi-classical limit of the results presented in the previous section.

In order to expand the matrix elements of $`T(u|z)`$, up to an appropriate order in $`\eta `$, we will start by expanding the Lax operator entries defined in (2.46):

$`L_{11}^{(n)}`$ $`=`$ $`_n+2\eta \mathrm{coth}(uz_n)_n+2\eta ^2\left(_n^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{_n^2_n}{\mathrm{sinh}(uz_n)^2}}\right)+\mathrm{o}(\eta ^3),`$
$`L_{22}^{(n)}`$ $`=`$ $`_n2\eta ^2{\displaystyle \frac{3\left(_n_n^2\right)}{\mathrm{sinh}(uz_n)^2}}+\mathrm{o}(\eta ^3),`$
$`L_{33}^{(n)}`$ $`=`$ $`_n2\eta \mathrm{coth}u_n+2\eta ^2\left(_n^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{_n^2+_n}{\mathrm{sinh}(uz_n)^2}}\right)+\mathrm{o}(\eta ^3).`$ (3.1)
and for the elements out of the diagonal we have

$`L_{12}^{(n)}`$ $`=`$ $`2\eta {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{u+z_n}}{\mathrm{sinh}(uz_n)}}𝒱_n^{}+\mathrm{o}(\eta ^2),L_{21}^{(n)}=2\eta {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{uz_n}}{\mathrm{sinh}(uz_n)}}𝒱_n^++\mathrm{o}(\eta ^2),`$
$`L_{23}^{(n)}`$ $`=`$ $`2\eta {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{u+z_n}}{\mathrm{sinh}(uz_n)}}𝒱_n^{}+\mathrm{o}(\eta ^2),L_{32}^{(n)}=2\eta {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{uz_n}}{\mathrm{sinh}(uz_n)}}𝒱_n^++\mathrm{o}(\eta ^2),`$
$`L_{13}^{(n)}`$ $`=`$ $`2\eta {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{u+z_n}}{\mathrm{sinh}(uz_n)}}𝒳_n^{}+\mathrm{o}(\eta ^2),L_{31}^{(n)}=2\eta {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{uz_n}}{\mathrm{sinh}(uz_n)}}𝒳_n^++\mathrm{o}(\eta ^2).`$ (3.2)
where $`𝒱^\pm =2V^\pm `$, $`𝒳^\pm =2X^\pm `$ and $`=2H`$.

Substituting (3.1) and (3.2) into (2.48) we will get the semi-classical expansion for the monodromy matrix entries:

$`A_1(u|z)`$ $`=`$ $`+2\eta {\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\mathrm{coth}(uz_a)_a+4\eta ^2\{{\displaystyle \underset{a<b}{}}\mathrm{coth}(uz_a)\mathrm{coth}(uz_b)_a\stackrel{s}{}_b`$ (3.3)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{a<b}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{z_az_b}}{\mathrm{sinh}(uz_a)\mathrm{sinh}(uz_b)}}\left(𝒳_a^{}\stackrel{s}{}𝒳_b^+𝒱_a^{}\stackrel{s}{}𝒱_b^+\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}}(_a^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{_a^2_a}{\mathrm{sinh}(uz_a)^2}})\}+\mathrm{o}(\eta ^3),`$
$`A_2(u|z)`$ $`=`$ $`4\eta ^2\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{a<b}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{z_a+z_b}𝒱_a^+\stackrel{s}{}𝒱_b^{}\mathrm{e}^{z_az_b}𝒱_a^{}\stackrel{s}{}𝒱_b^+}{\mathrm{sinh}(uz_a)\mathrm{sinh}(uz_b)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{_a_a^2}{\mathrm{sinh}(uz_a)^2}}\right\}`$ (3.4)
$`+\mathrm{o}(\eta ^3),`$
$`A_3(u|z)`$ $`=`$ $`2\eta {\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\mathrm{coth}(uz_a)_a+4\eta ^2\{{\displaystyle \underset{a<b}{}}\mathrm{coth}(uz_a)\mathrm{coth}(uz_b)_a\stackrel{s}{}_b`$ (3.5)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{a<b}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{z_a+z_b}}{\mathrm{sinh}(uz_a)\mathrm{sinh}(uz_b)}}\left(𝒳_a^+\stackrel{s}{}𝒳_b^{}+𝒱_a^+\stackrel{s}{}𝒱_b^{}\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}}(_a^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{_a^2+_a}{\mathrm{sinh}(uz_a)^2}})\}+\mathrm{o}(\eta ^3).`$
For off-diagonal elements we only need to expand them up to the first order in $`\eta `$

$`B_1(u|z)`$ $`=`$ $`B_3(u|z)=2\eta {\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{u+z_a}}{\mathrm{sinh}(uz_a)}}𝒱_a^{}+\mathrm{o}(\eta ^2),`$
$`C_1(u|z)`$ $`=`$ $`C_3(u|z)=2\eta {\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{uz_a}}{\mathrm{sinh}(uz_a)}}𝒱_a^++\mathrm{o}(\eta ^2),`$
$`B_2(u|z)`$ $`=`$ $`2\eta {\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{u+z_a}}{\mathrm{sinh}(uz_a)}}𝒳_a^{}+\mathrm{o}(\eta ^2),`$
$`C_2(u|z)`$ $`=`$ $`2\eta {\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{uz_a}}{\mathrm{sinh}(uz_a)}}𝒳_a^++\mathrm{o}(\eta ^2).`$ (3.6)
Therefore, the semi-classical expansion of the transfer matrix (2.49) has the form

$$\tau (u|z)=+8\eta ^2\tau ^{(2)}(u|z)+\mathrm{o}(\eta ^3),$$
(3.7)
where

$$\tau ^{(2)}(u|z)=\underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{𝒢_a(u)}{\mathrm{e}^{uz_a}\mathrm{sinh}(uz_a)}+\underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(\frac{1}{2}_a^2+\frac{3}{4}\frac{_a}{\mathrm{sinh}(uz_a)^2}\right),$$
(3.8)
with

$`𝒢_a(u)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{ba}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}(z_az_b)}}\{\mathrm{cosh}(uz_a)\mathrm{cosh}(uz_b)_a\stackrel{s}{}_b`$ (3.9)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\mathrm{e}^{z_a+z_b}𝒳_a^+\stackrel{s}{}𝒳_b^{}+\mathrm{e}^{z_az_b}𝒳_a^{}\stackrel{s}{}𝒳_b^+\right)`$
$`+(\mathrm{e}^{z_a+z_b}𝒱_a^+\stackrel{s}{}𝒱_b^{}\mathrm{e}^{z_az_b}𝒱_a^{}\stackrel{s}{}𝒱_b^+)\}.`$
Here we have used the symmetry

$$𝒢_{ba}(u,z_a,z_b)=𝒫𝒢_{ab}(u,z_a,z_b)𝒫=𝒢_{ab}(u,z_b,z_a),$$
(3.10)
and the identity

$$\frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}(uz_a)\mathrm{sinh}(uz_b)}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}(z_az_b)}\left(\frac{\mathrm{e}^{u+z_a}}{\mathrm{sinh}(uz_a)}\frac{\mathrm{e}^{u+z_b}}{\mathrm{sinh}(uz_b)}\right).$$
(3.11)
The Gaudin Hamiltonians are defined as the residue of $`\tau (u|z)`$ at the point $`u=z_a`$. This results in $`N`$ non-local Hamiltonians

$`G_a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{ba}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}(z_az_b)}}\{\mathrm{cosh}(z_az_b)_a\stackrel{s}{}_b+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{e}^{z_a+z_b}𝒳_a^+\stackrel{s}{}𝒳_b^{}`$
$`+\mathrm{e}^{z_az_b}𝒳_a^{}\stackrel{s}{}𝒳_b^+)+\mathrm{e}^{z_a+z_b}𝒱_a^+\stackrel{s}{}𝒱_b^{}\mathrm{e}^{z_az_b}𝒱_a^{}\stackrel{s}{}𝒱_b^+\},`$
$`a`$ $`=`$ $`1,2,\mathrm{},N.`$ (3.12)
satisfying

$$\underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}G_a=0,\frac{G_a}{z_b}=\frac{G_b}{z_a},[G_a,G_b]=0,a,b.$$
(3.13)
In the next section we will use the data of the algebraic Bethe Ansatz for the $`osp(2|1)`$ vertex model to find the exact spectrum and eigenvectors for each of these $`N1`$ independent Hamiltonians.

Before doing this, we would like to consider the semi-classical limit of the fundamental commutation relation (2.29) in order to get the $`osp(2|1)`$ Gaudin algebra:

The semi-classical expansions of $`T`$ and $`R`$ can be written in the following form

$$T(u|z)=1+2\eta l(u|z)+o(\eta ^2),R(u)=𝒫\left[1+2\eta r(u)+o(\eta ^2)\right].$$
(3.14)
From (3.33.6) we can see that the ”classical $`l`$-operator ” has the form

$$l(u|z)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}(u|z)& 𝒱^{}(u|z)& 𝒳^{}(u|z)\\ 𝒱^+(u|z)& 0& 𝒱^{}(u|z)\\ 𝒳^+(u|z)& 𝒱^+(u|z)& (u|z)\end{array}\right),$$
(3.15)
where

$`(u|z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\mathrm{coth}(uz_a)_a,`$
$`𝒱^{}(u|z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{u+z_a}}{\mathrm{sinh}(uz_a)}}𝒱_a^{},𝒱^+(u|z)={\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{uz_a}}{\mathrm{sinh}(uz_a)}}𝒱_a^+,`$
$`𝒳^{}(u|z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{u+z_a}}{\mathrm{sinh}(uz_a)}}𝒳_a^{},𝒳^+(u|z)={\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{uz_a}}{\mathrm{sinh}(uz_a)}}𝒳_a^+.`$ (3.16)
The classical $`r`$-matrix has the form

$`r(u)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}u}}\{\mathrm{cosh}u\stackrel{s}{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{e}^u𝒳^+\stackrel{s}{}𝒳^{}+\mathrm{e}^u𝒳^{}\stackrel{s}{}𝒳^+)`$ (3.17)
$`+\mathrm{e}^u(𝒱^++𝒱^+)\stackrel{s}{}(𝒱^{}+𝒱^{})`$
$`\mathrm{e}^u(𝒱^{}+𝒱^{})\stackrel{s}{}(𝒱^++𝒱^+)\}.`$
Here we observe that we are in the fundamental representation of the $`osp(2|1)`$ algebra where the relation

$$(𝒱^++𝒱^+)(𝒱^{}+𝒱^{})=𝒱^+𝒱^{}$$
(3.18)
holds. Therefore, (3.17) is equivalent to that $`r`$-matrix constructed out of the quadratic Casimir in a standard way . Indeed it corresponds to the second regular solution ($`ϵ=1)`$ presented in (2.28).

Substituting (3.17) and (3.15) into the fundamental relation (2.29), we have

$`𝒫l(u|z)\stackrel{s}{}l(v|z)+𝒫r(uv)\left[l(u|z)\stackrel{s}{}1+1\stackrel{s}{}l(v|z)\right]`$ (3.19)
$`=`$ $`l(v|z)\stackrel{s}{}l(u|z)𝒫+\left[l(v|z)\stackrel{s}{}1+1\stackrel{s}{}l(u|z)\right]𝒫r(uv),`$
whose consistence is guaranteed by the graded classical YB equation.

From (3.19) we can derive (anti)commutation relations between the matrix elements of $`l(u|z)`$. They are the defining relations of the $`osp(2|1)`$ Gaudin algebra :

$`[(u|z),(v|z)]`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`[𝒱^{}(u|z),𝒳^{}(v|z)]`$ $`=`$ $`[𝒳^{}(u|z),𝒳^{}(v|z)]=0,`$
$`[𝒱^\pm (u|z),𝒳^{}(v|z)]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{e}^{\pm (uv)}}{\mathrm{sinh}(uv)}}\left[𝒱^{}(u|z)𝒱^{}(v|z)\right],`$
$`[𝒳^{}(u|z),𝒳^+(v|z)]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\mathrm{e}^{u+v}}{\mathrm{sinh}(uv)}}\left[(u|z)(v|z)\right],`$
$`\{𝒱^{}(u|z),𝒱^+(v|z)\}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{u+v}}{\mathrm{sinh}(uv)}}[(u|z)(v|z))],`$
$`[(u|z),𝒱^{}(v|z)]`$ $`=`$ $`\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}(uv)}}\left[\mathrm{e}^{\pm (uv)}𝒱^{}(u|z)\mathrm{cosh}(uv)𝒱^{}(v|z)\right],`$
$`[(u|z),𝒳^{}(v|z)]`$ $`=`$ $`\pm {\displaystyle \frac{2}{\mathrm{sinh}(uv)}}\left[\mathrm{e}^{\pm (uv)}𝒳^{}(u|z)\mathrm{cosh}(uv)𝒳^{}(v|z)\right],`$
$`\{𝒱^{}(u|z),𝒱^{}(v|z)\}`$ $`=`$ $`\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}(uv)}}[\mathrm{e}^{\pm (uv)}𝒳^{}(u|z)\mathrm{e}^{(uv)}𝒳^{}(v|z))].`$ (3.20)
A direct consequence of these relations is the commutativity of $`\tau ^{(2)}(u|z)`$

$$[\tau ^{(2)}(u|z),\tau ^{(2)}(v|z)]=0,u,v$$
(3.21)
from which the commutativity of the Gaudin Hamiltonians $`G_a`$ follows immediately.

### 3.1 Off-shell Gaudin Equation

In order to get semi-classical limit of the OSBAE (2.56) we first consider the semi-classical expansions of the Bethe vectors defined in (2.55), (2.58) and (2.60):

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_n(u_1,\mathrm{},u_n|z)`$ $`=`$ $`(2\eta )^n\mathrm{\Phi }_n(u_1,\mathrm{},u_n|z)+\mathrm{o}(\eta ^{n+1}),`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{(n1)}^j`$ $`=`$ $`2(2\eta )^{n+1}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{uu_j}}{\mathrm{sinh}(uu_j)}}𝒱^{}(u|z)\mathrm{\Phi }_{n1}(\underset{j}{\overset{}{u}}|z)+\mathrm{o}(\eta ^{n+2}),`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{(n2)}^{lj}`$ $`=`$ $`(2\eta )^{n1}𝒳^{}(u|z)\mathrm{\Phi }_{n2}(\underset{l}{\overset{}{u}},\underset{j}{\overset{}{u}}|z)+\mathrm{o}(\eta ^n),`$ (3.22)
where

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_n(u_1,\mathrm{},u_n|z)`$ $`=`$ $`𝒱^{}(u_1|z)\mathrm{\Phi }_{n1}(u_2,\mathrm{},u_n|z)`$ (3.23)
$`𝒳^{}(u_1|z){\displaystyle \underset{j=2}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{()^j\mathrm{e}^{u_1u_j}}{\mathrm{sinh}(u_1u_j)}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{n2}(\underset{j}{\overset{}{u}}|z),`$
with $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=|0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1(u_1|z)=𝒱^{}(u_1|z)\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$.

Here we would like make a few comments on the structure of these vector-valued functions. In (3.23) they are written in a normal ordered form. Since we are working with fermionic degree of freedom, the function $`\mathrm{\Phi }_n(u_1,\mathrm{},u_n|z)`$ is totally antisymmetric.

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_n(u_1,\mathrm{},u_{i1},u_{i+1},u_i,\mathrm{},u_n|z)=\mathrm{\Phi }_n(u_1,\mathrm{},u_{i1},u_i,u_{i+1},\mathrm{},u_n|z).$$
(3.24)
To see this one can use the Gaudin algebra (3.20). For instance, in its antisymmetric form the Bethe vector $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ reads as

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_2(u_1,u_2|z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[𝒱^{}(u_1|z)𝒱^{}(u_2|z)𝒱^{}(u_2|z)𝒱^{}(u_1|z)]\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ (3.25)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{u_1u_2}𝒳^{}(u_1|z)+\mathrm{e}^{u_1+u_2}𝒳^{}(u_2|z)}{\mathrm{sinh}(u_1u_2)}}]\mathrm{\Phi }_0.`$
Now we will consider the semi-classical expansions of the $`c`$-number functions presented in the OSBAE (2.56)

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n`$ $`=`$ $`1+2(2\eta )^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_n^{(2)}+\mathrm{o}(\eta ^3),_j^{(n1)}=(2\eta )()^{j+1}f_j^{(n1)}+\mathrm{o}(\eta ^2)`$
$`_{lj}^{(n2)}`$ $`=`$ $`2(2\eta )^3{\displaystyle \frac{()^{l+j+1}}{\mathrm{sinh}(u_ju_l)}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{uu_j}}{\mathrm{sinh}(uu_l)}}f_l^{(n1)}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{uu_l}}{\mathrm{sinh}(uu_j)}}f_j^{(n1)}\right\}+\mathrm{o}(\eta ^4),`$
where

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(N+n)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}(uz_a)^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\mathrm{coth}(uz_a)\mathrm{coth}(uu_j)`$ (3.27)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{a<b}{\overset{N}{}}}\mathrm{coth}(uz_a)\mathrm{coth}(uz_b)+{\displaystyle \underset{j<k}{\overset{n}{}}}\mathrm{coth}(uu_j)\mathrm{coth}(uu_k),`$
and

$$f_j^{(n1)}=\underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{coth}(u_jz_a)+\underset{kj}{\overset{n}{}}\mathrm{coth}(u_ju_k).$$
(3.28)
Substituting these expressions into the (2.56) and comparing the coefficients of the terms $`2(2\eta )^{n+2}`$ we get the first non-trivial consequence for the semi-classical limit of the OSBAE:

$$\tau ^{(2)}(u|z)\mathrm{\Phi }_n(u_1,\mathrm{},u_n|z)=\mathrm{\Lambda }_n^{(2)}\mathrm{\Phi }_n(u_1,\mathrm{},u_n|z)\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{()^jf_j^{(n1)}\mathrm{\Theta }_{(n1)}^j}{\mathrm{e}^{u_ju}\mathrm{sinh}(u_ju)}.$$
(3.29)
Note that in this limit the contributions from $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{(n1)}^j`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{(n2)}^{lj}`$ are combined to give a new vector valued function

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_{(n1)}^j=𝒱^{}(u|z)\mathrm{\Phi }_{n1}(\underset{j}{\overset{}{u}}|z)𝒳^{}(u|z)\underset{k=1,kj}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{()^k^{^{}}\mathrm{e}^{u_ju_k}}{\mathrm{sinh}(u_ju_k)}\mathrm{\Phi }_{n2}(\underset{j}{\overset{}{u}},\underset{k}{\overset{}{u}}|z),$$
(3.30)
where $`k^{^{}}=k+1`$for$`k<j`$ and $`k^{^{}}=k`$ for$`k>j`$. Therefore, our graded OSBAE (3.29) is very similar to that presented by Babujian and Flume for simple Lie algebras . This result could be expected since the superalgebra $`osp(2|1)`$ has many features which make it very close to the Lie algebra .

Finally, we take the residue of (3.29) at the point $`u=z_a`$ to get the off-shell Gaudin equation:

$`G_a\mathrm{\Phi }_n(u_1,\mathrm{},u_n|z)`$ $`=`$ $`g_a\mathrm{\Phi }_n(u_1,\mathrm{},u_n|z){\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{()^lf_l^{(n1)}\varphi _{(n1)}^l}{\mathrm{e}^{u_lz_a}\mathrm{sinh}(u_lz_a)}},`$
$`a`$ $`=`$ $`1,2,\mathrm{},N`$ (3.31)
where $`g_a`$ is the residue of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n^{(2)}`$

$$g_a=\mathrm{res}_{u=z_a}\mathrm{\Lambda }_n^{(2)}=\underset{ba}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{coth}(z_az_b)\underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}\mathrm{coth}(z_au_l),$$
(3.32)
and $`\varphi _{(n1)}^l`$ is the residue of $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{(n1)}^l`$

$$\varphi _{(n1)}^j=\mathrm{res}_{u=z_a}\mathrm{\Theta }_{(n1)}^j=𝒱_a^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{n1}(\underset{j}{\overset{}{u}}|z)𝒳_a^{}\underset{kj}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{()^k^{}\mathrm{e}^{u_ju_k}}{\mathrm{sinh}(u_ju_k)}\mathrm{\Phi }_{n2}(\underset{k}{\overset{}{u}},\underset{j}{\overset{}{u}}|z).$$
(3.33)
In this way we are arriving to the main result of this paper. The equation (3.31) permits us solve one of the main problem of the Gaudin model, i.e., the determination of the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the commuting Hamiltonians $`G_a`$ (3.9): $`g_a`$ is the eigenvalue of $`G_a`$ with eigenfunction $`\mathrm{\Phi }_n`$ provided $`u_l`$ are solutions of the following equations $`f_j^{(n1)}=0`$, i.e.:

$$\underset{kj}{\overset{n}{}}\mathrm{coth}(u_ju_k)=\underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{coth}(u_jz_a),j=1,2,\mathrm{},n.$$
(3.34)
Moreover, as we will see in the next section, the off-shell Gaudin equation (3.31) provides solutions for the differential equations known as KZ equations.

## 4 Knizhnik-Zamolodchickov equation

The KZ differential equation

$$\kappa \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }(z)}{z_i}=H_i(z)\mathrm{\Psi }(z),$$
(4.1)
appeared first as a holonomic system of differential equations on conformal blocks in a WZW model of conformal field theory. Here $`\mathrm{\Psi }(z)`$ is a function with values in the tensor product $`V_1\mathrm{}V_N`$ of representations of a simple Lie algebra, $`\kappa =k+g`$ , where $`k`$ is the central charge of the model, and $`g`$ is the dual Coxeter number of the simple Lie algebra.

One of the remarkable properties of the KZ system is that the coefficient functions $`H_i(z)`$ commute and that the form $`\omega =_iH_i(z)dz_i`$ is closed :

$$\frac{H_j}{z_i}=\frac{H_i}{z_j},[H_i,H_j]=0.$$
(4.2)
In this section we will identify $`H_i`$ with the $`osp(2|1)`$ Gaudin Hamiltonians $`G_a`$ presented in the previous section and show that the corresponding differential equations (4.1) can be solved via the off-shell Bethe Ansatz method.

Let us now define the vector-valued function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(z_1,\mathrm{},z_N)`$ through multiple contour integrals of the Bethe vectors (3.23)

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(z_1,\mathrm{},z_N)=\mathrm{}𝒳(u|z)\mathrm{\Phi }_n(u|z)𝑑u_1\mathrm{}𝑑u_n,$$
(4.3)
where $`𝒳`$ $`(u|z)=𝒳`$ $`(u_1,\mathrm{},u_n,z_1,\mathrm{},z_N)`$ is a scalar function which in this stage is still undefined.

We assume that $`\mathrm{\Psi }(z_1,\mathrm{},z_N)`$ is a solution of the equations

$$\kappa \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }(z_1,\mathrm{},z_N)}{z_a}=G_a\mathrm{\Psi }(z_1,\mathrm{},z_N),a=1,2,\mathrm{},N$$
(4.4)
where $`G_a`$ are the Gaudin Hamiltonians (3.9) and $`\kappa `$ is a constant.

Substituting (4.3) into (4.4) we have

$$\kappa \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }(z_1,\mathrm{},z_N)}{z_a}=\left\{\kappa \frac{𝒳(u|z)}{z_a}\mathrm{\Phi }_n(u|z)+\kappa 𝒳(u|z)\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_n(u|z)}{z_a}\right\}𝑑u,$$
(4.5)
where we are using a compact notation $`\{\}𝑑u=\mathrm{}\{\}`$ $`du_1\mathrm{}du_n.`$

Using the Gaudin algebra (3.20) one can derive the following non-trivial identity

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_n}{z_a}=\underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}()^l\frac{}{u_l}\left(\frac{\mathrm{e}^{u_l+z_a}\varphi _{(n1)}^l}{\mathrm{sinh}(u_lz_a)}\right),$$
(4.6)
which allows us write (4.5) in the form

$`\kappa {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }}{z_a}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \left\{\kappa \frac{𝒳(u|z)}{z_a}\mathrm{\Phi }_n(u|z)\underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}()^l\kappa \frac{𝒳(u|z)}{u_l}\left(\frac{\mathrm{e}^{u_l+za}\varphi _{(n1)}^l}{\mathrm{sinh}(u_lz_a)}\right)\right\}𝑑u}`$ (4.7)
$`+\kappa {\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}}()^l{\displaystyle \frac{}{u_l}\left(𝒳(u|z)\frac{\mathrm{e}^{u_l+za}\varphi _{(n1)}^l}{\mathrm{sinh}(u_lz_a)}\right)𝑑u}.`$
It is evident that the last term of (4.7) is vanishes, because the contours are closed. Moreover, if the scalar function $`𝒳(u|z)`$ satisfies the following differential equations

$$\kappa \frac{𝒳(u|z)}{z_a}=g_a𝒳(u|z),\kappa \frac{𝒳(u|z)}{u_j}=f_j^{(n1)}𝒳(u|z),$$
(4.8)
we are recovering the off-shell Gaudin equation (3.31) from the first term in (4.7).

Taking into account the definition of the scalar functions $`f_j^{(n1)}`$(3.28) and $`g_a`$ (3.32), we can see that the consistency condition of the system (4.8) is insured by the zero curvature conditions $`f_j^{(n1)}/z_a=g_a/u_j`$. Moreover, the solution of (4.8) is easily obtained

$$𝒳(u|z)=\underset{a<b}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{sinh}(z_az_b)^{1/\kappa }\underset{j<k}{\overset{n}{}}\mathrm{sinh}(u_ju_k)^{1/\kappa }\underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\mathrm{sinh}(z_au_j)^{1/\kappa }.$$
(4.9)
This function determines the monodromy of $`\mathrm{\Psi }(z_1,\mathrm{},z_N)`$ as solution of the trigonometric KZ equation (4.4) and these results are in agreement with the Schechtman-Varchenko construction for multiple contour integral as solutions of the KZ equation in an arbitrary simple Lie algebra .

## 5 Highest Representations

The generalization of our results for the highest representations of the $`osp(2|1)`$ algebra requests the knowledge of the corresponding algebraic Bethe Ansatz which. It can be obtained from the Bethe Ansatz for the fundamental representation using a fusion procedure. Nevertheless, we can use the fact that the one-parameter operator families (3.16) form the highest weight module of the infinite-dimensional Lie superalgebra. As in the $`sl_2`$ case presented by Sklyanin in , it is characterized by the vacuum $`|0`$

$$(u|z)|0=h(u|z)|0,𝒱^+(u|z)|0=0,𝒳^+(u|z)|0=0,$$
(5.1)
the dual vacuum $`0|`$

$$0|(u|z)=h(u|z)0|,0|𝒱^{}(u|z)=0,0|𝒳^{}(u|z)=0,0|0=1,$$
(5.2)
and the highest weight scalar function

$$h(u|z)=\underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}2s_a\mathrm{coth}(uz_a),s_a=\frac{1}{2},1,\frac{3}{2},\mathrm{}$$
(5.3)
The solution of the Gaudin eigenvalue problem is given in term of Bethe vectors $`\mathrm{\Phi }_n(u_1,\mathrm{},u_n)`$ given by (3.23) with the operators written in the $`j`$-representation (2.21) and (2.23).

It is convenient to express the Gaudin Hamiltonians $`G_a`$ in terms of a generating function $`t(u|z)`$ which is obtained as the result of replacing $`H`$, $`X^\pm `$ and $`V^\pm `$ in the quadratic Casimir (2.2) by $`(u|z)`$, $`𝒳^\pm (u|z)`$ and $`𝒱^\pm (u|z)`$, respectively:

$$4t(u|z)=\underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{𝒢_a(u)}{\mathrm{e}^{uz_a}\mathrm{sinh}(uz_a)}+\underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(_a^2+\frac{s_a(s_a+1/2)}{\mathrm{sinh}(uz_a)^2}\right).$$
(5.4)
where $`𝒢_a(u)`$ is given by (3.9).

Using a theorem  which states that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_n(u_1,\mathrm{},u_n)`$ is an eigenvector of the commuting operators $`𝒢_a(u)`$ or, equivalently, of $`t(u|z)`$ if and only if the parameters $`u_1,\mathrm{},u_n`$ satisfy the Bethe equations

$$\underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}2s_a\mathrm{coth}(uz_a)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}\mathrm{coth}(uu_k).$$
(5.5)
The corresponding eigenvalue $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(u)`$ of $`4t(u|z)`$ is then

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(u)=\lambda ^2(u)2_u\lambda (u)$$
(5.6)
where

$$\lambda (u)=\underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}2s_a\mathrm{coth}(uz_a)\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}\mathrm{coth}(uu_k)$$
(5.7)
From these results we conjecture that the off-shell Gaudin equation for the highest representations is also given by (3.31) with

$$f_j^{(n1)}=\underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}2s_a\mathrm{coth}(u_jz_a)+\underset{kj}{\overset{n}{}}\mathrm{coth}(u_ju_k),$$
(5.8)
and

$$g_a=\underset{ba}{}4s_as_b\mathrm{coth}(z_az_b)\underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}2s_a\mathrm{coth}(z_au_l).$$
(5.9)
Consequently, the monodromy of the function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(z_1,\mathrm{},z_N)`$ (4.3) for the $`j`$-representation is given by

$$𝒳(u|z)=\underset{a<b}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{sinh}(z_az_b)^{4s_as_b/\kappa }\underset{j<k}{\overset{n}{}}\mathrm{sinh}(u_ju_k)^{1/\kappa }\underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\mathrm{sinh}(z_au_j)^{2s_a/\kappa },$$
(5.10)
which also is in agreement with the Schechtman-Varchenko construction .

## 6 Conclusion

In this paper a graded $`19`$-vertex model was used to generalise previous rational results connecting Gaudin magnet models and semi-classical off-shell Bethe Ansatz of vertex models.

Using the semi-classical limit of the transfer matrix of the vertex model we derive the trigonometric $`osp(2|1)`$ Gaudin Hamiltonians. The reduction of the off-shell Gaudin equation to an eigenvalue equation gives us the exact spectra and eigenvectors for these Gaudin magnets. Data of the off-shell Gaudin equation were used to show that a Jackson-type integral (4.3) is solution of the trigonometric KZ differential equation.

In fact, this method had already been used with success to constructing solutions of trigonometric KZ equations  and elliptic KZ-Bernard equations , for the six-vertex model and eight-vertex model, respectively.

Acknowledgment: This work was supported in part by Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo–FAPESP–Brasil, by Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento–CNPq–Brasil and by Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior–CAPES-Brasil.


format: text

text:
# The Control of Dynamical Systems – Recovering Order from Chaos –

## Introduction

In his 1985 Gifford Lectures, Freeman Dyson expressed his opinion on the matter of chaos. In his subsequently published words DYS88 , the chapter entitled “Engineers’ Dreams” contains the following statement:

> A chaotic motion is generally neither predictable nor controllable. It is unpredictable because a small disturbance will produce exponentially growing perturbation of the motion. It is uncontrollable because small disturbances lead only to other chaotic motions and not to any stable and predictable alternative. Von Neumann’s mistake was to imagine that every unstable motion could be nudged into a stable motion by small pushes and pulls applied at the right places.

As one can see, the assertion was also meant as an answer to comments made by von Neumann in the early 1950s and who obviously held a less pessimistic point of view. Dyson’s position represents well the traditional wisdom until 1990 …

In order to appreciate why the juxtaposition of the two words chaos and control is so counter-intuitive and why Dyson’s statement was so representative and sensible, an operational definition of chaos will be helpful. In our exposition, the word chaos has a technical and precise meaning to be distinguished from its greek origin where it designated “the primeval emptiness of the universe before things came into being of the abyss of Tartarus, the underworld” . A universal definition is not available, but most researchers would agree that deterministic chaos could be described as follows:
Chaos is a long-term aperiodic behaviour of a dynamical system that possesses the property of sensitivity to initial conditions.
– long-term aperiodic behaviour means that the time evolution of the system does not tend towards a stationary or periodic state, i.e. regularity of the motion is absent.
– dynamical system describes a process whose future behaviour is strictly determined by its past state, i.e. determinism is present and the source of the irregularity is inherent and not to be found in a stochastic component.
– sensitivity to initial conditions implies that a very small deviation in the initial conditions is sufficient to create large deviations in the future states (the so-called “butterfly effect”), i.e. despite the presence of determinism, practical long-term predictability is lost.

This is the type of motion that Dyson had in mind. It is not new of course and it is clear that Maxwell and Boltzmann, the founders of statistical physics, were acutely aware of the property of sensitivity to initial conditions and its consequences. Not before Poincaré POI1890  however, could one ascertain the existence of this property in a system with few degrees of freedom, namely the reduced 3-body problem. In the continuing history of nonlinear dynamical systems, the first evidence of physical chaos is associated with the name of Edward Lorenz LOR63 , whose 1963 discovery of the first strange attractor in a simplified meteorological model containing only 3 state variables has led to a remarkable explosion in the study of chaos and its properties. It was not until 1990 however that Ott, Grebogi and Yorke (OGY) OTT90  addressed the question of control of chaos and described, very much in the spirit of von Neumann, the theoretical steps necessary to achieve this goal. This work was rapidly followed by experimental verification DIT90 : von Neumann’s dream had become reality.

This Progress Report will describe some practical implementations for the recovery of order from chaos. The theoretical foundations of the methods will be first explained for 1D and 2D systems and then demonstrated with some recent calculations taken from mathematics and physics. Our conclusions and a glimpse at future applications and extensions make the last part of the presentation. Lack of space precludes completeness, and the interested reader may wish to consult the special 1997 Decembre issue of Chaos for further information111As an indication of the rapid growth of the literature, approximately 1500 articles have been published on the subject of Control and Synchronization between 1990-1999..

## The Control Strategy

All stable processes, we shall predict.
All unstable processes, we shall control.
John von Neumann, circa 1950

In this Section, we show how the richness, the complexity and the sensitivity of chaotic dynamics can be used to select and stabilize at will, with small programmed perturbations, an otherwise unstable state of the natural dynamics. The goal is to achieve this feat without altering appreciably the original system. It is precisely the properties that differentiate a chaotic motion from an irregular or unstable behaviour that are the solution to the control task. The important ingredients are:
– unstable periodic orbits (UPO) are typically dense in the chaotic attractor of dissipative systems or in the stochastic web of conservative systems, i.e. there are practically an infinity of unstable states to choose from.
– chaotic motion is ergodic, meaning that a chaotic trajectory will revisit infinitely often the neighbourhood of any point within the available phase space.
– chaotic dynamics is sensitive to initial conditions, implying that small perturbations will naturally induce large effects.

To go beyond qualitative description, we establish some working conditions:

1. we suppose that the dynamics can be represented by a $`d`$-dimensional nonlinear map (either given explicitly or reconstructed from the observations)

$$𝐱_{n+1}=𝐅(𝐱_n,p)$$
(1)
where $`p`$ is an accessible system parameter, the control parameter.
2. there exists one or more specific UPOs for a given nominal value $`p_0`$ of the parameter, defined by

$$\{𝐱(i,p_0):𝐱(i,p_0)=𝐅^{\left(m\right)}(𝐱(i,p_0),p_0),i=1,m\}$$
(2)
for an orbit of period $`m`$, around which one wishes to stabilize the dynamics.
3. control is activated only when points of the trajectory $`\left\{𝐱_n\right\}`$ fall in a small neighbourhood of the UPOs, usually taken to be a ball $`_\delta `$ of radius $`\delta `$ around $`\left\{𝐱(i,p_0)\right\}`$ ,

$$\left|𝐱_n𝐱(i,p_0)\right|\delta \text{for some}i=1,m,$$
(3)
hereafter referred to as the control or $`\delta `$neighbourhood.
4. we restrict the parameter variations $`\delta p`$, necessary to achieve control, to a maximum small perturbation

$$\left|\delta p\right|\left|\delta p_{\mathrm{max}}\right|\left|p\right|$$
(4)
defining the control range.
5. since the position of a periodic orbit is a function of $`p`$, and we assume that the local dynamics does not vary much within $`\left|\delta p\right|`$, a linear representation of the dynamics is possible.

Obviously, the control range and neighbourhood are not independent and experience shows that a judicious choice is to take them of the same order of magnitude.

### 1D Control

In a 1D system where the nonlinear map is given explicitly by

$$x_{n+1}=F(x_n,p),$$
(5)
and where a target UPO of period $`m`$, i.e. $`\left\{x(i,p_0)\right\}`$, exists at nominal value $`p_0`$ of the control parameter, the perturbations necessary to stabilize the orbit can be calculated directly. Indeed, assume that at the $`n`$-th iteration, $`x_n`$ comes in $`_\delta `$ of the $`i`$-th component of the target UPO, i.e. $`\left|x_nx(i,p_0)\right|\delta `$, then equation (5) can easily be linearized around $`x(i,p_0)`$ and $`p=p_0`$ such that

$$x_{n+1}x(i+1,p_0)U_i\left[x_nx(i,p_0)\right]+V_i\left[p_np_0\right]U_i\delta x_{n,i}+V_i\delta p_n$$
(6)
where $`U`$ is the Jacobian of the map and $`V`$ expresses the parametric variation of the map

$$U=D_xF(x,p)=\frac{}{x}F(x,p)V=D_pF(x,p)=\frac{}{p}F(x,p).$$
(7)
The notation $`U_i`$ and $`V_i`$ indicates that the partial derivatives are evaluated at $`\left[x=x(i,p_0),p=p_0\right]`$. To obtain an expression for $`\delta p_n`$, one imposes the control criterion (not unique) that equation (6), taken as a strict equality, should be equal to zero, namely that

$$x_{n+1}x(i+1,p_0)=0.$$
(8)
(control criterion 1D)
Solving for $`\delta p_n`$, equation (6) leads immediately to

$$\delta p_n=\frac{U_i}{V_i}\delta x_{n,i}.$$
(9)
In order to complete the procedure, one should make sure that $`\left|\delta p_n\right|`$ just obtained is $`\delta p_{\mathrm{max}}`$ (we will always take $`\delta p_{\mathrm{max}}>0`$ ). If it is so, $`p_n=p_0+\delta p_n`$ for the next iteration; if not, one could set $`p_n=p_0`$ and wait until the trajectory reenters $`_\delta `$. We have found that a more robust choice is to apply the corrections during the control stage according to the prescription

$$\delta p_n\delta p_{\mathrm{max}}\mathrm{tanh}\left(\delta p_n/\delta p_{\mathrm{max}}\right)\mathrm{for}\left|\delta p_n\right|>\delta p_{\mathrm{max}}.$$
(10)
This is a minor point however since typically $`\delta p_n`$ decreases rapidly after the first few iterations as we are getting ever closer to the target orbit ($`\delta p_n\delta x_n`$).

### 2D Control

Stabilization in higher dimensions is qualitatively different from the 1D case since phase space is endowed with a much richer structure. For simplicity, we will confine our discussion to two dimensions. In 2D, the generic local neighbourhood of a UPO is equipped with a stable and unstable manifold. A chaotic trajectory entering the neighbourhood will move toward the UPO along the stable direction and escape along the unstable one. This is the “saddle dynamics” illustrated in Figure (1).

OGY OTT90  realized that a possible solution of controlling chaos could be obtained by locally displacing the manifolds such that the component of the motion along the unstable direction could be eliminated (at least to first order) such that subsequent evolution will naturally lead the orbit to the unstable point along the stable direction. This idea is geometrically presented in Figure (1) for the situation of an unstable fixed point denoted $`𝐱_F\left(p_0\right)`$, much like the task of bringing a ball bearing to rest on a saddle. The remaining part of this subsection is devoted to the mathematical translation of the applications of “small pushes and pulls applied at the right places”.

Starting from the 2D nonlinear map

$$𝐱_{n+1}=𝐅(𝐱_n,p)$$
(11)
with $`𝐱_n^2`$ and $`p`$, one traces the steps to achieve control through the following algorithm.

1. locate a UPO of period $`m`$ for the nominal value of the parameter $`p_0`$

$$𝐱(1,p_0)𝐱(2,p_0)\mathrm{}𝐱(m,p_0)𝐱(m+1,p_0)=𝐱(1,p_0).$$
(12)
2. linearize the dynamics in the $`\delta `$-neighbourhood of $`𝐱(i,p_0)`$ :

$$𝐱_{n+1}𝐱(i+1,p_0)𝐔_i\left[𝐱_n𝐱(i,p_0)\right]+𝐕_i\delta p_n$$
(13)
where $`𝐔`$ is the $`2\times 2`$ Jacobian matrix and $`𝐕`$ is a $`2\times 1`$ parametric variation vector

$$𝐔D_𝐱𝐅(𝐱,p)\mathrm{and}𝐕D_p𝐅(𝐱,p)$$
(14)
with the partial derivatives evaluated at $`\left[𝐱=𝐱(i,p_0),p=p_0\right]`$.
3. characterize the local dynamics by the stable $`𝐞_{s,i}`$ and the unstable $`𝐞_{u,i}`$ directions.
4. construct the contravariant vectors defined by

$$𝐟_{u,i}𝐞_{u,i}=𝐟_{s,i}𝐞_{s,i}=1𝐟_{u,i}𝐞_{s,i}=𝐟_{s,i}𝐞_{u,i}=0.$$
(15)
5. stabilize the orbit by demanding that it falls, on the next iteration, on the stable direction, i.e.

$$𝐟_{u,i+1}\left[𝐱_{n+1}𝐱(i+1,p_0)\right]=0.$$
(16)
(control criterion OGY)
Therefore, according to step 2, we obtain the relation

$$𝐟_{u,i+1}\left\{𝐔_i\left[𝐱_n𝐱(i,p_0)\right]+𝐕_i\delta p_n\right\}=0.$$
(17)
6. calculate the perturbation necessary to satisfy equation (17)

$$\delta p_n=\frac{𝐟_{u,i+1}\left\{𝐔_i\left[𝐱_n𝐱(i,p_0)\right]\right\}}{𝐟_{u,i+1}𝐕_i}$$
(18)
and apply only if $`\left|\delta p_n\right|<\delta p_{\mathrm{max}}`$ otherwise set e.g. $`\delta p_n=0`$ or use equation (10).

In summary, the stabilization procedure can be divided in three separate stages: the learning stage, where one identifies the desired UPOs, extracts the Jacobian matrices, and calculates the corresponding stable and unstable directions $`𝐞_{s,i}`$ , $`𝐞_{u,i}`$ to construct the contravariant vectors $`𝐟_{u,i}`$ ; the transient stage, where, after randomly choosing an initial condition, the system is let to evolve freely at the nominal parameter value $`p_0`$ until, at the control stage, once the chaotic trajectory has entered the prescribed $`\delta `$-neighbourhood, the control is attempted by means of small parameter perturbations.

### Alternative Control Algorithms

The algorithm just described is dynamically optimal in that it uses a control criterion and perturbations that involve the complete local structure of the system’s dynamics. From a practical (experimental) point of view, it is also most demanding considering that the underlying dynamical law is often not even known a priori. It requires the determination of the Jacobian matrices and the parametric variation of the map along the UPOs and the corresponding stable and unstable directions. Several modifications of the original method have been proposed and we now present some of them with an emphasis towards algorithms that are simpler and in some instances more practicable.

If instead of equation (13), one writes the linearization as

$$𝐱_{n+1}𝐱(i+1,p_n)𝐔_i\left[𝐱_n𝐱(i,p_n)\right]$$
(19)
where the dependence of $`𝐔_i`$ on $`p`$ has been ignored, and one introduces the parametric variation of the periodic points as

$$𝐠_i\frac{d}{dp}𝐱(i,p)|_{p=p_0}\frac{𝐱(i,p_0+\delta p)𝐱(i,p_0)}{\delta p}$$
(20)
or equivalently,

$$𝐱(i,p_0+\delta p)𝐱(i,p_0)+𝐠_i\delta p,$$
(21)
one arrives, under the criterion (16), to the perturbations

$$\delta p_n=\frac{𝐟_{u,i+1}\left\{𝐔_i\left[𝐱_n𝐱(i,p_0)\right]\right\}}{𝐟_{u,i+1}\left(𝐠_{i+1}𝐔_i𝐠_i\right)}.$$
(22)
The expression (22) has the advantage that the variables $`𝐠_i`$ can easily be obtained from observations of the shift of the periodic points under small parameter change.

One further simplification arises if it is sufficient to intervene on the dynamics only once per period. The modifications to the formula are straightforward. Equation (19) becomes

$$𝐱_{n+m}𝐱_{F,i}\left(p_n\right)𝐔_i^{\left(m\right)}\left[𝐱_n𝐱_{F,i}\left(p_n\right)\right]$$
(23)
where the notation is chosen to emphasize that $`𝐱_{F,i}\left(p\right)=𝐱(i,p)`$ is a fixed point of $`𝐅^{\left(m\right)}`$ (the $`m`$ times application of the map $`𝐅`$). Furthermore, the Jacobian matrix $`𝐔_i^{\left(m\right)}=D_𝐱𝐅^{\left(m\right)}(𝐱,p)`$, evaluated at $`[𝐱_{F,i}\left(p_0\right),p_0]`$, can be expanded in terms of its eigenvectors (the stable and unstable manifolds) and eigenvalues as $`\lambda _{u,i}𝐞_{u,i}𝐟_{u,i}+\lambda _{s,i}𝐞_{s,i}𝐟_{s,i}`$ to modify (22) to

$$\delta p_n=\frac{\lambda _{u,i}}{\left(1\lambda _{u,i}\right)}\frac{𝐟_{u,i}\left[𝐱_n𝐱_{F,i}\left(p_0\right)\right]}{𝐟_{u,i}𝐠_i}.$$
(24)
Until now the control criterion has not been modified, but in situations where the stable and unstable manifolds may be difficult to obtain (e.g. in high dimensions) or for the sake of simplicity, one might choose to minimize the deviation from the target orbit instead of projecting onto the stable manifold, i.e. we demand that

$$𝐱_{n+m}𝐱_{F,i}=\mathrm{minimum},$$
(25)
(control criterion MED)
where an estimate of $`𝐱_{n+m}`$ is given by equations (23) and (21), namely

$$𝐱_{n+m}𝐱_{F,i}\left(p_0\right)+𝐔_i^{\left(m\right)}\left[𝐱_n𝐱_{F,i}\left(p_0\right)\right]+\left(𝐠_i𝐔_i^{\left(m\right)}𝐠_i\right)\delta p_n.$$
(26)
The solution of the minimization (25) is then

$$\delta p_n=\frac{\left(𝐠_i𝐔_i^{\left(m\right)}𝐠_i\right)\left\{𝐔_i^{\left(m\right)}\left[𝐱_n𝐱_{F,i}\left(p_0\right)\right]\right\}}{\left(𝐠_i𝐔_i^{\left(m\right)}𝐠_i\right)^2}.$$
(27)
This technique was first introduced in REY93  and goes by the name of minimal expected deviation (MED) method222For conciseness, we only give the FIRST reference for each technique, although the methods are continuously being improved and modified: this applies to the entire report..

The perturbations $`\delta p_n`$ transform the original autonomous systems to nonautonomous ones. One could therefore consider a formulation extending phase space by one dimension with $`p_n`$ as the new dynamical variable. Alternatively, as was first realized in DRE92 , one could account explicitly for the $`p_n`$ dependence by introducing in the mapping itself the past history of the perturbations, namely

$$𝐱_{n+1}=𝐅_c(𝐱_n,p_n,p_{n1}).$$
(28)
We restrict ourselves to the last two perturbations. The sub-index on $`𝐅_c`$ is to remind us that the mapping differs from the original one and is only identical to it when $`p_n=p_{n1}=p_0`$. In analogy to equation (26), one can write

$`𝐱_{n+m}`$ $``$ $`𝐱_{F,i}(p_0,p_0)+𝐔_i^{\left(m\right)}\left[𝐱_n𝐱_{F,i}(p_0,p_0)\right]`$ (29)
$`+\left(𝐠_{u,i}𝐔_i^{\left(m\right)}𝐠_{u,i}\right)\delta p_n+\left(𝐠_{b,i}𝐔_i^{\left(m\right)}𝐠_{b,i}\right)\delta p_{n1}.`$
with

$$𝐠_u=\frac{d}{dp}𝐱_F(p,p^{})|_{p=p^{}=p_0}𝐠_b=\frac{d}{dp^{}}𝐱_F(p,p^{})|_{p=p^{}=p_0}.$$
(30)
To complete the modification, a control condition must be imposed and a reasonable choice is

$$\left[𝐱_{n+2m}𝐱_{F,i}(p_0,p_0)\right]=0\mathrm{and}\delta p_{n+1}=0.$$
(31)
(control criterion RPF)
The conditions (31) are sufficient to solve the linearized equation (29) for $`\delta p_n`$ as

$$\delta p_n=\frac{𝐗_i^{\left(m\right)}\left\{𝐔_i^{\left(m\right)}𝐔_i^{\left(m\right)}\left[𝐱_n𝐱_{F,i}(p_0,p_0)\right]\right\}}{𝐗_i^{\left(m\right)}^2}\frac{𝐗_i^{\left(m\right)}\left(𝐔_i^{\left(m\right)}𝐖_i^{\left(m\right)}\right)}{𝐗_i^{\left(m\right)}^2}\delta p_{n1}$$
(32)
with $`𝐗_i^{\left(m\right)}=𝐔_i^{\left(m\right)}𝐕_i^{\left(m\right)}+𝐖_i^{\left(m\right)}`$, $`𝐕_i^{\left(m\right)}=𝐠_{u,i}𝐔_i^{\left(m\right)}𝐠_{u,i}`$ and $`𝐖_i^{\left(m\right)}=𝐠_{b,i}𝐔_i^{\left(m\right)}𝐠_{b,i}`$. Our derivation is somewhat different from ROL93  and , in view of the numerous parameters to determine, it should be taken as a serious alternative only for 1D (or quasi 1D) systems. In the latter case, the method has a simple geometrical interpretation as illustrated in the right panel of Figure (2) for an unstable fixed point $`x_F\left(p_0\right)`$: $`U`$ is the local slope of the original map, $`g_u\delta p`$ and $`g_b\delta p`$ correspond to the shifts of the fixed point to positions $`x_{F,u}(p_0+\delta p,p_0)x_F\left(p_0\right)+g_u\delta p`$ and $`x_{F,b}(p_0,p_0+\delta p)x_F\left(p_0\right)+g_b\delta p`$ respectively, whereas $`V\delta p`$ denotes the map displacement from $`F_c(x,p_0,p_0)F(x,p_0)F_u(x,p_0+\delta p,p_0)`$ and $`W\delta p`$ from $`F(x,p_0)F_b(x,p_0,p_0+\delta p)`$. These parameters are readily obtained from the observations as was first demonstrated by ROL93  who gave the algorithm the name of recursive proportional feedback (RPF).

Our last modification, which we only quote for 1D systems where it is most likely to be used, consists of ignoring in the RPF formula the dependence on $`p_{n1}`$ which amounts to setting $`W=0`$ in the previous equations, to obtain

$$\delta p_n=\frac{U}{\left(gUg\right)}\left[x_nx_{F,i}\left(p_0\right)\right].$$
(33)
One should not be deceived by the apparent simplicity of equation (33). In its regime of applicability, it can be enormously successful as we will see shortly and as Hunt HUN91  first demonstrated. Its geometrical interpretation is shown in the left panel of Figure (2) where it amounts to choose a perturbation such that upon the next iteration, $`x_n`$ is mapped onto the target fixed point. This occasional proportional feedback (OPF), as it was called originally, is eminently suited for experimental control since it requires feedback signals proportional to the deviations to the target orbit and two parameters $`U`$ and $`g`$ readily available. Even more, if one is bold enough, one might just as well adjust the proportionality constant until control is established.

## Mathematical and Physical Applications

We have selected five examples of increasing complexity and novelty. The first three correspond to dissipative systems confined to a chaotic attractor, whereas the last two are conservative Hamiltonian systems where the attractor is replaced by bounded regions of phase space where the dynamics is chaotic.

We will apply the perturbations only once per period for all cases except the last. Save for the two discrete maps, ALL the relevant control informations are obtained numerically in an effort to simulate more closely an experimental setting. Reliable methods (see e.g. OTT94 ) exist to locate the positions of the UPOs and we will assume thereafter that the locations are known prior to the control session. The numerical construction of the Jacobian matrices from time series is often a subtle task and is beyond the scope of this article. The reader is referred to jacobian  for technical details.

### 1D Logistic Map

Our first example is the logistic map

$$x_{n+1}=rx_n\left(1x_n\right)$$
(34)
which is known to have a broad range of parameter values $`r[3.57,4.0]`$ where chaotic motion can be observed. The variables entering the control signals are simply

$$U=r\left(12x\right)\mathrm{and}V=x\left(1x\right)$$
(35)
and for a given UPO, $`\left\{x\left(i\right)\right\}`$, the perturbations are

$$\delta p_n=r_0\frac{2x\left(i\right)1}{x\left(i\right)\left(1x\left(i\right)\right)}\left[x_nx\left(i\right)\right]$$
(36)
for $`\left|x_nx\left(i\right)\right|\delta 1`$.

The left panel of Figure (3) shows the asymptotic behaviour of the orbits for different values of $`r`$. We have chosen the nominal value, $`r_0=3.8`$, and control settings of $`\delta =10^4`$, $`\delta r_{\mathrm{max}}=10^3r_0`$, and requested from our controller to successively stabilize periods $`m=1,2,4,5,7`$ and hold control for 2 000 iterates each. The right panel of Figure (3) shows the flexibility of the procedure letting ergodicity bring the trajectory near the next target orbits after a successful control sequence.

A few remarks are in order. First, note that the control process does not create the UPOs, they exist already in the natural (free) dynamics and build, so to speak, the lattice upon which the chaotic trajectory wanders. The control mechanism simply picks them out of the background. Second, the transients in between controlled periods are of varying lengths and could be considerably reduced by optimizing the control variables and/or by steering the chaotic orbit to the UPOs by a technique called targeting targeting  .

### 2D Dissipative Hénon Map

The Hénon map HEN76  has been a paradigmic example in nonlinear dynamics ever since its inception. It has the form
$`x_{n+1}`$ $`=`$ $`1ax_n^2+y_n`$    $`y_{n+1}`$ $`=`$ $`bx_n`$
and a Jacobian matrix given by

$$𝐔=\left(\begin{array}{cc}2ax& 1\\ b& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(38)
with determinant (the Jacobian) equal to $`b`$. It is dissipative for $`\left|b\right|<1`$ and possesses a non trivial strange attractor for various combinations of the parameters $`a,\left|b\right|<1`$. For our purpose, it serves as a benchmark, since the complete OGY strategy (eqns (18) or (22) or (24) ) can be performed (semi-) analytically and compared with other implementations. For example, the Jacobian matrices $`𝐔_i^{\left(m\right)}`$ are the product of $`m`$ individual Jacobian matrices along the periodic orbit, i.e. $`𝐔_{i+m1}𝐔_{i+m2}\mathrm{}𝐔_{i+1}𝐔_i`$, whose eigenvectors can be written down analytically.

Our experiment (Fig. 4) shows the attractor for $`a_0=1.4,b_0=0.3`$ with the locations of embedded UPOs of periods 1, 2, 4, 8. The OGY control algorithm was used and the perturbations applied to the parameter $`a_0`$. The right panel of Figure (4) shows the values of the $`x`$ variable for a scenario involving the successive stabilizations of period 2, 4, 1, and 8. The target orbit is changed once a UPO has been controlled for 10 000 iterates. The control region was set to $`\delta =5\times 10^3`$ and the maximum perturbation allowed was $`\delta a_{\mathrm{max}}=10^2a_0`$. Under the same operational conditions, the MED minimization gave equally satisfactory results.

### 3D Rössler Flow

Until now, our examples have described discrete dynamics and our formalism is also derived for maps. We now show how to appropriately discretize a flow to achieve control with the methods derived thus far. The Rössler system ROS79  consists of 3 coupled differential equations

$`\dot{x}`$ $`=`$ $`yz`$
$`\dot{y}`$ $`=`$ $`x+ay`$ (39)
$`\dot{z}`$ $`=`$ $`xzcz+b`$
and a chaotic orbit is bounded to a funnel-like attractor (Fig. 5: $`a_0=b_0=0.2,c_0=5.7`$) where the motion is mostly in the $`xy`$ plane with rapid excursions in the $`z`$ direction.

The last observation leads us to one possible discretization: one can register intersections of the flow with a plane $`x=\mathrm{cte}`$ (the Poincaré section) and accumulate the pairs $`(y_n,z_n)`$ from which one could subsequently infer a map (the Poincaré map), $`(y_{n+1},z_{n+1})=𝐅_P\left((y_n,z_n)\right)`$. For uniqueness, one must choose directed intersections by monitoring $`\dot{x}`$ on the Poincaré section (see Fig. 5).

The intersections with the Poincaré section ($`x=2,\dot{x}>0`$) is represented in the lower left panel of Figure (6). One notices little variation in the $`z`$ component and our quasi 1D control methods should be appropriate. In the same panel, one has indicated the positions of 3 UPOs to be stabilized. The OPF control of the $`y`$ component is shown in the lower right panel of Figure (6) resulting in 3 continuous trajectories (upper panel) embedded in the attractor (compare with Fig. 5). We believe that this success indicates just how robust this type of linear feedback is. Remember that we intervene in the dynamics only on the Poincaré section with a small perturbation (here $`<1\%`$ of $`c_0`$) at every $`m`$ intersections.

We have performed another experiment on the Rössler flow. It consists of collecting subsequent maxima $`z_{n,\mathrm{max}}`$ of the $`z`$ variable along a chaotic trajectory to construct a discretization of the flow. By plotting $`z_{n+1,\mathrm{max}}`$ versus $`z_{n,\mathrm{max}}`$, one obtains a (first) return map which is usually called a Lorenz map after the man who first defined the procedure. Our map is shown on the left of Figure (7) and it has all the characteristics of a chaotic 1D map. Again this indicates that our quasi 1D control (RPF or OPF) methods should be applicable. However, according to Figure (5), this should be rather delicate since the trajectory spends most of its time in the $`xy`$ plane. In other words, the Lorenz map may not be adequate to gather enough dynamical information for control.

We have therefore used the RPF algorithm where $`g_u`$ and $`g_b`$ are first estimated by alternating the value of $`c_0`$ between 5.700 and 5.705. As expected, this creates two new applications $`F_u`$ and $`F_b`$ as clearly seen in the enlarged section of Figure (7). The right side of Figure (7) shows the RPF stabilization of a period 1 UPO which is maintained for 5 000 iterates before switching to the OPF algorithm where control is rapidly lost. The refinement incorporated in the RPF method has served us well and this experiment reveals nicely the limitation of the simplest strategy.

### Billiard Dynamics

The study of the frictionless motion of a particle bounded by a closed surface where it is specularly reflected is known as billiard dynamics and dates back to Birkhoff BIR27 . It serves to illustrate the transition from strict regularity (integrability) to chaos (ergodicity) in Hamiltonian systems billiard  and bears important connections to quantum chaos as well billiard-qc . We have chosen to study the 2D cosine billiard where the surface is parametrized in polar coordinates by the relation

$$r\left(\varphi \right)=1+ϵ\mathrm{cos}\varphi .$$
(40)
The parameter $`ϵ`$ is a measure of nonintegrability since for $`ϵ=0`$, the curve is a circle and represents the integrable limit. For all $`ϵ0`$, there are finite regions of phase space that contain chaotic trajectories. Figure (8) shows on the left the mixed and complex structure of phase space for $`ϵ_0=0.3`$: the state variables are the incident angles on the surface, $`\left\{\alpha _n\right\}`$ , and the polar angles of the point of impact, $`\left\{\varphi _n\right\}`$. Since motion is free in between collisions with the surface, our example belongs to the class of 2D area-preserving mappings, where attractors are absent and replaced by stochastic bands mixed with regular regions. Within these bands, the motion is ergodic: the blackened region is produced by one single chaotic orbit. Embedded in this stochastic web, one observes a number of UPOs whose physical trajectories inside the boundary are shown in the middle portion of Figure (8). By pulsating the deformation parameter $`ϵ`$ about its nominal value, we have achieved control of 3 UPOs of period 4, 5 and 9. We used the MED control algorithm with a neighbourhood of $`\delta =10^2`$. A numerical OGY method gives identical performance.

We mention that the successful control of billiard dynamics may offer a solution to the degradation of finesse in resonant optical microcavities NOC97 . It has been inferred that the loss of lasing activities might be associated with ray chaos (geometrical limit) in the optical resonators where the photons are transported (via chaotic diffusion) to regions of phase space where refractive escape (Snell’s law) becomes possible. The dielectric droplets making up the resonators behave very much like 2D billiards and we propose that programmed variations of the asymmetry may help reduce photon leakage. The viability of the proposal is currently being investigated.

### Diamagnetic-Kepler Hamiltonian

Our final example is a continuous, 2 degrees of freedom (4D phase space) Hamiltonian system. It represents the motion of an electron under the combined influence of a Coulomb and a magnetic field. It goes under the name, diamagnetic Kepler problem (DKP), and occupies central stage in classical and quantum chaos research BLU97 . We use scaled semi-parabolic coordinates and write the resulting scaled (pseudo-) Hamiltonian as (for angular momentum $`L=0`$)

$$\widehat{h}_{DK}=\frac{1}{2}\left(p_\nu ^2+p_\mu ^2\right)ϵ\left(\nu ^2+\mu ^2\right)+\frac{1}{8}\nu ^2\mu ^2\left(\nu ^2+\mu ^2\right)2.$$
(41)
The scaled energy $`ϵ`$ is related to the physical energy $`E`$ by $`ϵ=\gamma _0^{2/3}E`$ where the parameter $`\gamma _0=B/B_0`$ denotes the strength of the magnetic field relative to the unit $`B_0\mathrm{2.35\; 10}^5T`$. The classical flow covers a wide range of Hamiltonian dynamics reaching from bound, nearly integrable behaviour to completely chaotic and unbound motion as the scaled energy is varied dkp .

The dimension reduction (from 4D to 2D) and discretization is performed by observing the dynamics on the Poincaré section defined by $`\mu =0,\dot{\mu }>0`$. The energy shell is then mapped to an area bounded by the condition $`p_\nu ^22ϵ\nu ^2=4`$ which represents an ellipse in the $`(\nu ,p_\nu )`$ plane. The left panel of Figure (9) shows the collection of points $`\{\nu _n,p_{\nu ,n}\}`$ obtained by numerical integration of the equations of motion for $`ϵ_0=0.2`$. One notices, for this energy, that phase space has few regular structures: apart from two lobes of regularity, the rest of the ellipse is filled by the successive piercings of one chaotic trajectory. The three dots indicate the positions of a UPO of period 3. We have succeeded in stabilizing a number of UPOs for the system, one of them is displayed with its 3D trajectory in Figure (9). We have employed a complete numerical implementation of the OGY strategy.

In attempting to bring order to the DKP dynamics, we had to overcome a number of difficulties not encountered in our previous examples. First, a typical trajectory spends a lot of time away from the Poincaré section and because of the sensitivity of the dynamics we had to device an efficient variable step symplectic integrator thereby preserving the geometrical structure of the Hamiltonian. Second, we had to obtain numerical Jacobians for all members of the UPOs since it was found to be necessary to intervene at every crossing of the Poincaré section. Third, the eigenvalues of area-preserving Jacobians are often complex and the stable and unstable manifolds are no longer along the directions of their eigenvectors. A new method had to be implemented. Details of the ingenious solutions to these problems can be found in POU99 .

We should comment that this is the first control of a realistic Hamiltonian system. It still remains an open question however if manipulations of the magnetic field to induce stabilization of a classical unstable orbit can be extended to the control, for example, of Rydberg wave packet dynamics.

### Properties of the Control Procedure

The lessons learned through the previous examples and many more not reported here allow us to draw a list of the properties and advantages of the adopted control ‘philosophy’ and to point to remaining difficulties.
– no model dynamics is required a priori and only local information is needed;
– computations at each step are minimal;
gentle touch: the required changes in $`p_0`$ can be quite small ($`<1\%`$ );
multi-purpose flexibility: different periodic orbits can be stabilized for the same system in the same parameter range;
– control can be achieved even with imprecise measurements of eigenvalues and eigenvectors: the methods are robust;
– the methods can also be applied to synchronization of several chaotic systems.

At least three complications come to mind when one considers the implementation of chaos control strategies to the laboratory. The presence of noise, ignored so far, may induce occasional loss of control or hinder it altogether. The average waiting time to fall in the $`\delta `$-neighbourhood may be very (too) long, especially for Hamiltonian systems and a targeting strategy targeting  should complement the control method. Furthermore, the system’s parameters may drift with time and this nonstationarity should be accounted for by updating the control informations. Tracking tracking  is the name given to this procedure.

## Conclusions and Future Perspectives

CHAOS often breeds life,
When ORDER breeds habit.

Henry Brooks ADAMS

We have presented the basic techniques for controlling chaos and we have reported on some of our efforts to recover order from chaos. Applications of the control of chaos have been reported in such diverse areas as aerodynamics, chemical engineering, communications, electronics, fluid mechanics, laser physics, as well as, biology, finance (not confirmed!), medicine, physiology, epidemiology and the list is constantly growing. It is perhaps instructive at this point to quote some of the earliest experimental successes of the methods to gain an idea of the breadth and diversity of the systems considered: in solid state devices and condensed matter, magneto-elastic ribbon DIT90 , spin-wave system AZE91 , electric diode HUN91 ; in fluid mechanics, regularization of chaotic convection SIN91 ; in chemistry, mechanisms of control of autocatalytic reactions PEN91 ; in laser systems, stabilization of coupled ensemble of lasers ROY92 ; in physiology, cardiac arrhythmia GAR92 , (anti)-control of epileptic seizures SCH94 .

The last decade has seen much accomplishments and challenges for the future are numerous. The following items seem to provide a glimpse of things to come: generalization to spatio-temporal chaos, adaptive control for non-stationary dynamics, effective control in the presence of noise (dynamical and/or observational), adaptive synchronization of chaos.

However, the greatest challenge will remain for some times the application to complex biological systems and in particular to brain dynamicsGOL92 . Despite early efforts, euphoria has been replaced by a healthy skepticism. Indeed, complex natural systems are noisy, contain a strong stochastic component and not endowed with a behaviour called chaos (at least not in its mathematical rigorous sense). Yet, one would like to believe that “the controlled chaos of the brain is more than an accidental by-product of the brain complexity” FRE91 . The perspective of unifying the techniques of deterministic chaos control with a statistical stochastic description as a possible therapeutic strategy against dynamical diseases is surely something to consider.

Acknowledgments. $`𝒥𝒟`$ thanks the members of his research group for their contributions and stimulating discussions on the subject. He is also grateful for the hospitality of G. Deco and B. Schürmann (München) where this work took its flight and to J. Honerkamp and J. Timmer (Freiburg) where this report was completed.