format: text

text:
# Variable Unidentified Gamma-Ray Sources Near the Galactic Plane

## 1 Introduction

The Third EGRET (3EG) catalog of high-energy gamma-ray sources lists 271 point-like sources detected at $`E>100`$ MeV (Hartman et al. 1999). Among these sources there are 66 high-confidence identifications with blazars, 7 confirmed gamma-ray pulsars, and about 170 unidentified sources. The distribution of the unidentified sources with Galactic latitude shows a strong density gradient towards the Galactic plane, which indicates a strong contribution from sources belonging to our Galaxy (see Figure 1). Additionally, a group of mid-latitude sources has been recently found to be correlated with the Gould belt, a nearby region of active star formation (Grenier & Perrot 1999, Gehrels et al. 2000).

The positional correlation between the 3EG sources in the Galactic plane and different types of Galactic objects was studied by Romero et al. (1999). They found that 10 sources are coincident, within the positional uncertainties, with Wolf-Rayet and Of stars (which are hot and massive stars endowed with strong supersonic stellar winds), 26 with OB associations (usually considered as pulsar tracers) and 22 with supernova remnants (SNRs). The probability of pure chance superposition with OB associations and SNRs is quite negligible ($`<10^5`$). For the stars, the case is suggestive although not so conclusive (probabilities $`<10^2`$). Romero et al. (1999) also found a set of 42 gamma-ray sources for which there is not positional superposition with any known Galactic object capable to produce high-energy gamma-rays. The nature of this sub-group of sources remains a mystery.

In this paper we present a variability analysis of the sample of unidentified 3EG sources near the Galactic plane that do not present positional correlation with potential Galactic counterparts. Such an analysis can shed some light on the nature of the parent population, because radio-quiet pulsars and yet undiscovered SNRs are not expected to present high levels of variability on timescales of months. Based upon the results, we shall advance a working hypothesis on the parent objects.

## 2 Variability analysis

There are 81 unidentified sources at $`|b|<10^{}`$ listed in the 3EG catalog. We shall focus our analysis on the sample of 40 sources with no known counterpart.111We have excluded 2 sources that are almost certainly artifacts associated with the proximity of the very bright Vela pulsar (these sources do not show up in a map which excludes the Vela pulsation intervals) and hence the difference with the number of 42 sources mentioned by Romero et al. (1999). There are other 4 possible artifacts that are positionally correlated with SNRs.

Zhang et al. (2000) have already presented a variability analysis of the sources that are correlated with OB associations and SNRs, finding that most of these sources could be non-variable. These authors have shown that this group of sources could be mostly originated in a population of young and/or radio-quiet gamma-ray pulsars. We aim here at establishing the variability properties of those sources not included in Zhang et al. (2000) analysis.

In order to carry out the variability analysis we define a mean weighted value for the EGRET flux as:

$$F=\left[\underset{i=1}{\overset{N_{\mathrm{vp}}}{}}\frac{F(i)}{ϵ(i)^2}\right]\times \left[\underset{i=1}{\overset{N_{\mathrm{vp}}}{}}\frac{1}{ϵ(i)^2}\right]^1.$$
(1)
Here, $`N_{\mathrm{vp}}`$ is the number of viewing periods for each gamma-ray source. We take into account only single viewing periods. $`F(i)`$ is the observed flux in the $`i`$-period, whereas $`ϵ(i)`$ is the corresponding error. For those observations in which the significance ($`\sqrt{TS}`$ in the EGRET catalog) is greater than 3$`\sigma `$, we took the error as $`ϵ(i)=F(i)/\sqrt{TS}`$. However, many of the observations are in fact upper bounds on the flux, with significance below 2$`\sigma `$. For these ones, we assume both $`F(i)`$ and $`ϵ(i)`$ as half the value of the upper bound. This is a rather conservative assumption that is not expected to result in an overestimate of the variability levels, as it could be the case if zero flux is directly adopted. We then define the fluctuation index $`\mu `$ as:

$$\mu =100\times \sigma _{\mathrm{sd}}\times F^1.$$
(2)
In this expression, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{sd}}`$ is the standard deviation of the flux measurements, taking into account the previous considerations.

In order to remove as far as possible spurious variability introduced by the observing system, we computed the fluctuation index $`\mu `$ for the 7 confirmed gamma-ray pulsars (i.e. those listed in the 3EG catalog plus the sources 3EG 0634+0521 and 3EG 1048-5840, which were recently identified by Cusumano et al. 2000 and Kaspi et al. 2000, respectively). We adopt the physical criterion that pulsars are –i.e. by definition– non-variable gamma-ray sources. Then, any non-null $`\mu `$-value for pulsars is attributed to experimental uncertainty. We then define a statistical index of variability, $`I`$, as

$$I=\frac{\mu _{\mathrm{source}}}{<\mu >_{\mathrm{pulsars}}}.$$
(3)
Then, non-variable sources are defined as those for which $`I<1+1\sigma `$. Sources with $`I>1`$ at a $`3\sigma `$ level are classified as variable ($`1\sigma =0.5`$). Sources with $`I>1`$ at less than $`3\sigma `$ are dubious cases and we cannot conclude about their variability within the present observational accuracy.

We adopt this criterion, previously used in blazar variability analysis (e.g. Romero et al. 1994), instead of the similar one used by McLaughlin et al. (1996) in order to have a direct comparison with the spurious statistical variability shown by pulsars. Since the $`I`$-index establishes how variable is a source with respect to the pulsar population, it can be considered as indicative of how confident we can be about the possible physical variation in the gamma emission of the sources.

## 3 Results

The result of our analysis is presented in Figure 2 in the form of an histogram. We have fitted the distribution with a Gaussian curve in order to estimate the position of the maximum. The peak of the histogram occurs at $`I=2.0`$, which means that there is an important contribution from sources that display significant variability over timescales of months. About 30 % of the sample (12 sources) presents indices above 2.5, which are clearly variable at more than a 3$`\sigma `$ confidence level. There are sources with indices as high as $`I=8.9`$, like 3EG J1735-1500. There are also 18 dubious sources (45 %) with $`1.5<I<2.5`$. Only 10 out of 40 sources (25 %) are clearly non-variable. The variability histogram for the sources in the sample is very similar to that obtained for AGNs in the 3EG catalog (see Figure 3), which is a well known variable population.

Our results are, in general terms, similar to those recently presented by Tompkins (1999), who re-analyzed the EGRET data to take into account not only all sources included in the 3EG catalog, but also the 145 marginal detections not included in the final official list. Two of the sources pointed out by Tompkins as the most variable ones at low latitudes are included in our sample with indices of 3 and 5.3. Although the dubious cases trend to be non variable in the most comprehensive Tompkins analysis, our method is, we think, still the best approach when data from the published catalog are used.

In Figure 4 we present a plot of the variability versus the photon spectral index $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (defined such that $`F(E)E^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$) for sources in our sample. In order to provide a comparison we have also included in this plot the population of known gamma-ray pulsars and the population of identified AGNs. All known gamma-ray pulsars are located between the solid horizontal lines. It is interesting to note that those unidentified sources with the steepest spectra seem to have the highest variability indices. The probability of this effect being the effect of chance is $`8`$ %, not too low, but sufficient as to encourage further studies.

Figure 5 shows the histogram with distribution of the high-energy photon index $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for the sources of our sample. Notice that known gamma-ray pulsars have hard spectra at $`E>100`$ MeV, with indices typically $`\mathrm{\Gamma }<2.15`$ (e.g. Thompson et al. 1994), contrary to most of the sources here under discussion, which present an average index $`<\mathrm{\Gamma }>=2.4\pm 0.2`$.

The nature of the variable population of unidentified sources is a very intriguing problem that might be addressed by the INTEGRAL mission.

## 4 Magnetized black holes

The variability analysis presented in the previous section clearly shows the existence of a galactic populations of variable gamma-ray sources that do not show up significant emission at other wavelenghts. The surface density of variable sources in the sample here under study is five times higher than what is expected for unidentified AGNs seen through the Galactic plane.

Recently, Punsly et al. (2000) proposed that variable galactic sources, which from its gamma-ray properties resemble very much AGNs, could be isolated Kerr-Newman black holes. Punsly (1998) has shown that a magnetospheric charge may be supported in a disk or ring around a charged, rotating black hole of a few solar masses. The total configuration is stable and has zero net charge, hence the hole should not discharge quickly through accretion from the diffuse ISM. Unlike the case of pulsars, magnetized black holes do not present solid surfaces so they do not produce thermal X-ray emission. Strong magnetized bipolar winds are expected in the form of collimated electron-positron jets (Punsly 1998), where gamma-ray emission is generated through inverse Compton scattering of synchrotron photons and pair annihilations.

Detailed calculations of the spectral energy distribution of these objects (Punsly et al. 2000, Combi et al. in these proceedings) show that at MeV energies the annihilation luminosity exceeds the self-Compton luminosity, producing a break in the spectrum and a steepening at high-energies. The sources with the steepest gamma-ray spectra are those whose jets have the highest pair number densities. Dense jets, in turn, are prone to undergo plasma instabilities. Synchrotron cooling will most likely cause radiative losses of the random transverse (thermal) energy in a magnetized jet. One of the instabilities resulting from the expected pressure anisotropy in a jet is associated with the shear Alfvén wave: the firehose instability. The fastest growing modes of this instability have a growth rate $`n^{1/2}`$, where $`n`$ is the pair density. Hence, very dense jets with large annihilation luminosities and a steep spectral indices tend to be very firehose unstable. The wobble implies variations of the Doppler factor of the beamed emission, $`\delta `$, and consequently of the luminosity of the jet, which has a dependency $`L\delta ^3`$. Hence, those sources with the steepest gamma-ray indices would display the highest variability indices, as observed in our sample of unidentified gamma-ray sources with no positional counterpart at lower frequencies.

## 5 Additional comments

The magnetized black hole hypothesis for the parent population of the low-latitude, variable gamma-ray sources can be tested by the IBIS instrument of INTEGRAL mission. The spectra of these objects should exhibit a broad peak at a few MeV, similar to that observed in MeV blazars (e.g. Bloemen et al. 1995). The expected luminosity of this peak is $`10^{35}`$ erg s-1 (Combi et al., these proceedings), so if it occurs at, say, 4 MeV in a source at $`1`$ kpc, it should be clearly detected (see Combi et al., these proceedings). The exact position of the peak in the spectral energy distribution can be used to infer the Doppler factor of the jets, whereas its measured intensity can be applied to the calculation of the pair density in the relativistic flow. The annihilation luminosity is given by (Punsly et al. 2000):

$`L_0^{\mathrm{ann}}`$ $`=`$ $`(3/32)\sigma _Tc(\mathrm{\Gamma }1)^2n^2m_ec^2V\times `$ (4)
$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{(\mathrm{\Gamma }1/2)(\mathrm{\Gamma }+1/2)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2(2\mathrm{\Gamma }1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(\mathrm{\Gamma }1)^2}}\right],`$
where $`\sigma _T`$ is the Thomson cross section, $`V`$ is the volume where the annihilations occur, $`n`$ is as before the number density of electron-positron pairs, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the high-energy photon index, and $`m_e`$ is the electron rest mass.

Frequent observations of these sources with IBIS will be useful to establish the short-term variability, which in turn can shed light on the involved plasma instabilities. High-resolution radio observations towards those sources detected by IBIS could find the synchrotron radio signature of the jets, that should appear as a point-like non-thermal source of a few tens of mJy at 5 GHz (Punsly et al. 2000).

## 6 Conclusions

In this paper we have estimated the variability of a sample of 40 low-latitude, unidentified gamma-ray sources that are not positionally correlated with known potential Galactic emitters. We have shown that within this set there exists a group of sources which display high levels of variability over timescales of months to years at gamma-rays. These sources are unlikely to be pulsars or undiscovered SNRs. The INTEGRAL satellite will provide a powerful tool through its IBIS imager to probe the nature of this population of energetic objects and test whether the hypothesis here presented, namely that the gamma-ray emission is produced by isolated magnetized black holes, is correct or not.

### Acknowledgments

This work has been supported by CONICET, ANPCT (PICT No. 03-04881) and Fundación Antorchas. G.E.R. is very grateful to the organizers for a travel grant that made possible his participation in the Workshop.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Despite the indisputable achievements of the Quantum Inverse Scattering Method (QISM) and the rather simple action of the inverse problem operators, which can be interpreted as creation and annihilation operators for quasiparticles and as generating functions for the conserved quantities respectively, the study of correlation functions and formfactors has proven to be rather intricate. This is partly due to the fact that the solution of the inverse problem (expressing the original microscopic operators by means of the operators figuring in the algebraic Bethe ansatz) has only been achieved recently  for some particular models tractable by the algebraic Bethe ansatz. An important contribution has been the application of factorizing Drinfel’d twists by Maillet and Sanchez de Santos to inhomogeneous spin chain models  for which the algebraic Bethe ansatz is available. It was shown that the similarity transformation provided by the factorizing twists gives rise to a completely symmetric representation of the monodromy matrix. They used as paradigmata for their argumentation the rational XXX and the trigonometric XXZ-model with underlying group $`sl(2)`$. A striking aspect of the results in  is related to the fact that no polarization clouds are attached to quasiparticle creation and annihilation operators in the basis in which the monodromy matrix is completely symmetric. This means in terms of a particle notation that no virtual particle–antiparticle pairs are present in the wave vectors generated by the action of the creation operators to the ground state (the reference state of the Bethe ansatz), or in spin chain terminology that the creation and annihilation operators are exclusively built from local spin raising and spin lowering operators respectively (that is, there are no compensating pairs of local raising and lowering spin operators). It was noted in  that this latter feature underscores the neat connection between the quantum spin chain models and their respective quasiclassical limits, which are Gaudin magnets, insofar as the appearance of the quasiparticle operators of the quantum models in the particular basis differ from the corresponding operators in the quasiclassical limit models only by a “diagonal dressing” (see below). A generalized transformation has subsequently been used to resolve the nested hierarchy in the Bethe vectors of the $`sl(n)`$ XXX-model .
In the spirit of a more pedagogicial introduction this technique is demonstrated in the case of the $`sl(3)`$ rational Heisenberg model, allowing a more detailed derivation. The generalized results valid for $`sl(n)`$ can be obtained straightforwardly.
The plan of these notes is as follows: Section 2 sets the notation, while section 3 explains nested Bethe ansatz. In section 4 we present the construction of the factorizing twist and the induced similarity transformation for the creation operators. Section 5 is devoted to the resolution of the Bethe hierarchy. Section 6 contains our conclusions.

## 2 Basic definitions and notation

The object central to the QISM is the so called R-matrix, which encodes the dynamical symmetry of the model at hand.
Taking $`\{e_i\}`$ as the standard orthonormal basis of $`V^n`$, this R-matrix gives a representation of the Boltzmann weights $`R_{ij}^{kl}(\lambda )`$ for a vertex of a two-dimensional lattice with spin variables $`jsl(n)`$ placed on the bonds via the map $`R:V_1V_2V_1V_2`$ on the basis $`e_ie_j`$The tensor product of two $`n\times n`$ matrices $`X,Y`$ is defined as $`(XY)_{kl}^{ij}=X_{ik}Y_{jl}(i,j,k,l=1,\mathrm{},n)`$ and the matrix product of two $`n^2\times n^2`$ matrices $`S,T`$ in this notation is given by $`\left(ST\right)_{kl}^{ij}=S_{mn}^{ij}T_{kl}^{mn}`$.

$`R(e_ie_j)={\displaystyle \underset{k,l}{}}(e_ke_l)R_{ij}^{kl}.`$
The R-matrix depends on two spectral parameters $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$ associated to these two vector spaces. In what follows we denote it by $`R_{12}(\lambda _1,\lambda _2)`$.
In the case at hand the R-matrix is given by

$$R_{ij}(\lambda _i,\lambda _j)=b(\lambda _i,\lambda _j)1\mathrm{I}_{ij}+c(\lambda _i,\lambda _j)\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij},$$
(2.1)
i.e., the matrix elements $`R_{ij}`$ are

$`\left(R_{ij}(\lambda )\right)_{\beta _i\beta _j}^{\alpha _i\alpha _j}=b(\lambda )\delta _{\alpha _i\beta _i}\delta _{\alpha _j\beta _j}+c(\lambda )\delta _{\alpha _i\beta _j}\delta _{\alpha _j\beta _i},`$
with

$$b(\lambda ,\mu )=\frac{\lambda \mu }{\lambda \mu +\eta },c(\lambda ,\mu )=\frac{\eta }{\lambda \mu +\eta },\eta .$$
(2.2)
Identifying one of the two linear spaces of this R-matrix with the Hilbert space $`_i`$ of the spin corresponding to site $`i`$ of a linear chain, we construct the quantum Lax operator

$$L_i(\lambda ,z_i)=R_{0i}(\lambda ,z_i)$$
(2.3)
where $`z_i`$ is an arbitrary inhomogeneity parameter depending on site $`i`$. The Lax operator acts in the tensorproduct $`V_0_i`$, where the auxilliary space $`V_0`$ is isomorphic to $`^n`$.
The quantum monodromy matrix for a chain of length $`N`$ is obtained as an ordered product of Lax operatorsSometimes we just omit the dependence on the local inhomogeneities $`\{z_i\}`$ and on the dimension $`n`$ and $`N`$, writing $`T(\lambda )`$.

$$T_N^{(n)}(\lambda ,\{z_1,\mathrm{},z_N\})=L_N(\lambda ,z_N)L_{N1}(\lambda ,z_{N1})\mathrm{}L_1(\lambda ,z_1).$$
(2.4)
It can be represented in the auxilliary space as a $`n\times n`$ matrix whose elements are linear (nonlocal, i.e. acting on all sites $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$) operators acting in the quantum space of states of the chain $`=_{i=1}^N_i`$ :

$$T_N^{(n)}(\lambda )=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}A_{11}& \mathrm{}& A_{1n1}& B_1\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ A_{n\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}1}}& \mathrm{}& A_{n1n1}& B_{n1}\\ C_1& \mathrm{}& C_{n1}& D\end{array}\right).$$
(2.5)
By taking the trace in the auxilliary space we obtain the transfer matrix

$$^{(n)}(\lambda )=tr_0T^{(n)}(\lambda )=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n1}{}}A_{ii}(\lambda )+D(\lambda )$$
(2.6)
which can be interpreted as a discrete evolution operator for one time step, being related to the Hamiltonian of the quantum chain by

$$H=i\frac{d\mathrm{ln}(\lambda )}{d\lambda }|_{\lambda =0}.$$
(2.7)
The partition function of the original vertex model being given as the sum over all possible spin configurations $`𝒞`$ weighted by the energy of the respective configuration can thus be reformulated in terms of the transfer matrix

$`𝒵={\displaystyle \underset{𝒞}{}}\mathrm{exp}\{E(𝒞)\}=Tr_{}(^N)`$
where the trace $`Tr_{}`$ is taken in the whole Hilbert space of states.
This reduces the problem of calculating the partition function to the diagonalization of an operator in $``$.

The integrability of the model is based on the fact that a local commutation relation for the Lax operators exists ($`\stackrel{~}{R}=\mathrm{\Pi }R`$)

$$\stackrel{~}{R}_{12}(\lambda ,\mu )L_i(\lambda ,z_i)L_i(\mu ,z_i)=L_i(\mu ,z_i)L_i(\lambda ,z_i)\stackrel{~}{R}_{12}(\lambda ,\mu )$$
(2.8)
where the R-matrix acts in the tensorproduct of two auxilliary spaces denoted $`1`$ and $`2`$. The local relation (2.8) induces a global relation for the monodromy matrix§§§Note that the difference property of the R-matrix stipulates the distribution of the local inhomogeneities $`\{z_i\}`$ to be identical.

$$\stackrel{~}{R}_{12}(\lambda ,\mu )T(\lambda ,\{z_i\})T(\mu ,\{z_i\})=T(\mu ,\{z_i\})T(\lambda ,\{z_i\})\stackrel{~}{R}_{12}(\lambda ,\mu ).$$
(2.9)
Taking the trace in the auxilliary spaces and using the cyclic property of the trace we obtain for the transfer matrix (2.6) ($`trAB=trAtrB`$)

$$[(\lambda ),(\mu )]=0$$
(2.10)
i.e. we have a one parameter family of commuting transfer matrices. It follows that the model is integrable in the generalized Liouville sense.
The conserved quantities

$$I_k=i^k\frac{d^k\mathrm{ln}(\lambda )}{d\lambda ^k}|_{\lambda =0}$$
(2.11)
couple ($`k+1`$) nearest neighbors on the chain, with $`I_1`$ being the Hamiltonian (cf. (2.7)) with nearest neighbor interaction.
The consistency of (2.9) (i.e. the associativity of a product of three operators $`T`$) implies the relation to be fulfilled by the R-matrix

$`R_{12}(\lambda _1,\lambda _2)R_{13}(\lambda _1,\lambda _3)R_{23}(\lambda _2,\lambda _3)`$
$`=R_{23}(\lambda _2,\lambda _3)R_{13}(\lambda _1,\lambda _3)R_{12}(\lambda _1,\lambda _2)`$ (2.12)
on the tensor product of three auxilliary spaces. $`R_{ij}`$ is acting nontrivially only on the space $`V_i`$ and $`V_j`$.
This relation is commonly denoted as Yang-Baxter equation. It can be considered as the hallmark of integrability.
As can be seen from (2.9), for $`\lambda =\mu `$, the R-matrix reduces to the permutation operator $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ acting on the auxilliary spaces $`V_1V_2`$

$$R_{12}(0)=\mathrm{\Pi }_{12}.$$
(2.13)
It is furthermore unitary: $`R_{ij}(\lambda _i,\lambda _j)R_{ji}(\lambda _j,\lambda _i)=1\mathrm{I}`$.
With the notation $`T_{0,23}=R_{03}R_{02},R_{0i}R_{0i}(z_i)`$, where the index $`0`$ refers to an auxilliary space $`_{(0)}^n`$, one may rewrite Eq. (2.12) in the form $`R_{23}^{\sigma _{23}}T_{0,23}=T_{0,32}R_{23}^{\sigma _{23}}`$ with $`\sigma _{23}`$ the transposition of space labels $`(2,3)`$.
With the definition $`T_{0,1\mathrm{}N}=R_{0N}\mathrm{}R_{01}`$ it is straightforward to generalize this to a N-fold tensor product of spaces

$$R_{1\mathrm{}N}^\sigma T_{0,1\mathrm{}N}=T_{0,\sigma (1)\mathrm{}\sigma (N)}R_{1\mathrm{}N}^\sigma $$
(2.14)
where $`\sigma `$ is now an element of the symmetric group $`𝒮_N`$ and $`R_{1\mathrm{}N}^\sigma `$ denotes a product of elementary $`R`$-matrices, the product corresponding to a decomposition of $`\sigma `$ into elementary transpositions.
The order of the upper matrix indices $`\alpha _i`$ of the $`R^\sigma `$ reads according to the above prescription as follows $`\left(R_{1\mathrm{}N}^\sigma \right)_{\beta _N\mathrm{}\beta _1}^{\alpha _{\sigma (N)}\mathrm{}\alpha _{\sigma (1)}}`$.
Eq. (2.14) implies the composition law

$$R_{1\mathrm{}N}^{\sigma ^{}\sigma }=R_{\sigma ^{}(1)\mathrm{}\sigma ^{}(N)}^\sigma R_{1\mathrm{}N}^\sigma ^{}$$
(2.15)
for a product of two elements in $`𝒮_N`$.

## 3 The Nested Bethe Ansatz

The diagonalization of $`^{(3)}(\lambda )`$  for all values of $`\lambda `$ starts with the existence of a pseudovacuum $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.This pseudovacuum coincides with the physical vacuum only for the ferromagnetic case, which is why it is also denoted reference state. For this purpose one introduces a lowest weight state with respect to $`sl(3)`$ (local vacuum) $`v_3^{(i)}_i`$:

$$v_3^{(i)}={}_{}{}^{t}(0,0,1).$$
(3.1)
The action of the Lax operator is given by

$`(L_i(\lambda ,z_i))_{33}v_3^{(i)}`$ $`=`$ $`v_3^{(i)},`$
$`(L_i(\lambda ,z_i))_{kk}v_3^{(i)}`$ $`=`$ $`b(\lambda ,z_i)v_3^{(i)}\text{for }k3,`$
$`(L_i(\lambda ,z_i))_{3k}v_3^{(i)}`$ $`=`$ $`c(\lambda ,z_i)E_{k,3}^{(i)}v_3^{(i)}\text{for }k<3,`$ (3.2)
with $`\left(E_{ab}\right)_n^m=\delta _{a,m}\delta _{b,n}`$ the root of $`sl(3)`$. All other operator entries annihilate the local vacuum.
A global vacuum for the operators of the monodromy matrix can be constructed as follows

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_N^{(3)}=_{i=1}^Nv_3^{(i)}.$$
(3.3)
Using the expression of the monodromy matrix in the form (2.5) specialized to $`n=3`$ we obtain

$`A_{ab}(\lambda )\mathrm{\Omega }_N^{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{ab}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}b(\lambda ,z_i)\mathrm{\Omega }_N^{(3)},D(\lambda )\mathrm{\Omega }_N^{(3)}=\mathrm{\Omega }_N^{(3)},`$
$`B_a(\lambda )\mathrm{\Omega }_N^{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (3.4)
The operators $`B_a(\lambda )`$ can be interpreted as annihilation operators while $`C_a(\lambda )`$ act as creation operators.
In order to obtain eigenstates to the transfer matrix (2.6) we will consider a vector which consists of linear superpositions of products of $`C_i`$ (with $`card\left\{C_i\right\}`$ fixed)

$$\mathrm{\Psi }^{(3)}=\underset{\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _p}{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _p}^{(2)}C_{\alpha _1}(\lambda _1)\mathrm{}C_{\alpha _p}(\lambda _p)\mathrm{\Omega }_N^{(3)}$$
(3.5)
with c-number coefficients $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _p}^{(2)}`$ still to be determined.
The eigenvalues of the transfermatrix can be obtained by commuting the operators $`A_{ii}(\lambda )`$ and $`D(\lambda )`$ through to the vacuum, for which the eigenvalues of the transfer matrix are already known by (3.4).
From the global commutation relation (2.9) we obtain

$`A_{ab}(\lambda )C_c(\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(R^{(2)}(\lambda ,\mu ))_{bc}^{dp}}{b(\lambda ,\mu )}}C_p(\mu )A_{ad}(\lambda ){\displaystyle \frac{c(\lambda ,\mu )}{b(\lambda ,\mu )}}C_b(\lambda )A_{ac}(\mu ),`$
$`D(\lambda )C_a(\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{b(\mu ,\lambda )}}C_a(\mu )D(\lambda ){\displaystyle \frac{c(\mu ,\lambda )}{b(\mu ,\lambda )}}C_a(\lambda )D(\mu ).`$ (3.6)
The appearance of the $`sl(2)`$ R-matrix $`R_{ij}^{(2)}(\lambda )=b(\lambda )1\mathrm{I}_{ij}^{(2)}+c(\lambda )\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}^{(2)}`$ acting in $`^2^2`$ in the commutator relations (3.6) constitutes the main difference as compared to the $`sl(2)`$ XXX-model. By inspection of (3.6) we notice that only the first term on the r.h.s. can produce eigenvectors, while the contribution of the second which exchanges the arguments must vanish, giving rise to equations to be fulfilled by the parameters $`\{\lambda _i\}`$, the Bethe ansatz equations.
The action of $`D(\lambda )`$ on (3.5) yields for the wanted term

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{b(\lambda _i,\lambda )}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _m}^{(2)}C_{\alpha _1}(\lambda _1)\mathrm{}C_{\alpha _m}(\lambda _m)\mathrm{\Omega }_N^{(3)}.`$
All other terms are unwanted. The action of $`A_{aa}(\lambda )`$ (summation over $`a=1,2`$) on (3.5) yields in turn

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}b(\lambda ,z_i){\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{b(\lambda ,\lambda _j)}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _m}^{(2)}C_{p_1}(\lambda _1)\mathrm{}C_{p_m}(\lambda _m)\mathrm{\Omega }_N^{(3)}`$
$`\times `$ $`(R^{(2)}(\lambda ,\lambda _1))_{a\alpha _1}^{d_1p_1}(R^{(2)}(\lambda ,\lambda _2))_{d_1\alpha _2}^{d_2p_2}\mathrm{}(R^{(2)}(\lambda ,\lambda _m))_{d_{m1}\alpha _m}^{ap_m}.`$
This term results in an eigenvector for $`A_{aa}(\lambda )`$ if the following additional relation is fulfilled:

$$(R^{(2)}(\lambda ,\lambda _1))_{a\alpha _1}^{d_1p_1}\mathrm{}(R^{(2)}(\lambda ,\lambda _m))_{d_{m1}\alpha _m}^{ap_m}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _m}^{(2)}=f^{(2)}(\lambda )\mathrm{\Phi }_{p_1\mathrm{}p_m}^{(2)}.$$
(3.7)
This can be reformulated with the help of the definitions

$`L_i^{(2)}(\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`R_{0i}^{(2)}(\lambda ),T_m^{(2)}(\lambda )=L_m^{(2)}(\lambda ,\lambda _m)\mathrm{}L_1^{(2)}(\lambda ,\lambda _1),`$
$`^{(2)}(\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`tr_0T_m^{(2)}(\lambda )`$
to give

$$^{(2)}(\lambda )\mathrm{\Phi }^{(2)}=f^{(2)}(\lambda )\mathrm{\Phi }^{(2)}\text{with }\mathrm{\Phi }^{(2)}^{(2)}=(^2)^m.$$
(3.8)
We thus have obtained a similar problem as before, but now for a $`sl(2)`$ chain of length $`m`$, with the inhomogenities given by the parameters $`\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _m`$ of the $`sl(3)`$ problem.
This fact inspires us to choose the coefficient $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(2)}`$ analogously to the $`sl(3)`$ case

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{(2)}=C^{(2)}(\lambda _1^{(2)})\mathrm{}C^{(2)}(\lambda _q^{(2)})\mathrm{\Omega }_m^{(2)}.$$
(3.9)
The vacuum is given by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_m^{(2)}=_{i=1}^mv_2^{(i)},\text{with }v_2^{(i)}=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\end{array}\right)_i^{(2)}=^2$$
(3.10)
and the operators of the $`2\times 2`$ monodromy matrix fulfill

$`A^{(2)}(\lambda )\mathrm{\Omega }_m^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}}b(\lambda ,\lambda _i)\mathrm{\Omega }_m^{(2)},D^{(2)}(\lambda )\mathrm{\Omega }_m^{(2)}=\mathrm{\Omega }_m^{(2)},`$
$`B^{(2)}(\lambda )\mathrm{\Omega }_m^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (3.11)
The commutation relations are now

$`A^{(2)}(\lambda )C^{(2)}(\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{b(\lambda ,\mu )}}C^{(2)}(\mu )A^{(2)}(\lambda ){\displaystyle \frac{c(\lambda ,\mu )}{b(\lambda ,\mu )}}C^{(2)}(\lambda )A^{(2)}(\mu ),`$
$`D^{(2)}(\lambda )C^{(2)}(\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{b(\mu ,\lambda )}}C^{(2)}(\mu )D^{(2)}(\lambda ){\displaystyle \frac{c(\mu ,\lambda )}{b(\mu ,\lambda )}}C^{(2)}(\lambda )D^{(2)}(\mu ),`$
$`[C^{(2)}(\lambda ),C^{(2)}(\mu )]`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (3.12)
The eigenvalue $`f^{(2)}`$ in (3.8) is then given by

$`f^{(2)}(\lambda )={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}}b(\lambda ,\lambda _i){\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{q}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{b(\lambda ,\lambda _j^{(2)})}}+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{q}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{b(\lambda _j^{(2)},\lambda )}}.`$
The eigenvalue of the original $`sl(3)`$ case finally is

$`^{(3)}(\lambda )\mathrm{\Psi }_3(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _m;\mathrm{\Phi }^{(2)})=f^{(3)}(\lambda )\mathrm{\Psi }_3(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _m;\mathrm{\Phi }^{(2)})`$
$`f^{(3)}(\lambda )={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{b(\lambda _i,\lambda )}}+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}b(\lambda ,z_i){\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{b(\lambda ,\lambda _j)}}\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}}b(\lambda ,\lambda _i){\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{q}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{b(\lambda ,\lambda _j^{(2)})}}+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{q}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{b(\lambda _j^{(2)},\lambda )}}\right\}.`$
Summarizing, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_3`$ in the form (3.5) is eigenvector of the transfer matrix $`^{(3)}(\lambda )=_iT_{ii}(\lambda )`$ if
$`i)`$ the parameters $`\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _p`$ satisfy a certain system of equations, the famous Bethe ansatz equations
and if
$`ii)`$ the c-number coefficients are chosen s.t. they constitute the components of a inhomogeneous $`sl(2)`$ transfer matrix, with the inhomogeneities given by the spectral parameters of the $`sl(3)`$ Bethe vector.
The Bethe ansatz equation become very intricate as the spectral parameters of the reduced ($`sl(2)`$) problem have to fulfill similar equations, thus yielding a set of coupled algebraic equations determining the set of numbers $`\lambda _j`$. They can be derived by the following trick: The general eigenvalue $`f(\lambda )`$ should be analytical in $`\lambda `$ as it is to generate the eigenvalues of the conserved quantities through (2.11). Consequently the residue at singular points is to vanish, which yields exactly the Bethe equations which in turn assure the vanishing of the unwanted terms.
We now want to show that the hierarchical wavefunction (3.5)

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_3(N;\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _p)={\displaystyle \underset{\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _p}{}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _p}^{(2)}C_{\alpha _1}(\lambda _1)\mathrm{}C_{\alpha _p}(\lambda _p)\mathrm{\Omega }_3^{(3)}`$
is invariant under permutations of the parameters $`\lambda _i`$ . In the $`sl(2)`$ case this is obviuos as the operators $`C(\lambda )`$ commute for all spectral parameters (3.12), while for $`sl(3)`$ it follows from (2.9) that $`C_i`$ and $`C_k`$ do not commute anymore:

$$C_i(\lambda )C_j(\mu )=C_k(\mu )C_l(\lambda )\left(\stackrel{~}{R}^{(2)}(\lambda ,\mu )\right)_{ij}^{kl}.$$
(3.13)
Exchanging the parameters $`\lambda _i`$ and $`\lambda _{i+1}`$ in (3.5), we obtain (sum convention)

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_3^i(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _p)=\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _p}^{(2),i}C_{\alpha _1}(\lambda _1)\mathrm{}C_{\alpha _i}(\lambda _{i+1})C_{\alpha _{i+1}}(\lambda _i)\mathrm{}C_{\alpha _p}(\lambda _p)\mathrm{\Omega }_N^{(3)}.`$
(3.14)
where the index $`i`$ in $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _p}^{(2),i}`$ indicates that the monodromy matrix

$`T_m^{(2),i}(\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`L_m^{(2)}(\lambda ,\lambda _m)\mathrm{}L_{i+1}^{(2)}(\lambda ,\lambda _i)L_i^{(2)}(\lambda ,\lambda _{i+1})\mathrm{}L_1^{(2)}(\lambda ,\lambda _1)`$
occurs in the wavefunction. Commuting the operators $`C_{\alpha _i}(\lambda _{i+1})`$ and $`C_{\alpha _{i+1}}(\lambda _i)`$ in (3.14) we get with the help of (3.13)

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_3^i(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _p)=`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _p}^{(2),i}C_{\alpha _1}(\lambda _1)\mathrm{}(\stackrel{~}{R}^{(2)}(\lambda _{i+1},\lambda _i))_{\alpha _i\alpha _{i+1}}^{mn}C_m(\lambda _i)C_n(\lambda _{i+1})\mathrm{}C_{\alpha _p}(\lambda _p)\mathrm{\Omega }_N^{(3)}.`$
The action of $`\stackrel{~}{R}`$ on $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _{m_1}}^{(2),i}`$ can be computed using the following relation which is a consequence of the YBE (2.12):

$`\stackrel{~}{R}_{ii+1}^{(2)}(\lambda _{i+1},\lambda _i)L_{i+1}^{(2)}(\lambda ,\lambda _i)L_i^{(2)}(\lambda ,\lambda _{i+1})=`$
$`L_{i+1}^{(2)}(\lambda ,\lambda _{i+1})L_i^{(2)}(\lambda ,\lambda _i)\stackrel{~}{R}_{ii+1}^{(2)}(\lambda _{i+1},\lambda _i).`$
We now obtain a relation between (2.4) and (LABEL:moni):

$$T_m^{(2)}(\lambda )\stackrel{~}{R}_{ii+1}^{(2)}(\lambda _{i+1},\lambda _i)=\stackrel{~}{R}_{ii+1}^{(2)}(\lambda _{i+1},\lambda _i)T_m^{(2),i}(\lambda ).$$
(3.16)
As the coefficient $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _{m_1}}^{(2),i}`$ is given by (3.9), we obtain with the help of $`R_{ij}v_3^{(i)}v_3^{(j)}=v_3^{(i)}v_3^{(j)}`$ the relation between $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _m}^{(2),i}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _m}^{(2)}`$

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _m}^{(2)}=(\stackrel{~}{R}^{(2)}(\lambda _{i+1},\lambda _i))_{\beta _i\beta _{i+1}}^{\alpha _i\alpha _{i+1}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\beta _i\beta _{i+1}\mathrm{}\alpha _m}^{(2),i}.$$
(3.17)
This finally yields the desired result, the wavefunction (3.5) is invariant under permutations of the parameters $`\lambda `$.

## 4 The F-Basis

Despite the achievements of the QISM, the treatmant of correlation functions proves to be rather intricate. The reason for this lies in the fact that the apparantly simple action of the quasiparticle creation and annihilation operators which figure in the construction of the eigenfunctions (Bethe wavevectors) is obscured on the level of the microscopic variables (spin raising and lowering operators) by nonlocal effects arising from polarization clouds (compensating pairs of local raising and lowering spin operators).
This property can already be seen in the example of the $`sl(2)`$ XXX-model, where the creation operators have the following form when expressed in the original microscopic spin variables

$$C(\lambda )=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\sigma _i^+\mathrm{\Omega }_i+\underset{ijk}{}\sigma _i^+(\sigma _j^{}\sigma _k^+)\mathrm{\Omega }_{ijk}+\text{terms of higher order}$$
(4.1)
where higher order means more compensating exchange terms $`(\sigma _j^{}\sigma _k^+)`$, and the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i,\mathrm{\Omega }_{ijk}`$ etc. are diagonal and act on all site but $`i`$; $`i,j,k`$ and so on.
In a seminal paper Maillet and Sanchez de Santos  revealed an application of so called factorizing Drinfel’d twists $`F`$ being defined by $`R_{ij}=F_{ij}F_{ji}^1`$ to obtain a basis for the $`sl(2)`$ XXX and XXZ-model which allows to express the creation and annihilation operators in a completely symmetric way with the further advantage of being polarization free, that is being built from the respective quasiclassical Gaudin operators dressed diagonally, thus minimizing quantum effects for these operators.
In the new basis the operator $`\stackrel{~}{C}(\lambda )F(\lambda )C(\lambda )F^1(\lambda )`$ consists of only $`N`$ terms (as compared to $`2^N`$ in the original basis) and is of the form

$$\stackrel{~}{C}(\lambda )=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\sigma _i^+_{ji}\left(\begin{array}{cc}b(\lambda ,z_j)b_{ij}^1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)_{[j]}.$$
(4.2)
These results allowed a simple derivation of formulas (previously known, but involving so called auxilliary fields ) for the scalar products of Bethe vectors and for correlation functions .
The factorizing $`F`$-matrix for $`N`$ sites ($`N`$ quantum spaces) is defined by the relation $`R_{1\mathrm{}N}^\sigma (\lambda )=F_{\sigma (1\mathrm{}N)}^1(\lambda )F_{1\mathrm{}N}(\lambda )`$. The starting point of paper  is the Drinfel’d factorizing twists of the elementary $`sl(2)`$ $`R`$-matrix: $`R_{12}=F_{21}^1F_{12}`$ where $`F_{12}`$ is given by

$`F_{12}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& \mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}& \mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}& \mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}\\ 0& \mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}& \mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}& \mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}\\ 0& c(z_1,z_2)& b(z_1,z_2)& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}& \mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}& \mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}\end{array}\right)_{[12]}.`$
The generalization of this formula to the $`sl(n)`$ case is of the form

$$F_{12}=\underset{n\alpha _2\alpha _1}{}P_{\alpha _1}^1P_{\alpha _2}^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\mathrm{I}_{12}+\underset{n\alpha _1>\alpha _2}{}P_{\alpha _1}^1P_{\alpha _2}^2R_{12}^{\sigma _{12}}.$$
(4.3)
Here $`[P_\alpha ^i]_{k,l}=\delta _{k,\alpha }\delta _{l,\alpha }`$ is the projector on the $`\alpha `$ component acting in $`i`$-th space.
Generalizing this factorization matrix to the $`N`$-site problem one has to satisfy at least three properties for the $`F`$-matrixThe F-matrix defined above is only determined up to multiplication with a completely symmetric, non-degenerate matrix.
$``$ A factorization, that is

$$F_{\sigma (1)\mathrm{}\sigma (N)}(z_{\sigma (1)},\mathrm{},z_{\sigma (N)})R_{1\mathrm{}N}^\sigma (z_1,\mathrm{},z_N)=F_{1\mathrm{}N}(z_1,\mathrm{},z_N)$$
(4.4)
for any permutation $`\sigma 𝒮_N`$;
$``$ B lower-triangularity;
$``$ C non-degeneracy.
The following expression satisfies the properties A,B and C:

$$F_{1\mathrm{}N}=\underset{\sigma 𝒮_N}{}\underset{\alpha _{\sigma (1)}\mathrm{}\alpha _{\sigma (N)}}{\overset{}{}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}P_{\alpha _{\sigma (i)}}^{\sigma (i)}R_{1\mathrm{}N}^\sigma (z_1,\mathrm{},z_N).$$
(4.5)
The sum $`^{}`$ extends over indices $`\alpha _i`$, which fulfill the conditions

$`\alpha _{\sigma (i+1)}\alpha _{\sigma (i)}\text{for}\sigma (i+1)>\sigma (i)`$ (4.6)
$`\alpha _{\sigma (i+1)}>\alpha _{\sigma (i)}\text{for}\sigma (i+1)<\sigma (i)`$ ,
i.e., the equality sign holds if the original labels of the sites under consideration still have the same order after the permutation $`\sigma `$. This form of the F-matrix ensures down-triangularity and as the diagonal elements are non-vanishing, also non-degeneracy\**\**\**There exists an explicit form of the inverse of $`F`$, but as it is not needed in what follows we refrain from citing it..
To proof factorization, we decompose the permutation $`\sigma `$ into elementary transpositions $`\sigma _i`$ $`\sigma =\sigma _1\mathrm{}\sigma _k.`$ $`\sigma _i`$ is the transposition of sites $`i`$ und $`i+1`$. The R-matrix $`R^\sigma `$ can be decomposed using (2.15), which entails for the F-matrix

$`F_{\sigma (1)\mathrm{}\sigma (N)}R_{1\mathrm{}N}^\sigma `$
$`=`$ $`F_{\sigma _1\sigma _2\mathrm{}\sigma _k(1,\mathrm{},N)}R_{\sigma _1\sigma _2\mathrm{}\sigma _{k1}(1,\mathrm{},N)}^{\sigma _k}R_{\sigma _1\sigma _2\mathrm{}\sigma _{k2}(1,\mathrm{},N)}^{\sigma _{k1}}\mathrm{}R_{1\mathrm{}N}^{\sigma _1}`$
$`=`$ $`F_{\sigma _1\sigma _2\mathrm{}\sigma _{k1}(1,\mathrm{},N)}R_{\sigma _1\sigma _2\mathrm{}\sigma _{k2}(1,\mathrm{},N)}^{\sigma _{k1}}R_{\sigma _1\sigma _2\mathrm{}\sigma _{k3}(1,\mathrm{},N)}^{\sigma _{k2}}\mathrm{}R_{1\mathrm{}N}^{\sigma _1}`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}=F_{\sigma _1(1,\mathrm{},N)}R_{1\mathrm{}N}^{\sigma _1}=F_{1\mathrm{}N},`$
thus enabling us to prove property A by restricting ourselves to elementary transpositions $`\sigma _i`$, i.e. considering $`F_{1\mathrm{}i+1i\mathrm{}N}R_{1\mathrm{}N}^{\sigma _i}`$

$`F_{1\mathrm{}i+1i\mathrm{}N}R_{1\mathrm{}N}^{\sigma _i}`$ $`=`$ $`F_{\sigma _i(1\mathrm{}ii+1\mathrm{}N)}R_{1\mathrm{}N}^{\sigma _i}`$ (4.7)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma S_N}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha _{\sigma _i\sigma (1)}\mathrm{}\alpha _{\sigma _i\sigma (N)}}{\overset{(i)}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}P_{\alpha _{\sigma _i\sigma (j)}}^{\sigma _i\sigma (j)}R_{\sigma _i(1,\mathrm{},N)}^\sigma R_{1\mathrm{}N}^{\sigma _i}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma S_N}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha _{\sigma _i\sigma (1)}\mathrm{}\alpha _{\sigma _i\sigma (N)}}{\overset{(i)}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}P_{\alpha _{\sigma _i\sigma (j)}}^{\sigma _i\sigma (j)}R_{1\mathrm{}N}^{\sigma _i\sigma },`$
with the sum $`^{(i)}`$ now restricted by the conditions

$`\alpha _{\sigma _i\sigma (j+1)}\alpha _{\sigma _i\sigma (j)}\text{for}\sigma (j+1)>\sigma (j)`$
$`\alpha _{\sigma _i\sigma (j+1)}>\alpha _{\sigma _i\sigma (j)}\text{for}\sigma (j+1)<\sigma (j)`$ (4.8)
as (4.6) refers to the sites already permuted $`\stackrel{~}{j}=\sigma _i(j)`$. Substituting $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }=\sigma _i\sigma `$ in (4.7) yields

$`F_{1\mathrm{}i+1i\mathrm{}N}R_{1\mathrm{}N}^{\sigma _i}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }S_N}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(1)}\mathrm{}\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(N)}}{\overset{}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}P_{\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(j)}}^{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(j)}R_{1\mathrm{}N}^{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}`$ (4.9)
with the condition in $`^{}`$

$`\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(j+1)}\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(j)}\text{for}\sigma _i\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(j+1)>\sigma _i\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(j)`$ (4.10)
$`\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(j+1)}>\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(j)}\text{for}\sigma _i\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(j+1)<\sigma _i\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(j)`$ .
The conditions (4.6) and (4.10) result in the same expression if $`\sigma ^1(i)`$ and $`\sigma ^1(i+1)`$ are not neighbored. If they are, i.e.

$`\sigma ^1(i)=\sigma ^1(i+1)\pm 1,`$ (4.11)
the strict inequality sign renders the same result for (4.10) and (4.6), while in the case of the equality sign, i.e. if $`\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{\sigma _{j+1}}}=\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{\sigma _j}}`$, the relation

$$P_\alpha ^iP_\alpha ^jR_{ij}=P_\alpha ^iP_\alpha ^j1\mathrm{I}_{ij}$$
(4.12)
ensures that the additional transposition $`\sigma _i`$ in (4.9) with regard to (4.5) has no effect, which proves property A††††††A different proof emphasizing the geometric nature can be found in .. We are now in the positon to compute the matrix elements of the monodromy matrix in the basis provided by the F-matrix $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{ij}=F_{1\mathrm{}N}T_{ij}F_{1\mathrm{}N}^1`$. We start illustrating this procedure in the case $`\stackrel{~}{D}=\stackrel{~}{T}_{33}`$, and then proceed to calculate the creation operators in the new basis. We will not rely on the symmetry of the $`sl(3)`$ XXX-model, which makes it possible to extend our results straightforwardly to the generalized XXZ-model by replacing the rational parametrization (2.2) by its trigonometric counterpart.
To obtain $`\stackrel{~}{D}=F_{1\mathrm{}N}DF_{1\mathrm{}N}^1`$ consider the expression ($`\stackrel{~}{i}=\sigma (i)`$)

$`F_{1\mathrm{}N}T_{33}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma S_N}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{1}}\mathrm{}\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{N}}}{\overset{}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}P_{\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{i}}}^{\stackrel{~}{i}}R_{1\mathrm{}N}^\sigma P_3^0T_{0,1\mathrm{}N}P_3^0`$ (4.13)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma S_N}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{1}}\mathrm{}\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{N}}}{\overset{}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}P_{\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{i}}}^{\stackrel{~}{i}}P_3^0T_{0,\stackrel{~}{1}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{N}}P_3^0R_{1\mathrm{}N}^\sigma .`$
The projectors $`P_3^0`$ yield the element $`T_{33}`$. The second step involved (2.14) and the fact that $`R_{1\mathrm{}N}^\sigma `$ commutes with $`P_3^0`$. We now split the sum $`^{}`$ according to the number $`k`$ of the occurence of the index $`3`$:

$`F_{1\mathrm{}N}T_{33}`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{\sigma S_N}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{1}}\mathrm{}\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{N}}}{\overset{^{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=Nk+1}{\overset{N}{}}}\delta _{\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{j}},3}P_3^{\stackrel{~}{j}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{Nk}{}}}P_{\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{j}}}^{\stackrel{~}{j}}P_3^0T_{0,\stackrel{~}{1}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{N}}P_3^0R_{1\mathrm{}N}^\sigma .`$
(4.14)
Considering a term of arbitrary but fixed multiplicity of $`3`$ in (4.14), we get

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{Nk}{}}}P_{\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{j}}}^{\stackrel{~}{j}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=Nk+1}{\overset{N}{}}}P_3^{\stackrel{~}{j}}P_3^0T_{0,\stackrel{~}{1}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{N}}P_3^0`$ (4.15)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{Nk}{}}}P_{\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{j}}}^{\stackrel{~}{j}}{\displaystyle \underset{Nk+1}{\overset{N}{}}}\left(R_{0,\stackrel{~}{j}}\right)_{33}^{33}P_3^0T_{0,\stackrel{~}{1}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{Nk}}P_3^0{\displaystyle \underset{j=Nk+1}{\overset{N}{}}}P_3^{\stackrel{~}{j}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{Nk}{}}}P_{\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{j}}}^{\stackrel{~}{j}}P_3^0T_{0,\stackrel{~}{1}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{Nk}}P_3^0{\displaystyle \underset{j=Nk+1}{\overset{N}{}}}P_3^{\stackrel{~}{j}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{Nk}{}}}\left(R_{0\stackrel{~}{i}}\right)_{3,\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{i}}}^{3,\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{i}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{Nk}{}}}P_{\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{j}}}^{\stackrel{~}{j}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=Nk+1}{\overset{N}{}}}P_3^{\stackrel{~}{j}}P_3^0`$
$`=`$ $`_{i=1}^N\text{diag}\{b(\lambda ,z_i),b(\lambda ,z_i),1\}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{Nk}{}}}P_{\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{j}}}^{\stackrel{~}{j}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=Nk+1}{\overset{N}{}}}P_3^{\stackrel{~}{j}}P_3^0.`$
We again used the identity $`P_\alpha ^iP_\alpha ^jR_{ij}=P_\alpha ^iP_\alpha ^j1\mathrm{I}_{ij}`$ and the fact that the upper and lower indices of the R-matrix are connected by a permutation, and finally that $`\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{i}}3`$ for $`iNk`$. In the last line we inserted $`\left(R_{0\stackrel{~}{i}}\right)_{3,\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{i}}}^{3,\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{i}}}=b(\lambda ,z_{\stackrel{~}{i}})`$. Inserting the r.h.s. of (4.15) into Eq. (4.14) one sees that the product $`_i\left(R_{0\stackrel{~}{i}}\right)_{3,\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{i}}}^{3,\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{i}}}`$ creates a diagonal dressing factor for $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{33}(\lambda )`$ and the product of projectors applied to $`R^\sigma (\lambda )`$ gives $`F_{1\mathrm{}N}(\lambda )`$. We thus obtain

$`\stackrel{~}{T}_{33}(\lambda )=_{i=1}^N\text{diag}\{b(\lambda z_i),b(\lambda z_i),1\}.`$ (4.16)
To compute $`T_{32}(\lambda )`$ one has to distinguish in the sum $`^{}`$ cases of various multiplicities $`k_3`$ and $`k_2`$ of the occurrence of group indices $`3`$ and $`2`$:

$`F_{1\mathrm{}N}(\lambda )T_{\mathrm{3\hspace{0.17em}2}}(\lambda )={\displaystyle \underset{\sigma 𝒮_N}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{k_3=0}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k_2=0}{\overset{Nk_3}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{1}}\mathrm{}\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{N}}}{\overset{^{\prime \prime }}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j_3=Nk_3+1}{\overset{N}{}}}P_{\stackrel{~}{j_3}}^3{\displaystyle \underset{j_2=Nk_3k_2+1}{\overset{Nk_3}{}}}P_{\stackrel{~}{j_2}}^2`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{Nk_3k_2}{}}}P_{\stackrel{~}{j}}^{\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{j}}}P_0^3T_{0,\stackrel{~}{1}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{N}}P_0^2R_{1\mathrm{}N}^\sigma .`$ (4.17)
Evaluating the matrix product in $`T_{0,\stackrel{~}{1}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{N}}`$ leads to

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j_3=Nk_3+1}{\overset{N}{}}}P_{\stackrel{~}{j_3}}^3{\displaystyle \underset{j_2=Nk_3k_2+1}{\overset{Nk_3}{}}}P_{\stackrel{~}{j_2}}^2{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{Nk_3k_2}{}}}P_{\stackrel{~}{j}}^{\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{j}}}P_0^3T_{0,\stackrel{~}{1}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{N}}P_0^2`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=Nk_3k_2+1}{\overset{Nk_3}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=i+1}{\overset{Nk_3}{}}}\left(R_{0\stackrel{~}{j}}\right)_{\mathrm{3\hspace{0.17em}2}}^{\mathrm{3\hspace{0.17em}2}}\left(R_{0\stackrel{~}{i}}\right)_{\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}3}}^{\mathrm{3\hspace{0.17em}2}}{\displaystyle \underset{Nk_3k_2+1}{\overset{j=i1}{}}}\left(R_{0\stackrel{~}{j}}\right)_{\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}2}}^{\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{Nk_3k_2}{}}}\left(R_{0\stackrel{~}{k}}\right)_{3\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{k}}}^{2\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{k}}}E_{23}^{(\stackrel{~}{i})}{\displaystyle \underset{ji}{}}P_{\stackrel{~}{j}}^{\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{j}}}P_{\stackrel{~}{i}}^3E_{32}^{(0)}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=Nk_3k_2+1}{\overset{Nk_3}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=i+1}{\overset{Nk_3}{}}}b(\lambda ,z_{\stackrel{~}{l}})c(\lambda ,z_{\stackrel{~}{i}}){\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{Nk_3k_2}{}}}b(\lambda ,z_{\stackrel{~}{k}})E_{23}^{(\stackrel{~}{i})}{\displaystyle \underset{ji}{}}P_{\stackrel{~}{j}}^{\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{j}}}P_{\stackrel{~}{i}}^3E_{32}^{(0)}`$
with $`\left(E_{ab}^{(i)}\right)_n^m=\delta _{m,a}\delta _{n,b}`$ denoting the root operators of $`sl(3)`$.
One notes that in the calculation the index $`\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{i}}`$ has changed from $`2`$ to $`3`$. As the distribution of $`\alpha `$’s is therefore no longer consistent with the conditions (4.6) in the sum $`^{}`$ one has to correct this fact by commuting the site $`\stackrel{~}{i}`$ through all higher sites $`\stackrel{~}{j}`$ with $`\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{j}}=2`$. So, taking into account (2.15), one has to insert an additional factor $`R_{\stackrel{~}{i}\stackrel{~}{Nk_3}}\mathrm{}R_{\stackrel{~}{i}\stackrel{~}{i+1}}`$ between the projectors and $`R_{1\mathrm{}N}^\sigma `$ in (4.17). Because of Eq. (4.12) no further corrections are necessary. For the following calculation we need

$$P_i^3P_j^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\mathrm{I}_{ij}=P_i^3P_j^2\left\{b(z_i,z_j)^1R_{ij}\frac{c(z_i,z_j)}{b(z_i,z_j)}\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}\right\}$$
(4.19)
and

$$E_{3n}^{(i)}P_j^3\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}=E_{3n}^jP_i^3.$$
(4.20)
Let us now concentrate on the term with $`i=Nk_3k_2+1`$ in (LABEL:C12) and use (4.19) to create the needed factor above. Because of (4.20) the second term in (4.19) gives rise to an $`E_{23}^{(\stackrel{~}{j})}`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{j}\stackrel{~}{i}`$. So the only possibility to get $`E_{23}^{(\stackrel{~}{i})}`$ is to use the first term in (4.19). Corrections in the other terms with $`j>Nk_3k_2+1`$ cannot lead to an expression with $`E_{23}^{(\stackrel{~}{i})}`$ as $`\stackrel{~}{j}`$ has not to be commuted with the site $`\stackrel{~}{i}`$. So the only term that contains $`E_{23}^{(\stackrel{~}{i})}`$ after the corrections for that special $`R_{1\mathrm{}N}^\sigma `$ in (LABEL:C12) is

$`{\displaystyle \underset{l=i+1}{\overset{Nk_3}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{b(\lambda ,z_{\stackrel{~}{l}})}{b(z_{\stackrel{~}{i}},z_{\stackrel{~}{l}})}}c(\lambda ,z_{\stackrel{~}{i}}){\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{Nk_3k_2}{}}}b(\lambda z_{\stackrel{~}{k}})E_{23}^{(\stackrel{~}{i})}.`$ (4.21)
Because of the symmetry of $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{0,1\mathrm{}N}(\lambda )`$ all other terms have to be of the same form as (4.21). Taking into account the action of the projectors the resulting expression is

$`\stackrel{~}{T}_{32}={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}c(\lambda ,z_i)E_{23}^{(i)}_{ji}\text{diag}\{b(\lambda ,z_j),b(\lambda ,z_j)b_{ij}^1,1\}_{[j]}.`$ (4.22)
For the calculation of $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{\mathrm{3\hspace{0.17em}1}}(\lambda )`$ one has to distinguish the cases $`3`$, $`2`$ and $`1`$ in the sum $`^{}`$. The only difference compared to $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{\mathrm{3\hspace{0.17em}2}}(\lambda )`$ is a term containing a product $`E_{12}^{(i)}E_{23}^{(j)}`$ now showing up in the matrix product in $`T_{0,\sigma (1)\mathrm{}\sigma N}(\lambda )`$. Once again one has to correct the distribution of $`\alpha ^{}s`$ with the analog of the equations (4.19) and (4.20) and also with a new relation which has to be taken into account when dealing with the term containing the product $`E_{12}^{(i)}E_{23}^{(j)}`$ : $`E_{13}^{(i)}P_j^2\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}=E_{12}^{(i)}E_{23}^{(j)}`$.
This reasoning leads to ($`b_{ik}=b(z_i,z_k),b_{0k}=b(\lambda ,z_k)`$):

$`\stackrel{~}{T}_{31}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}c_{0i}E_{13}^{(i)}_{ji}\text{diag}\{b_{0j}b_{ij}^1,b_{0j}b_{ij}^1,1\}_{[j]}+`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}c_{0i}`$ $`b_{0j}{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{z_iz_j}}E_{23}^{(i)}E_{12}^{(j)}_{ki,j}\text{diag}\{b_{0k}b_{jk}^1,b_{0k}b_{ik}^1,1\}_{[k]}.`$ (4.23)
We have thus achieved to compute the creation operators in the new basis. They can be regarded as the corresponding Gaudin operators (defined as the semiclassical limit of the quantum monodromy matrix) being dressed diagonally.

## 5 Bethe Vectors

We now want to determine the functional form of the Bethe vectors (3.5), using the explicit form of the relevant operators in the F-basis. First we want to note that the vacuum $`\mathrm{\Omega }_N^{(3)}`$ (3.3) is invariant under the F-transformation $`F\mathrm{\Omega }_N^{(3)}=\mathrm{\Omega }_N^{(3)}`$, as $`R_{ij}v_3^{(i)}v_3^{(j)}=v_3^{(i)}v_3^{(j)}`$, and thus due to the projectors in $`F`$ only the term containing the identity ($`\{\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _N\}=\{3,\mathrm{},3\}`$) contributes to $`F\mathrm{\Omega }_N^{(n)}`$. The wavefunction (3.5) in the F-basis is then $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}=F\mathrm{\Psi }`$:

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_3(N;\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _p)=\underset{\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _p}{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _p}^{(2)}\stackrel{~}{C}_{\alpha _1}(\lambda _1)\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{C}_{\alpha _p}(\lambda _p)\mathrm{\Omega }_N^{(3)}.$$
(5.1)
We shall consider the “off-shell” Bethe vector , i.e. without imposing the Bethe ansatz equations on $`\{\lambda _i\}`$.
We first consider the $`sl(2)`$ case. The F-transformed creation operators with respect to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_N^{(2)}`$ are

$$\stackrel{~}{C}(\lambda )=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}c(\lambda ,z_i)\sigma _+^{(i)}_{ji}\left(\begin{array}{cc}b(\lambda ,z_j)b_{ij}^1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)_{[j]}.$$
(5.2)
Inserting this expression into the $`sl(2)`$ wavefunction (3.9), we obtain

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_2(N;\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _p)=\stackrel{~}{C}(\lambda _1)\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{C}(\lambda _p)\mathrm{\Omega }_N^{(2)}`$ (5.3)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i_1<\mathrm{}<i_p}{}}B_p^{(2)}(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _p|z_{i_1},\mathrm{},z_{i_p})\sigma _+^{(i_1)}\mathrm{}\sigma _+^{(i_p)}\mathrm{\Omega }_N^{(2)}.`$
The coefficients $`B_p^{(2)}(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _p|z_{i_1},\mathrm{},z_{i_p})`$ can be calculated by taking into account the action of the spin operators $`\sigma _+^{(i)}`$ on the dressing $`\text{diag}\{b(\lambda ,z_j)b_{ij}^1,1\}`$ in (5.2):

$`B_p^{(2)}(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _p|z_1,\mathrm{},z_p)={\displaystyle \underset{\sigma S_p}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{p}{}}}c(\lambda _m,z_{\sigma (m)}){\displaystyle \underset{l=m+1}{\overset{p}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{b(\lambda _m,z_{\sigma (l)})}{b(z_{\sigma (m)},z_{\sigma (l)})}}.`$
(5.4)
The strategy in the $`sl(3)`$ case will rely on the symmetry of the wavevector under the exchange of arbitrary spectral parameters which enables us to concentrate on a particularily simple term in the sum (5.1), and the repeated use of the commutation relation (3.13), which written in components is

$`\stackrel{~}{C}_\alpha (\lambda _1)\stackrel{~}{C}_\beta (\lambda _2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{b(\lambda _2,\lambda _1)}}\stackrel{~}{C}_\beta (\lambda _2)\stackrel{~}{C}_\alpha (\lambda _1){\displaystyle \frac{c(\lambda _2,\lambda _1)}{b(\lambda _2,\lambda _1)}}\stackrel{~}{C}_\beta (\lambda _1)\stackrel{~}{C}_\alpha (\lambda _2).`$
(5.5)
These ideas lead us to propose the following form for the Bethe vector

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_3(N,\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _{p_0};\lambda _{p_0+1},\mathrm{},\lambda _{p_0+p_1})=`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma S_{p_0}}{}}B_{p_1}^{(2)}(\lambda _{p_0+1},\mathrm{},\lambda _{p_0+p_1}|\lambda _{\sigma (1)},\mathrm{},\lambda _{\sigma (p_1)}){\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{p_1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=p_1+1}{\overset{p_0}{}}}b(\lambda _{\sigma (l)},\lambda _{\sigma (k)})^1`$
$`\times \stackrel{~}{C}_2(\lambda _{\sigma (p_1+1)})\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{C}_2(\lambda _{\sigma (p_0)})\stackrel{~}{C}_1(\lambda _{\sigma (1)})\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{C}_1(\lambda _{\sigma (p_1)})\mathrm{\Omega }_N^{(3)}.`$ (5.6)
Consider a special term in the sum (5.1) of the form (which is motivated by the fact that the associated coefficient $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is especially simple to compute, see below) :

$`\stackrel{~}{C}_1(\lambda _1)\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{C}_1(\lambda _{p_1})\stackrel{~}{C}_2(\lambda _{p_1+1})\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{C}_2(\lambda _{p_0})\mathrm{\Omega }_N^{(3)}.`$ (5.7)
Commuting all $`\stackrel{~}{C}_1(\lambda )`$ to the right using the first term in (5.5) (as the second terms produces expressions in which at least one parameter of the operators $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{31}`$ does not belong to the specified set $`\{\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _{p_1}\}`$), yields an additional factor $`_{x=1}^{p_1}_{y=p_1+1}^{p_0}\left\{b(\lambda _y,\lambda _x)\right\}^1`$.
It has to be noted that the associated c-number coefficient $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{1\mathrm{}12\mathrm{}2}^{(2)}`$ in (5.1) is not evaluated in the $`sl(3)`$ F-basis. It can however be expressed in the form (5.4) as it is invariant under the action of the $`sl(2)`$ F-matrix. This is due to the fact that it constitutes a component of the $`sl(2)`$ vector whose labels (a non-decreasing series of $`\alpha _i`$ with respect to the original ordering of sites $`i`$) correspond via (4.6) to the identity permutation in the definition of the F-matrix (4.5).
Invoking the exchange symmetry we arrive thus at the formula (5.6).
The explicit form of the creation operators (4.22, 4.23) allows to further simplify the wavevector (5.1). The second term in (4.23) annhilates the vacuum, which was the reason for the special choice of order in (5.6). Taking into account the recpective action of the roots on the dressings, we finally obtain our main result

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_3(N,\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _{p_0};\lambda _{p_0+1},\mathrm{},\lambda _{p_0+p_1})=`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i_1<\mathrm{}<i_{p_0}}{}}B_{p_0,p_1}^{(3)}(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _{p_0};\lambda _{p_0+1},\mathrm{},\lambda _{p_0+p_1}|z_{i_1},\mathrm{},z_{i_{p_0}}){\displaystyle \underset{j=i_{p_1+1}}{\overset{i_{p_0}}{}}}E_{23}^{(j)}{\displaystyle \underset{j=i_1}{\overset{i_{p_1}}{}}}E_{13}^{(j)}\mathrm{\Omega }_N^{(3)},`$
with

$`B_{p_0,p_1}^{(3)}(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _{p_0};\lambda _{p_0+1},\mathrm{},\lambda _{p_0+p_1}|z_{i_1},\mathrm{},z_{i_{p_0}})=`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma S_{p_0}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{p_1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=p_1+1}{\overset{p_0}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{b(\lambda _{\sigma (l)}z_{i_k})}{b(\lambda _{\sigma (l)}\lambda _{\sigma (k)})}}B_{p_0p_1}^{(2)}(\lambda _{\sigma (p_1+1)},\mathrm{},\lambda _{\sigma (p_0)}|z_{i_{p_1+1}},\mathrm{},z_{i_{p_0}})`$
$`\times B_{p_1}^{(2)}(\lambda _{p_0+1},\mathrm{},\lambda _{p_0+p_1}|\lambda _{\sigma (1)},\mathrm{},\lambda _{\sigma (p_1)})B_{p_1}^{(2)}(\lambda _{\sigma (1)},\mathrm{},\lambda _{\sigma (p_1)}|z_{i_1},\mathrm{},z_{i_{p_1}}).`$
(5.8)
By expressing the $`sl(3)`$ wavevector (3.5) with the help of $`sl(2)`$ building blocks (5.4) we have achieved a resolution of the nested hierarchy.

## 6 Conclusion

We accomplished the construction of a factorizing F-matrix for the rational $`sl(n)`$ model enabling one to construct completely symmetric creation operators which moreover are devoid of non-local effects from polarization clouds. These operators were used to resolve the intricacies of the nested structure of the Bethe vectors.
Our method does not rely on an $`sl(n)`$ invariance of the monodromy matrix. The only ingredients needed in our computation are the form of the R-matrix (2), i.e. its structure, unitarity and the fact that it constitutes a representation of the permutation group, and the property (4.12). Thus our findings directly yield the corresponding expression for the generalized XXZ-model. With the help of a vertex–face map it is even possible to find the F-basis for the XYZ-model (, see also R. Poghossians lecture in this volume) and its multicomponent generalization, the Belavin model .
We hope that these results might prove useful for the construction of formfactors starting from the microscopic level. For this purpose the generalization of the above procedure for the thermodynamical limit would be desireable.
In view of the similarities between the results obtained by the functional Bethe ansatz  and those in the F-basis for the $`sl(2)`$ XXX and XXZ-model, it seems plausible that some version of the functional Bethe ansatz should be feasible both for the ellipic case (XYZ-model) as well as for the nested form.
Acknowledgement: The work reported in these notes was done in collaboration with H. Boos and R. Flume.
We thank the organizers of the workshop for the opportunity to present this lecture and for their kind hospitality.


text:
# Reducing the Linewidth of an Atom Laser by Feedback

## Abstract

A continuous atom laser will almost certainly have a linewidth dominated by the effect of the atomic interaction energy, which turns fluctuations in the condensate atom number into fluctuations in the condensate frequency. These correlated fluctuations mean that information about the atom number could be used to reduce the frequency fluctuations, by controlling a spatially uniform potential. We show that feedback based on a physically reasonable quantum non-demolition measurement of the atom number of the condensate in situ can reduce the linewidth enormously.

An atom laser is a continuous source of coherent atom waves, analogous to an ordinary laser which is a continuous source of coherent photon waves (light) . Ideas for creating an atom laser were published independently by a number of authors , shortly after the first achievement of Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC) of gaseous atoms . There have since been some important advances in the coherent release of pulses  and beams  of atoms from a condensate. Since the condensate is not replenished in these experiments, the output coupling cannot continue indefinitely . Nevertheless they represent major steps towards achieving a continuously operating atom laser.

The coherence of an atom laser beam can be defined analogously to that of an optical laser beam: the atoms should have a relatively small longitudinal momentum spread, they should ideally be restricted to a single transverse mode and internal state, and their flux should be relatively constant . A fourth condition, rarely considered for optical lasers because it is so easily satisfied, is that the laser beam be Bose degenerate. This requires that the atom flux be much larger than the linewidth (the reciprocal of the coherence time) . A crucial contributor to the linewidth of an atom laser is the collisional interaction of atoms, which is negligible for photons. This is difficult to avoid because it is the collisions between atoms that enables BEC by evaporative cooling, at present the only method for achieving an atom laser.

In this Letter we show that using a feedback mechanism can reduce the effect of atomic interactions on the atom laser linewidth by a factor as large as the square root of the atom number. For a single-mode condensate the dominant effect of collisions is to turn atom number fluctuations in the condensate into fluctuations in the energy, which are equivalent to frequency fluctuations. By monitoring the number fluctuations, it is possible using feedback to largely compensate for the linewidth caused by these frequency fluctuations. The key practical points are that the measurement does not rely upon any external condensate phase reference, and that the control requires only the ability to change the energy of the atoms, which could be done with a spatially uniform optical or magnetic field.

We begin by deriving the standard laser linewidth (for non-interacting bosons) using a simple method which is applied to all later cases. We then derive the broadened linewidth for an atom laser with strongly interacting atoms. Finally, we show that feedback based on a quantum non-demolition (QND) measurement of atom number in the the condensate can greatly mitigate this linewidth broadening.

(a) Standard Laser Linewidth. To derive the standard linewidth we use the usual single-mode model of the laser . Far above threshold, the laser mode has Poissonian number statistics. In the absence of thermal or other excess noise, its dynamics are modeled by the completely positive master equation

$$\dot{\rho }=\kappa \mu 𝒟[a^{}]𝒜[a^{}]^1\rho +\kappa 𝒟[a]\rho .$$
(1)
Here $`\kappa `$ is the loss rate, $`\mu 1`$ the stationary mean boson number, and $`a`$ the annihilation operator for the laser mode. The superoperators $`𝒟`$ and $`𝒜`$ are defined as usual:

$`𝒟[A]B`$ $``$ $`ABA^{}𝒜[A]B,`$ (2)
$`𝒜[A]B`$ $``$ $`(A^{}AB+BA^{}A)/2.`$ (3)
That Eq. (1) is of the Lindblad form follows from the identity  $`𝒟[a^{}]𝒜[a^{}]^1=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑q𝒟[a^{}e^{qaa^{}/2}]`$. The stationary solution to this master equation is

$$\rho _{\mathrm{ss}}=e^\mu \underset{n}{}\frac{\mu ^n}{n!}|nn|=\frac{1}{2\pi }_0^{2\pi }𝑑\theta |re^{i\theta }re^{i\theta }|,$$
(4)
where $`r=\sqrt{\mu }`$ and $`|re^{i\theta }`$ is a coherent state .

The coherence time of a laser is roughly the time for the phase of the field to become uncorrelated with its initial value. It is determined by the stationary first-order coherence function

$$g^{(1)}(t)=\mathrm{Tr}[a^{}e^ta\rho _{\mathrm{ss}}]/\mathrm{Tr}[\rho _{\mathrm{ss}}a^{}a].$$
(5)
A simple and useful definition is

$$\tau _{\mathrm{coh}}=\frac{1}{2}_0^{\mathrm{}}|g^{(1)}(t)|𝑑t.$$
(6)
Here the $`1/2`$ is so that, for the standard laser, $`\mathrm{}\tau _{\mathrm{coh}}^1`$ will be the standard linewidth. In the cases we consider it is a very good approximation  to put $`|g^{(1)}(t)|=e^{i\omega _0t}g^{(1)}(t)`$ for some frequency $`\omega _0`$. From Eq. (5), this allows the integral in Eq. (6) to be evaluated, yielding

$$\tau _{\mathrm{coh}}\mathrm{Tr}[a^{}(i\omega _0)^1a\rho _{\mathrm{ss}}]/2\mathrm{T}\mathrm{r}[\rho _{\mathrm{ss}}a^{}a].$$
(7)
Equation (7) can be evaluated numerically, for example using the Matlab quantum optics toolbox . Analytically, it is easier to use the fact that Eq. (5) is unchanged if $`\rho _{\mathrm{ss}}`$ is replaced by the coherent state $`|re^{i\theta }re^{i\theta }|`$ for arbitrary $`\theta `$. Using any suitable phase-space $`(\alpha ,\alpha ^{})`$ representation, the coherence function then becomes $`g^{(1)}(t)=\alpha ^{}(t)/\alpha ^{}(0)`$, where $`\alpha (0)`$ has a distribution corresponding to $`|re^{i\theta }`$. Because fluctuations in the intensity $`n=|\alpha |^2`$ are relatively small in a laser with $`\mu 1`$, the coherence time is well approximated by

$$\tau _{\mathrm{coh}}\frac{1}{2}_0^{\mathrm{}}|e^{i\delta \varphi (t)}|𝑑t\frac{1}{2}_0^{\mathrm{}}e^{\frac{1}{2}\delta V_\varphi (t)}𝑑t.$$
(8)
Here $`\delta V_\varphi (t)`$ is the variance of $`\delta \varphi (t)=\mathrm{arg}[\alpha (t)/\alpha (0)]`$, and the second approximation relies on $`\delta \varphi (t)`$ having Gaussian statistics, as will be justified below.

For our laser model, the $`Q`$-function is the most convenient representation because of the identity

$$𝒟[a^{}]𝒜[a^{}]^1\rho \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\frac{}{n}\right)^kQ(n,\varphi ),$$
(9)
which, since the higher order derivatives are negligible, can be truncated at $`k=2`$. The master equation (1) thus turns into a Fokker-Planck equation (FPE) for $`Q(n,\varphi )`$ which can be linearized. Under this FPE, the number statistics remain those of the initial coherent state, as does the number-phase covariance $`C_{n\varphi }`$ (i.e. it remains zero), and the phase has Gaussian statistics with a variances that increases as $`\delta V_\varphi (t)=(\kappa /2\mu )t`$. Substituting this into Eq. (8), we obtain $`\tau =2\mu /\kappa `$. This time is precisely the coherence time. Its reciprocal is the standard laser linewidth $`\mathrm{}_0=\kappa /2\mu `$ .

(b) Atom Laser Linewidth. As a model for an atom laser we take the standard laser master equation (1) and add a term $`iC[a^{}a^{}aa,\rho ]`$. This represents the self-energy of the atoms due to collisions, where

$$C=\frac{2\pi \mathrm{}a_s}{m}d^3𝐫|\psi (𝐫)|^4.$$
(10)
Here $`\psi (𝐫)`$ is the wavefunction for the condensate mode, and $`a_s`$ is the $`s`$-wave scattering length. For the experiments in Refs. , $`\psi (𝐫)`$ can be determined using the Thomas-Fermi approximation, and we use this to obtain the numerical values which appear later. The Hamiltonian $`Ca^{}a^{}aa`$ has no effect on the atom number statistics. Linearizing the resultant FPE for the $`Q`$ function yields the phase-related second-order moments

$`C_{n\varphi }(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\chi }{2}}(e^{\kappa t}1),`$ (11)
$`\delta V_\varphi (t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\chi ^2}{2\mu }}(e^{\kappa t}+\kappa t1)+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{2\mu }}t.`$ (12)
Here, we have used $`\chi =4\mu C/\kappa `$ as a dimensionless parameter for the strength of the atomic interactions.

This expression for $`\delta V_\varphi (t)`$ implies that the integrand $`g^{(1)}(t)`$ in Eq. (8) has the same structure as the analogous expression, Eq. (184), derived in Ref. . This was for a condensate in dynamical equilibrium with thermal atoms. Moreover, the three time scales identified in Ref.  have the same physical origins as those in Eq. (12). The integral in Eq. (8) can be evaluated analytically in two limits:

$$\mathrm{}=\tau ^1=\{\begin{array}{ccc}\kappa (1+\chi ^2)/2\mu \hfill & \mathrm{for}\hfill & \chi \sqrt{\mu }\hfill \\ 2\kappa \chi /\sqrt{2\pi \mu }\hfill & \mathrm{for}\hfill & \chi \sqrt{\mu }\hfill \end{array}.$$
(13)
These correspond to the characteristic time constants of Eqs. (187) and (186) of Ref.  respectively (see Ref.  for a further discussion). Our two expressions agree at $`\chi \sqrt{8\mu /\pi }`$, so we have an expression for how $`\mathrm{}`$ scales for all values of $`\chi `$. The second expression for $`\tau `$, in the regime where the nonlinearity is dominant, is familiar as the collapse time of an initial coherent state in the absence of pumping or damping .

Using the preliminary atom laser experiments  as a guide to realistic parameter values, the dimensionless interaction strength $`\chi `$ is found to always satisfy $`\chi 1`$. This implies a linewidth for the atom laser far above the standard limit. If $`\chi \mu ^{3/2}`$, then $`\mathrm{}`$ would be larger than the output flux $`\kappa \mu `$, and the output would cease to be coherent. It is thus of great interest to find methods for reducing the linewidth due to atomic interactions.

(c) Effect of QND-based Feedback. Atomic interactions do not directly cause phase diffusion. Rather, they cause a shearing of the field in phase space, with higher amplitude fields having higher energy and hence rotating faster. The linewidth-broadening which results is a known effect for optical lasers with a Kerr ($`\chi ^{(3)}`$) medium . The shearing of the field is manifest in the finite value acquired by the covariance $`C_{n\varphi }(t)`$ in Eq. (11). It means that information about the condensate number is also information about the condensate phase. Hence, we can expect that feedback based on atom number measurements could enable the phase dynamics to be controlled, and the linewidth reduced.

It might be thought that one could measure the atom number by diverting some of the atom laser output beam. It turns out that this sort of measurement is effectively useless for reducing the linewidth. For this reason we consider instead quantum non-demolition (QND) measurements of atom number, which works very well .

QND atom number measurements can be performed on the condensate in situ using dispersive imaging techniques . We consider a far-detuned probe laser beam of frequency $`\omega _p`$ and cross-sectional area $`A`$ (assumed larger than the condensate) which passes through the condensate. For simplicity, we will assume that the distortion of the beam front, and the mean phase shift, are removed by a suitable “anti-mean-condensate” lens. For a single atom, the interaction Hamiltonian with the probe beam in the large detuning limit is

$$\mathrm{}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_p^2}{4\mathrm{\Delta }}=\mathrm{}b^{}b\left(\frac{\mathrm{}\omega _p\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{8A\mathrm{\Delta }I_{\mathrm{sat}}}\right)\mathrm{}b^{}b\theta ,$$
(14)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`I_{\mathrm{sat}}`$ have their usual meaning. Here $`b`$ is the annihilation operator for the probe beam, normalized so that $`\mathrm{}\omega _pb^{}b`$ is the beam power. The effective interaction Hamiltonian for the whole condensate, minus the mean phase shift, is thus

$$H_{\mathrm{int}}=\mathrm{}\theta (a^{}a\mu )b^{}b,$$
(15)
where $`\theta `$, defined in Eq. (14), is the phase shift of the probe field due to a single atom.

From Eq. (15), the back-action of the probe fluctuations on the condensate can be evaluated using the techniques of Ref. , and results in the extra phase diffusion

$$\dot{\rho }=\beta ^2𝒟[e^{i\theta (a^{}a\mu )}]\rho N𝒟[a^{}a]\rho .$$
(16)
Here the approximation requires $`\sqrt{\mu }\theta 1`$, and

$$N=\beta ^2\theta ^2=P\theta ^2/\mathrm{}\omega _p,$$
(17)
where $`\beta =b_{\mathrm{in}}`$ and $`P`$ is the mean beam power. Equation (15) also gives the output probe field

$$b_{\mathrm{out}}=e^{i\theta (a^{}a\mu )}b_{\mathrm{in}}b_{\mathrm{in}}i\theta (a^{}a\mu )\beta ,$$
(18)
where the same approximation has been used. The condensate number fluctuations can thus be measured by homodyne detection of the output phase quadrature

$$I_{\mathrm{out}}^\mathrm{Y}=ib_{\mathrm{out}}+ib_{\mathrm{out}}^{}I_{\mathrm{in}}^\mathrm{Y}2\beta \theta (a^{}a\mu ).$$
(19)
In order to control the phase dynamics of the condensate, we wish to use the homodyne current to modulate the phase. This can be done, for example, by applying a uniform magnetic field or far-detuned light field across the whole condensate. We model this by the Hamiltonian

$$H_{\mathrm{fb}}(t)=\mathrm{}a^{}a\sqrt{\frac{\kappa \lambda }{4\mu }}_0^{\mathrm{}}h(s)I_{\mathrm{out}}^\mathrm{Y}(ts)𝑑s,$$
(20)
where $`h(s)`$ is the response function of the feedback loop and $`\lambda `$ is a dimensionless measure of the feedback strength. Neither the measurement nor the feedback affect the atom number statistics. In the ideal limit of instantaneous feedback, $`h(s)\delta (s)`$ and we can apply the Markovian theory of Ref. . The total master equation for the atom laser is then

$`\dot{\rho }`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa \mu 𝒟[a^{}]𝒜[a^{}]^1\rho +\kappa 𝒟[a]\rho iC[a^{}a^{}aa,\rho ]`$ (22)
$`+iN\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{\nu }}}[a^{}a^{}aa,\rho ]+N\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{\eta \nu }}\right)𝒟[a^{}a]\rho .`$
Here we have allowed for a detection efficiency $`\eta `$ , and dropped terms corresponding to a frequency shift, and defined a dimensionless parameter $`\nu =4\mu N/\kappa `$.

Proceeding as before, we find the $`Q`$ phase variance:

$`\delta V_\varphi (t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mu }}\left(\chi \sqrt{\nu \lambda }\right)^2(e^{\kappa t}+\kappa t1)`$ (24)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\mu }}\left(2+\nu +{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{\eta }}\right)\kappa t.`$
If the feedback is to reduce the linewidth, we need $`(\chi \sqrt{\lambda \nu })^24\mu `$ and $`\eta `$ must be large enough that $`\eta \mu 1`$. In this case, Eq. (8) has a simple analytical solution:

$$\mathrm{}=\tau ^1=\frac{\kappa }{4\mu }\left[2+\nu +\frac{\lambda }{\eta }+2\left(\chi \sqrt{\nu \lambda }\right)^2\right].$$
(25)
Assume $`\chi `$ is large enough that $`2\sqrt{\eta }\chi >1`$, which is the physically interesting regime where the self-energy is important. Then $`\mathrm{}`$ is minimized for a feedback strength of $`\lambda =\sqrt{\eta }\chi 1/2`$, and a measurement strength of $`\nu =\lambda /\eta `$. The optimum linewidth in this case is

$$\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{min}}=\frac{\kappa }{2\mu }\left(1+\frac{\chi }{\sqrt{\eta }}\frac{1}{4\eta }\right).$$
(26)
Note that for a large interaction strength $`\chi `$ there is an optimum measurement strength $`\nu \chi /\sqrt{\eta }`$ (or equivalently $`NC/\sqrt{\eta }`$) independent of the output coupling rate $`\kappa `$. From Eq. (22) we see that this effectively cancels the self-energy term in the master equation (since $`\lambda =\eta \nu `$). A weak measurement will give poor information about the atom number, with a high noise-to-signal ratio. Feeding back the noisy current to counter the shearing caused by the nonlinearity will thus add large phase fluctuations to the condensate. On the other hand, if the measurement is too strong the measurement back action in the form of phase diffusion, as discussed above Eq. (17), will itself dominate the linewidth.

In Fig. 1 we plot the approximate analytical expressions for the linewidth in the absence \[Eq. (13)\] and presence \[Eq. (26)\] of feedback as a function of nonlinearity $`\chi `$. We also plot exact numerical results using Eq. (7), for $`\mu =60`$. The agreement is very good. It is evident that the QND feedback offers a linewidth much smaller than that without feedback for all values of $`\chi >1/2\sqrt{\eta }`$. In fact for $`\chi 1`$ the reduction factor approaches a maximum of $`\sqrt{8\mu /\pi }`$. Most importantly, with feedback, the laser output remains coherent until $`\chi \mu ^2`$, a much higher value than the $`\mu ^{3/2}`$ which applies in the absence of feedback.

Let us summarize. An atom laser will almost certainly suffer great linewidth broadening due to the collisional self-energy of the atoms. This is because the self-energy produces a correlation between the number and phase fluctuations of the condensate. We have shown that this broadening can be enormously reduced by controlling the phase of the condensate based on a QND measurement of the number of atoms in the condensate. The factor of reduction can be as large as the square root of the number of atoms in the condensate (that is, a factor of perhaps $`10^3`$).

A question of interest is, how easy is it to obtain a QND measurement of sufficient strength to optimize the feedback? We have seen above that we require $`\nu \chi `$, which is equivalent to $`NC`$. For the typical BEC parameters of Refs. , $`C10^2`$s-1. It may be verified from Eq. (17) that it is very easy to obtain a measurement strength $`N`$ this large, even with $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

A related question is, how much of a problem is atom loss due to spontaneous emission by atoms excited by the detuned probe beam? The rate of this loss (ignoring reabsorption) is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\times (\text{Excited Population})`$. We would like the ratio of this loss rate to the output loss rate $`\kappa \mu `$ to be small. In the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ limit, this ratio is given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }\frac{(\mathrm{\Gamma }/2\mathrm{\Delta })^2(I/2I_{\mathrm{sat}})\mu }{\kappa \mu }\frac{2\chi I_{\mathrm{sat}}A}{\mathrm{}\omega _p\mathrm{\Gamma }\mu }.$$
(27)
For physically reasonable parameters of $`\chi 10^3`$, $`I_{\mathrm{sat}}10`$W$`/`$m2, $`A10^{11}`$m2, $`\omega _p3\times 10^{15}`$s-1, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }3\times 10^6`$s-1, and $`\mu 10^6`$, Eq. (27) is indeed small ($`10^1`$).

In conclusion, there appear to be no fundamental reasons that this proposal could not be put to good use when a continuous atom laser is realized.

Acknowledgments.

HMW is deeply indebted to W.D. Phillips for the idea of controlling atom laser phase fluctuations using atom number measurements, and for subsequent insightful comments on this work.


text:
# Structure and Magnetism of Neutral and Anionic Palladium Clusters

## Abstract

The properties of neutral and anionic PdN clusters were investigated with spin-density-functional calculations. The ground state structures are three-dimensional for $`N`$$`>`$3 and they are magnetic with a spin-triplet for 2$``$$`N`$$``$7 and a spin nonet for $`N`$$`=`$13 neutral clusters. Structural- and spin-isomers were determined and an anomalous increase of the magnetic moment with temperature is predicted for a Pd7 ensemble. Vertical electron detachment and ionization energies were calculated and the former agree well with measured values for Pd$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{N}{}^{}`$.

Enhancement of magnetism in finite clusters made of elements that are ferromagnetic as bulk solids has been demonstrated through Stern-Gerlach (SG) deflection measurements , and it is understood to derive from reduced atomic coordination resulting in stronger electron localization. However, the emergence of magnetism in small clusters of close-shell non-magnetic atoms is clouded by uncertainty. Palladium aggregates (with a \[Kr\] 4d10 structure of the atom) are particularly interesting since the bulk metal is known to be ”almost” magnetic, with the emergence of magnetism predicted to require a mere 6 % dilation of the interatomic distance . Experimental information is limited to SG measurements on PdN clusters with $`N`$$`>`$12 (where the clusters were found to be non-magnetic)  or to inferences from (non-magnetic) photoemission studies . Additionally, systematic theoretical investigations of magnetic properties are lacking, limited only to neutral Pd13 .

We report on an extensive density-functional-theory (DFT) study pertaining to size-dependent evolutionary patterns of the properties of PdN and Pd$`{}_{N}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ clusters with $`N`$$`=`$1$``$7 and $`N`$$`=`$13. The ground states (GSs) of the neutral and anionic clusters are found to undergo an early transition (i.e. for $`N`$$`>`$3) to three-dimensional (3D) ones and possess a non-zero magnetic moment (e.g., for neutral clusters with $`N`$$``$7 a spin triplet, $`S`$$`=`$1, and a spin nonet, $`S`$$`=`$4, for $`N`$$`=`$13). In addition to higher-energy structural isomers (STIs) we determined sequences of close-lying spin isomers (SPIs). For a Pd7 ensemble, we predict an increase of the magnetic moment with temperature due to the thermal accessibility of such isomers. All the SPIs exhibit high local magnetic moments (LMMs), including the singlet states with an antiferromagnetic LMM coupling. Our structural determinations are corroborated by the remarkable agreement between the calculated vertical electron detachment energies (vDEs) from the cluster anions and photoelectron spectroscopy (PES) measurements.

In this study the Kohn-Sham (KS) equations with generalized gradient corrections (GGA)  were solved using the Born-Oppenheimer local-spin-density molecular dynamics (BO-LSD-MD) method , with scalar-relativistic  non-local pseudopotentials . Cluster geometries were determined via symmetry-unrestricted structural optimizations through a rather exhaustive search starting from various structures including those suggested in previous studies of certain Pd clusters  and other metal clusters. For each structure spin-restricted optimizations were performed covering all energetically important spin multiplicities.

The GS geometries and STIs for both PdN and Pd$`{}_{N}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ are rather similar and they follow the same structural evolution, exhibiting Jahn-Teller distortions from the ideal symmetric structures (see Fig. 1), with a transition to 3D configurations at $`N`$$`>`$. The GSs (i.e. maximal binding energy $`E_B`$ in Fig. 1) of PdN with $`N`$$``$7 have a triplet spin multiplicity (see open squares in Fig. 1(A-F)), while for Pd13 the GS is associated with a nonet ($`S`$$`=`$4) spin configuration (see Fig. 1G). On the other hand, the GS spin-multiplicities of the Pd$`{}_{N}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ anions (filled symbols in Fig. 1) vary non-monotonically with $`N`$ (doublet for $`N`$$`=`$2,3,4, and 6; quartet for $`N`$$`=`$5; sextet for $`N`$$`=`$7, and octet for $`N`$$`=`$13). We note here that the higher-lying STIs and SPIs of the neutral and anionic clusters become thermally accessible with increasing cluster size (see temperature scales  on the right-hand-side in Fig. 1).

The binding energies of the GS clusters increase rather monotonically with $`N`$ (Fig. 2a), showing enhanced local stabilities for Pd$`{}_{3}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ and Pd4 . The average nearest-neighbor bond-length ($`R_{nn}`$) of the GS structures and the SPIs are very similar , converging rapidly to the bulk value (2.75 Å ).

The calculated vDEs from the cluster anions are in a remarkable agreement with values determined from PES measurements  (Fig. 2b). For all the clusters, we display the vDEs only for the GS (structural and spin) configurations of the anions, except for Pd$`{}_{7}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ where we show the vDEs for both the GS ($`S=5/2`$) and its next (higher-in-energy) SPI ($`S=3/2`$) (the difference in energy between the two isomers is 0.11 eV, corresponding to only 170 K in vibrational temperature ), with the latter exhibiting a better agreement with the experimental data. These results suggest that for Pd$`{}_{7}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ the measured vDE may correspond to this higher-energy SPI which is accessible already at very low temperatures, while for the other clusters studied here the vDEs are determined by the GS structures over a broad temperature range.

The only (slight) discrepancy between the calculated and measured VDEs is for Pd$`{}_{3}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ (see Fig. 2b). However, we observe from this figure that the predicted vDE (2.0 eV) for Pd$`{}_{3}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ is rather close to the dissociation energy ($`E_D`$) of the process Pd$`{}_{3}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$$``$Pd$`{}_{2}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$$`+`$Pd (see filled circle in Fig. 2b at $`E_D`$$`=`$2.41 eV, compared to a measured value of 2.26 eV ). This implies that this dissociation channel may compete with the electron detachment under appropriate experimental conditions. Consequently, we assign the vDE of Pd$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{3}{}^{}`$ to the next higher feature in the measured PES ) occuring at 1.88 eV which agrees with the predicted value, and the lower measured value (at 1.66 eV, marked by a cross in Fig. 2b) is attributed to the vDE of a (hot) Pd$`{}_{2}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ dissociation product  (the same conclusions apply to the photoelectron spectrum of Pd$`{}_{3}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ shown in Fig. 2 of ref. ); for a similar interpretation of the measured PES of Au$`{}_{3}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ see Refs. 16 and 26.

The vertical ionization potentials predicted by us (vIP in Fig. 2c) start at the atomic value of 8.28 eV compared to the measured first IP of Pd, 8.33 eV ; the calculated second IP of Pd (27.34 eV) also agrees with the experimental one (27.75 eV) . The predicted values for $`N`$$`=`$2 and 3 are close to each other followed by a marked drop for clusters with $`N`$$`>`$3, which is likely to reflect the transition to 3D structures. Convergence to the bulk limit (the work function of Pd is 4.97 eV ) is slow. No measured IP values have been reported.

The multitude of spin-multiplicities for the Pd$`{}_{N}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ clusters results in a considerable variation of the magnetic moment per atom $`\mu `$$`=`$$`2S\mu _B/N`$ (solid squares in Fig. 2d) with particularly high values of $`\mu `$$`=`$0.6, 0.71 and 0.54 $`\mu _B`$ for $`N`$$`=`$5, 7 and 13, respectively. On the other hand, the occurrence of a triplet GS for the neutral clusters underlies a monotonic $`1/N`$ decrease of $`\mu `$ for $`N`$$`=`$1$``$7 (open squares in Fig. 2d), with an unexpected high value of 0.62 $`\mu _B`$ for Pd13 which is higher than the experimental  estimate ($`\mu `$$`<`$0.4 $`\mu _B`$).

The rather surprising existence of energetically favorable high-spin isomers for Pd clusters originates from $`sd`$-hybridization developing upon bonding, with the $`d`$-orbitals’ weight diminished somewhat on each atom, resulting in a situation reminiscent of open-shell transition metals. The total magnetic moment of the cluster is comprised of sizable atomic LMMs ($`\mu _{\mathrm{}}`$$``$$`\pm (0.30.6)\mu _B`$) that couple antiferromagnetically in the spin-compensated singlet states, and align themselves in SPIs with high total $`\mu `$. This is illustrated for the icosahedral Pd13 cluster in Fig. 2 where the (gapless) density of states (DOS) of the $`S=0`$ singlet SPI is shown in Fig. 2e and the corresponding spin-polarization density in Fig. 2g (left); note the non-uniform spatial distribution of the spin-polarization reflected in the different line-shapes of the DOS of the up and down spins. In the $`S=2`$ spin-quintet SPI the minority spin polarization is localized on three sites located in a triangle (Fig. 2g, middle). In the $`S=4`$ spin-nonet GS cluster all the sites are spin-polarized in the same direction (Fig. 2g, right), and it’s stability is reflected in the large gap in the majority-spin DOS near the Fermi energy (see spin $``$ in Fig. 2f).

Intriguing conclusions can be made regarding the thermal behavior of certain Pd clusters in SG measurements; here we consider the case of Pd7 and Pd$`{}_{7}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ at room temperature. Neglecting the vibrational and entropic differences between the isomers, the probability to find a cluster with spin $`S`$, irrespective of its atomic isomeric structure, is given by $`P_{N,T}(S)=_I\mathrm{exp}(\frac{NE_B(N,I,S)}{k_BT})/Z_{N,T}`$ with the Boltzmann constant $`k_B`$, the ensemble temperature $`T`$, the structural isomer index $`I`$, and the (normalizing) partition function $`Z_{N,T}`$. Several spin isomers of the neutral as well as the anionic heptamer have a finite $`P_{7,T}(S)`$ (Fig. 3a) even for low temperatures, leading us to predict that in a SG experiment up to 3 different deflection angles should be measurable. Note, that while an increase in temperature depopulates the Pd7 pentagonal bipyramid triplet ($`S`$$`=`$1) GS, the singlet ($`S`$$`=`$0) state of that structure and the capped octahedron quintet ($`S`$$`=`$2) state (Fig. 1F) gain statistical weight. Consequently, we predict that for Pd7 a rise in temperature would lead first to a decrease of the thermally averaged magnetic moment per atom $`\mu _{N,T}`$$`=`$$`_S2S\mu _BP_{N,T}(S)/N`$ due to a sharp increase in the population of the singlet state. The subsequent increase of $`\mu _{N,T}`$ (see Fig. 3b, T$`>`$200 K) results from the higher thermal population of the quintet state relative to the GS triplet (Fig. 3a). Such anomaly does not occur in the case of the Pd$`{}_{7}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ cluster where the doublet ($`S`$$`=`$1/2) and quartet ($`S`$$`=`$3/2) states start to coexist with the sextet ($`S`$$`=`$5/2) GS at elevated temperatures (Fig. 3a). For both neutral and anionic Pd13, the higher-lying isomers play essentially no role for $`T`$$`<`$800 K resulting in a weak temperature dependence of $`\mu _{N,T}`$ (Fig. 3b).

In summary, we found that unlike atomic and bulk Pd, both neutral and anionic PdN clusters ($`2N7`$ and $`N=13`$) are magnetic, with relatively high LMMs. Underlying this behavior is the hybridization of atomic $`s`$ and $`d`$ states when clusters are formed, that depletes local $`d`$-contribution around each atom and leads to an open-shell-like behavior. The abundance of close-lying SPIs for certain clusters should be detectable in thermally controlled SG experiments, and we predict an ensemble of Pd7 clusters to exhibit an (anomalous) increase of the magnetic moment with temperature. The remarkable agreement between the calculated and measured vDEs of the cluster anions corroborates the predicted atomic structures. Our results provide the first quantitative predictions pertaining to the emergence of pronounced magnetic properties of PdN and Pd$`{}_{N}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ clusters, unlike the weak magnetic tendencies inferred indirectly from PES data ; note in particular the contrast between our results for Pd7 (see Fig. 2d and Fig. 3) and the suggestion of a zero spin GS for Pd7 given in Ref. . Furthermore, our study motivates temperature-dependent magnetic deflection (SG) measurements and further investigations of free and supported Pd clusters, including correlations between their magnetic properties and their catalytic activity .

This work is supported by the U.S. DOE, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (M.M.), and the Academy of Finland (H.H.). Computations have been done on IBM SP2 at the Georgia Tech Center for Computational Materials Science and on Cray T3E at NERSC.