text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In analysis of the integrable models, realized is the importance of the Baxter equation since it was applied to the eight-vertex model (XYZ model) to compute the spectrum . The Baxter equation is the functional difference relation among the transfer matrix $`t(\lambda )`$ and the auxiliary function $`𝒬(\lambda )`$ which is called the Baxter $`𝒬`$ operator, and is powerful enough to determine the spectrum of the transfer matrix only from certain analytic conditions of these functions.

Later Gaudin and Pasquier explicitly constructed the Baxter $`𝒬`$ operator in an integral form for the quantum periodic Toda lattice . It was also shown  that in the classical limit the logarithm of the $`𝒬`$ operator is the generating function of the Bäcklund transformation, *i.e.*, the Bäcklund transformation is given by the classical limit of the evolution equation, $`𝒪𝒬𝒪𝒬^1`$ (see, for review, Ref. 4). This correspondence suggests that the integrable dynamical system on space-time lattice can be constructed by use of the $`𝒬`$ operator . Recent studies indicate that the $`𝒬`$ operator is useful enough to construct the eigenfunction of the Toda lattice .

Since then the explicit form of the Baxter $`𝒬`$ operator has been derived for other integrable models such as the XXX model , the dimer self-trapping model , the quantum KdV model , and the Volterra model (discrete KdV equation) . All these models are governed by the quantum algebra associated to $`s\mathrm{}_2`$. In these cases as was pointed out in studies of the integrability of the conformal field theory , the Baxter equation may be related with the universal $``$ matrix, $`U_q(\widehat{s\mathrm{}}_2)U_q(\widehat{s\mathrm{}}_2)`$, with some quantum finite-dimensional representation for the first $`U_q(\widehat{s\mathrm{}}_2)`$ algebra and an auxiliary *infinite*-dimensional $`q`$-oscillator representation for the second part. In fact proposed was the universal procedure  to derive the Baxter equation from the universal $``$ matrix by use of the $`q`$-oscillator representation. Following this strategy it was shown that the $`𝒬`$ operator  for the Volterra model can be constructed from the universal $``$ matrix for the quantum algebra $`U_q(\widehat{s\mathrm{}}_2)`$ with the $`q`$-oscillator representation .

In this paper we construct the Baxter $`𝒬`$ operator for the quantum discrete Boussinesq equation which has $`U_q(\widehat{s\mathrm{}}_3)`$ symmetry. In the classical limit the discrete Boussinesq equation is given as

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{\mathrm{d}L_n}{\mathrm{d}t}& =W_n+W_{n1}+L_n\left(L_{n+1}L_{n1}\right),\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{\mathrm{d}W_n}{\mathrm{d}t}& =W_n\left(L_{n+2}L_{n1}\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
(1.1)
We stress that $`L_n`$ and $`W_n`$ do not mean the Fourier modes of the generators $`L(x)`$ and $`W(x)`$ but the discretization thereof. We note that the higher flow of eq. (1.1) reduces in a continuum limit  to

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{\mathrm{d}u}{\mathrm{d}t}& =u_{xx}2w_x,\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{\mathrm{d}w}{\mathrm{d}t}& =w_{xx}+\frac{2}{3}u_{xxx}+\frac{2}{3}uu_x.\hfill \end{array}$$
(1.2)
This set of equations gives the Boussinesq equation which is generated from the pseudo-differential operator, $`L=^3+u+w`$. In this sense we call eq. (1.1) as the discrete Boussinesq equation. The discrete Boussinesq equation (1.1) was first introduced in Ref. 17 from studies of a discretization of the $`W_3`$ algebra, motivated from the close connection between the soliton equations and the conformal field theory . The integrability of the discrete Boussinesq equation follows from the fundamental commutation relation,

$$\{𝐓(x)\stackrel{}{,}𝐓(y)\}=[𝒓(x,y),𝐓(x)𝐓(y)],$$
(1.3)
where we omit the explicit form of the $`_3`$ symmetric classical $`𝒓`$ matrix. The monodromy matrix $`𝐓(x)`$ is given from the Lax matrix as

$`𝐓(x)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{n}{\overset{}{}}}𝑳_n^\mathrm{W}(x),`$ $`𝑳_n^\mathrm{W}(x)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt[3]{W_n}}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}x^2& xL_{n+1}& W_n\\ 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right).`$ (1.4)
As a result we can construct the integrals of motion from the transfer matrix $`\mathrm{Tr}𝑻(x)`$; some of them are

$`_0`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\mathrm{log}W_n,`$
$`_1`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}L_n,`$
$`_2`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(L_n\right)^2+L_nL_{n+1}W_n\right).`$
As is well known, the discrete Boussinesq equation has also an intimate relationship with a lattice analogue of the affine Toda field theory. We have constructed a generating function $`𝒬`$ of the local integrals of motion of the affine Toda lattice field theory , and have also shown that this also commute with the transfer matrix of the discrete Boussinesq equation. The function $`𝒬`$ is constructed in terms of the quantum dilogarithm function as the intertwining operator of the vertex operators. As was conjectured there, we shall show here that this generating function is indeed the Baxter $`𝒬`$ operator for the discrete Boussinesq equation.

This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we briefly review the integrable structure of the quantum discrete Boussinesq equation. Recalling the relationship with the affine Toda field theory, we construct the transfer matrix and the generating function $`𝒬(\lambda )`$ of the local integrals of motion for the affine Toda lattice field theory. In Section 3 we explicitly show that the generating function $`𝒬`$ plays a role of the Baxter $`𝒬`$ operator for the transfer matrix of the discrete Boussinesq equation. Based on the duality of the affine Toda lattice field theory, we show in Section 4 that we have the dual Baxter equation for the discrete Boussinesq equation. In Section 5 we briefly comment on the continuum limit of the discrete Boussinesq equation, and see a relationship between the previously known results. In Section 6 we consider the generalization for the $`N`$-reduced discrete KP equation which has the quantum group $`U_q(\widehat{s\mathrm{}}_N)`$ structure. Last section is devoted for the concluding remarks and discussions.

## 2 Quantum Boussinesq Equation

### 2.1 Lattice Vertex Operator and Transfer Matrix

To define the quantization of the discrete Boussinesq hierarchy (1.4), we use two sets of the discretized free fields $`\varphi _n^{(1)}`$ and $`\varphi _n^{(2)}`$, which respectively correspond to the Toda fields associated to the simple roots $`𝜶_1`$ and $`𝜶_2`$. We use the free field associated to the maximal root as

$$\varphi _n^{(0)}=\varphi _n^{(1)}\varphi _n^{(2)}.$$
(2.1)
The commutation relations are defined as a discrete analogue of the usual relations of the free chiral fields by111 We note that the dynamical variables $`\alpha _n`$ and $`\beta _n`$ in Ref. 22 are defined by    $`\alpha _n`$ $`=\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(1)}\mathrm{i}\gamma },`$ $`\beta _n`$ $`=\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(1)}+\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(2)}\mathrm{i}\gamma },`$   with $`q=\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\gamma }`$.

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill [\varphi _m^{(a)},\varphi _n^{(a)}]& =2\mathrm{i}\gamma ,\text{for }m>n\text{}a=1,2,\hfill \\ \hfill [\varphi _n^{(1)},\varphi _m^{(2)}]& =\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{i}\gamma ,\hfill & \text{for }nm,\hfill \\ \mathrm{i}\gamma ,\hfill & \text{for }n>m.\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.2)
Throughout this paper we set the deformation parameter $`q`$ as

$$q=\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\gamma }.$$
(2.3)
Hereafter for our convention we often use a difference of the lattice free field

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(a)}=\varphi _n^{(a)}\varphi _{n+1}^{(a)},$$
(2.4)
whose commutation relations become local.

With these settings, we define the discrete screening charges as in the case of the conformal field theory (see e.g. Ref. 23);

$$Q^{(a)}=\underset{n}{}\mathrm{e}^{\varphi _n^{(a)}},$$
(2.5)
for $`a=0,1,2`$. We can see that the Serre relation of the algebra $`U_q(\widehat{s\mathrm{}}_3)`$ is fulfilled;

$$\left(Q^{(a)}\right)^2Q^{(b)}(q+q^1)Q^{(a)}Q^{(b)}Q^{(a)}+Q^{(b)}\left(Q^{(a)}\right)^2=0,$$
(2.6)
for $`ab`$. The generators of the quantum $`W_3`$ algebra are then defined so as to commute with these screening charges. Note that the dual screening charges as a summation of the dual vertex operators,

$$\stackrel{~}{Q}^{(a)}=\underset{n}{}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\pi }{\gamma }\varphi _n^{(a)}},$$
(2.7)
commute with $`Q^{(a)}`$, and that they satisfy the same Serre relation (2.6) replacing $`q`$ with

$$\stackrel{~}{q}=\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\frac{\pi ^2}{\gamma }}.$$
(2.8)
As was shown in Ref. 16, the Lax matrix (1.4) for the discrete Boussinesq equation is gauge-equivalent with

$`𝐋_n(\lambda )`$ $`=g(\lambda )\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(1)}\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(2)}}& & \\ & \mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(1)}+\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(2)}}& \\ & & \mathrm{e}^{\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(1)}\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(2)}}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{e}^\lambda & \mathrm{e}^\lambda & 1\\ 1& \mathrm{e}^\lambda & \mathrm{e}^\lambda \\ \mathrm{e}^\lambda & 1& \mathrm{e}^\lambda \end{array}\right)`$ (2.9)
$`g(\lambda )𝐂_n𝐗(\lambda ),`$
where we have modified the spectral parameter by $`x^3=1\mathrm{e}^{3\lambda }`$ from eq. (1.4). The function $`g(\lambda )`$ is a normalization function which will be defined below. We introduce diagonal elements of the matrix $`𝐂_n`$ as

$$𝐂_n=\mathrm{diag}(c_n^{(1)},c_n^{(2)},c_n^{(3)}),$$
(2.10)
which corresponds to the weights in the vector representation $`\mathrm{𝟑}`$ of $`s\mathrm{}_3`$. Following the standard way of studies in the integrable systems, we define the monodromy matrix and the transfer matrix as

$`𝐓(\lambda )`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{n}{\overset{}{}}}𝐋_n(\lambda ),`$ $`t_1(\lambda )`$ $`=\mathrm{Tr}𝐓(\lambda ).`$ (2.11)
The monodromy matrix satisfies the Yang–Baxter equation ,

$$𝐑(\lambda \mu )\stackrel{1}{𝐓}(\lambda )\stackrel{2}{𝐓}(\mu )=\stackrel{2}{𝐓}(\mu )\stackrel{1}{𝐓}(\lambda )𝐑(\lambda \mu ).$$
(2.12)
Here the $`𝐑`$-matrix is $`_3_3`$ symmetric, and reads as

$$𝐑(\lambda )=\left(\begin{array}{ccccccccc}a& & & & & & & & \\ & b& & c& & & & & \\ & & \overline{b}& & & & \overline{c}& & \\ & & & & & & & & \\ & \overline{c}& & \overline{b}& & & & & \\ & & & & a& & & & \\ & & & & & b& & c& \\ & & & & & & & & \\ & & c& & & & b& & \\ & & & & & \overline{c}& & \overline{b}& \\ & & & & & & & & a\end{array}\right),$$
(2.13)
with

$`a`$ $`=\mathrm{sh}({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{i}\gamma ),`$
$`b`$ $`=\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{6}\mathrm{i}\gamma }\mathrm{sh}({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\lambda ),`$ $`\overline{b}`$ $`=\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{6}\mathrm{i}\gamma }\mathrm{sh}({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\lambda ),`$
$`c`$ $`=\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{2}\lambda }\mathrm{sh}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{i}\gamma ),`$ $`\overline{c}`$ $`=\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{2}\lambda }\mathrm{sh}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{i}\gamma ).`$
It follows that the transfer matrix commute with each other,

$$[t_1(\lambda ),t_1(\mu )]=0,$$
(2.14)
which supports the quantum integrability of our system.

We note that under the quasi-periodic boundary condition,

$$\varphi _{n+L}^{(a)}=\varphi _n^{(a)}+L\mathrm{i}P^{(a)},\text{for }a=1,2,$$
(2.15)
the transfer matrix (2.11) can be rewritten as

$$t_1(\lambda )=\mathrm{Tr}\left(\mathrm{e}^{L\mathrm{i}\left(P^{(1)}𝐡_3+P^{(2)}𝐡_2\right)}\stackrel{}{\underset{n=1}{\overset{L}{}}}g(\lambda )\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma }𝐃_n𝐗(\lambda )𝐃_n^1\right),$$
(2.16)
where $`3\times 3`$ diagonal matrix $`𝐃_n`$ is given by

$$𝐃_n=\mathrm{exp}\left(\varphi _n^{(1)}𝐡_3+\varphi _n^{(2)}𝐡_2\right),$$

$$𝐡_a=𝐄_{aa}\frac{1}{3}\text{1}\text{1}.$$

A matrix $`𝐄_{ij}`$ is $`\left(𝐄_{ij}\right)_{mn}=\delta _{i,m}\delta _{j,n}`$.

For our purpose to construct the Baxter equation for the discrete Boussinesq equation, we use another transfer matrix which is associated with a representation $`\mathrm{𝟑}^{}`$. Generally the monodromy matrix for this type of representation can be constructed from one for the vector representation by the fusion method , and in the $`s\mathrm{}_3`$ case the Lax matrix is simply defined from $`\overline{𝐋}_n(\lambda )\left(\left(𝐋_n(\lambda )\right)^1\right)^\mathrm{t}`$, where $`\mathrm{t}`$ denotes a transpose ;

$`\overline{𝐋}_n(\lambda )`$ $`=\overline{g}(\lambda )\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(1)}+\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(2)}}& & \\ & \mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(1)}\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(2)}}& \\ & & \mathrm{e}^{\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(1)}+\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(2)}}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{e}^\lambda & 1& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{e}^\lambda & 1\\ 1& 0& \mathrm{e}^\lambda \end{array}\right)`$ (2.17)
$`\overline{g}(\lambda )𝐂_n^1\overline{𝐗}(\lambda ),`$
where as before $`\overline{g}(\lambda )`$ is a normalization function. One sees that each element of $`𝐂_n^1`$ corresponds to weights of $`\mathrm{𝟑}^{}`$. Correspondingly the monodromy matrix and the transfer matrix for this representation is respectively defined by

$`\overline{𝐓}(\lambda )`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{n}{\overset{}{}}}\overline{𝐋}_n(\lambda ),`$ $`t_2(\lambda )`$ $`=\mathrm{Tr}\overline{𝐓}(\lambda ).`$ (2.18)
We note that under the boundary condition (2.15) the transfer matrix $`t_2(\lambda )`$ has a form,

$$t_2(\lambda )=\mathrm{Tr}\left(\mathrm{e}^{L\mathrm{i}\left(P^{(1)}𝐡_3+P^{(2)}𝐡_2\right)}\stackrel{}{\underset{n=1}{\overset{L}{}}}\overline{g}(\lambda )\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma }𝐃_n^1\overline{𝐗}(\lambda )𝐃_n\right),$$
(2.19)
The commutativity of this transfer matrix follows from eq. (2.12) as follows. We have the fundamental commutation relation for $`\overline{𝐓}(\lambda )`$ from eq. (2.12) as

$$\left((𝐑(\lambda \mu ))^1\right)^{\mathrm{t}_1\mathrm{t}_2}\stackrel{1}{\overline{𝐓}}(\lambda )\stackrel{2}{\overline{𝐓}}(\mu )=\stackrel{2}{\overline{𝐓}}(\mu )\stackrel{1}{\overline{𝐓}}(\lambda )\left(\left(𝐑(\lambda \mu )\right)^1\right)^{\mathrm{t}_1\mathrm{t}_2},$$
(2.20)
where $`\mathrm{t}_a`$ denotes a transpose over the $`a`$-th space. We see the commutativity of the transfer matrix;

$$[t_2(\lambda ),t_2(\mu )]=0.$$
(2.21)
Furthermore eq. (2.12) also gives

$$\left(\left(𝐑(\lambda \mu )\right)^{\mathrm{t}_2}\right)^1\stackrel{1}{𝐓}(\lambda )\stackrel{2}{\overline{𝐓}}(\mu )=\stackrel{2}{\overline{𝐓}}(\mu )\stackrel{1}{𝐓}(\lambda )\left(\left(𝐑(\lambda \mu )\right)^{\mathrm{t}_2}\right)^1,$$
(2.22)
which proves the commutativity among two transfer matrices,

$$[t_1(\lambda ),t_2(\mu )]=0.$$
(2.23)
### 2.2 Fundamental $``$ Operator

We shall construct the generating function of the local integrals of motion for the affine Toda lattice field theory.

For the Heisenberg operators $`\widehat{p}`$ and $`\widehat{q}`$ satisfying

$$[\widehat{p},\widehat{q}]=2\mathrm{i}\gamma ,$$

we define the fundamental $`\widehat{}`$ operator as 222 Strictly speaking, the operator (2.24) is a non compact analogue of that was introduced in Ref. 22, *i.e.*, we replace the $`q`$-exponential function (A.1) with the Faddeev integral integral (2.25.

$$\widehat{}(\lambda ;\widehat{q},\widehat{p})=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma (\lambda +\widehat{p})}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma (2\lambda +\widehat{q})}\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_\gamma (\widehat{q})}{\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma (\lambda \widehat{q})}\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_\gamma (\widehat{p})}{\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma (\lambda \widehat{p})}.$$
(2.24)
Here $`\lambda `$ is a spectral parameter, and commute with every quantum operators, and the functions $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma (\phi )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\gamma (\phi )`$ are respectively defined by

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma (\phi )`$ $`=\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle _{+\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\phi x}}{4\mathrm{sh}(\gamma x)\mathrm{sh}(\pi x)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}x}{x}}\right),`$ (2.25)
$`\mathrm{\Theta }_\gamma (\phi )`$ $`=\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma (\phi )\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma (\phi ).`$ (2.26)
The integral $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma (\phi )`$ was first introduced by Faddeev  as a non-compact version of the quantum dilogarithm function. See Appendix A for properties of these functions, and we especially recall that the function $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\gamma (\phi )`$ is the Gaussian (A.3). By use of the difference equation (A.4), we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \widehat{}(\lambda ;\widehat{q}2\mathrm{i}\gamma ,\widehat{p})& =\widehat{}(\lambda ;\widehat{q},\widehat{p})\left(\mathrm{e}^\lambda +\mathrm{e}^{\lambda \mathrm{i}\gamma +\widehat{q}}+\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\gamma +\widehat{p}}\right)\frac{1}{1+\mathrm{e}^{\lambda \mathrm{i}\gamma +\widehat{q}}+\mathrm{e}^{\lambda \mathrm{i}\gamma +\widehat{p}}}\hfill \\ & =\frac{1}{\mathrm{e}^\lambda +\mathrm{e}^{\lambda \mathrm{i}\gamma +\widehat{q}}+\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\gamma +\widehat{p}}}\left(1+\mathrm{e}^{\lambda \mathrm{i}\gamma +\widehat{q}}+\mathrm{e}^{\lambda +\mathrm{i}\gamma +\widehat{p}}\right)\widehat{}(\lambda ;\widehat{q},\widehat{p}),\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.27)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \widehat{}(\lambda ;\widehat{q},\widehat{p}2\mathrm{i}\gamma )& =\widehat{}(\lambda ;\widehat{q},\widehat{p})\left(1+\mathrm{e}^{\lambda +\mathrm{i}\gamma +\widehat{q}}+\mathrm{e}^{\lambda \mathrm{i}\gamma +\widehat{p}}\right)\frac{1}{\mathrm{e}^\lambda +\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\gamma +\widehat{q}}+\mathrm{e}^{\lambda \mathrm{i}\gamma +\widehat{p}}}\hfill \\ & =\frac{1}{1+\mathrm{e}^{\lambda \mathrm{i}\gamma +\widehat{q}}+\mathrm{e}^{\lambda \mathrm{i}\gamma +\widehat{p}}}\left(\mathrm{e}^\lambda +\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\gamma +\widehat{q}}+\mathrm{e}^{\lambda \mathrm{i}\gamma +\widehat{p}}\right)\widehat{}(\lambda ;\widehat{q},\widehat{p}).\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.28)
As two operators $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(1)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(2)}`$ are the Heisenberg operators, $`[\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(1)},\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(2)}]=2\mathrm{i}\gamma `$, we denote for brevity

$$_n(\lambda ;\varphi )=\widehat{}(\lambda ;\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(1)},\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(1)}+\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(2)}).$$
(2.29)
We collect useful properties of this operator in Appendix B. This operator acts as the intertwining operator for the vertex operators satisfying

$$\left(\mathrm{e}^{\varphi _n^{(a)}}+\mathrm{e}^\lambda \mathrm{e}^{\varphi _{n+1}^{(a)}}\right)_n(\lambda ;\varphi )=_n(\lambda ;\varphi )\left(\mathrm{e}^\lambda \mathrm{e}^{\varphi _n^{(a)}}+\mathrm{e}^{\varphi _{n+1}^{(a)}}\right),$$
(2.30)
for $`a=0,1,2`$. The duality (A.2) of the integral (2.25) indicates that the operator $`_n(\lambda ;\varphi )`$ also intertwines the dual vertex operator;

$$\left(\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\pi }{\gamma }\varphi _n^{(a)}}+\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\pi }{\gamma }\lambda }\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\pi }{\gamma }\varphi _{n+1}^{(a)}}\right)_n(\lambda ;\varphi )=_n(\lambda ;\varphi )\left(\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\pi }{\gamma }\lambda }\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\pi }{\gamma }\varphi _n^{(a)}}+\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\pi }{\gamma }\varphi _{n+1}^{(a)}}\right).$$
(2.31)
What is important here is that the fundamental $``$ operator (2.29) itself satisfies the Yang–Baxter equation ,

$$_n(\lambda ;\varphi )_{n+1}(\lambda +\mu ;\varphi )_n(\mu ;\varphi )=_{n+1}(\mu ;\varphi )_n(\lambda +\mu ;\varphi )_{n+1}(\lambda ;\varphi ).$$
(2.32)
Thus when we set the $`𝒬`$ operator as

$$𝒬(\lambda )=\underset{n}{\overset{}{}}f(\lambda )_n(\lambda ;\varphi ),$$
(2.33)
with a normalization $`f(\lambda )`$, we see that they commute between themselves with arbitrary spectral parameters;

$$[𝒬(\lambda ),𝒬(\mu )]=0.$$
(2.34)
Furthermore the fundamental $``$ operator also satisfies

$$_n(\lambda \mu ;\varphi )𝐋_{n+1}(\lambda )𝐋_n(\mu )=𝐋_{n+1}(\mu )𝐋_n(\lambda )_n(\lambda \mu ;\varphi ),$$
(2.35)
which proves that the transfer matrices $`t_1(\lambda )`$ and $`t_2(\lambda )`$ commute with the $`𝒬`$ operator (2.33),

$$[𝒬(\lambda ),t_1(\mu )]=[𝒬(\lambda ),t_2(\mu )]=0.$$
(2.36)
In conclusion we have a commutative family; the transfer matrices $`t_1(\lambda )`$ and $`t_2(\lambda )`$, and the operator $`𝒬(\lambda )`$. We note that intertwining relations (2.30) and (2.31) proves the commutativity between the $`𝒬`$ operator and the screening charges,

$$[𝒬(\lambda ),Q^{(a)}]=[𝒬(\lambda ),\stackrel{~}{Q}^{(a)}]=0.$$
(2.37)
As a consequence, the $`𝒬`$ operator is a generating function of the local integrals of motion of the affine $`\widehat{s\mathrm{}_3}`$ Toda field theory , whose Hamiltonian and its dual are

$``$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{a=0}{\overset{2}{}}}Q^{(a)},`$ $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{a=0}{\overset{2}{}}}\stackrel{~}{Q}^{(a)}.`$
See Refs. 29, 30 for the geometrical interpretation of the screening charges in the classical limit of the sine–Gordon system.

## 3 Baxter Equation

We shall show that the $`𝒬`$ operator defined in eq. (2.33) plays a role of the Baxter $`𝒬`$ operator for the transfer matrices (2.11) and (2.18) of the quantum discrete Boussinesq equation.

#### Step 0

We prepare some formulae of the fundamental $``$ operator (2.29); using elements of matrix $`𝐂_n=\mathrm{diag}(c_n^{(1)},c_n^{(2)},c_n^{(3)})`$ in eq. (2.9), we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{e}^{\lambda \frac{1}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma }_n(\lambda +\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma ;\varphi )& =_n^{(1)}(\lambda ;\varphi )\left(c_n^{(1)}\mathrm{e}^\lambda +c_n^{(2)}\mathrm{e}^\lambda +c_n^{(3)}\right)\hfill \\ & =_n^{(2)}(\lambda ;\varphi )\left(c_n^{(1)}+c_n^{(2)}\mathrm{e}^\lambda +c_n^{(3)}\mathrm{e}^\lambda \right)\hfill \\ & =_n^{(3)}(\lambda ;\varphi )\left(c_n^{(1)}\mathrm{e}^\lambda +c_n^{(2)}+c_n^{(3)}\mathrm{e}^\lambda \right),\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.1)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma }(\mathrm{e}^{3\lambda }1)_n(\lambda \frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma ;\varphi )& =\left(c_n^{(2)}\right)^1\left(_n^{(1)}(\lambda ;\varphi )\mathrm{e}^\lambda _n^{(2)}(\lambda ;\varphi )\right)\hfill \\ & =\left(c_n^{(3)}\right)^1\left(_n^{(2)}(\lambda ;\varphi )\mathrm{e}^\lambda _n^{(3)}(\lambda ;\varphi )\right)\hfill \\ & =\left(c_n^{(1)}\right)^1\left(_n^{(3)}(\lambda ;\varphi )\mathrm{e}^\lambda _n^{(1)}(\lambda ;\varphi )\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.2)
Here we have defined $`_n^{(a)}(\lambda ;\varphi )`$ by

$$_n^{(a)}(\lambda ;\varphi )=\left(c_{n+1}^{(a)}\right)^1_n(\lambda ;\varphi )c_{n+1}^{(a)},$$

which, using the commutation relations (2.2), are explicitly written as

$`_n^{(1)}(\lambda ;\varphi )`$ $`=\widehat{}(\lambda ;\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(1)}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{i}\gamma ,\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(1)}+\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(2)}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{i}\gamma ),`$
$`_n^{(2)}(\lambda ;\varphi )`$ $`=\widehat{}(\lambda ;\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(1)}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{i}\gamma ,\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(1)}+\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(2)}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\mathrm{i}\gamma ),`$
$`_n^{(3)}(\lambda ;\varphi )`$ $`=\widehat{}(\lambda ;\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(1)}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\mathrm{i}\gamma ,\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(1)}+\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(2)}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{i}\gamma ).`$
See Appendix C for proof of eqs. (3.1) and (3.2).

#### Step 1

We first consider the product of the $`𝒬`$ operator (2.33) and the transfer matrix $`t_1(\lambda )`$. As we know from the commutation relations (2.2) of the lattice free field that a difference field $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(a)}`$ does not commute only with nearest neighbor $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _{n\pm 1}^{(a)}`$, we get

$`𝒬(\lambda )t_1(\lambda )`$ $`=\mathrm{Tr}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{\overset{}{}}}f(\lambda )g(\lambda )_n(\lambda ;\varphi )𝐂_{n+1}𝐗(\lambda )`$
$`=\mathrm{Tr}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{\overset{}{}}}f(\lambda )g(\lambda )𝐌^1𝐂_{n+1}^1_n(\lambda ;\varphi )𝐂_{n+1}𝐗(\lambda )𝐂_n𝐌.`$ (3.3)
Here a matrix $`𝐌`$ denotes a gauge-transformation. We substitute

$$𝐌=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& & \\ 1& 1& \\ 1& & 1\end{array}\right),$$

into eq. (3.3), and compute each element directly. We see that both (2,1) and (3,1) components vanishes due to eqs. (3.1). Thus we find that a trace of the product of $`3\times 3`$ matrix reduces to a sum of the product of (1,1) component and a trace of the product of remaining $`2\times 2`$ matrices;

$$𝒬(\lambda )t_1(\lambda )=\underset{n}{\overset{}{}}f(\lambda )g(\lambda )\mathrm{e}^{\lambda \frac{1}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma }_n(\lambda +\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma ;\varphi )+\mathrm{Tr}\underset{n}{\overset{}{}}f(\lambda )g(\lambda )𝐀_n(\lambda ),$$
(3.4)
where

$$𝐀_n(\lambda )=\left(\begin{array}{cc}_n^{(1)}(\lambda ;\varphi )\mathrm{e}^\lambda +_n^{(2)}(\lambda ;\varphi )\mathrm{e}^\lambda & _n^{(1)}(\lambda ;\varphi )+_n^{(2)}(\lambda ;\varphi )\mathrm{e}^\lambda \\ _n^{(1)}(\lambda ;\varphi )\mathrm{e}^\lambda +_n^{(3)}(\lambda ;\varphi )& _n^{(1)}(\lambda ;\varphi )+_n^{(3)}(\lambda ;\varphi )\mathrm{e}^\lambda \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}c_n^{(2)}& \\ & c_n^{(3)}\end{array}\right).$$

We now rewrite above $`2\times 2`$ matrix $`𝐀_n(\lambda )`$. Using eqs. (3.2), we have

$`𝐀_n(\lambda )`$ $`=\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma }(\mathrm{e}^{3\lambda }1)\left(\begin{array}{cc}c_n^{(1)}\mathrm{e}^\lambda +c_n^{(3)}& c_n^{(2)}\mathrm{e}^\lambda \\ c_n^{(1)}\mathrm{e}^\lambda & c_n^{(1)}\end{array}\right)_n(\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{i}\gamma ;\varphi )\left(\begin{array}{cc}c_n^{(2)}& \\ & c_n^{(3)}\end{array}\right)`$
$`=\mathrm{e}^\lambda (\mathrm{e}^{3\lambda }1)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\left(c_n^{(3)}\right)^1+\left(c_n^{(1)}\right)^1\mathrm{e}^{\lambda \frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma }& \left(c_n^{(1)}\right)^1\\ \left(c_n^{(3)}\right)^1& \left(c_n^{(2)}\right)^1\mathrm{e}^{\lambda \frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma }\end{array}\right)`$
$`\times \left(\begin{array}{cc}_n^{(3)}(\lambda \frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma ;\varphi )& \\ & _n^{(1)}(\lambda \frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma ;\varphi )\end{array}\right).`$
In the last equality, we have used the commutation relations (2.2) and a condition $`c_n^{(1)}c_n^{(2)}c_n^{(3)}=\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma }`$.

As a result we get

$$\begin{array}{c}𝒬(\lambda )t_1(\lambda )\underset{n}{\overset{}{}}f(\lambda )g(\lambda )\mathrm{e}^{\lambda \frac{1}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma }_n(\lambda +\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma ;\varphi )\hfill \\ \hfill =\mathrm{Tr}\underset{n}{\overset{}{}}f(\lambda )g(\lambda )\mathrm{e}^\lambda (\mathrm{e}^{3\lambda }1)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\left(c_n^{(3)}\right)^1+\left(c_n^{(1)}\right)^1\mathrm{e}^{\lambda \frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma }& \left(c_n^{(1)}\right)^1\\ \left(c_n^{(3)}\right)^1& \left(c_n^{(2)}\right)^1\mathrm{e}^{\lambda \frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma }\end{array}\right)\\ \hfill \times \left(\begin{array}{cc}_n^{(3)}(\lambda \frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma ;\varphi )& \\ & _n^{(1)}(\lambda \frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma ;\varphi )\end{array}\right).\end{array}$$
(3.5)
We keep aside this identity for a while.

#### Step 2

In the same manner with Step 1, we study a product of the $`𝒬`$ operator and the transfer matrix $`t_2(\lambda )`$. We have

$`𝒬(\lambda )t_2(\lambda )`$
$`=\mathrm{Tr}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{\overset{}{}}}f(\lambda )\overline{g}(\lambda )_n(\lambda ;\varphi )𝐂_{n+1}^1\overline{𝐗}(\lambda )`$
$`=\mathrm{Tr}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{\overset{}{}}}f(\lambda )\overline{g}(\lambda )𝐂_{n+1}_n(\lambda ;\varphi )𝐂_{n+1}^1\overline{𝐗}(\lambda )𝐂_n^1`$
$`=\mathrm{Tr}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{\overset{}{}}}f(\lambda )\overline{g}(\lambda )𝐌`$
$`\times \left(\begin{array}{ccc}(c_n^{(1)})^1\mathrm{e}^\lambda _n^{(3)}(\lambda ;\varphi )& (c_n^{(2)})^1_n^{(2)}(\lambda ;\varphi )& 0\\ 0& (c_n^{(2)})^1\mathrm{e}^\lambda _n^{(1)}(\lambda ;\varphi )& (c_n^{(3)})^1_n^{(3)}(\lambda ;\varphi )\\ (c_n^{(1)})^1_n^{(1)}(\lambda ;\varphi )& 0& (c_n^{(3)})^1\mathrm{e}^\lambda _n^{(2)}(\lambda ;\varphi )\end{array}\right)𝐌^1.`$
In the last expression, we have introduced matrix $`𝐌`$ for gauge-transformation. When we substitute

$$𝐌=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& & \\ & 1& \\ 1& 1& 1\end{array}\right),$$

we see that both (3,1) and (3,2) elements vanish due to eqs. (3.2), and that a trace of the product of $`3\times 3`$ matrices can be rewritten as a sum of the product of (3,3)-element and a trace of the product of $`2\times 2`$ matrices;

$$𝒬(\lambda )t_2(\lambda )=\underset{n}{\overset{}{}}f(\lambda )\overline{g}(\lambda )\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma }(\mathrm{e}^{3\lambda }1)_n(\lambda \frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma ;\varphi )+\mathrm{Tr}\underset{n}{\overset{}{}}f(\lambda )\overline{g}(\lambda )𝐁_n(\lambda ),$$
(3.6)
where $`2\times 2`$ matrix $`𝐁_n(\lambda )`$ is given by

$$𝐁_n(\lambda )=\left(\begin{array}{cc}(c_n^{(1)})^1\mathrm{e}^\lambda _n^{(3)}(\lambda ;\varphi )& (c_n^{(2)})^1_n^{(2)}(\lambda ;\varphi )\\ (c_n^{(3)})^1_n^{(3)}(\lambda ;\varphi )& (c_n^{(2)})^1\mathrm{e}^\lambda _n^{(1)}(\lambda ;\varphi )+(c_n^{(3)})^1_n^{(3)}(\lambda ;\varphi )\end{array}\right).$$

We see that by applying eqs. (3.2) to (2,2)-element of above matrix $`𝐁_n(\lambda )`$ we have

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{Tr}\underset{n}{\overset{}{}}f(\lambda )\overline{g}(\lambda )𝐁_n(\lambda )\hfill \\ \hfill =\mathrm{Tr}\underset{n}{\overset{}{}}f(\lambda )\overline{g}(\lambda )𝐌\left(\begin{array}{cc}(c_n^{(1)})^1\mathrm{e}^\lambda _n^{(3)}(\lambda ;\varphi )& (c_n^{(2)})^1_n^{(2)}(\lambda ;\varphi )\\ (c_n^{(3)})^1_n^{(3)}(\lambda ;\varphi )& \left((c_n^{(3)})^1\mathrm{e}^\lambda +(c_n^{(2)})^1\right)_n^{(2)}(\lambda ;\varphi )\end{array}\right)𝐌^1,\end{array}$$

where the invertible matrix $`𝐌`$ is included again for gauge-transformation. Substituting

$$𝐌=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ & 1\end{array}\right),$$

and erasing $`_n^{(2)}(\lambda ;\varphi )`$ using eqs. (3.2), we get

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{Tr}\underset{n}{\overset{}{}}f(\lambda )\overline{g}(\lambda )𝐁_n(\lambda )\hfill \\ \hfill =\mathrm{Tr}\underset{n}{\overset{}{}}f(\lambda )\overline{g}(\lambda )\left(\begin{array}{cc}(c_n^{(1)})^1\mathrm{e}^\lambda +(c_n^{(3)})^1& (c_n^{(1)})^1\\ (c_n^{(3)})^1& (c_n^{(2)})^1\mathrm{e}^\lambda \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}_n^{(3)}(\lambda ;\varphi )& \\ & _n^{(1)}(\lambda ;\varphi )\end{array}\right).\end{array}$$

As a result we obtain an identity,

$$\begin{array}{c}𝒬(\lambda )t_2(\lambda )\underset{n}{\overset{}{}}f(\lambda )\overline{g}(\lambda )\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma }(\mathrm{e}^{3\lambda }1)_n(\lambda \frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma ;\varphi )\hfill \\ \hfill =\mathrm{Tr}\underset{n}{\overset{}{}}f(\lambda )\overline{g}(\lambda )\left(\begin{array}{cc}(c_n^{(1)})^1\mathrm{e}^\lambda +(c_n^{(3)})^1& (c_n^{(1)})^1\\ (c_n^{(3)})^1& (c_n^{(2)})^1\mathrm{e}^\lambda \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}_n^{(3)}(\lambda ;\varphi )& \\ & _n^{(1)}(\lambda ;\varphi )\end{array}\right).\end{array}$$
(3.7)
#### Step 3

By comparing eq. (3.5) and eq. (3.7), we find that $`2\times 2`$ matrices in the right hand sides have same form with each other. By erasing these $`2\times 2`$ matrices, we obtain an identity for operators $`t_1(\lambda )`$, $`t_2(\lambda )`$, and $`𝒬(\lambda )`$;

$$\begin{array}{c}𝒬(\lambda )t_1(\lambda )\left(\underset{n}{\overset{}{}}\frac{f(\lambda )}{f(\lambda +\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma )}g(\lambda )\mathrm{e}^{\lambda \frac{1}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma }\right)𝒬(\lambda +\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma )\hfill \\ \hfill =\left(\underset{n}{\overset{}{}}\frac{f(\lambda )g(\lambda )}{f(\lambda \frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma )\overline{g}(\lambda \frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma )}\mathrm{e}^\lambda (\mathrm{e}^{3\lambda }1)\right)𝒬(\lambda \frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma )t_2(\lambda \frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma )\\ \hfill \left(\underset{n}{\overset{}{}}\frac{f(\lambda )}{f(\lambda \frac{4}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma )}g(\lambda )\mathrm{e}^{\lambda \frac{1}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma }(\mathrm{e}^{3\lambda }1)(\mathrm{e}^{3\lambda 2\mathrm{i}\gamma }1)\right)𝒬(\lambda \frac{4}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma ).\end{array}$$

After setting normalization functions as

$`f(\lambda )`$ $`=1,`$
$`g(\lambda )`$ $`=\mathrm{e}^{\lambda +\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma },`$
$`\overline{g}(\lambda )`$ $`=\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma }\left(\mathrm{e}^{3\lambda +2\mathrm{i}\gamma }1\right),`$
we see that the operator $`𝒬(\lambda )`$ solves the difference equation,

$$\begin{array}{c}𝒬(\lambda +2\mathrm{i}\gamma )t_1(\lambda +\frac{4}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma )𝒬(\lambda +\frac{4}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma )\hfill \\ \hfill +t_2(\lambda +\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma )𝒬(\lambda +\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma )\mathrm{\Delta }(\lambda +\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma )𝒬(\lambda )=0,\end{array}$$
(3.8)
where the function $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\lambda )`$ is defined by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(\lambda )=\left((\mathrm{e}^{3\lambda }1)(\mathrm{e}^{3\lambda +2\mathrm{i}\gamma }1)\right)^L.$$

As we know from eq. (2.36) that the transfer matrices $`t_{1,2}(\lambda )`$ and the $`𝒬`$ operator commute each other, the operator valued difference equation (3.8) can be regarded as the third order difference equation in usual sense, once we apply both hand sides to simultaneous eigenfunction.

We expect in general the third order difference equation (3.8) has three linearly independent solutions, which we write $`𝒬_a(\lambda )`$ for $`a=+,0,`$. We then introduce the function $`𝒫(\lambda )`$ as the quantum Wronskian of solutions;

$$𝒫_{ab}(\lambda )=\left|\begin{array}{cc}𝒬_a(\lambda )& 𝒬_a(\lambda \frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma )\\ 𝒬_b(\lambda )& 𝒬_b(\lambda \frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma )\end{array}\right|,$$
(3.9)
for $`a,b=0,\pm `$ (we thus have three independent functions $`𝒫_{ab}(\lambda )`$). It is straightforward to see that the function $`𝒫_{ab}(\lambda )`$ satisfies the third order difference equation,

$$\begin{array}{c}𝒫(\lambda +2\mathrm{i}\gamma )t_2(\lambda +\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma )𝒫(\lambda +\frac{4}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma )\hfill \\ \hfill +\mathrm{\Delta }(\lambda +\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma )t_1(\lambda +\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma )𝒫(\lambda +\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma )\mathrm{\Delta }(\lambda )\mathrm{\Delta }(\lambda +\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma )𝒫(\lambda )=0.\end{array}$$
(3.10)
From two difference equations (3.8) and (3.10), we get the Baxter equation for the discrete Boussinesq equation;

$`t_1(\lambda )`$ $`=\mathrm{\Delta }(\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{i}\gamma ){\displaystyle \frac{𝒫(\lambda \frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma )}{𝒫(\lambda )}}+{\displaystyle \frac{𝒫(\lambda +\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma )}{𝒫(\lambda )}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒬(\lambda \frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma )}{𝒬(\lambda )}}+{\displaystyle \frac{𝒬(\lambda +\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma )}{𝒬(\lambda )}},`$ (3.11a)
$`t_2(\lambda )`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{𝒫(\lambda +\frac{4}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma )}{𝒫(\lambda +\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma )}}+\mathrm{\Delta }(\lambda ){\displaystyle \frac{𝒫(\lambda )}{𝒫(\lambda +\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma )}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒬(\lambda +\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma )}{𝒬(\lambda )}}+\mathrm{\Delta }(\lambda ){\displaystyle \frac{𝒬(\lambda \frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma )}{𝒬(\lambda )}}.`$ (3.11b)
Once we have a set of functional equations (3.11) we can follow a strategy in Ref. 25 to obtain the spectrum of these transfer matrices; we suppose

$`𝒬(\lambda )`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\mathrm{sh}(\lambda \lambda _n^{(1)}),`$ $`𝒫(\lambda )`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\mathrm{sh}(\lambda \lambda _n^{(2)}),`$ (3.12)
and substitute them into eqs. (3.11). From the condition of analyticity of the transfer matrices $`t_a(\lambda )`$ we get the nested Bethe ansatz equations. The precise analysis of these equations is for future studies. As a consequence, we have diagonalized the transfer matrices $`t_{1,2}(\lambda )`$ by use of the auxiliary functions $`𝒬(\lambda )`$ and $`𝒫(\lambda )`$.

## 4 Duality

We have seen that the $`𝒬`$ operator (2.33) satisfies the third order difference equation (3.8) whose coefficients are given by two transfer matrices $`t_1(\lambda )`$ and $`t_2(\lambda )`$ for the quantum discrete Boussinesq equation. As was noticed in Appendix A the $`𝒬`$ operator has a property of duality which follows from eq. (2.31) and eq. (A.2);

$`\gamma `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{\gamma }},`$ $`\varphi _n^{(a)}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\gamma }}\varphi _n^{(a)},`$ $`\lambda `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\gamma }}\lambda .`$ (4.1)
Above duality implies the existence of the dual Baxter equation; we have the dual third order difference equation,

$$\begin{array}{c}𝒬(\lambda +2\mathrm{i}\pi )u_1(\lambda +\frac{4}{3}\mathrm{i}\pi )𝒬(\lambda +\frac{4}{3}\mathrm{i}\pi )\hfill \\ \hfill +u_2(\lambda +\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\pi )𝒬(\lambda +\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\pi )\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\lambda +\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\pi )𝒬(\lambda )=0,\end{array}$$
(4.2)
where

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\lambda )=\left((\mathrm{e}^{3\frac{\pi }{\gamma }\lambda }1)(\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\pi }{\gamma }(3\lambda +2\mathrm{i}\pi )}1)\right)^L.$$

The operator $`𝒬(\lambda )`$ is as same with eq. (2.33), and the transfer matrix $`u_a(\lambda )`$ is defined by

$`u_1(\lambda )`$ $`=\mathrm{Tr}𝐔(\lambda ),`$ $`𝐔(\lambda )`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{n}{\overset{}{}}}𝐌_n(\lambda ),`$ (4.3)
$`u_2(\lambda )`$ $`=\mathrm{Tr}\overline{𝐔}(\lambda ),`$ $`\overline{𝐔}(\lambda )`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{n}{\overset{}{}}}\overline{𝐌}_n(\lambda ),`$ (4.4)
with the dual Lax matrix $`𝐌(\lambda )`$ and $`\overline{𝐌}(\lambda )`$,

$`𝐌_n(\lambda )`$ $`=h(\lambda )\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\pi }{\gamma }\left(\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(1)}\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(2)}\right)}& & \\ & \mathrm{e}^{\frac{\pi }{\gamma }\left(\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(1)}+\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(2)}\right)}& \\ & & \mathrm{e}^{\frac{\pi }{\gamma }\left(\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(1)}\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(2)}\right)}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\pi }{\gamma }\lambda }& \mathrm{e}^{\frac{\pi }{\gamma }\lambda }& 1\\ 1& \mathrm{e}^{\frac{\pi }{\gamma }\lambda }& \mathrm{e}^{\frac{\pi }{\gamma }\lambda }\\ \mathrm{e}^{\frac{\pi }{\gamma }\lambda }& 1& \mathrm{e}^{\frac{\pi }{\gamma }\lambda }\end{array}\right),`$
$`\overline{𝐌}_n(\lambda )`$ $`=\overline{h}(\lambda )\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\pi }{\gamma }\left(\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(1)}+\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(2)}\right)}& & \\ & \mathrm{e}^{\frac{\pi }{\gamma }\left(\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(1)}\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(2)}\right)}& \\ & & \mathrm{e}^{\frac{\pi }{\gamma }\left(\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(1)}+\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(2)}\right)}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\pi }{\gamma }\lambda }& 1& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{e}^{\frac{\pi }{\gamma }\lambda }& 1\\ 1& 0& \mathrm{e}^{\frac{\pi }{\gamma }\lambda }\end{array}\right).`$
To get the dual Baxter equation, another operator $`𝒫`$ should be slightly different from eq. (3.9),

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒫}_{ab}(\lambda )=\left|\begin{array}{cc}𝒬_a(\lambda )& 𝒬_a(\lambda \frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\pi )\\ 𝒬_b(\lambda )& 𝒬_b(\lambda \frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\pi )\end{array}\right|,$$
(4.5)
where $`𝒬_a(\lambda )`$ denotes three linearly independent solutions of the difference equation (4.2). This solves the third order difference equation,

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{𝒫}(\lambda +2\mathrm{i}\pi )u_2(\lambda +\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\pi )\stackrel{~}{𝒫}(\lambda +\frac{4}{3}\mathrm{i}\pi )\hfill \\ \hfill +\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\lambda +\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\pi )u_1(\lambda +\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\pi )\stackrel{~}{𝒫}(\lambda +\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\pi )\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\lambda )\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\lambda +\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\pi )\stackrel{~}{𝒫}(\lambda )=0.\end{array}$$
(4.6)
As a result, we obtain the dual Baxter equations,

$`u_1(\lambda )`$ $`=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{i}\pi ){\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{𝒫}(\lambda \frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\pi )}{\stackrel{~}{𝒫}(\lambda )}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{𝒫}(\lambda +\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\pi )}{\stackrel{~}{𝒫}(\lambda )}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒬(\lambda \frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\pi )}{𝒬(\lambda )}}+{\displaystyle \frac{𝒬(\lambda +\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\pi )}{𝒬(\lambda )}},`$ (4.7a)
$`u_2(\lambda )`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{𝒫}(\lambda +\frac{4}{3}\mathrm{i}\pi )}{\stackrel{~}{𝒫}(\lambda +\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\pi )}}+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\lambda ){\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{𝒫}(\lambda )}{\stackrel{~}{𝒫}(\lambda +\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\pi )}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒬(\lambda +\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\pi )}{𝒬(\lambda )}}+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\lambda ){\displaystyle \frac{𝒬(\lambda \frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\pi )}{𝒬(\lambda )}},`$ (4.7b)
from which we get the nested Bethe ansatz equations only from the analytic property of the transfer matrices $`u_a(\lambda )`$.

We remark that this duality of the Baxter equation also appeared in studies of the discrete KdV equation , where given was the interpretation from the viewpoint of the algebraic geometry.

## 5 Continuum Limit

We briefly study the continuum limit of the quantum discrete Boussinesq equation. In a continuum limit, the lattice free field $`\varphi _n^{(a)}`$ is replaced by $`\varphi ^{(a)}(x)`$, and the commutation relations (2.2) then reduce into

$`[\varphi ^{(a)}(x),\varphi ^{(b)}(y)]=𝐂_{ab}\mathrm{i}\gamma \mathrm{sgn}(xy),`$ (5.1)
where $`𝐂`$ is the Cartan matrix of $`s\mathrm{}_3`$,

$$𝐂=\left(\begin{array}{cc}2& 1\\ 1& 2\end{array}\right).$$

The quasi-periodic boundary condition (2.15) denotes

$$\varphi ^{(a)}(x+L)=\varphi ^{(a)}(x)+L\mathrm{i}P^{(a)},$$

which indicates the mode expansion of the free fields as

$$\varphi ^{(b)}(x)=\mathrm{i}Q^{(b)}+\mathrm{i}P^{(b)}x+\underset{n0}{}\frac{a_n^{(b)}}{n}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\frac{2\pi }{L}nx}.$$

We can take the continuum limit of the transfer matrices $`t_{1,2}(\lambda )`$ from eq. (2.16) and eq. (2.19). After a gauge-transformation, we get

$`\left(g(\lambda )\mathrm{e}^{\lambda +\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma }\right)^Lt_1(\lambda )`$
$`\mathrm{Tr}\left[\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}L\left(P^{(1)}𝐡_1P^{(2)}𝐡_3\right)}𝒫\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle _0^L}dx\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& \mathrm{e}^{2\lambda \frac{1}{6}\mathrm{i}\gamma }\mathrm{e}^{\varphi ^{(1)}(x)}& \mathrm{e}^{\lambda +\frac{1}{6}\mathrm{i}\gamma }\mathrm{e}^{\varphi ^{(0)}(x)}\\ \mathrm{e}^{\lambda +\frac{1}{6}\mathrm{i}\gamma }\mathrm{e}^{\varphi ^{(1)}(x)}& 0& \mathrm{e}^{2\lambda \frac{1}{6}\mathrm{i}\gamma }\mathrm{e}^{\varphi ^{(2)}(x)}\\ \mathrm{e}^{2\lambda \frac{1}{6}\mathrm{i}\gamma }\mathrm{e}^{\varphi ^{(0)}(x)}& \mathrm{e}^{\lambda +\frac{1}{6}\mathrm{i}\gamma }\mathrm{e}^{\varphi ^{(2)}(x)}& 0\end{array}\right)\right)\right],`$ (5.2)
$`\left(\overline{g}(\lambda )\mathrm{e}^{\lambda +\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma }\right)^Lt_2(\lambda )`$
$`\mathrm{Tr}\left[\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}L\left(P^{(1)}𝐡_1+P^{(2)}𝐡_3\right)}𝒫\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{e}^{\lambda \frac{1}{6}\mathrm{i}\gamma }{\displaystyle _0^L}dx\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& \mathrm{e}^{\varphi ^{(1)}}(x)& 0\\ 0& 0& \mathrm{e}^{\varphi ^{(2)}(x)}\\ \mathrm{e}^{\varphi ^{(0)}(x)}& 0& 0\end{array}\right)\right)\right],`$ (5.3)
where $`𝒫`$ denotes the path operator ordering. One finds that the transfer matrix $`t_2(\lambda )`$ in eq. (5.3) essentially coincides with that was proposed in 32 as a quantized Drinfeld–Sokolov reduction.

Correspondingly a difference of the free fields (2.4) becomes the differential of the free field,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(a)}\frac{}{x}\varphi ^{(a)}(x),$$

and the Baxter $`𝒬`$ operator for the quantum Boussinesq equation can be given by the path ordering of the operator $`_n(\lambda ;\varphi )`$. As a result we recover the third order difference equation equation (3.8). At this stage we are not sure how to relate the $`𝒬`$ operator with the universal $``$ matrix.

## 6 Generalization: $`N`$-reduced Discrete KP Equation

As the Boussinesq equation (1.2) is the 3-reduced KP equation, we can introduce the quantum $`N`$-reduced discrete KP equation which is related with the affine $`\widehat{s\mathrm{}}_N`$ Toda field theory. In the classical case, the Lax matrix for the discrete $`N`$-reduced KP equation is given by

$$𝐋_n^\mathrm{W}(x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt[N]{W_n^{(N)}}}\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}x^{N1}& x^{N2}W_{n+N2}^{(2)}& x^{N3}W_{n+N3}^{(3)}& \mathrm{}& (1)^{N2}xW_{n+1}^{(N1)}& (1)^{N1}W_n^{(N)}\\ 1& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 0\\ \mathrm{}& 0& 1& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& 0& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 1& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(6.1)
where the generators of the lattice $`W_N`$ algebra are defined as

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill W_n^{(s)}& =\frac{1}{{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{s1}{}}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}\mathrm{exp}(\chi _{n+k}^{(i)})\right)}(\underset{1i_1<i_2<\mathrm{}<i_{s1}N1}{}\mathrm{exp}(\chi _{n+s1}^{(i_1)}+\chi _{n+s2}^{(i_2)}+\mathrm{}+\chi _{n+1}^{(i_{s1})})\hfill \\ & +\underset{1i_1<i_2<\mathrm{}<i_sN1}{}\mathrm{exp}(\chi _{n+s1}^{(i_1)}+\chi _{n+s2}^{(i_2)}+\mathrm{}+\chi _n^{(i_s)})),\text{for }s=2,3,\mathrm{},N1,\hfill \\ \hfill W_n^{(N)}& =\frac{\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}\chi _{n+Ni}^{(i)}\right)}{{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}\mathrm{exp}(\chi _{n+k}^{(i)})\right)}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(6.2)
Here $`\chi _n^{(a)}`$ is defined in terms of the free fields $`\varphi _n^{(a)}`$ (for $`a=1,2,\mathrm{},N1`$) as

$$\chi _n^{(a)}=\underset{b=1}{\overset{a}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(b)},$$

and the quantum algebra for the lattice free fields reads as

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill [\varphi _m^{(a)},\varphi _n^{(a)}]& =2\mathrm{i}\gamma ,\text{for }m>n,\hfill \\ \hfill [\varphi _n^{(a)},\varphi _m^{(a+1)}]& =\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{i}\gamma ,\hfill & \text{for }nm,\hfill \\ \mathrm{i}\gamma ,\hfill & \text{for }n>m.\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$
(6.3)
We note that the transformation (6.2) is the so-called Miura transformation. We set

$$\varphi _n^{(0)}=\underset{a=1}{\overset{N1}{}}\varphi _n^{(a)},$$

and the screening charges are defined by (for $`a=0,1,\mathrm{},N1`$)

$`Q^{(a)}`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\mathrm{e}^{\varphi _n^{(a)}},`$ $`\stackrel{~}{Q}^{(a)}`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\pi }{\gamma }\varphi _n^{(a)}}.`$ (6.4)
The sum of the screening charges, $`_{a=0}^{N1}Q^{(a)}`$, corresponds to the Hamiltonian of the affine Toda field theory.

In terms of the free fields, the quantum Lax matrix is then defined by

$$𝐋_n(\lambda )=\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{a=1}{\overset{N1}{}}𝐡_a\chi _n^{(a)}\right)𝐗(\lambda ),$$
(6.5)
where $`N\times N`$ matrices $`𝐡_a`$ and $`𝐗(\lambda )`$ are defined by

$`𝐡_a`$ $`=𝐄_{a,a}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}\text{1}\text{1},`$ $`𝐗(\lambda )`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}\mathrm{e}^{k\lambda }𝐂^k,`$ $`𝐂`$ $`=𝐄_{1,N}+{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}𝐄_{k+1,k}.`$
The spectral parameter $`\lambda `$ is related with $`x`$ in eq. (6.1) by

$$\mathrm{e}^{N\lambda }=1x^N.$$

As usual the monodromy and the transfer matrix are respectively given by

$`𝐓(\lambda )`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{n}{\overset{}{}}}𝐋_n(\lambda ),`$ $`t_1(\lambda )`$ $`=\mathrm{Tr}𝐓(\lambda ).`$ (6.6)
This transfer matrix generates the integrals of motion of the discrete $`N`$-reduced KP equation.

The fundamental $``$ operator for $`s\mathrm{}_N`$ case is defined by

$$\begin{array}{c}_n(\lambda ;\varphi )=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma (\lambda +\chi _n^{(N1)})}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma (2\lambda +\chi _n^{(N2)})}\mathrm{}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma ((N1)\lambda +\chi _n^{(1)})}\hfill \\ \hfill \times \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_\gamma (\chi _n^{(1)})}{\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma (\lambda \chi _n^{(1)})}\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_\gamma (\chi _n^{(2)})}{\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma (\lambda \chi _n^{(2)})}\mathrm{}\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_\gamma (\chi _n^{(N1)})}{\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma (\lambda \chi _n^{(N1)})},\end{array}$$
(6.7)
This operator not only satisfies the Yang–Baxter equation (2.32), but fulfills the intertwining relations for the (dual) vertex operators ;

$$\left(\mathrm{e}^{\varphi _n^{(a)}}+\mathrm{e}^\lambda \mathrm{e}^{\varphi _{n+1}^{(a)}}\right)_n(\lambda ;\varphi )=_n(\lambda ;\varphi )\left(\mathrm{e}^\lambda \mathrm{e}^{\varphi _n^{(a)}}+\mathrm{e}^{\varphi _{n+1}^{(a)}}\right),$$
(6.8)
$$\left(\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\pi }{\gamma }\varphi _n^{(a)}}+\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\pi }{\gamma }\lambda }\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\pi }{\gamma }\varphi _{n+1}^{(a)}}\right)_n(\lambda ;\varphi )=_n(\lambda ;\varphi )\left(\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\pi }{\gamma }\lambda }\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\pi }{\gamma }\varphi _n^{(a)}}+\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\pi }{\gamma }\varphi _{n+1}^{(a)}}\right),$$
(6.9)
for $`a=0,1,\mathrm{},N1`$. We can easily see that the $`𝒬`$ operator

$$𝒬(\lambda )=\underset{n}{\overset{}{}}_n(\lambda ;\varphi ),$$
(6.10)
commute with the screening charges

$$[𝒬(\lambda ),Q^{(a)}]=[𝒬(\lambda ),\stackrel{~}{Q}^{(a)}]=0,$$
(6.11)
which proves that the $`𝒬`$ operator generates the local integrals of motion for the discrete analogue of the affine $`\widehat{s\mathrm{}}_N`$ Toda field theory.

As we have clarified for $`s\mathrm{}_3`$ case in preceding sections, the generating function of the local integrals of motion for the affine Toda field theory becomes the $`𝒬`$ operator for the quantum Boussinesq equation. Thus it is natural to conjecture that the $`𝒬`$ operator (6.10) satisfies the $`N`$-th order difference equation,

$$𝒬(\lambda +2\mathrm{i}\gamma )\underset{k=1}{\overset{N1}{}}t_k(\lambda +2\frac{Nk}{N}\mathrm{i}\gamma )𝒬(\lambda +2\frac{Nk}{N}\mathrm{i}\gamma )+\mathrm{\Delta }(\lambda +\frac{2}{N}\mathrm{i}\gamma )𝒬(\lambda )=0,$$
(6.12)
with some function $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\lambda )`$. Here the transfer matrix $`t_1(\lambda )`$ is as eq. (6.6) and corresponds to the vector representation. Other transfer matrices $`t_{k>1}(\lambda )`$ are for $`[1^k]`$, and can be constructed by the fusion method from the transfer matrix $`t_1(\lambda )`$ with a suitable normalization. Especially we have

$$t_{N1}(\lambda )\mathrm{Tr}\left(\underset{n}{\overset{}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{a=1}{\overset{N1}{}}𝐡_a\chi _n^{(a)}\right)\overline{𝐗}(\lambda )\right),$$

with $`\overline{𝐗}(\lambda )=1\mathrm{e}^\lambda 𝐂^1`$. The duality of the $`𝒬`$ operator also suggests the dual difference equation,

$$𝒬(\lambda +2\mathrm{i}\pi )\underset{k=1}{\overset{N1}{}}u_k(\lambda +2\frac{Nk}{N}\mathrm{i}\pi )𝒬(\lambda +2\frac{Nk}{N}\mathrm{i}\pi )+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\lambda +\frac{2}{N}\mathrm{i}\pi )𝒬(\lambda )=0,$$
(6.13)
where the transfer matrices $`u_k(\lambda )`$ follows from $`t_k(\lambda )`$ under a duality transform (4.1).

## 7 Concluding Remarks

We have explicitly constructed the Baxter $`𝒬`$ operator for the quantum discrete Boussinesq equation which has $`U_q(\widehat{s\mathrm{}}_3)`$. As far as the author knows, the explicit form of the $`𝒬`$ operator has been known only for the quantum integrable systems associated to $`s\mathrm{}_2`$, and our $`𝒬`$ operator is the first example which solves the third order difference equation. In our construction, the $`𝒬`$ operator originates from the generating function of the local integrals of motion for a discrete analogue of the affine $`\widehat{s\mathrm{}}_3`$ Toda field theory, and we hope this can be applied for other Lie algebras, to which some attempts have been made . Important structure is that it has a kind of duality, and that the $`𝒬`$ operator satisfies the dual Baxter equation. It was shown  in the case of the discrete KdV equation that the dual Baxter equations can be interpreted as the duality between homologies and cohomologies of quantized affine hyper-elliptic Jacobian from the view point of the algebraic geometry. It will be interesting to give such interpretation in our case. In such studies the separation of variables (see Ref. 37 for review, and Ref. 38 for $`s\mathrm{}_3`$ case) will be useful.

Also in $`s\mathrm{}_2`$ case, the universal procedure to derive the Baxter equation was proposed , where the $`𝒬`$ operator was constructed from the universal $``$ matrix with the infinite-dimensional $`q`$-oscillator representation. This may be true for $`s\mathrm{}_N`$ case, but we are not sure how to relate our $`𝒬`$ operator (6.10) with the universal $``$ matrix.

The Baxter equation for $`s\mathrm{}_2`$ appeared in studies of the second order ordinary differential equations; the spectral determinants for the Schrödinger equation is identified with the $`𝒬`$ operator for the CFT . Such correspondence is also studied for the higher order differential equation . This “ODE/IM correspondence” seems to come from a similarity between the Stokes multiplier and the Lax matrix, and our results will help further investigations on these topics.

## Acknowledgement

The author would like to thank Rei Inoue for stimulating discussions.

## Appendix A Quantum Dilogarithm Function

We review a $`q`$-deformation of the dilogarithm function (2.25);

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma (\phi )=\mathrm{exp}\left(_{+\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}\frac{\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\phi x}}{4\mathrm{sh}(\gamma x)\mathrm{sh}(\pi x)}\frac{\mathrm{d}x}{x}\right).$$
(2.25)
This integral was introduced by Faddeev , and it corresponds to a non-compact analogue of the $`q`$-exponential function,

$$S_q(w)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(1+q^{2n+1}w\right)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1)^kw^k}{k(q^kq^k)}\right).$$
(A.1)
We list properties of the integral (2.25) in order .

* Duality

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\frac{\pi ^2}{\gamma }}(\phi )=\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma (\frac{\gamma }{\pi }\phi ),$$
(A.2)
* Zero points,

$$\text{zeros of }\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma (\phi )\right)^{\pm 1}=\left\{\mathrm{i}\left((2m+1)\gamma +(2n+1)\pi \right)\right|m,n_0\}$$
* Inversion relation,

$`\mathrm{\Theta }_\gamma (\phi )`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma (\phi )\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma (\phi )`$ (2.26)
$`=\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{i}\gamma }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\phi ^2}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2+\gamma ^2}{6}}\right)\right).`$ (A.3)
A reason why we use notation “$`\mathrm{\Theta }`$” is that it is proportional to the Jacobi theta function when we replace the integral $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma (\phi )`$ with $`S_q(w)`$, $`S_q(w)S_q(w^1)`$.
* Difference equations,

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma (\phi +\mathrm{i}\gamma )}{\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma (\phi \mathrm{i}\gamma )}=\frac{1}{1+\mathrm{e}^\phi }.$$
(A.4)
The duality (A.2) gives another type of difference equation,

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma (\phi +\mathrm{i}\pi )}{\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma (\phi \mathrm{i}\pi )}=\frac{1}{1+\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\pi }{\gamma }\phi }}.$$
(A.5)
* Pentagon relation

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma (\widehat{p})\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma (\widehat{q})=\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma (\widehat{q})\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma (\widehat{p}+\widehat{q})\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma (\widehat{p}),$$
(A.6)
where $`\widehat{p}`$ and $`\widehat{q}`$ are the Heisenberg operators satisfying a commutation relation,

$$[\widehat{p},\widehat{q}]=2\mathrm{i}\gamma .$$
(A.7)
This identity is a key to apply the integral (2.25) to the quantization of the Teichmüller space  and to the construction of the invariant of 3-manifold .

## Appendix B Properties of the Fundamental $``$ Operator

We study the property of the fundamental $``$ operator (2.29).

### B.1 $`_3`$ Symmetry

By construction the free fields $`\varphi _n^{(1)}`$, $`\varphi _n^{(2)}`$, and $`\varphi _n^{(0)}=\varphi _n^{(1)}\varphi _n^{(2)}`$ correspond to roots $`𝜶_1`$, $`𝜶_2`$, and $`𝜶_0`$. As the fundamental $``$ operator $`_n(\lambda ;\varphi )`$ is defined as the intertwining operators for these $`_3`$ symmetric vertex operators (2.30), we can suppose the $``$ operator itself has the $`_3`$ symmetry. This can be checked by recursive uses of the pentagon identity (A.6) as

$`_n(\lambda ;\varphi )`$ $`=\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma (\lambda \mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(2)})\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma (\lambda \mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(1)})\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma (2\lambda +\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(1)})\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma (\lambda +\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(1)}+\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(2)})\right)^1`$
$`\times \mathrm{\Theta }_\gamma (\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(2)})\mathrm{\Theta }_\gamma (\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(1)})`$
$`=\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma (\lambda +\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(1)}+\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(2)})\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma (\lambda \mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(2)})\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma (2\lambda +\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(2)})\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma (\lambda \mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(1)})\right)^1`$
$`\times \mathrm{\Theta }_\gamma (\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(1)}+\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(2)})\mathrm{\Theta }_\gamma (\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(2)})`$
$`=\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma (\lambda \mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(1)})\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma (\lambda +\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(1)}+\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(2)})\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma (2\lambda \mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(1)}\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(2)})\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma (\lambda \mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(2)})\right)^1`$
$`\times \mathrm{\Theta }_\gamma (\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(1)})\mathrm{\Theta }_\gamma (\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(1)}+\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(2)}).`$
As a result, we see that

$`_n(\lambda ;\varphi )\widehat{}(\lambda ;\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(1)},\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(0)})=\widehat{}(\lambda ;\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(2)},\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(1)})=\widehat{}(\lambda ;\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(0)},\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(2)}).`$ (B.1)
### B.2 Unitarity

Recalling the fact that the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ function (A.3) is proportional to the Gaussian, we can check that the fundamental $``$ operator satisfies the unitarity condition,

$$_n(\lambda ;\varphi )_n(\lambda ;\varphi )=\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{2\mathrm{i}\gamma }\lambda ^2}.$$
(B.2)
## Appendix C Proof of Eqs. (3.1) – (3.2)

We sketch the outline of a proof of eqs. (3.1) – (3.2).

To prove eqs. (3.1), we first compute as follows;

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{_n(\lambda +\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma ;\varphi )}}_n^{(1)}(\lambda ;\varphi )`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma (\lambda +\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma \mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(1)}\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(2)})}{\mathrm{\Theta }_\gamma (\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(1)}+\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(2)})}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_\gamma (\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(1)}\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma )}{\mathrm{\Theta }_\gamma (\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(1)})}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma (2\lambda +\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(1)}+\frac{4}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma )}{\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma (2\lambda +\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(1)}\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma )}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_\gamma (\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(1)}+\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(2)}+\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma )}{\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma (\lambda \frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma \mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(1)}\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(2)})}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma (\lambda +\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma \mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(1)}\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(2)})}{\mathrm{\Theta }_\gamma (\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(1)}+\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(2)})}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\mathrm{e}^{2\lambda +\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma +\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(1)}}}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_\gamma (\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(1)}+\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(2)}+\frac{4}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma )}{\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma (\lambda \frac{4}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma \mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(1)}\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(2)})}}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(1)}\frac{1}{9}\mathrm{i}\gamma }`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{e}^{\lambda +\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma }+\mathrm{e}^{2\lambda +\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma +\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(1)}}+\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(1)}+\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(2)}+\mathrm{i}\gamma }}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_\gamma (\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(1)}+\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(2)}+\frac{4}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma )}{\mathrm{\Theta }_\gamma (\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(1)}+\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(2)}+2\mathrm{i}\gamma )}}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(1)}\frac{1}{9}\mathrm{i}\gamma }`$
$`=\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(1)}+\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{e}^{\lambda +\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma }+\mathrm{e}^{2\lambda +\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma +\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(1)}}+\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(1)}+\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(2)}}}}.`$ (C.1)
This proves the first equality in eqs. (3.1). Remaining equalities follow from eqs. (2.27).

To prove eqs. (3.2), we shift parameters in eq. (3.1);

$$\frac{1}{_n(\lambda \frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma ;\varphi )}\widehat{}(\lambda ;\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(1)}+\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma ,\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(1)}+\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(2)}\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma )=\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma }\left(c_n^{(1)}\mathrm{e}^{2\lambda }+c_n^{(2)}+c_n^{(3)}\mathrm{e}^\lambda \right).$$
(C.2)
Using eqs. (3.1) and above identity, we can prove the first equality in eqs. (3.2) as follows;

$`_n^{(1)}(\lambda ;\varphi )\mathrm{e}^\lambda _n^{(2)}(\lambda ;\varphi )`$ $`=_n^{(2)}(\lambda ;\varphi )\left(\left(c_n^{(1)}+c_n^{(2)}\mathrm{e}^\lambda +c_n^{(3)}\mathrm{e}^\lambda \right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^\lambda }{c_n^{(1)}\mathrm{e}^\lambda +c_n^{(2)}\mathrm{e}^\lambda +c_n^{(3)}}}1\right)`$
$`=_n^{(2)}(\lambda ;\varphi )(\mathrm{e}^{2\lambda }\mathrm{e}^\lambda )c_n^{(2)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c_n^{(1)}\mathrm{e}^\lambda +c_n^{(2)}\mathrm{e}^\lambda +c_n^{(3)}}}`$
$`=(\mathrm{e}^{3\lambda }1)c_n^{(2)}\widehat{}(\lambda ;\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(1)}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{i}\gamma ,\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(1)}+\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _n^{(2)}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{i}\gamma )`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{c_n^{(1)}\mathrm{e}^{2\lambda }+c_n^{(2)}+c_n^{(3)}\mathrm{e}^\lambda }}`$
$`=(\mathrm{e}^{3\lambda }1)\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{i}\gamma }c_n^{(2)}_n(\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{i}\gamma ;\varphi ).`$
Other equalities directly follow from the $`_3`$ symmetry (B.1).


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The study of pulsars and their spin-down provides important information on the physics of neutron stars. This information (e.g. magnetic field, moment of inertia, etc.) can be gleaned from the pulsar spin-down by assuming a physical model for the spin-down torque. For isolated pulsars, it is usually assumed that the spin-down torque is due to magnetic dipole radiation (MDR), which produces a timing age $`\tau _{MDR}=0.5P/\dot{P}`$ and pulsar braking index $`n=\mathrm{\Omega }\ddot{\mathrm{\Omega }}/\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}^2=3`$, where $`P=2\pi /\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\dot{P}=2\pi \dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}/\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$ are the pulsar spin period and period derivative, respectively (this calculation of $`\tau _{MDR}`$ assumes that the initial spin period was much smaller than the observed spin period). Assuming MDR spin-down, the surface magnetic field strength of the neutron star is given by the formula $`B=3.2\times 10^{19}(P\dot{P})^{1/2}`$G, which has been widely used to estimate the magnetic field strengths of isolated pulsars (e.g. Manchester & Taylor 1977).

## 2 Pulsar/SNR Age Discrepancies?

Perhaps the only way to test the MDR spin-down hypothesis for pulsars is to study the SNRs associated with young pulsars, because the SNRs provide an age constraint independent of the pulsar spin-down. There are at least two pulsars with SNR ages which are inconsistent with the timing ages of the pulsars calculated assuming MDR spin-down: PSR B1757$``$24 and PSR J1846$``$0258. PSR B1757$``$24 is a 0.125 s radio pulsar associated with SNR G5.4$``$1.2. Given the displacement of the pulsar from the center of G5.4$``$1.2, the lack of observed proper motion of the pulsar with respect to its SNR implies an age $`\tau _{psr}>`$ 39 kyr (Gaensler & Frail 2000), which is more than a factor of two greater than the MDR timing age of 16 kyr. Because the pulsar/SNR association seems so compelling, Gaensler & Frail (2000) suggested that this age discrepancy raises very serious problems for all pulsar ages based on MDR.

Recently, the 0.324 s x-ray pulsar PSR J1846$``$0258 was discovered (Gotthelf et al. 2000) in the center of the SNR Kes 75. The MDR timing age of the pulsar is $`\tau _{MDR}`$= 0.7 kyr, which is much less than the estimated minimum age of Kes 75. A lower limit to the age of the SNR can be estimated by assuming that the remnant is still undergoing free expansion. In this case,

$$M_{ej}(>v)>\frac{4}{3}\pi R^3\rho _{ISM},$$
(1)
where $`R`$ is the radius of Kes 75 (9.7 pc; Blanton & Helfand 1996), $`\rho _{ISM}`$ is the density of the interstellar medium surrounding Kes 75, and $`M_{ej}(>v)`$ is the total mass of ejecta with free expansion velocities greater than $`v`$. Realistic models of the velocity profiles of Type II supernova ejecta in free expansion consist of a broken power law distribution of ejecta velocities, such that the majority of the mass and energy is in the low-velocity ejecta. As a function of the ejecta power law index $`q`$ (index $`n`$ in Truelove & McKee 1999),

$$\frac{M_{ej}(>v)}{M_{tot}}=1\frac{(v/v_{core})^{3q}q/3}{(v_{core}/v_{max})^{q3}q/3},$$
(2)
where $`M_{tot}`$ is the total ejecta mass, $`v_{max}`$ is the maximum ejecta velocity, and $`v_{core}`$ is the transition velocity below which the distribution of ejecta velocities (in velocity space) is flat. The parameter $`v_{core}`$ can be eliminated by normalizing Equation (2) to a total ejecta kinetic energy $`E_{tot}`$, and Equations ($`12`$) can then be solved for the cutoff velocity $`v`$ for a given $`\rho _{ISM}`$, $`R`$, $`q`$, $`M_{tot}`$, and $`E_{tot}`$ (the result is insensitive to the value of $`v_{max}`$). The minimum age in free expansion is then given simply by $`T>R/v`$. For $`q=910`$ (Chevalier & Fransson 1994), $`E_{tot}=10^{51}`$ ergs, $`R`$= 9.7 pc, $`M_{tot}`$= 20 $`M_{}`$, $`v_{max}`$= 20,000 km s-1, and assuming the SNR is in the hot, most tenuous phase of the ISM with $`n_{ISM}`$= 0.001, we estimate a minimum age $`\tau _{snr}>`$ 2.0 kyr for Kes 75. This is a factor of three greater than the pulsar’s MDR timing age of 0.7 kyr.

What conditions must be met for Kes 75 to have the same age as the MDR timing age of PSR J1846$``$0258? The minimum age estimate above is insensitive to $`v_{max}`$, but decreases as $`E_{tot}`$ increases or $`M_{tot}`$ decreases. For $`q=910`$ and $`n_{ISM}=0.001`$ cm-3, and assuming a minimum Type II supernova ejecta mass of $``$6.6 M (for an 8 M progenitor star forming a 1.4 M neutron star), we find that $`\tau _{snr}=\tau _{MDR}`$ for Kes 75 only if E$`>4\times 10^{51}`$ ergs, which is roughly three times greater than the energy implied by model Type II supernova lightcurves (Shigeyama & Nomoto 1990). Even for extremely high $`E_{tot}`$, $`\tau _{snr}=\tau _{MDR}`$ seems unlikely because the ISM density surrounding Kes 75 is probably much greater than 0.001 cm-3. This is because an OH maser emission line has been observed from the SNR (Green et al. 1997), which is thought to result from the supernova shock interacting with a dense molecular cloud. Therefore, $`\tau _{snr}>`$ 2 kyr is probably a very conservative lower limit to the Kes 75 age, since increasing $`\rho _{ism}`$ increases the minimum age from the arguments above.

## 3 Propeller-aided spin-down

The age discrepancy problems outlined above suggest that simple MDR spin-down is incorrect for these pulsars, and that exploration (e.g. Marsen, Lingenfelter, & Rothschild 2001) of more complete spin-down models is warranted. We consider a hybrid spin-down model consisting of MDR torques plus the addition of spin-down torque due to the “propeller effect” (Illarionov & Sunyaev 1975) from material at the pulsar magnetosphere. In the case of PSRs B1757$``$24 and J1846$``$0258, this material could be supernova ejecta captured by the neutron star in the form of a fallback disk. Fallback disks may be roughly divided into two categories: “prompt” and “delayed”. Prompt disks may be formed from $`0.0010.1M_{}`$ (Michel 1991; Lin, Woosley, & Bodenheimer 1991) of ejecta material soon after the initial core collapse in a type II supernova explosion (Woosley & Weaver 1995). Formation of such prompt disks is probably limited to $`<7`$ days after the core collapse because of heating of the ejecta by 56Ni decays (Chevalier 1989). Delayed disks may form years after the explosion from ejecta decelerated by a strong reverse shock (Truelove & McKee 1999) caused by the primary supernova blast wave impinging on dense circumstellar material from the pre-supernova stellar wind. Such models were recently invoked to explain the spin-down of AXPs (Chatterjee, Hernquist & Narayan 2000), and SGRs and AXPs (Marsden et al. 2001).

An artist’s conception of the pulsar and accretion disk system is shown in Figure 1. The total spin-down rate of the neutron star due to the combined disk and MDR torque is given by

$$\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}=\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{MDR}+\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}_A$$
(3)
The MDR torque $`I_{}\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{MDR}=B_{}R_{}^6\mathrm{\Omega }^3/6c^3`$ (e.g. Manchester & Taylor 1977), where $`I_{}`$ is the neutron star moment of inertia, $`R_{}`$ is the neutron star radius, and the propeller torque $`I_{}\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}_A=k\dot{m}R_m^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{eq}(1\mathrm{\Omega }/\mathrm{\Omega }_{eq}`$) (Menou et al. 1999), where $`k`$ is a constant of order unity, $`\dot{m}=10^{16}\dot{m}_{16}`$ g s-1 is the mass infall rate at the magnetosphere, and $`R_m`$ is the magnetospheric radius. Here and elsewhere we assume $`R_{}=10`$ km, $`I_{}=1.1\times 10^{45}`$ g cm2, and $`B_{}=10^{12}B_{12}`$ G is the surface magnetic field strength (assumed dipole). The equilibrium angular frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{eq}`$ is defined by the condition $`R_m=R_c`$, where $`R_c=(GM_{}/\mathrm{\Omega }^2)^{1/3}`$ is the Keplerian co-rotation radius for a neutron star of mass $`M_{}`$. The timing age $`\tau _{comb}`$ under the action of the combined torque model is then given by

$$\tau _{comb}=_{\mathrm{\Omega }_0}^\mathrm{\Omega }\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{MDR}+\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}_A},$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=2\pi /P_0`$ is the initial angular frequency. The timing ages were calculated for PSR B1757$``$24 ($`P`$= 0.125 s) and PSR J1846$``$0258 ($`P`$ = 0.324 s) for a grid of $`B_{}`$ and $`\dot{m}`$ values using Equations ($`34`$) and assuming $`R_M=2.4\times 10^8B_{12}^{4/7}\dot{m}_{16}^{2/7}`$ cm (Chatterjee, Hernquist & Narayan 2000).

## 4 Results

The resulting range of pulsar magnetic fields and magnetospheric accretion rates are shown in Figure 2. For PSR B1757$``$24 (top panel), we find that values of $`9\times 10^{10}<B_{}<1.4\times 10^{12}`$ G, $`7\times 10^{13}<\dot{m}<9\times 10^{17}`$ g s-1, and $`39<\tau _{psr}<80`$ kyr are consistent with the lower limit on the true age of 39 kyr (Gaensler & Frail 2000) and the present day spin-down rate of the pulsar (heavy solid line). Similarly, for PSR J1846$``$0258 (right panel) the lower limit on the age ($`\tau _{snr}>`$ 2 kyr) gives a range of values $`9\times 10^{11}<B_{}<1.5\times 10^{13}`$ G and $`1.1\times 10^{14}<\dot{m}<8\times 10^{18}`$ g s-1. In addition, a more stringent constraint is provided by the x-ray luminosity of the pulsar, since (as seen from the Figure) the magnetic field of the pulsar must be less than $`1.5\times 10^{13}`$G for consistency with the 2 kyr age lower limit. The MDR luminosity for this magnetic field strength is only $`L_{MDR}8\times 10^{35}`$ ergs s-1 — much less than the observed x-ray luminosity of the pulsar ($`L_x2\times 10^{36}`$ ergs s-1; Gotthelf et al. 2000). Therefore the x-ray luminosity may be predominantly powered by the magnetospheric accretion in the context of this model, which constrains $`\dot{m}`$ for a given x-ray efficiency defined by $`L_x=ϵ\dot{m}c^2`$. For $`ϵ<`$ 1, Figure 2 (bottom) indicates that a solution exists for $`7\times 10^{11}<B_{}<6\times 10^{12}`$G, $`4\times 10^{15}<\dot{m}<8\times 10^{18}`$ g s-1, and $`2<\tau _{snr}<5`$ kyr. Since most of the accretion to the neutron star surface would be inhibited by the centrifugal barrier in these sources, the value of the x-ray efficiency is probably much less than the usually assumed value of $`ϵ=GM/Rc^2=0.2`$ appropriate for x-ray binaries.

## 5 Discussion

The discrepancies between the MDR timing ages and supernova remnant ages for pulsars B1757-24 and J1846-0258 can be resolved by using a more complete spin-down model consisting of both MDR and propeller torques. One prediction of this model is the presence of excessive pulsar timing noise which is characteristic of noisy propeller torques. In addition, optical or infrared emission from isolated neutron star accretion disks may be detectable (Perna, Hernquist & Narayan 2000). Since polar cap accretion is suppressed by the centrifugal barrier for $`\mathrm{\Omega }>\mathrm{\Omega }_{eq}`$, pulsed radio emission from open field lines above the disk is not precluded by this model (see e.g. Michel 1991, ch. 6). More work is needed, however, to incorporate the effects of time-dependent magnetospheric accretion, as the accretion rate should gradually decrease with time as the disk dissipates (Cannizzo, Lee & Goodman 1990). Propeller-based spin-down models incorporating a time-dependent $`\dot{m}`$ have been proposed for AXPs (Chatterjee, Hernquist & Narayan 2000), but this model did not include MDR spin-down torque, which may be significant for older pulsars (such as B1757-24) and pulsars with small initial $`\dot{m}`$. If a significant fraction of pulsars are born with accretion disks, then there may be a population of older pulsars — whose disks have dissipated — with abnormally long MDR timing ages. From just the simple model considered here, spin-down models incorporating propeller torques hold much promise for reconciling the supernova remnant ages and the timing parameters of pulsars.

## Acknowledgements

This work was performed while one of the authors (DM) held a National Research Council-GSFC Research Associateship. RER acknowledges support by NASA contract NAS5-30720, and REL support from the Astrophysical Theory Program.