format: text

text:
# 1 INTRODUCTION

## 1 INTRODUCTION

As it is well known, solitons represent the localized excitations and appear in the numerous branches of physics when nonlinear description is essential, as in superconductivity, plasma physics, fiber optics, domain wall or fluid dynamics, protein chains etc. Unfortunately, the well developed soliton theory practically deals with the one-dimensional dynamical systems. The same conclusion relates to the quasi-periodic processes. Because of the physical reasons, many research groups make efforts in order to find the methods for multidimensional solitons analysis. The results obtained hitherto have however only a contributory character. Therefore below we present, it seems, a slightly more general approach to the truly multidimensional solitons and quasi periodic-processes.

In order to illustrate the problem we start with a simple example of the famous Kadomtsev - Petviashvili equation

$$3u_{yy}=\left[4u_t6uu_x+u_{xxx}\right]_x,$$
(1)
repeating some arguments of Dubrovin . Symbols $`(.)_x`$or $`u_x`$ denote relevant partial derivatives. Looking for the solution in form

$$u=u(x,y,t)=2\mathrm{ln}\tau (z_1,\mathrm{}z_g),z_i=k_ix+l_iy+w_it+z_{0,i},i=1,\mathrm{},g,$$
(2)
a substitution to the equation (1) leads to

$$\frac{\tau _{xxxx}\tau 4\tau _{xxx}\tau _x+3\left(\tau _{xx}\right)^2}{\tau ^2}+4\frac{\tau _{xt}\tau \tau _x\tau _t}{\tau ^2}3\frac{\tau _{yy}\tau \left(\tau _y\right)^2}{\tau ^2}=8d,$$
(3)
if the first constant of integration is zero, and the second one is equal to $`8d.`$ According to the Hirota approach, there is introduced the bilinear differential operator $`D_x`$ which if applied to the ordered pair of functions $`f(x,y,t)`$ and $`g(x,y,t)`$ is defined as

$$D_x^N\left(fg\right):=\left(_w\right)^N\left[f(x+w,y,t)g(xw,y,t)\right]_{w=0}.$$
(4)
Then equation (3) can be written as

$$\left[D_x^4+4D_xD_t3\left(D_y\right)^2\right]\left(\tau \tau \right)+8d\tau ^2=0.$$
(5)
Next, for $`d=0,`$ making use the standard Hirota procedure one can find multisoliton solutions of (1).

It is worth notice that the case $`d0`$ is not considered in frame of the bilinear technique since it leads to quasiperiodic solutions and periods of the periodic subprocesses tend to infinity as $`d0.`$

There is an opinion that a huge success of the bilinear formalism in soliton theory ,  can be linked with the addition property for $`\tau `$-functions.

$$\tau \left(𝐳+𝐰\right)\tau \left(𝐳𝐰\right)=\underset{\epsilon }{}W(𝐰;\epsilon )Z(𝐳;\epsilon ),$$
(6)
where $`𝐳,𝐰^g`$, $`\tau :^g,W,Z:^g\times ^g`$, the sum is over a finite set and $`Z(𝐳;\epsilon )`$ enumerated by $`\epsilon _2^g`$ form a set of linearly independent functions. Exponential functions appearing in multisoliton solutions have this property as well as the Riemann theta functions leading in turn to the quasiperiodic solutions.

The essential feature of the equation (6) is that the product of shifted $`\tau `$-functions admits factorization.

Relation (6) should be considered only as the $`\tau `$ -function property. This means that putting either $`𝐰=0`$ or $`𝐳=0`$ we have $`\tau ^2\left(𝐳\right)=_\epsilon W(0;\epsilon )Z(𝐳;\epsilon )`$ or $`\tau \left(𝐰\right)\tau \left(𝐰\right)=_\epsilon W(𝐰;\epsilon )Z(\mathrm{𝟎};\epsilon ),`$ respectively. If the proper determinants do not vanish, functions $`W(𝐰;\epsilon )`$ and$`Z(𝐳;\epsilon )`$ can be expressed by $`\tau `$-functions.

(Nota bene, if $`\tau `$-function is identified with the Riemann theta functions $`\theta \left(z\right)`$ \- see below, for $`\epsilon ,\epsilon ^{}_2^g`$ , we have $`\theta \left(𝐳+\epsilon ^{}/2\right)=\theta \left(𝐳\epsilon ^{}/2\right)`$, then $`W(\epsilon ^{}/2;\epsilon )=\delta _{\epsilon ,\epsilon ^{}}`$ \- Kronecker symbol and $`Z(𝐳;\epsilon )=\theta ^2\left(𝐳+\epsilon /2\right).`$)

Thus it seems that relation (6) is really very important and there are a few practical reasons for such statement which we shall discuss below.

First of all, without any additional assumptions for function having addition property one can easy calculate even derivatives of the equation (6), obtaining some combinations of derivatives of $`\tau `$function logarithm,

$`2L_{ij}`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{\epsilon }{}}W_{w_iw_j}(0;\epsilon )\left[Z(𝐳;\epsilon )/\tau ^2\left(𝐳\right)\right],`$
(7)
$`L_{ijkl}+2\left(3\times L_{ij}L_{kl}\right)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{\epsilon }{}}W_{w_iw_jw_kw_l}(0;\epsilon )\left[Z(𝐳;\epsilon )/\tau ^2\left(𝐳\right)\right],`$
(8)
$`L_{ijklmn}+2\left(15\times L_{ij}L_{klmn}\right)+4\left(15\times L_{ij}L_{kl}L_{mn}\right)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{\epsilon }{}}W_{w_iw_jw_kw_lw_mw_n}(0;\epsilon )\left[Z(𝐳;\epsilon )/\tau ^2\left(𝐳\right)\right],`$
(9)
etc., where $`L:=\mathrm{ln}\tau \left(𝐳\right)`$, $`L_i:=_{z_i}\mathrm{ln}\tau \left(𝐳\right)`$and we use a shorthand notation $`\left(3\times L_{ij}L_{kl}\right):=L_{ij}L_{kl}+L_{ik}L_{jl}+L_{il}L_{kj}`$ i.e. including all permutations.

Note that the ”basis” functions $`\left[Z(𝐳;\epsilon )/\tau ^2\left(𝐳\right)\right]`$for all operators are the same. Therefore, the differentiation rules (7), (8), (9), etc., automatically reconstruct the Korteweg - de Vries - Kotera - Sawada hierarchy giving a tool for a derivation of relevant dispersion equations , .

In order to elucidate problem of dispersion equations, let us observe that (3) can be written as

$$L_{xxxx}+6\left(L_{xx}\right)^2+4L_{xt}3L_{yy}=8d,$$
(10)
and, due to the linear dependence of arguments of $`L=\mathrm{ln}\tau (z_1,\mathrm{}z_g)`$ on space and time coordinates, as

$$\underset{p,q,r,s=1}{\overset{g}{}}k_pk_qk_rk_s\left[L_{z_pz_qz_rz_s}+2\left(3\times L_{z_pz_q}L_{z_rz_s}\right)\right]+\underset{p,q=1}{\overset{g}{}}\left(4k_pw_q3l_pl_q\right)L_{z_pz_q}=8d.$$
(11)
The shorthand notation $`3\times \mathrm{}`$ was explained before. Now, if $`\tau `$ function has the addition property, we can apply rules (7) and (8) obtaining

$$\underset{\epsilon }{}\left[\begin{array}{c}_{p,q,r,s=1}^gk_pk_qk_rk_sW_{w_pw_qw_rw_s}(0;\epsilon )+\\ +_{p,q=1}^g\left(4k_pw_q3l_pl_q\right)W_{w_pw_q}(0;\epsilon )+8dW(0;\epsilon )\end{array}\right]Z(𝐳;\epsilon )=0.$$
(12)
since $`\tau ^2\left(𝐳\right)=_\epsilon W(0;\epsilon )Z(𝐳;\epsilon ).`$Finally, the Kadomtsev - Petviashvili equation (1) has a solution if in a relevant class of $`\tau `$functions (exponential or Riemann theta function), for any $`\epsilon _2^g`$ the system of $`2^g`$ algebraic dispersion equations

$$\underset{p,q,r,s=1}{\overset{g}{}}k_pk_qk_rk_sW_{w_pw_qw_rw_s}(0;\epsilon )+\underset{p,q=1}{\overset{g}{}}\left(4k_pw_q3l_pl_q\right)W_{w_pw_q}(0;\epsilon )+8dW(0;\epsilon )=0$$
(13)
has a nontrivial solution. The broader discussion, particularly concerning quasiperiodic solutions, one can find in , , ,  . Here, we want to underline only a formal similarity of (5) and (13) equations and to underline that equation (13) remains valid also for$`d0,`$ i.e. also for quasiperiodic solutions

The second argument relates to another class of equations which are solved by means of so-called trilinear operator. The trilinear operator $`T`$ and the complex conjugate trilinear operator $`T^{}`$ are defined as ,

$`T\left(fgh\right)`$ $`=\left(_{z_1}+j_{z_2}+j^2_{z_3}\right)f\left(z_1\right)g\left(z_2\right)h\left(z_3\right)|_{z_1=z_2=z_3=z},`$ (14)
$`T^{}\left(fgh\right)`$ $`=\left(_{z_1}+j^2_{z_2}+j_{z_3}\right)f\left(z_1\right)g\left(z_2\right)h\left(z_3\right)|_{z_1=z_2=z_3=z},`$ (15)
where $`j=\mathrm{exp}\left(i2\pi /3\right).`$

Its application we illustrate by example of the Satsuma equation

$$F_{xx}F_{yy}FF_{xx}\left(F_y\right)^2F_{yy}\left(F_x\right)^2+2F_{xy}F_xF_y\left(F_{xy}\right)^2F=0,$$
(16)
which then can be written then as

$$\left(T_xT_x^{}T_yT_y^{}T_x^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}T_y^2\right)\left(FFF\right)=0.$$
(17)
Observe now that the addition property for $`F`$functions in version (6) is not applicable, since (16) consists triads of $`F`$ derivatives in contrast to (3) where we have dealt with the pairs only. Therefore the left hand side of a relevant version of addition property (6), if exists, ought to contain the product of three shifted functions, (or even more).

The next argument relates to discrete equations and their reduction to dispersion equations. For example, considering the KdV- type completely integrable difference-difference equation

$`u(x,t+d)u(x,td)\begin{array}{c}\text{=}\hfill \end{array}u(x,t+d)u(x,td)\left[u(x+d,t)u(xd,t)\right],`$ (19)
$`u(x,t)\begin{array}{c}\text{:=}\hfill \end{array}\tau (x+d,t)\tau (xd,t)/\tau (x,t+d)\tau (x,td)1,`$ (21)
it is seen that equation (6) enables to write the products $`\tau (x+d,t)\tau (xd,t)`$ and

$`\tau (x,t+d)\tau (x,td)`$ in a compact form leading to the dispersion equation . The shift $`𝐰=d`$ plays a role of a step in a difference equation. On the other hand, if the multidimensional version of difference-difference equation is considered, it requires an introduction of a few and independent steps with respect to each coordinate. This in a natural way leads to the form of addition property, where on the left had side the product of a few shifted functions appear.

Now, one can ask about the class of functions having the property (6). The oldest and the most known functions having this property are the Riemann theta functions , , .

$$\theta \left(𝐳|B\right)=\underset{n^g}{}\mathrm{exp}\left[i\pi \left(2𝐳,𝐧+𝐧,B𝐧\right)\right]$$
(22)
where $`𝐳^g,B^{g\times g}`$is the Riemann matrix, (i.e. symmetric with positively defined imaginary part), $`𝐳,𝐧:=_{j=1}^gz_jn_j.`$ The equivalent of (6) takes then the form

$`\theta \left(𝐳+𝐰|B\right)\theta \left(𝐳𝐰|B\right)\begin{array}{c}\text{=}\hfill \end{array}`$ (24)
$`={\displaystyle \underset{\epsilon _2^g}{}}\left[\mathrm{exp}\left[i\pi (2𝐳,\epsilon +\epsilon ,B\epsilon )\right]\theta (𝐳+B\epsilon |2B)\mathrm{exp}(i2\pi <2𝐰,\epsilon >)\theta (𝐰+B\epsilon |2B)\right]`$
where symbol $`\epsilon _2^g`$ denote g-fold sum over $`\epsilon _j=0,1;`$ $`i=1,\mathrm{},g.`$ This relation can be also written down by so called $`\theta `$ \- functions with characteristics.

The second class is represented by exponential functions

$$E\left(𝐳|\stackrel{~}{B}\right)=\underset{n_2^g}{}\mathrm{exp}\left[i\pi \left(2𝐳,𝐧+𝐧,\stackrel{~}{B}𝐧\right)\right]$$
(25)
which appear in solutions of standard soliton equations. Matrix $`\stackrel{~}{B}^{g\times g},`$ (although sometimes it is convenient to assume that diagonal elements of $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ are real). In our opinion this is just a source of the bilinear operator applicability. The combinations of theta and exponential functions leading to processes when solitons propagate on a quasiperiodic background form the next class of functions having addition property .

The fourth class, which to our knowledge has no physical application, is generated by integral of product of Gaussian function and Riemann theta functions with characteristics, where integration takes place with respect to the second characteristics.

Concluding our motivation, the interpretation of the shift $`𝐰`$ in (6) as a step suggests that for solitons in $`N+1`$ space-time a few independent steps $`𝐰_1,`$ …, $`𝐰_N`$ should be introduced. This leads to the generalization of the relation (24) or more precisely of equation (6) and such generalization is just the aim of this note. We believe that the reported below relations can be useful for some multidimensional soliton type problems.

## 2 THE GENERALIZED ADDITION PROPERTY

In order to repeat the procedure as for (7-9) in case of a few independent variables it would be sufficient to have relation

$$\tau \left(𝐳+𝐮^{\left(0\right)}\right)\tau \left(𝐳+𝐮^{\left(1\right)}\right)\mathrm{}\tau \left(𝐳+𝐮^{\left(J1\right)}\right)=\underset{\epsilon }{}W(𝐰^{\left(1\right)},\mathrm{},𝐰^{\left(J1\right)};\epsilon )Z(𝐳;\epsilon )$$
(26)
for some class of $`\tau `$ -functions, where $`𝐮^{\left(j\right)}=𝐮^{\left(j\right)}(𝐰^{\left(1\right)},\mathrm{},𝐰^{\left(J\right)})^g,j=0,\mathrm{},J1`$.

The reason is following: the derivatives of (26) with respect to $`w_j^{\left(j\right)}`$ will relate only to $`W`$function, leaving $`Z(𝐳;\epsilon )`$ unchanged. On the other hand the derivatives of l.h.s.of (26) with respect to $`w_j^{\left(j\right)}`$ one can change into derivatives of $`\tau `$ functions with respect $`z_i`$ which is necessary for an application in the soliton theory since usually $`𝐳`$is linear in space and time variables, ($`𝐳:=𝐤_xx+𝐤_yy+\mathrm{}+𝐤_zz+\omega t^g).`$ Since as a $`\tau `$ -function, either exponential or Riemann theta functions are usually chosen and since exponential functions can be considered as a particular case of the second ones, we shall start from the Riemann theta functions.

There are numerous transformations for $`\theta `$ \- functions, , , , but to our knowledge the $`J`$-th order addition relation, as here, was considered only by Koizumi  and cited in . But his factorization of the r.h.s. was completely different than required in (26) and thus it is rather useless for our purposes. Nevertheless for the standard $`\theta `$ \- functions according to (22) one can prove the identity which coincides with our demand (26), .

Theorem 1.

If $`𝐳,𝐮^{\left(k\right)}^g`$,$`k=0,..,J1,`$ such that $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{J1}{}}}𝐮^{\left(k\right)}=0`$, then

$`\theta \left(𝐳+𝐮^{\left(0\right)}|B\right)\theta \left(𝐳+𝐮^{\left(1\right)}|B\right)\theta \left(𝐳+𝐮^{\left(2\right)}|B\right)\mathrm{}\theta \left(𝐳+𝐮^{\left(J1\right)}|B\right)\begin{array}{c}\text{=}\hfill \end{array}`$ (28)
$`={\displaystyle \underset{\epsilon _J^g}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left[i\pi (2𝐳,\epsilon +\epsilon ,B\epsilon )\right]\theta (J𝐳+B\epsilon |JB)\times `$ (29)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}(i2\pi <𝐮^{\left(0\right)},\epsilon >)\theta \left(\begin{array}{c}𝐮^{\left(0\right)}𝐮^{\left(1\right)}+B\epsilon \\ 𝐮^{\left(0\right)}𝐮^{\left(2\right)}+B\epsilon \\ \mathrm{}\\ 𝐮^{\left(0\right)}𝐮^{\left(J1\right)}+B\epsilon \end{array}\right|\left[\begin{array}{cccc}2B\hfill & B\hfill & ..\hfill & B\hfill \\ B\hfill & 2B\hfill & ..\hfill & B\hfill \\ ..\hfill & ..\hfill & 2B\hfill & ..\hfill \\ B\hfill & B\hfill & ..\hfill & 2B\hfill \end{array}\right])`$ (38)
where all $`\theta `$ functions are of order $`g,`$ with exception of the last one on the r.h.s. which is of order $`\left(J1\right)g.`$

The proof we report in Appendix 1.

Observe that the g-fold sum now is over $`\epsilon _j=0,1,\mathrm{},J1,`$ (it contains $`J^g`$ elements). If instead of $`J`$ vectorial parameters $`𝐮^{\left(k\right)},`$among which only $`J1`$ are independent, the new $`J1`$ vectorial parameters $`𝐰^{\left(k\right)},\left(k=1,\mathrm{},J1\right)`$ are introduced by

$$𝐮^{\left(k\right)}=\{\begin{array}{ccc}_{m=Jk+1}^{J1}j^m𝐰^{\left(m+kJ\right)}+_{m=1}^{Jk}j^m𝐰^{\left(m+k1\right)},\hfill & \text{for}\hfill & k=1,\mathrm{},J1,\hfill \\ & & \\ _{k=1}^{J1}𝐰^{\left(k\right)},\hfill & \text{for}\hfill & k=0,\hfill \end{array}$$
(39)
where $`j=\mathrm{exp}\left(i2\pi /J\right),`$the relation $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{J1}{}}}𝐮^{\left(k\right)}=0`$ is satisfied automatically since $`_{k=1}^{J1}𝐮^{\left(k\right)}=_{k=1}^{J1}𝐰^{\left(k\right)}.`$ Thus equation (29) with parameters $`𝐮_k`$ given by (39) is satisfied for arbitrary set $`𝐰^{\left(k\right)}^g.`$ The quantity $`j`$ is of course $`J`$-th root from unity.

For fixed $`J,`$ equations (39) can be inverted, leading to

$$𝐰^{\left(k\right)}=\frac{1}{j1}\left(𝐮^{\left(k\right)}j𝐮^{\left(k+1\right)}\left(1\delta _{k,J1}\right)j𝐮^{\left(1\right)}\delta _{k,J1}\right),k=1,\mathrm{},J1,$$
(40)
where $`\delta _{k,J1}`$ is the standard Kronecker symbol. Note that the choice of $`𝐰`$ parameters as follows from (39) or (40) is not unique. This one adopted here however, gives a correspondence with trilinear operators introduced earlier in soliton theory, .

Applying a procedure denoted as the soliton limit  to the identity (29) we are able present rewrite relations (29) for exponential functions (25).

Theorem 2.

$`E\left(𝐳+𝐮^{\left(0\right)}|\stackrel{~}{B}\right)E\left(𝐳+𝐮^{\left(1\right)}|\stackrel{~}{B}\right)E\left(𝐳+𝐮^{\left(2\right)}|\stackrel{~}{B}\right)\mathrm{}E\left(𝐳+𝐮^{\left(J1\right)}|\stackrel{~}{B}\right)\begin{array}{c}\text{=}\hfill \end{array}`$ (42)
$`\begin{array}{c}\text{=}\hfill \end{array}{\displaystyle \underset{\epsilon _J^g}{}}\{\mathrm{exp}[i\pi 2(𝐳+𝐮^{\left(\mathrm{𝟎}\right)}),\epsilon +\epsilon ,\stackrel{~}{B}\epsilon ]\times \begin{array}{c}\end{array}`$ (46)
$`\left[{\displaystyle \underset{m_2^g}{}}c(\epsilon ,𝐦)\mathrm{exp}\left[i\pi (2J𝐳+\epsilon \stackrel{~}{B},𝐦+J𝐦,\stackrel{~}{B}𝐦)\right]\right]\times `$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{𝐧^{(1)},..,𝐧^{(J1)}_2^g}{}}\left\{C(J,\epsilon ,𝐧)\mathrm{exp}\left[i2\pi ({\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{J1}{}}}(𝐬^{\left(k\right)}+\stackrel{~}{B}\epsilon ),𝐧^{(k)}+{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{J1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=k}{\overset{J1}{}}}𝐧^{(l)},\stackrel{~}{B}𝐧^{(k)})\right]\right\}\}`$
where ”cut-off” functions $`c(\epsilon ,𝐦)`$and $`C(J,\epsilon ,𝐧)`$are given by

$`c(\epsilon ,𝐦)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{g}{}}}\left(\delta _{m_j,0}+\delta _{m_j,1}\delta _{\epsilon _j,0}\right);`$ (47)
$`C(J,\epsilon ,𝐧)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{g}{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{J1}{}}}\delta _{\epsilon _j,k}\left(\delta _{N_j\left(J\right),k1}\left(1\delta _{k,0}\right)+\delta _{N_j\left(J\right),k}\right)\right]`$ (48)
$`N_j\left(J\right)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{J1}{}}}n_j^{\left(k\right)};𝐬^{\left(k\right)}=𝐮^{\left(0\right)}𝐮^{\left(k\right)},k=1,..,J1,`$ (49)
$`𝐮^{\left(k\right)}`$ are defined by (39) and $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ matrix is such that Diag $`\mathrm{Im}`$ $`\stackrel{~}{B}=0,`$ which however does not infringe a generality.

The proof follows from the observation that exponential functions $`E\left(𝐳|\stackrel{~}{B}\right)`$ can be obtained from theta functions $`\theta \left(𝐳|B\right)`$ as a limiting relation

$$E\left(𝐳|\stackrel{~}{B}\right)=\underset{allD_{ii}\mathrm{}}{lim}\theta \left(𝐳\frac{1}{2}iD\epsilon _0|B\right),D:=Diag\mathrm{Im}\left(B\right),\stackrel{~}{B}:=BiD,\epsilon _0:=(1,1,\mathrm{},1)^t,$$

which was called - the soliton limit, .

Similarly as in the case of standard addition property (6), one can calculate some combinations of derivatives of $`W`$-function. They can be reduced always to the different combinations of derivatives of $`\tau `$ -function logarithms, similarly as in case of the standard addition relation (7-9). The sketch of procedure we present in Appendix 2.

## 3 PARTICULAR CASES

For $`J=2,`$ since $`j=1,`$the identity (29) reduces to the commonly known (24) formula, and similarly for exponential functions. For $`J=3,`$ since then $`j=\mathrm{exp}\left(i2\pi /3\right),`$ the identity (29) reduces to

$`\theta \left(𝐳+𝐰^{\left(1\right)}+𝐰^{\left(2\right)}|B\right)\theta \left(𝐳+j𝐰^{\left(1\right)}+j^2𝐰^{\left(2\right)}|B\right)\theta \left(𝐳+j^2𝐰^{\left(1\right)}+j𝐰^{\left(2\right)}|B\right)\begin{array}{c}\text{=}\hfill \end{array}`$ (51)
$`\begin{array}{c}\text{=}\hfill \end{array}{\displaystyle \underset{\epsilon _3^g}{}}W(𝐰^{\left(1\right)},𝐰^{\left(2\right)};\epsilon )Z(𝐳;\epsilon ),`$ (53)
$`W(𝐰^{\left(1\right)},𝐰^{\left(2\right)};\epsilon )\begin{array}{c}\text{=}\hfill \end{array}`$ (55)
$`\begin{array}{c}\text{=}\hfill \end{array}\mathrm{exp}(i2\pi <(𝐰^{\left(1\right)}+𝐰^{\left(2\right)}),\epsilon >)\theta \left(\begin{array}{c}\left(1j\right)𝐰^{\left(1\right)}+\left(1j^2\right)𝐰^{\left(2\right)}+B\epsilon \\ \left(1j^2\right)𝐰^{\left(1\right)}+\left(1j\right)𝐰^{\left(2\right)}+B\epsilon \end{array}\right|\left[\begin{array}{cc}2B\hfill & B\hfill \\ B\hfill & 2B\hfill \end{array}\right])`$ (61)
$`Z(𝐳;\epsilon )\begin{array}{c}\text{=}\hfill \end{array}{\displaystyle \underset{\epsilon _3^g}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left[i\pi \left(2𝐳,\epsilon +\epsilon ,B\epsilon \right)\right]\theta \left(3𝐳+B\epsilon |3B\right).`$ (63)
where $`𝐳,𝐰^{\left(1\right)},𝐰^{\left(2\right)}C^g`$ and are arbitrary. This relations rewritten for exponential functions shows a close relation with trilinear operator analyzed in papers of .

For $`J=4,j=i`$ and we obtain the product of four $`\theta `$ \- functions in version, which differs however from that reported by  or .

## 4 AN EXAMPLE OF APPLICATION

Let us consider the Calogero-Bogoyavlenskij-Schiff (CBS) equation $`\left(\eta =0\right),`$ which follows also from a reduction of self-dual Yang-Mills equation and its modification by Grammaticos-Ramani-Hietarinta $`\left(\eta =1\right),`$ , of which soliton solutions were reported in

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{xt}+\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{\Phi }_{xxxy}+\mathrm{\Phi }_x\mathrm{\Phi }_{xy}+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }_{xx}\mathrm{\Phi }_y+\eta \frac{1}{4}_x^1\mathrm{\Phi }_{yyy}=0.$$
(64)
After substitution $`\mathrm{\Phi }=2L_x,`$where$`L=\mathrm{ln}\tau `$ this equation reduces to

$$\eta L_{yyy}+4L_{xxt}+L_{xxxxy}+8L_{xx}L_{xxy}+4L_{xy}L_{xxx}=C.$$
(65)
We assume that the integration constant $`C`$ is independent of $`y`$ and $`t`$ as well. Moreover, if $`\tau =\tau \left(𝐳\right)=\tau (z_1,\mathrm{},z_q),z_k=\kappa _kx+\nu _ky+\omega _kt,k=1,\mathrm{},g`$ , the equation (65) becomes $`(L_{ijk}:=_{z_i}_{z_j}_{z_k}\mathrm{ln}\tau \left(𝐳\right))`$

$`{\displaystyle \underset{ijk}{}}\left(\eta \nu _i\nu _j\nu _k+4\kappa _i\kappa _j\omega _k\right)L_{ijk}+`$ (66)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}{\displaystyle \underset{ijklm}{}}\left[\left(8\kappa _i\kappa _j\kappa _k\kappa _l\nu _m+4\kappa _i\nu _j\kappa _k\kappa _l\kappa _m\right)\left(L_{ijklm}+12L_{ij}L_{klm}\right)\right]\begin{array}{c}\text{=}\hfill \end{array}C`$ (68)
As the $`\tau `$-function we can choose either $`\theta `$ -functions or exponential $`E`$functions, (or even some combinations of both in spirit of those reported in ).

On the other hand for $`J=3,`$ substituting $`𝐰=𝐰^{\left(1\right)},𝐯=𝐰^{\left(2\right)}`$ in (51) for typographic reasons and denoting

$$S(𝐳,𝐰,𝐯)=\tau \left(𝐳+𝐰+𝐯\right)\tau \left(𝐳+j𝐰+j^2𝐯\right)\tau \left(𝐳+j^2𝐰+j𝐯\right),$$
(69)
simple but a little tedious calculations give the necessary relations

$`_{w_iw_jw_k}S(𝐳,𝐰,𝐯)|_{𝐰=𝐯=\mathrm{𝟎}}/S(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟎})=_{v_iv_jv_k}S(𝐳,𝐰,𝐯)|_{𝐰=𝐯=\mathrm{𝟎}}/S(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟎})=3L_{ijk}`$ (70)
$`_{w_iw_jw_kw_lv_m}S(𝐳,𝐰,𝐯)|_{𝐰=𝐯=\mathrm{𝟎}}/S(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟎})=3\left[L_{ijklm}+12L_{ij}L_{klm}\right].`$ (71)
Derivatives of (51) with respect to $`w`$ and $`v`$ deal with the $`W`$ function and since $`S(𝐳,\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟎})=\left[\theta \left(z|B\right)\right]^3,`$ we have (see Appendix 2)

$`L_{ijk}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \underset{\epsilon _3^g}{}}\left[W_{w_iw_jw_k}(𝐰,𝐯;\epsilon )|_{𝐰=𝐯=\mathrm{𝟎}}Z(𝐳;\epsilon )\right]/\theta ^3\left(z|B\right)`$ (72)
$`L_{ijklm}+12L_{ij}L_{klm}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{\epsilon _3^g}{}}W_{w_iw_jw_kw_lv_m}(𝐰,𝐯;\epsilon )|_{𝐰=𝐯=\mathrm{𝟎}}Z(𝐳;\epsilon )\right]/\theta ^3\left(z|B\right).`$ (73)
Coefficients $`W(𝐰,𝐯;\epsilon )`$ and functions $`Z(𝐳;\epsilon )`$ are given now either by (55) or (63), respectively, if quasiperiodic solutionsare considered or by their soliton limit in spirit of (42).

Considering functions $`Z(𝐳;\epsilon )`$ as independent, (66) reduces to the system of $`3^g`$ algebraic dispersion equations for any $`\epsilon _3^g`$

$`{\displaystyle \underset{ijk}{}}\left(\eta \nu _i\nu _j\nu _k+4\kappa _i\kappa _j\omega _k\right)W_{w_iw_jw_k}(𝐰,𝐯;\epsilon )|_{𝐰=𝐯=\mathrm{𝟎}}+`$ (74)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{ijklm}{}}\kappa _i\kappa _j\kappa _k\kappa _l\nu _mW_{w_iw_jw_kw_lv_m}(𝐰,𝐯;\epsilon )|_{𝐰=𝐯=\mathrm{𝟎}}=3CW(𝐰,𝐯;\epsilon )|_{𝐰=𝐯=\mathrm{𝟎}}`$
which determines relations between $`\kappa _i,\nu _i,\omega _i`$ $`(i=1\mathrm{}g)`$ and also $`C,`$ if $`\eta =1`$. Its nontrivial solution, if exists, gives the quasiperiodic solutions of 2+1 CBS equations in form of $`\mathrm{\Phi }=2\left[\mathrm{ln}\theta \left(𝐳|B\right)\right]_x`$ with $`z_i=\kappa _ix+\nu _iy+\omega _it`$. For higher genus $`g,`$ it gives also the additional conditions on matrix $`B`$, since system (74) can be overdetermined. then).

Multisoliton solutions of this equation, reported in paper , were found by means of the trilinear operator formalism, where the third roots $`\sqrt[3]{1}`$appear as above, but they can be also derived using equation (42) taken for $`J=3`$. There is an interesting similarity between trilinear soliton version of CBS equation reported in  and the left hand side of equation (74) which when $`C0`$ is valid also for quasi-periodic processes. It follows from the fact that trilinear operators $`T`$ and $`T^{}`$ used in papers  and  coincide with used here operators $`/w`$ and $`/v,`$ respectively.

In conclusion, it seems that the presented here generalized addition formula can be useful for other $`N+1`$ soliton type equations.

## 5 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author acknowledges helpful discussions with M. Jaworski and a support of The Polish Committee for Scientific Researches (KBN), Grants No. 2P03B-114-11 and 2P03B-148-14. Special thanks belong to T. Nikiciuk for numerous relations calculated as in Appendix 2.

## 6 APPENDIX 1

The proof of Theorem1.

Lemat 1

If $`B`$ is Riemannian then also matrix $`B^{}=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}2B\hfill & ..\hfill & B\hfill \\ ..\hfill & 2B\hfill & ..\hfill \\ B\hfill & ..\hfill & 2B\hfill \end{array}\right]`$ ( with diagonal blocks $`2B`$ and otherwise $`B)`$ is also Riemannian. Indeed, both matrices $`B`$and $`B^{}`$are symmetric. Moreover, if $`𝐧,\mathrm{𝐁𝐧}0,`$ for any $`𝐧Z^g`$ (with equality for $`𝐧=\mathrm{𝟎}),`$ then

$$(𝐧_1,\mathrm{},𝐧_{J1}),𝐁^{}(𝐧_1,\mathrm{},𝐧_{J1})^T=\underset{k=1}{\overset{J1}{}}𝐧_k,\mathrm{𝐁𝐧}_k+\left(\underset{k=1}{\overset{J1}{}}𝐧_k\right),𝐁\left(\underset{k=1}{\overset{J1}{}}𝐧_k\right)0,$$

(with equality for all $`𝐧_k=\mathrm{𝟎}`$).

By the definition of $`\theta `$-function (22), the l.h.s of (29) takes form

$`{\displaystyle \underset{𝐧^{\left(0\right)}^g}{}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐧^{\left(J1\right)}^g}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left[i\pi \left(2{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{J1}{}}}\left(𝐳+𝐮^{\left(j\right)}\right),𝐧^{\left(j\right)}+{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{J1}{}}}𝐧^{\left(j\right)}B𝐧^{\left(j\right)}\right)\right]=`$ (75)
$`={\displaystyle \underset{𝐧^{\left(0\right)}^g}{}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐧^{\left(J1\right)}^g}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left[i\pi \left(\begin{array}{c}\left[2\left(𝐳+𝐮^{\left(0\right)}\right),𝐧^{\left(0\right)}+𝐧^{\left(0\right)},B𝐧^{\left(0\right)}\right]+\\ +2_{j=1}^{J1}\left(𝐳+𝐮^{\left(j\right)}\right),𝐧^{\left(j\right)}+_{j=1}^{J1}𝐧^{\left(j\right)},B𝐧^{\left(j\right)}\end{array}\right)\right]`$ (78)
Substituting $`𝐧=𝐧^{\left(0\right)}_{j=1}^{J1}𝐧^{\left(j\right)}`$,we have

$`={\displaystyle \underset{𝐧^g}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐧^{\left(1\right)},,𝐧^{\left(J1\right)}^g}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left[i\pi \left(\begin{array}{c}2\left[\left(𝐳+𝐮^{\left(0\right)}\right),\left(𝐧_{i=1}^{J1}𝐧^{\left(i\right)}\right)+_{j=1}^{J1}\left(𝐳+𝐮^{\left(j\right)}\right),𝐧^{\left(j\right)}\right]+\\ \left(𝐧_{i=1}^{J1}𝐧^{\left(i\right)}\right),B\left(𝐧_{i=1}^{J1}𝐧^{\left(i\right)}\right)+_{j=1}^{J1}𝐧^{\left(j\right)},B𝐧^{\left(j\right)}\end{array}\right)\right]`$ (81)
$`={\displaystyle \underset{𝐧^g}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐧^{\left(1\right)},,𝐧^{\left(J1\right)}^g}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left[i\pi \left(\begin{array}{c}2\left[\left(𝐳+𝐮^{\left(0\right)}\right),𝐧_{i=1}^{J1}\left(𝐮^{\left(0\right)}𝐮^{\left(j\right)}\right),𝐧^{\left(i\right)}\right]+\\ +\left(𝐧_{i=1}^{J1}𝐧^{\left(i\right)}\right),B\left(𝐧_{i=1}^{J1}𝐧^{\left(i\right)}\right)+_{j=1}^{J1}𝐧^{\left(j\right)},B𝐧^{\left(j\right)}\end{array}\right)\right]`$ (85)
$$=\underset{𝐧^g}{}\underset{𝐧^{\left(1\right)},,𝐧^{\left(J1\right)}^g}{}\mathrm{exp}\left[i\pi \left(\begin{array}{c}2\left[\left(𝐳+𝐮^{\left(0\right)}\right),𝐧_{i=1}^{J1}\left(𝐮^{\left(0\right)}𝐮^{\left(j\right)}+B𝐧\right),𝐧^{\left(i\right)}\right]+\\ +𝐧,B𝐧+_{i=1}^{J1}𝐧^{\left(i\right)},B_{i=1}^{J1}𝐧^{\left(i\right)}+_{j=1}^{J1}𝐧^{\left(j\right)},B𝐧^{\left(j\right)}\end{array}\right)\right]$$
(87)
$`={\displaystyle \underset{𝐧^g}{}}\mathrm{exp}i\pi [2(𝐳+𝐮^{\left(0\right)}),𝐧+𝐧,B𝐧]\times `$ (88)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{𝐧^{\left(1\right)},.,𝐧^{\left(J1\right)}^g}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left[i\pi \left(\begin{array}{c}2\left[_{i=1}^{J1}\left(𝐮^{\left(j\right)}𝐮^{\left(0\right)}B𝐧\right),𝐧^{\left(i\right)}\right]+\\ +_{i=1}^{J1}𝐧^{\left(i\right)},B_{i=1}^{J1}𝐧^{\left(i\right)}+_{j=1}^{J1}𝐧^{\left(j\right)},B𝐧^{\left(j\right)}\end{array}\right)\right]`$ (91)
$`={\displaystyle \underset{𝐧^g}{}}\mathrm{exp}i\pi \left[2\left(𝐳+𝐮^{\left(0\right)}\right),𝐧+𝐧,B𝐧\right]\theta \left(\left[\begin{array}{c}𝐮^{\left(1\right)}𝐮^{\left(0\right)}B𝐧\\ \mathrm{}\\ 𝐮^{\left(J1\right)}𝐮^{\left(0\right)}B𝐧\end{array}\right]|\left[\begin{array}{ccc}2B\hfill & ..\hfill & B\hfill \\ ..\hfill & 2B\hfill & ..\hfill \\ B\hfill & ..\hfill & 2B\hfill \end{array}\right]\right).`$ (98)
The next substitution is $`𝐧=J𝐦+\epsilon ,`$ with $`𝐧^g`$ , $`\epsilon _J^g`$ and thus $`_{𝐧^g}=_{𝐦^g}_{\epsilon _J^g}`$ , due to standard properties of theta functions , that

$$\theta (𝐳+A𝐦|A)=\mathrm{exp}\{i\pi [2𝐳,𝐦+𝐦,A𝐦]\}\theta (𝐳|A),\text{if }𝐳{}_{}{}^{𝐧},A{}_{}{}^{𝐧\times 𝐧}\text{and }𝐦^n,$$

the expression (LABEL:1a72) becomes

$`={\displaystyle \underset{𝐦^g}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\epsilon _J^g}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\pi [2[𝐳+𝐮^{\left(0\right)}],(J𝐦+\epsilon )+(J𝐦+\epsilon ),B(J𝐦+\epsilon )]\right\}\times `$ (100)
$`\times \theta \left(\left[\begin{array}{c}𝐮^{\left(0\right)}𝐮^{\left(1\right)}+B\left(J𝐦+\epsilon \right)\\ \mathrm{}\\ 𝐮^{\left(0\right)}𝐮^{\left(J1\right)}+B\left(J𝐦+\epsilon \right)\end{array}\right]|\left[\begin{array}{ccc}2𝐁\hfill & ..\hfill & 𝐁\hfill \\ ..\hfill & ..\hfill & ..\hfill \\ 𝐁\hfill & ..\hfill & 2𝐁\hfill \end{array}\right]\right)`$ (107)
$`={\displaystyle \underset{𝐦^g}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\epsilon _J^g}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\pi \left[2(𝐳+𝐮^{\left(0\right)})+B(J𝐦+\epsilon ),(J𝐦+\epsilon )\right]\right\}\times `$ (108)
$`\times \theta \left(\left[\begin{array}{c}𝐮^{\left(0\right)}𝐮^{\left(1\right)}+B\epsilon \\ \mathrm{}\\ 𝐮^{\left(0\right)}𝐮^{\left(J1\right)}+B\epsilon \end{array}\right]+\left[\begin{array}{ccc}2𝐁\hfill & ..\hfill & 𝐁\hfill \\ ..\hfill & ..\hfill & ..\hfill \\ 𝐁\hfill & ..\hfill & 2𝐁\hfill \end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{c}𝐦\\ ..\\ 𝐦\end{array}\right]|\left[\begin{array}{ccc}2𝐁\hfill & ..\hfill & 𝐁\hfill \\ ..\hfill & ..\hfill & ..\hfill \\ 𝐁\hfill & ..\hfill & 2𝐁\hfill \end{array}\right]\right)`$ (121)
$`={\displaystyle \underset{\epsilon _J^g}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left[i\pi 2(𝐳+𝐮^{\left(0\right)})+B(J𝐦+\epsilon ),(J𝐦+\epsilon )\right]\times `$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}i\pi [2_{j=1}^{J1}(𝐮^{\left(0\right)}𝐮^{\left(j\right)}+B\epsilon ),𝐦+𝐦J(J1)B𝐦]\times `$ (122)
$`\times \theta \left(\left[\begin{array}{c}𝐮^{\left(0\right)}𝐮^{\left(1\right)}+B\epsilon \\ \mathrm{}\\ 𝐮^{\left(0\right)}𝐮^{\left(J1\right)}+B\epsilon \end{array}\right]|\left[\begin{array}{ccc}2𝐁\hfill & ..\hfill & 𝐁\hfill \\ ..\hfill & ..\hfill & ..\hfill \\ 𝐁\hfill & ..\hfill & 2𝐁\hfill \end{array}\right]\right)`$ (129)
$`={\displaystyle \underset{\epsilon _J^g}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\pi [2(𝐳+𝐮_0),\epsilon +\epsilon ,B\epsilon ]\right\}\theta (J𝐳+_{j=0}^{J1}𝐮^{\left(j\right)}+B\epsilon |JB)\times `$ (130)
$`\times \theta \left(\left[\begin{array}{c}𝐮^{\left(0\right)}𝐮^{\left(1\right)}+𝐁\epsilon \\ \mathrm{}\\ 𝐮^{\left(0\right)}𝐮^{\left(J1\right)}+𝐁\epsilon \end{array}\right]|\left[\begin{array}{ccc}2𝐁\hfill & ..\hfill & 𝐁\hfill \\ ..\hfill & ..\hfill & ..\hfill \\ 𝐁\hfill & ..\hfill & 2𝐁\hfill \end{array}\right]\right)`$ (137)
i.e. we have obtained the right hand-side of (29) under condition that $`_{j=0}^{J1}𝐮^{\left(j\right)}=0`$.

## 7 APPENDIX 2

Algorithm for derivatives of W-function.

The $`W`$-function derivatives and thus the combination of derivatives of $`\tau `$-function leading to some hierarchy of pde in N+1 space-time can be derived algorithmically using e.g. the Mathematica program.

Starting from the more useful form of (26)

$$\mathrm{exp}\underset{j=1}{\overset{J}{}}\left[\mathrm{ln}\tau \left(𝐳+𝐮^{\left(j\right)}\right)\mathrm{ln}\tau \left(𝐳\right)\right]=\underset{\epsilon }{}W(𝐰^{\left(1\right)},\mathrm{},𝐰^{\left(J1\right)};\epsilon )\frac{Z(𝐳;\epsilon )}{\left[\tau \left(𝐳\right)\right]^J}$$
(138)
with $`𝐮^{\left(k\right)}=𝐮^{\left(k\right)}(𝐰^{\left(1\right)},\mathrm{},𝐰^{\left(J1\right)})`$and differentiating with respect to the components of $`𝐰^{\left(k\right)}`$ vectors we obtain the expressions for combinations of derivatives of $`\tau `$ -function logarithms. A simple algorithm for this calculation we illustrate here giving two examples.

$`J`$ $`=3;j=\mathrm{exp}\left(i2\pi /J\right)=\mathrm{exp}\left(i2\pi /3\right);𝐰^{\left(k\right)}C^g,k=1,2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{^{p+q}}{\left(w^{\left(1\right)}\right)^p\left(w^{\left(2\right)}\right)^q}}W(𝐰^{\left(1\right)},𝐰^{\left(2\right)})\begin{array}{c}\text{=}\hfill \end{array}`$ (140)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{^{p+q}}{\left(w^{\left(1\right)}\right)^p\left(w^{\left(2\right)}\right)^q}}\mathrm{exp}\left[L\left(𝐰^{\left(1\right)}+𝐰^{\left(2\right)}\right)+L\left(j𝐰^{\left(1\right)}+j^2𝐰^{\left(2\right)}\right)+L\left(j^2𝐰^{\left(1\right)}+j𝐰^{\left(2\right)}\right)3L\left(\mathrm{𝟎}\right)\right],`$
$`J`$ $`=5;j=\mathrm{exp}\left(i2\pi /J\right)=\mathrm{exp}\left(i2\pi /5\right);𝐰^{\left(k\right)}C^g,k=1,\mathrm{},4`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{^{p+q}}{\left(w^{\left(1\right)}\right)^p\left(w^{\left(2\right)}\right)^q}}W(𝐰^{\left(1\right)},\mathrm{},𝐰^{\left(4\right)})\begin{array}{c}\text{=}\hfill \end{array}`$ (142)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{^{p+q}}{\left(w^{\left(1\right)}\right)^p\left(w^{\left(2\right)}\right)^q}}\mathrm{exp}\left[\begin{array}{c}L\left(𝐰^{\left(1\right)}+𝐰^{\left(2\right)}+𝐰^{\left(3\right)}+\text{ }𝐰^{\left(4\right)}\right)+\\ L\left(j𝐰^{\left(1\right)}+j^2𝐰^{\left(2\right)}+j^3𝐰^{\left(3\right)}+j^4𝐰^{\left(4\right)}\right)+\\ L\left(j^4𝐰^{\left(1\right)}+j𝐰^{\left(2\right)}+j^2𝐰^{\left(3\right)}+j^3𝐰^{\left(4\right)}\right)+\\ L\left(j^3𝐰^{\left(1\right)}+j^4𝐰^{\left(2\right)}+j𝐰^{\left(3\right)}+j^2𝐰^{\left(4\right)}\right)+\\ L\left(j^2𝐰^{\left(1\right)}+j^3𝐰^{\left(2\right)}+j^4𝐰^{\left(3\right)}+j𝐰^{\left(4\right)}\right)\\ 5L\left(\mathrm{𝟎}\right)\end{array}\right]`$ (149)
where have used a shorthand notation $`L\left(𝐰\right):=\mathrm{ln}\tau \left(𝐳+𝐰\right).`$


text:
# Comprehensive analysis of conditionally exactly solvable models

## I Introduction

Exactly solvable models have attracted much attention since the early years of quantum mechanics. Some solvable potentials have become standard examples of text books, but a lot more have been discovered by various approaches. Systematic work has been done to generate and classify these potentials using the factorization method , algebraic methods  and more recently, in terms of supersymmetric quantum mechanics (SUSYQM) . These approaches were found to be interrelated with each other .

The most general family of solvable potentials is the six-parameter Natanzon class , which contains potentials with solutions expressible in terms of a single (confluent) hypergeometric function. A rather important subclass of this is that of the shape-invariant potentials , to which the most well-known potentials (such as the harmonic oscillator, Coulomb, Pöschl–Teller, etc.) potentials belong. Altogether 12 such potentials have been identified , but some of these, actually represent different forms of the same potentials, and their separate discussion is justified only for historical reasons. An important recent development was the introduction of supersymmetric quantum mechanics (SUSYQM), which can be considered a re-interpretation of the factorization method , and which links basically isospectral potentials in a pairwise manner. Shape-invariant potentials are defined in terms of SUSYQM: the functional form of the SUSYQM partner potentials has to be the same, and only the parameters appearing in them can be different.

SUSYQM has been found rather useful in generating new solvable potentials as SUSYQM partners from known solvable ones. A rather wide potential class is obtained as the SUSYQM partner of Natanzon potentials, but these are not Natanzon potentials themselves (except in the case of shape-invariance), since their solution is written as the linear combination of several (confluent) hypergeometric functions . There are also further solvable potentials which are solved by functions other than the (confluent) hypergeometric type. Examples for this are the square well  and the exponential potential, which are solved by Bessel functions.

A different concept of solvability characterizes quasi-exactly solvable (QES) potentials . In this case only part of the eigenstates can be obtained, by requiring termination of a recursion relation defining the eigenfunctions in a polynomial form.

The most recent concept of solvability is related to conditionally exactly solvable (CES) potentials. The first models coined CES potentials  were characterized by the fact that the coupling constant of some potential term had to be fixed to a numerical constant value in order to obtain their solutions. These potentials were introduced by the point canonical transformation method . Here we present the analysis of one of these CES potentials . Our motivation is to clarify some inconsistencies in their treatment, and to determine their place in other classification schemes of solvable models. (We note that another class of CES potentials was also introduced using the techniques of SUSYQM , but we do not extend our analysis on this class.)

In Sec. II we give a re-interpretation of the potential of Ref.  in a supersymmetric context, and derive the bound-state energies determined implicitly by a cubic equation. In Sec. III the procedure is placed in a more general context of methods based on variable transformations, and the potential is identified as an exactly solvable member of the Natanzon potential class.

## II The model of Dutt, Khare and Varshni

We start with presenting the potentials introduced by Dutt et al.  as CES models. The two potentials defined on the full axis $`x(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})`$ can be written in a common form as

$$V^{(g_0,g_1,g_2,g_3)}(x)=\frac{g_0}{e^xz(x)}+\frac{g_1}{z(x)}+\frac{g_2}{z^2(x)}+\frac{g_3}{z^4(x)},$$
(1)
with $`z(x)=(1+e^{2x})^{1/2}(1,\mathrm{})`$. The explicit form of these potentials  is

$$V_1^{(DKV)}(x)=V^{(0,B,A,3/4)}(x),V_2^{(DKV)}(x)=V^{(B,0,A,3/4)}(x).$$
(2)
These potentials depend on two parameters ($`A`$ and $`B`$) which define the potential shape. The coupling constant of the third potential term has to be fixed to a constant value ($`3/4`$) in order to obtain exact solution of these models. This is why the authors of Ref.  identified these potentials as CES ones.

One can easily demonstrate that the two potentials, in fact, are equivalent in the sense that

$$V^{(0,B,A,3/4)}(x)=V^{(D,0,C,3/4)}(x)+\epsilon ,$$
(3)
where

$$\epsilon =A+3/4,C=A+3/2,D=B.$$
(4)
Thus, in what follows it is sufficient to deal with only one of the potentials, so we pick $`V_1^{(DKV)}(x)`$ for our analysis.

### A Conventional approach via the point canonical transformation

In Ref.  potentials (2) were introduced using the point canonical transformation method , by which a Schrödinger-type differential equation can be transformed into another equation of this type, applying an invertible parametrization $`r=r(x)`$. With this change of variables, dating back to Liouville  a given asymptotically free equation

$$\left[\frac{d^2}{dr^2}+U(r)\right]\chi (r)=\kappa ^2\chi (r)$$
(5)
can be transformed into an apparently different bound state problem

$$\left[\frac{d^2}{dx^2}+V(x)\right]\psi (x)=k^2\psi (x).$$
(6)
After we denote the derivative by a prime ($`x^{}(r)`$ etc.), an extremely elementary correspondence between the potentials and/or energies is obtained,

$$U(r)+\kappa ^2=\left[x^{}(r)\right]^2\left\{V[x(r)]+k^2\right\}+\left(\frac{3}{4}\frac{x^{\prime \prime }(r)}{x^{}(r)}\right)^2\frac{1}{2}\frac{x^{\prime \prime \prime }(r)}{x^{}(r)}.$$
(7)
Obviously, the “old” energy eigenvalues are related to the parameters of the “new” potential, and vice versa. The formal definition of the new wave functions is also virtually trivial,

$$\psi (x)=\left(x^{}[r(x)]\right)^{1/2}\chi [r(x)].$$
(8)
In any situation of practical interest one may just pick up a suitable exactly solvable (ES) problem (5) and derive quickly its partner (6). Setting out from two shape-invariant  ES potentials defined on the positive half axis, Dutt et al.  used the variable transformation $`x=\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{sinh}r)`$ to obtain potentials (2). The particular initial potentials and their energies were

$$U_1(r)=2b\frac{\mathrm{cosh}r}{\mathrm{sinh}r}+a(a1)\frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}^2r},\kappa ^2=\kappa _m^2=(a+n)^2+b^2/(a+n)^2$$
(9)
\[with $`b>(a+n_{\mathrm{max}})^2`$\] and

$$U_2(r)=(2a+1)b\frac{\mathrm{cosh}r}{\mathrm{sinh}^2r}+\left[a(a+1)+b^2\right]\frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}^2r},\kappa ^2=\kappa _n^2=(an)^2$$
(10)
(with $`b>a>n_{\mathrm{max}}`$).

Recalling the bound-state wave functions of potentials $`U_j(r)`$, the solutions to potentials $`V_j^{(DKV)}(x)`$ in (2) readily follow from Eq. (8). Without the loss of generality we can consider the $`j=1`$ case and recall the solutions of $`U_1(r)`$ (see e.g. ) in terms of Jacobi polynomials,

$$\chi (z)=(z1)^{\frac{1}{2}(a+ns)}(z+1)^{\frac{1}{2}(a+n+s)}P_n^{(an+s,ans)}(z),s=b/(a+n)$$
(11)
with $`z=z(r)=\mathrm{coth}r`$. Using this function in (8), substituting it into the Schrödinger equation and matching parameters $`a`$ and $`b`$ with $`A`$ and $`B`$ appearing in $`V_1^{(DKV)}(x)`$ in (2), we find $`B=2b`$ and

$$A=n^2+1/2+(2n+1)a+b^2/(a+n)^2.$$
(12)
This equation will ultimately determine the energy eigenvalues of quantum number $`n`$, through a cubic equation as described also in Ref. . We postpone the analysis of this formula to Sec. II C, where our new results concerning the energy spectrum of the $`V_j^{(DKV)}(x)`$ potentials are presented. Before that, we present an alternative interpretation of the same problem in terms of a supersymmetric framework.

### B Supersymmetric construction

An interesting SUSY re-interpretation of the solvability of Schrödinger equations has been described by Nag et al. . They have employed the two Dutra’s models  in order to illustrate their main idea. Unfortunately, the spectrum of states in the latter potentials can only be determined purely numerically . Strictly speaking, the potentials do not belong to the CES class . At best, only their incomplete ( = quasi-exact) non-numerical solution can be obtained at certain exceptional energies and couplings . Within the SUSY methodical framework, they seem less suitable for illustrative purposes.

We shall now obtain the spectrum of the potential $`V_1^{(DKV)}(x)`$ in (2) in a manifestly supersymmetric fashion. Before doing this we recall that in supersymmetric quantum mechanics  a pair of Hamiltonians $`H_\pm `$ defined by

$$H_\pm =\frac{\mathrm{d}^2}{\mathrm{d}x^2}+V_\pm (x)=\frac{\mathrm{d}^2}{\mathrm{d}x^2}+W^2(x)\pm W^{}(x)$$
(13)
are isospectral except for the zero energy ground state, which, for unbroken supersymmetry exists only for one of the partner potentials, $`V_{}(x)`$. The ground-state solution of $`H_{}`$ is related to the $`W(x)`$ superpotential through

$$W(x)=\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}x}\mathrm{ln}\psi _0^{()}(x).$$
(14)
One can also extend the concept of superpotential to the excited states of $`V_{}(x)`$, simply using $`\psi _n^{()}(x)`$ in (14). In this case $`W(x)`$ has singularities at the nodes of $`\psi _n^{()}(x)`$, and one can talk about singular superpotentials . (Note that such singularities cannot occur using the nodeless ground-state wave function $`\psi _0^{()}(x)`$.) Despite these singularities of $`W(x)`$, it can be shown  that $`V_{}(x)`$ will be singularity-free in this case too, and these will appear only for the partner potential $`V_+(x)`$. Our purpose is, however, to discuss only $`V_{}(x)`$, which we identify with $`V_1^{(DKV)}(x)`$ in Eq. (2), in a supersymmetric form, therefore we shall avoid the problems arising due to the singularities of $`W(x)`$.

For this purpose, let us consider the superpotential

$$W(z)=\frac{B_1}{z}\frac{1}{2z^2}C_0+\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{g_i^{^{}}(z)}{g_i(z)},$$
(15)
where $`z=(1+\mathrm{e}^{2x})^{1/2}`$ as in (2) and (1), and $`g_i(z)`$ is given by

$$g_i(z)=\frac{1}{1+g_iz},C_0=ϵ_0^{1/2},$$
(16)
where $`ϵ_n`$ is related to the (negative) bound-state energies of potential $`V_1^{(DKV)}(x)`$ via $`ϵ_n=E_n`$. Note that the zero-energy wave function $`\psi _0^{()}(x)=N_0\mathrm{exp}[W(x)𝑑x]`$ is always normalizable for our choice of $`W(x)`$, irrespective of the values of $`g_i`$. It may be noted that if we had omitted the last term in (15) i.e.,

$$W_0(z)=\frac{B_1}{z}\frac{1}{2z^2}C_0$$
(17)
we would have obtained only the ground state. Insertion of the last term containing the sum ensures that we would get the excited states also.

It is straightforward to show that $`W(z)`$ can be written in the form

$$W(z)=\frac{B_1_{i=1}^ng_i}{z}\frac{1}{2z^2}+C_0^{^{}}+\frac{_{i=1}^n(g_i^21)}{(1+g_iz)},$$
(18)
where we have defined $`C_0^{^{}}=nC_0`$.

Using (18) we obtain

$$\begin{array}{ccc}W^2(x)W^{}(x)\hfill & =& [(B_1\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}g_i)^2C_0^{^{}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(g_i^21)+1]/z^2+[2(B_1\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}g_i)C_0^{^{}}\hfill \\ & & +2(B_1\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}g_i)(\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(g_i^21))(B_1\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}g_i)+2g_i(g_i^21)]/z\hfill \\ & & \frac{3}{4z^4}+\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{1}{1+g_iz}[2(B_1\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}g_i)(g_i^21)g_ig_i^2(g_i^21)\hfill \\ & & +2C_0^{^{}}(g_i^21)(g_i^41)+\underset{ji}{}\frac{(g_j^21)(g_i^21)g_i}{g_ig_j}]+(C_0^{^{}})^2.\hfill \end{array}$$
(19)
We now make the following identification

$$W^2(x)W^{}(x)=V_1^{(DKV)}(x)E,$$
(20)
where $`E`$ is the energy of the states in potential $`V_1^{(DKV)}(x)`$.

Then it follows that

$$2(B_1\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}g_i)g_ig_i^2+2C_0^{^{}}(g_i^2+1)+2\underset{ij}{}\frac{(g_j^21)g_i}{g_ig_j}=0,$$
(21)
$$2(B_1\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}g_i)C_0^{^{}}+2(B_1\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}g_i)(\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(g_i^21)(B_1\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}g_i)+2\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}g_i(g_i^21)=B,$$
(22)
$$(B_1\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}g_i)^2C_0^{^{}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(g_i^21)+1=A,$$
(23)
$$(C_0^{^{}})^2=E.$$
(24)
Multiplying (21) by $`g_i`$ and summing over $`i`$ we obtain

$$2(B_1\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}g_i)\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}g_i2\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}g_i^3+2\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}C_0^{^{}}g_i(2n1)\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}g_i=0.$$
(25)
From (22) and (25) we get

$$B_1=\frac{B}{1+2C_0}=\frac{B}{1+2ϵ_0^{1/2}}.$$
(26)
It can be verified by insertion that the wave functions $`\psi _n^{()}(x)=N\mathrm{exp}[W(x)𝑑x]`$ are normalizable. Equations (21) and (23) also imply that

$$A=\frac{(B/2)^2}{(n+\frac{1}{2}+ϵ_n^{1/2})^2}+n^2+n+1+(2n+1)ϵ_n^{1/2},$$
(27)
where in obtaining the above relation we have taken $`C_0^{^{}}=ϵ_n^{1/2}`$. We can summarize that our supersymmetric construction reproduces exactly the results obtained in Ref. . Once we take $`a=ϵ_n^{1/2}`$ it proves equivalent to Eq. (12) of our preceding subsection II A.

### C The allowed bound-state energies

Let us now continue with the analysis of the energy eigenvalues based on the formula (12) and its equivalent form (27) obtained in two different ways. The key element of our approach is the strict observation of the constraints imposed on the parameters by the boundary conditions of the wave functions. By this we mean both the solutions of the “old” potential $`U_1(r)`$ (9) and those of the “new” one $`V_1^{(DKV)}(x)`$ (2).

The appropriate physical boundary condition for (11) near the threshold $`r0`$ is standard, though a bit counterintuitive . Its implementation implies that we have to choose $`a>1/2`$. Then, after the transition from $`r`$ to $`x`$ we get the wave functions still safely normalizable near the left infinity $`x\mathrm{}`$. Similarly, our explicit wave functions remain asymptotically normalizable near the right infinities $`r\mathrm{}`$ and $`x+\mathrm{}`$ if and only if we have $`a+n<b/(a+n)`$. This means that the eligible quantum numbers $`n=0,1,\mathrm{},M`$ have to be such that $`0M<b^{1/2}a`$, i.e.,

$$(n+1/2)^2<(a+n)^2<b.$$
(28)
As mentioned in Sec. II A, for transition to the “new” potential $`V_1^{(DKV)}(x)`$ we have to re-parametrize $`g_1=B2b`$ and define the “new” CES energy in terms of the “old” ES coupling, $`k=a1/2>0`$. The second CES coupling $`A>2(n+1/2)^2+3/4`$ is then defined by (12), which is equivalent to (27) in Sec. II B. The $`n`$dependence of the “new” energy $`a=a(n)=k_n+1/2>1/2`$ is fully consistent with the $`n`$independence of the coupling $`A`$. For each level the CES potential $`V(x)`$ is a map of a different ES potential $`U(r)`$. The energies are determined by the cubic algebraic equation. In order to make this definition unique we have to tell which one of the three roots of Eq. (12) is “physical”. In Ref.  we find an advice that “from the three roots we can discard two by demanding that the spectrum must reduce to the standard one for $`B=0`$”. Such a vague recipe is misleading since it is in manifest contradiction with the above normalizability condition (28) which implies that $`b=B/2>1/4`$ cannot lie too close to zero.

The problem is not too difficult to disentangle. Equation (12) has very transparent graphical interpretation in terms of the intersection of the left-hand side horizontal line with the right-hand side curve with three branches. The latter shape is a sum of a growing linear term with a spike oriented upwards. Figure 1 indicates how one gets a triplet of roots in the $`n=0`$ ground state at $`b=6.25`$ and $`A=10.25`$. Always, only one of them is compatible with the normalizability condition (28) and lies in the “admissible” interval $`(0.5,2.5)`$.

The general rule is that we always have to pick up the middle root as physical. Let us give a proof of this assertion. Firstly we re-name $`b=\beta ^2`$ and re-scale our three roots, $`Z=[a_1(n)+n]/\beta `$ $`<`$ $`X=[a_2(n)+n]/\beta `$ $`<`$ $`Y=[a_3(n)+n]/\beta `$. As long as $`a(n)(1/2,\beta n)`$ we may re-write Eq. (12) in the significantly simplified form

$`\tau =\mu X+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{X^2}}`$

(and, similarly for $`Y`$ and $`Z`$) with abbreviations

$`\tau =\tau (A,b,n){\displaystyle \frac{A+n^2+n1/2}{b}},0<\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{2n+1}{\beta }}<2.`$

The leftmost root $`Z`$ will be always negative and can be discarded immediately. Knowing that the acceptable root $`X`$ is constrained, $`X(T,1)`$, $`T=(n+1/2)/\beta (0,1)`$, it is now sufficient to prove that the third root $`Y`$ always violates our condition (28),

$$[X(T,1)\&T(0,1)]Y>1.$$
(29)
For this purpose we eliminate $`\tau `$ and get the quadratic equation

$`\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{X+Y}{X^2Y^2}}.`$

We can skip the negative alternative and have the unique definition of the root $`Y`$,

$`Y={\displaystyle \frac{1+(1+4\mu X^3)^{1/2}}{2\mu X^2}}.`$

As a smooth function of $`\mu (0,2)`$ and $`X(T,1)`$ it satisfies our rule (29) everywhere within a two-dimensional domain containing all points with $`\mu <1`$ and not containing any point of the sign-changing boundary. This is demonstrated quite easily. The boundary curve can be implicitly defined as a set $`X=\xi (\mu )`$,

$`1+(1+4\mu \xi ^3)^{1/2}=2\mu \xi ^2.`$

Only on it the sign of $`Y1`$ can change. This set is a part of the curve defined by the square of the latter equation,

$`\mu \xi ^2=\xi +1.`$

In the graphical language it is trivial to find that for the positive $`\xi >0`$ the right-hand side straight line intersects the left-hand side parabola in a point which is a decreasing function of $`\mu `$. Hence, the curve touches the boundary of our open simplex of normalizability (with $`\mu (0,2)`$ and $`X<1`$) in a single point $`(\mu =2,\xi =1)`$. QED.

## III Interpretation of the potential

The potentials of Ref.  derived in two different ways in Section II can be placed into a more general context by realizing that both the point canonical transformation method  presented in Sec. II A and the supersymmetric construction of Sec. II B can be formulated in terms of a rather general approach based on the change of variables . In this section we specify these connections with the formulation of Ref. , which can be considered a simplified treatment of the general Natanzon-class potentials .

Following the discussion of Ref.  one considers the Schrödinger equation

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}^2\psi }{\mathrm{d}x^2}+(EV(x))\psi (x)=0$$
(30)
and assumes that its solutions can be written in the form

$$\psi (x)=f(x)F(z(x)),$$
(31)
where $`F(z)`$ satisfies a second-order differential equation

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}^2F}{\mathrm{d}z^2}+Q(z)\frac{\mathrm{d}F}{\mathrm{d}z}+R(z)F(z)=0.$$
(32)
The function $`F(z)`$ can be any special function of mathematical physics, e.g. the (confluent) hypergeometric function , or any other function satisfying a second-order differential equation of the type (32). Simple calculation shows  that the function $`EV(x)`$ can be written as

$$EV(x)=\frac{z^{\prime \prime \prime }(x)}{2z^{}(x)}\frac{3}{4}\left(\frac{z^{\prime \prime }(x)}{z^{}(x)}\right)^2+(z^{}(x))^2\left[R(z(x))\frac{1}{2}\frac{\mathrm{d}Q(z)}{\mathrm{d}z}\frac{1}{4}Q^2(z(x))\right],$$
(33)
where the only unknown element is the function $`z(x)`$, which basically governs the change of variables connecting the two differential equations (30) and (32). Expressing $`f(x)`$ in (31) in terms of $`z(x)`$ and $`Q(z)`$, the solutions of the Schrödinger equation can be written  as

$$\psi (x)(z^{}(x))^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}^{z(x)}Q(z)dz\right)F(z(x)).$$
(34)
We are left with the task of finding such a functional form of $`z(x)`$ which takes our Schrödinger equation (33) into an exactly and completely solvable problem.

Obviously, the transformation employed in Sec. II A (i.e. the point canonical transformation  or the Liouvillean method ) is a special case of the above construction. Taking

$$Q(z)=0R(z)=\kappa ^2U(z),$$
(35)
Eq. (33) reduces to the inverted version of Eq. (12) (with $`r`$ and $`k^2`$ there replaced with $`z`$ and $`E`$ here). Similarly, (34) also reduces to the equivalent of (8), where $`\chi (r)`$ is playing the role of $`F(z)`$.

From here the approaches applied in Refs.  and in the point canonical transformation  emphasize somewhat different strategies of deriving solvable potentials within the Natanzon potential class . In Refs.  the main point is to identify some term on the right-hand side of Eq. (33), to account for the constant (i.e. the energy) term on the left-hand side. With this, a differential equation of the type

$$\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}z}{\mathrm{d}x}\right)^2\varphi (z)=C$$
(36)
was obtained (see also ), and this determined the function $`z(x)`$ describing the variable transformation. In some cases the $`z(x)`$ function could not be determined explicitly from (36), only the inverse $`x(z)`$ function, therefore a number of solvable models obtained this way turned out to be “implicit” potentials . On the other hand, following the point canonical transformation method , the $`z(x)`$ function is always available in an explicit form, however, it is not guaranteed that any $`z(x)`$ function would lead to a Schrödinger-like equation in which all the $`n`$-dependence can be absorbed into the constant (energy) term. Equation (12) might turn out to have Sturm–Liouvillean form, where $`n`$ typically appears in coordinate-dependent terms. Simply stated, the approach of Ref.  focuses on having the energy in a simple form, even on the expense of leaving the solutions in a complicated (implicit) form, while in the point canonical transformation the preference is having the solutions in an explicit form, rather than getting the energy expression in a simple way. We stress that despite this difference, the two approaches are interrelated, and are special cases of deriving Natanzon-class potentials. We shall come back to this point later on.

### A Conventional construction

Let us now see how potential $`V_1^{(DKV)}(x)`$ in Eq. (2) can be obtained from the method described in Ref. . For this, $`F(z)`$ should be identified with a Jacobi polynomial: $`F(z)=P_n^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(z)`$. Equation (4.2) in Ref.  is an explicit form for $`EV(x)`$ in this case:

$`EV(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{z^{\prime \prime \prime }(x)}{2z^{}(x)}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{z^{\prime \prime }(x)}{z^{}(x)}}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{(z^{}(x))^2}{1z^2(x)}}n(n+\alpha +\beta +1)`$ (40)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(z^{}(x))^2}{(1z^2(x))^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\alpha +\beta +2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\beta \alpha )^2\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(z^{}(x))^2z(x)}{(1z^2(x))^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\beta \alpha )(\beta +\alpha )`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(z^{}(x))^2z^2(x)}{(1z^2(x))^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha +\beta +1}{2}}\right)^2\right].`$
As discussed in Ref. , one selects differential equations of the type (36) for $`z(x)`$ to get constant terms on the right-hand side of (40). In  the first two non-trivial terms were picked, leading to the PI and PII potential classes, typical representations of which are, for example, $`U_2(r)`$ and $`U_1(r)`$ in Eqs. (10) and (9), respectively. The defining differential equation of these is $`(z^{})^2(1z^2)^1=C`$ and $`(z^{})^2(1z^2)^2=C`$. Later in Ref.  the third “PIII” possibility, $`z(z^{})^2(1z^2)^2=C`$ was also discussed, resulting in an “implicit potential”. All these potentials are exactly solvable Natanzon-class potentials, furthermore, those discussed in Ref.  also have the property of shape-invariance.

The fourth possibility,

$$z^2(z^{})^2(1z^2)^2=C$$
(41)
was not discussed in detail in Ref. , only the generic form of the solution was mentioned. However, it turns out, that the function $`z(x)=(1+\mathrm{exp}(2C^{1/2}x+D))^{1/2}`$ satisfies (41), and it leads to the same variable transformation as that discussed in Ref. , if the $`C^{1/2}=1`$ and $`D=0`$ choice is made. The actual form of (33) is now (in the “PIV” case)

$`E_nV(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(n+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha +\beta +1}{2}}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\beta \alpha )(\beta +\alpha )z^1(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}z^4(x)`$ (43)
$`+\left[\left(n+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha +\beta +1}{2}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha +\beta }{2}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\beta \alpha )^2\right]z^2(x).`$
This leads to a solvable potential if the $`n`$-dependence can be canceled in the coordinate-dependent (i.e. potential) terms by a suitable change of the parameters. Comparing (43) with (2) we get

$$A=\left[\left(n+\frac{\alpha +\beta +1}{2}\right)^2\left(\frac{\alpha +\beta }{2}\right)^2\frac{3}{4}\frac{1}{4}(\beta \alpha )^2\right],$$
(44)
$$B=\frac{1}{2}(\beta \alpha )(\beta +\alpha ),$$
(45)
and

$$E_n=\left(n+\frac{\alpha +\beta +1}{2}\right)^2.$$
(46)
Obviously, $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ depend on $`n`$ and also on the potential parameters $`A`$ and $`B`$. Substituting (46) in (44) and combining it with (45) we arrive at (12), the equation defining the energy eigenvalues in the two approaches of Sec. II.

The bound-state wave functions are found to be

$$\psi (x)z^{1/2}(x)(z(x)+1)^{\beta _n/2}(z(x)1)^{\alpha _n/2}P_n^{(\alpha _n,\beta _n)}(z(x)),$$
(47)
which (apart from some misprints), corresponds to Eqs. (15), (16) and (18) in Ref. , if we substitute $`\alpha _n=B/(2c)c`$ and $`\beta _n=B/(2c)c`$.

### B Supersymmetric connection

In the knowledge of the bound-state wave functions, constructing the superpotential $`W(x)`$ is a simple matter using Eq. (14). From (47) with $`n=0`$ one obtains

$$W(x)=\frac{1}{2}(\alpha _0+\beta _0+1)+\frac{\alpha _0\beta _0}{2z(x)}\frac{1}{2z^2(x)}.$$
(48)
In order to get closer to the methods described in Sec. II B, we also introduce the singular superpotentials obtained in a similar way from the wave functions with $`n>0`$. The Jacobi polynomial appearing in these functions is best expressed in a product form

$$P_n^{(\alpha _n,\beta _n)}(z)\mathrm{\Pi }_{i=1}^n(zc_i),$$
(49)
where the $`c_i`$ are at the roots (nodes) of the polynomial. Obviously, the logarithmic derivative of this product will reduce to a sum form

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}x}(\mathrm{ln}P_n^{(\alpha _n,\beta _n)}(z))=\frac{\mathrm{d}z}{\mathrm{d}x}\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}z}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\mathrm{ln}(zc_i)=(z^1z)\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{1}{zc_i}.$$
(50)
Here we used the differential equation (41) to express $`z^{}`$ in terms of $`z`$. This explains the sum appearing in the superpotential (18) in Sec. II B. A similar construction can readily be presented for the superpotential used in Ref.  describing the potential of Ref.  in a supersymmetric framework. The polynomial there is of the Hermite type.

### C Relation to the Natanzon potentials

Our discussion in the present Section was based on the approach of Ref. , which is general enough to incorporate both the conventional and the supersymmetric formulation of potential (2) in a relatively straightforward way. One can, however, put the whole subject into an even more general framework, that of the Natanzon potentials . Although the discussion could have been presented using the formalism of this potential class, we decided to follow the easier route of Ref.  for several reasons. First, the general formalism was too heavy for demonstrative purposes, and second, its relation to the machinery of supersymmetric quantum mechanics  is less transparent. However, to conclude this Section we present the essential facts about Natanzon potentials, and their relevance to the potentials we investigated.

The general families of the Natanzon  and Natanzon confluent  potentials are characterized by the feature that their solutions are expressed in terms of a single (confluent) hypergeometric function. The general Natanzon potential depends on six parameters, three of which ($`f`$, $`h_0`$ and $`h_1`$) appear explicitly in the expression

$$V(x)=\frac{z^{\prime \prime \prime }(x)}{2z^{}(x)}+\frac{3}{4}\left(\frac{z^{\prime \prime }(x)}{z^{}(x)}\right)^2+\frac{fz(x)(z(x)1)+h_0(1z(x)+h_1z(x)}{(z(x))},$$
(51)
while three others ($`a`$, $`c_0`$ and $`c_1`$) enter implicitly through the $`z(x)`$ function determined by the differential equation

$$z^{}(x)\frac{\mathrm{d}z}{\mathrm{d}x}=\frac{2z(1z)}{((z))^{1/2}}$$
(52)
with

$$(z)=az(x)(z(x)1)+c_0(1z(x))+c_1z(x).$$
(53)
The construction of , when specified for the Jacobi polynomials (a special case of the hypergeometric function ) can easily be recognized as a particular reformulation of this change of variable method. (See also Ref.  and the Appendix of Ref. .) The energy spectrum is determined  by the implicit equation

$$2n+1=(f+1aE_n)^{1/2}(h_0+1c_0E_n)^{1/2}(h_1+1c_1E_n)^{1/2}\alpha _n\beta _n\delta _n,$$
(54)
while the bound-state wave functions are written as

$$\psi (x)^{1/4}(z(x))(1z(x))^{\frac{\delta _n}{2}}(z(x))^{\frac{\beta _n}{2}}F(n,\alpha _nn;\beta _n+1;z(x)).$$
(55)
The form of (55) is again reminiscent of the construction of Ref. , while (54) is close to the implicit energy formula obtained for the potential of Ref.  in the point canonical transformation formalism.

Equations similar to those above are valid for the Natanzon confluent potential class  too.

It is instructive to examine the role of the 3+3 parameters appearing in the Natanzon potentials, as it is related to the concept of conditionally exact solvability. For the most commonly occuring potentials (like the shape-invariant ones ), the three parameters determining the $`z(x)`$ function via (52) and (53), usually only one appears, and even that one is a trivial scaling parameter of the coordinate and/or the energy scale. (Trivial coordinate shifts can also appear through them.) Usually they play a non-trivial role only in the case of some “implicit” potentials .

The other three parameters appearing in (51) set the potential shape, and determine the relative strength of the individual potential terms. In most potentials only one or two of these parameters appear. The two parameters appearing in potential (2), $`A`$ and $`B`$ are of this type. (There could be one more parameter setting the length scale, but it is set to 1 in this case.) Obviously, when there are three potential terms, as in (2), and only two parameters, then the relative strength of the three potential terms cannot be arbitrary, and has to be constrained. This is why the third term of (2) is a numerical constant, i.e. $`3/4`$. It is the presence of this numerical constant which earned potentials in Refs.  the name “conditionally exactly solvable”. In fact, based on the structure of their eigenfunctions, the potentials appearing in Ref.  are of the Natanzon type , while those in Ref.  belong to the Natanzon confluent class . There are, however, further considerations regarding normalizability and regularity, which might impose restrictions on the solvability of certain potentials. Not surprisingly, these may play a more important role in the case of the less “trivial” potentials .

Finally, we note that the other class of CES potentials  has completely different nature, and does not belong to the Natanzon class, rather it has features typical for SUSY partners of general Natanzon-class potentials. This again confirms our finding that the concept of conditionally exact solvability is not an alternative of exact solvability, rather it classifies potentials according to different principles.

## IV Conclusions

We analyzed the potentials introduced originally in Ref.  as conditionally exactly solvable (CES) potentials via the method of point canonical transformation. Our results concerned the following three areas.

i) We gave a supersymmetric re-interpretation of this potential class.

ii) We examined the cubic formula which determines implicitly the energy eigenvalues of the problem. We rigorously took into account boundary conditions of the eigenfunctions, and corrected certain inaccuracies presented in Ref. . We demonstrated that from the three roots of the cubic equation there is only one (the middle one) which can lead to physically acceptable eigenstates.

iii) We interpreted this potential in the general framework of the Natanzon potential class, and demonstrated that this CES potential, in fact, belongs to this class, and therefore it is a bona fide exactly solvable problem.

## Acknowledgements

Partially supported by grant Nr. A 1048004 of the Grant Agency of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic and grant No. T031945 of the OTKA (Hungary). G. L. acknowledges the support of the János Bolyai Research Fellowship (Hungary).


text:
# On the critical temperature of two-channel Kondo model: Reply to cond-mat/0009283

## Abstract

We discuss the comment by Zaránd and Zawadowski (cond-mat/0009283) on our preprint cond-mat/0007430 where it has been shown that the strong coupling regime for the two-channel Kondo model of two level system can be never realized for any realistic microscopic description. The authors of the comment state that the Kondo temperature can be substantially increased due to electron-hole asymmetry. Here we show by direct calculation that the electron-hole asymmetry does not enter the leading logarithmic approximation. Consequently, we disagree with the aforementioned comment.

Hereby we discuss the comment by Zaránd and Zawadowski  regarding our preprint  on the Kondo temperature, $`T_K`$, of the two-channel Kondo model based on a heavy particle in a double-well potential (DWP) (see Ref.  for a review). A serious deficiency of the original 2 channel Kondo (2CK) model was too small tunneling constant  calculated in leading logarithmic approximation turns out to be below $`0.1`$ K Authors of Ref.  attempted to “cure” the situation by including virtual processes via the third excited state in DWP in hope that it would increase the tunneling amplitude.

In Ref.  we demonstrated that when all of the exited states are included the Kondo temperature gets reduced even further. It turns out that the Kondo logarithmic singularity should be cut-off by $`\epsilon _3\mathrm{}t_{\text{tun}}\epsilon _F`$ Here $`\epsilon _3`$ is the spacing between the second and the third levels in DWP, $`t_{\text{tun}}`$ it the tunneling time, and $`\epsilon _F`$ denotes the Fermi energy. Note that long ago Kagan and Prokof’ev made a similar statement in connection with diffusion of heavy particles in metals. Since $`T_K`$ is proportional to the cut-off and $`\epsilon _3\epsilon _F`$, the Kondo temperature turns out to be hopelessly small for the strong coupling 2CK limit to be achieved experimentally. Moreover, we found that the spacing between first two levels always exceeds $`T_K`$. This prevents realization of this strong coupling regime even in principle.  In Ref.  we emphasized the importance of taking into account all of the exited states as well as the fact that the exponential smallness of the tunneling probability cannot disappear.

Formally, this smallness follows from the cancellation of virtual contributions of different excited states. At the same time, the dramatic reduction of the cut-off and thus of $`T_K`$ has a transparent physical reason. Indeed, the conventional Kondo Hamiltonian assumes infinitely quick spin flip. Therefore, the mapping of the DWP problem to the Kondo problem can be valid only for energies below $`\mathrm{}/t_{\text{tun}}`$ \- inverse time, which the tunneling process takes. Otherwise one could imagine that the Kondo effect takes place for a heavy particle in an arbitrary potential, not necessarily a double-well one. The reason for the absence of the Kondo effect for, e.g., harmonic oscillator is that the spacing between the first two levels, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, is of the same order as $`\epsilon _3\mathrm{}/t_{\text{tun}}`$. Only the energy interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon \epsilon _3`$ is available for the formation of the logarithmic singularity! The fact that $`\epsilon _Ft_{\text{tun}}\mathrm{}`$ follows directly from the large mass of the tunneling particle. Indeed, the magnitude of DWP should be of the usual atomic order $`1`$ V. At the same time, the atomic mass exceeds the mass of an electron by about four orders of magnitude. Accordingly the tunneling time of an atomic particle, $`t_{\text{tun}}`$ should be about two orders of magnitude longer than the electron tunneling time scale $`\mathrm{}/\epsilon _F`$. It is slow tunneling of heavy particles (rather than some electron-hole symmetry) that causes the suppression of the Kondo temperature.

The authors of Ref.  try to revitalize 2CK model by including finite electron-hole asymmetry. Up to our understanding, they still do not fully appreciate the fact that the proper cut-off energy cannot exceed $`\epsilon _3\epsilon _F`$

Below we use an approach, which differs from Ref.  and show that both electron and hole contributions taken separately diverge logarithmically, the ultraviolet cutoff being $`\epsilon _3`$ and, therefore, the prefactor in the expression for $`T_K`$ has nothing to do with electron-hole asymmetry.

The second order corrections to the electron-assisted ($`\delta A_e`$) and hole-assisted ($`\delta A_h`$) tunneling amplitudes can be expressed through Matsubara Green functions of electrons and movable atoms, $`G_e(\tau )`$ and $`G_{\text{at}}(\tau ;x_1,x_2)`$, respectively:

$$\delta A_{e,h}_0^{1/T}𝑑\tau G_{\text{at}}(\tau ;a,a)G_e(\pm \tau ).$$
(1)
Here we omitted numerical prefactors, put $`\mathrm{}=1`$ and used the fact that $`G_e(\tau )=G_h(\tau )`$. We also ignored the spatial coordinates and spin indices in $`G_e(\tau )`$. The Green function of the movable atom, $`G_{\text{at}}(\tau ;x_1,x_2)`$, is determined by the equation

$$\left[\frac{_x^2}{2M}_\tau U(x)\right]G_{\text{at}}(\tau ;x,x^{})=\delta (\tau )\delta (xx^{}).$$
(2)
We assumed for simplicity that DWP, $`U(x)`$, is symmetric, i.e., $`U(x)=U(x)`$, and has the two minima at $`x=\pm a`$. At $`\tau <0`$ the Green function, $`G_{at}(\tau )`$, vanishes at $`\tau <0`$, because, according to the model, there is only one movable defect. The asymptotic behavior of the electron Green function at $`ϵ_F\tau 1`$ is (omitting non-essential for present discussion constant factors)

$$G_{\text{el}}(\tau )=\nu (\mu )\frac{\pi T}{\mathrm{sin}\pi T\tau }+\frac{d\nu }{d\mu }\left(\frac{\pi T}{\mathrm{sin}\pi T\tau }\right)^2\mathrm{sign}\tau +\mathrm{}$$
(3)
where $`\nu (\mu )`$ is the density of states at the Fermi level. The second term manifests the electron-hole asymmetry, whatever it means. Notice, that when $`\tau `$ increases, the second term decays faster than the first one. Therefore, this asymmetry becomes irrelevant at large enough $`\tau `$. The $`\tau `$ -dependence of the DWP Green function, $`G_{\text{at}}`$, (2) can be found in semiclassical approximation, which is valid for excited states as well as for the exponentially weak tunneling:

$$G_{\text{at}}(\tau )=B(\tau )\mathrm{exp}\left[S_{\text{cl}}(x_1,x_2,\tau )\right],$$
(4)
where $`S_{\text{cl}}`$ is the classical action of the particle in the inverted DWP:

$`S_{\text{cl}}(x_1,x_2,\tau )={\displaystyle _0^\tau }𝑑\tau _1\left[{\displaystyle \frac{M}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x}{\tau _1}}\right)^2+U(x)\right];`$ (5)
$`\delta S/\delta [x(\tau _1)]=0,x(\tau _1=\tau )=x_2,x(\tau =0)=x_1.`$ (6)
One can evaluate the prefactor $`B(\tau )`$ in Eq. (4). However, we do not need it here. We substitute $`x_{1,2}=\pm a`$ and rewrite Eq.(6) as

$$S_{\text{cl}}=\tau E(\tau )+_a^a𝑑x\sqrt{2M[E+U(x)]}.$$
(7)
Here $`E(\tau )`$-function is implicitly given by the equation

$$\tau =_a^a𝑑x\sqrt{\frac{M}{2[E+U(x)]}}.$$
(8)
It follows from Eq. (8), that there are two tunneling regimes, with different dependences $`E(\tau )`$. The crossover takes place at the time scale

$$t_{\text{tun}}_0^a𝑑x\left[\sqrt{\frac{2M}{U(x)U(a)}}\frac{1}{ax}\sqrt{\frac{4M}{U^{\prime \prime }(a)}}\right].$$
(9)
The quantity $`t_{\text{tun}}\mathrm{}/\epsilon _3`$ has a meaning of a typical time the particle spends under the barrier during the tunneling process. Using Eqs. (7) and (8) one can obtain the following asymptotics of $`S_{cl}`$ at small $`\tau `$

$$S_{\text{cl}}=\frac{2Ma^2}{\tau }+\tau _a^a\frac{dx}{2a}U(x)+𝒪(\tau ^2).$$
(10)
Equation (9) holds for $`\tau t_{\text{tun}}`$. In the opposite case, $`\tau t_{\text{tun}}`$,

$`S_{\text{cl}}`$ $`=`$ $`\tau U(a)+{\displaystyle _a^a}𝑑x\sqrt{2M[U(x)U(a)]}`$ (12)
$`+2\sqrt{ma^4U^{\prime \prime }(a)}\mathrm{exp}\left[\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{U^{\prime \prime (a)}}{M}}}\left(t_{\text{tun}}\tau \right)\right].`$
The first term in Eq. (12) is nothing but the leading in $`\mathrm{}`$ term in the energy of the ground state which cancels out for the on-shell processes. The second term is the action corresponding to the tunneling from one minimum to the other. The classical trajectory for this process corresponds to the kink with the characteristic time scale $`t_{\text{tun}}`$. The last term in the action characterizes the corrections due to the finite size of the kink (we write it here only for the references purpose). Substituting Eqs. (3) and Eq. (4) into Eq. (1), and using the condition $`ϵ_Ft_{\text{tun}}1`$, and asymptotic expansions (10) and (12) we obtain

$`\delta A_{e,h}=\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle _a^a}𝑑x\sqrt{2M[U(x)U(a)]}\right]`$ (13)
$`\times \left\{\nu (\mu )\left[\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{Tt_{tun}}}\right)+𝒪(1)\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t_{\text{tun}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\nu (\mu )}{d\mu }}𝒪(1)\right\}.`$ (14)
We are not discussing here if the two contributions, $`\delta A_e`$ and $`\delta A_h`$, add or cancel each other (partially or completely). What we would like to emphasize is that for each of the two contributions the cut-off of the logarithmic dependence of each contribution is determined only by the tunneling time. This time exceeds inverse Fermi energy of the electrons by orders of magnitude, since the atomic mass $`M`$ is much bigger than the electron mass.

In fact, this asymmetry (i.e. finite $`\nu /\mu )`$ is relevant only at short times $`\tau t_{\text{tun}}`$, where the integral over $`\tau `$ in Eq. (1) is not logarithmic. We conclude that the origin of ultraviolet limit of the logarithm has nothing to do with the electron hole asymmetry. The smallness of the prefactor in the expression for the Kondo temperature expresses the simple fact that for the logarithmic divergence to appear in any physical property a heavy particle must tunnel and its tunneling time is finite, just as it was explained in Ref. . At times smaller than the characteristic time of tunneling, the heavy particle does not feel the two-well structure of the potential yet, and does not acquire any logarithmically divergent correction. Here we demonstrated this fact by an explicit calculation alternative to Ref. . The physical model used in Ref.  does not differ from and is the same as the one that was discussed above, of Ref. . For these reasons we believe that the calculation is erroneous.

The final remark of Ref.  that the degeneracy of the low-lying states may be “guaranteed by some local symmetry (rotational or possibly time reversal)” is also, in our opinion, irrelevant for metallic systems. Time reversal symmetry is known to guard the double degeneracy only for systems, which Hamiltonian contains a half-integer spin (Kramers degeneracy). Such a Hamiltonian leads to the regular Kondo problem and has nothing to do with the original two-level system. As to rotational symmetries, they cause no degeneracies for the ground state, because the ground state of a single atom always belongs to the one-dimensional representation $`A_1`$ or $`A`$ of the point symmetry group.

To summarize, we disagree with the statement of Ref. , that the suppression of the Kondo temperature is a consequence of the electron hole symmetry. We insist that the Kondo temperature for a particle in DWP is always parametrically less than the splitting between the two lowest state. Accordingly, the strong coupling 2CK regime never takes place in metals.