format: text

text:
# Magnetic Trapping of Metastable Calcium Atoms

## Abstract

Metastable calcium atoms, produced in a magneto–optic trap (MOT) operating within the singlet system, are continuously loaded into a magnetic trap formed by the magnetic quadrupole field of the MOT. At MOT temperatures of 3 mK and 240 ms loading time we observe $`1.1\times 10^8`$ magnetically trapped 3P2 atoms at densities of $`2.4\times 10^8cm^3`$ and temperatures of 0.61 mK. In a modified scheme we first load a MOT for metastable atoms at a temperature of 0.18 mK and subsequently release these atoms into the magnetic trap. In this case 240 ms of loading yields $`2.4\times 10^8`$ trapped 3P2 atoms at a peak density of $`8.7\times 10^{10}cm^3`$ and a temperature of 0.13 mK. The temperature decrease observed in the magnetic trap for both loading schemes can be explained only in part by trap size effects.

preprint: preprint

Earth alkaline atoms provide a unique combination of interesting spectroscopic features connected to their two valence electrons which give rise to singlet and triplet excitations. The singlet systems possess strong principle fluorescence lines well suited for laser cooling with remarkable efficiency. Yet, temperatures are limited to the mK domain, due to the absence of ground state Zeeman structure, a prerequisite for sub–Doppler techniques. The triplet systems, however, have readily accessible narrow band optical transitions that render possible refined laser cooling schemes with the promise of temperatures even beyond the microkelvin range. In fact, such schemes have recently been experimentally realized for strontium and calcium Kat:99 ; Bin:01 ; Cur:01 ; Gru:02 . Owing to their spectroscopic peculiarities such ultracold earth alkaline samples open up new prospects for ultraprecise atomic clocks Kis:94 ; Rus:98 ; Oat:99  and cold collision studies which allow direct comparisons with ab initio theoretical calculations Din:98 ; Mac:01 ; Der:02 . The formation of Bose–Einstein condensates (BEC, And:95 ) for this exciting group of atoms appears particularly desirable.

A key technique for obtaining BEC in alkalis and nobel gases has been magnetic trapping. This trapping technique outperforms optical techniques in two ways. It provides well controllable potential wells with sufficient steepness. The regime of high elastic collision rates, a precondition for efficient evaporative cooling, is thus easily accessible. Secondly, the presence of antibinding magnetic sublevels allows to actively force evaporation in a particular effective way by selectively expelling energetic atoms from the trap. The extension of this successful trapping technique to earth alkaline atoms may pave the route to BEC in this atom group. While the singlet ground state of these species lacks magnetic sub–structure, the ground state of the triplet system typically offers a particularly large Zeeman effect. Specifically, the long–lived 3P$`{}_{2}{}^{},m_J`$=2 state appears appropriate for magnetic trapping and the formation of BEC. Recent calculations for calcium and strontium predict a positive scattering length (and thus stable BEC) for this state Der:02 .

In this article we explore the application of magnetic trapping to the case of $`{}_{}{}^{40}Ca`$. We demonstrate loading of a magnetic quadrupole trap with several times $`10^8`$ calcium atoms in the 3P2 metastable state at peak densities near $`10^{11}cm^3`$ and temperatures around 0.13 mK. We prepare cold Calcium 3P2 atoms in the mK range at very high rates from a magneto–optic trap operating on the principle fluorescence line of the singlet system at 423 nm (called SMOT in the following) Gru:00 . The excited state of the SMOT–transition has a small decay channel leading to the 1D2 state ($`\gamma _1=2180`$ s-1 Bev:89 ) and further on to the 3P2 ($`\gamma _2=96`$ s-1) and 3P1 ($`\gamma _3=300`$ s-1) triplet states (see Fig.1a for relevant Ca levels). While the atoms decaying via 3P1 return to the ground state in about 3 ms and can be recycled into the SMOT, those decaying to 3P2 represent a permanent loss that limits the SMOT life time to 21 ms. Transfer rates into the 3P2 state can exceed $`10^{10}`$ atoms/s at a temperature of about 2–3 mK determined by the Doppler temperature of the SMOT. In order to prepare even colder 3P2 atoms, we superimpose a second magneto–optic trap (TMOT) for 3P2 atoms using the narrow–band 3P$`{}_{2}{}^{}_{}^{3}`$D3 triplet transition at 1978 nm Gru:02 . If the TMOT is optimized for high loading rates it typically collects several times $`10^8`$ atoms within 240 ms at temperatures around 180 $`\mu `$K.

The magnetic quadrupole field shared by the SMOT and TMOT provides a natural test ground for magnetic trapping of 3P2 atoms as has been recently discussed in detail in ref. Lof:02 . The trapping potential is given by $`U(x,y,z)=U_0\sqrt{\frac{1}{4}(x^2+y^2)+z^2}`$ with $`U_0=2\pi \mathrm{}\times g\times m_J\times b\times (1.4MHz/Gauss)`$, where $`b`$ is the magnetic field gradient, $`m_J`$ is the magnetic quantum number, and $`g`$ denotes the g–factor. Due to the large value g=3/2 for the 3P2 state, for atoms in the low field seeking $`m_J`$=2 Zeeman component a magnetic field gradient $`b`$ of only 2.5 Gauss/cm is sufficient to compensate for gravity, and 10 Gauss/cm provide a significant trap potential of 2.5 mK/cm.

The experimental setup is an extension of that used in ref. Gru:02 . Fig.1b provides a sketch of the relevant elements. Three beams with 8 mm in diameter and 20 mW power, detuned from resonance by two times the natural line width, are retroreflected in order to form the SMOT. Atoms are provided from a Zeeman–decelerated atomic beam. By observation of the 423 nm fluorescence we measure $`410^7`$ atoms in the excited 1P1 state of the SMOT. From the known transition rates (see e.g. ref. Bev:89 ) we can deduce a transfer rate into the 3P2 state of $`1.9\times 10^{10}`$ atoms/s. The magnetic quadrupole field with horizontal symmetry axis (z–axis) has a trap depth of 20.6 mK and a magnetic field gradient (along the z– axis) of $`b`$=26 Gauss/cm in the origin. For monitoring the operation of the SMOT we record the fluorescence at 657 nm due to atoms decaying via 1D2 and 3P1 back to the ground state. In order to observe the 3P2 atoms we optically pump them to the 3P1 state by applying a 0.5 ms pulse of 430 nm light resonant with the 3P$`{}_{2}{}^{}(4s4p)^3`$P$`{}_{2}{}^{}(4p4p)`$ transition. The $`1/e^2`$–radius of this optical pumping beam is 3 mm. In order to work with a reduced optical pumping volume, a variable apperture placed inside this beam is imaged onto the atomic sample. The 3P1 atoms decay to the 1S0 singlet ground state in 0.4 ms and are subject to ballistic expansion. Temperature measurements are performed with a time of flight method (TOF). A 10 mm wide and 0.5 mm thick sheet of light resonant with the 1S$`{}_{0}{}^{}_{}^{1}`$P1 transition is placed 9 mm below the center of the optical pumping beam (see Fig.1b). The fluorescence in this light sheet is recorded by a photo multiplier from below. Because we operate the TMOT with the same magnetic quadrupole field, the narrow bandwidth (57 kHz) of the 3P$`{}_{2}{}^{}_{}^{3}`$D3 transition is power–broadened to a peak value of 16 MHz, in order to obtain sufficient spatial capture volume. With 5 mW for each of the three retroreflected beams of 10 mm diameter the resonant peak saturation parameter is $`7.6\times 10^4`$.

In Fig.2 the operation of the magnetic trap is illustrated. Before t=0, for about 240 ms atoms are Zeeman cooled, loaded into the SMOT, and transferred to the magnetically trapped 3P2 state. At t=0 the 423 nm beams are disabled, i.e. no further loading of the magnetic trap occurs which is seen from the drop of 657 nm fluorescence in trace (a). After a variable time delay the optical pumping pulse is applied which gives rise to a spike of 657 nm fluorescence, and a TOF spectrum is recorded (trace (b)). Alternatively, during the loading period before t=0 we may apply the TMOT. In this case the magnetic trap is not continuously loaded but at t=0 the 3P2 atoms trapped and cooled in the TMOT are suddenly released into the magnetic trap. Detection is performed as in the case of SMOT loading. While TMOT loading allows for lower initial temperatures, an attractive feature of SMOT loading is its continuous character, i.e. the possibility to add particles to the trap without disturbing those already trapped, as recently discussed in ref. Lof:02  and demonstrated for chromium atoms in ref. Stu:01 .

By varying the trapping time in Fig.2 and observing the size of the 657 nm fluorescence peak in trace (a) we can measure the life time of the magnetic trap. The case of TMOT loading is shown in Fig.3a (open rectangles). For comparison, the filled rectangles show the decay of the TMOT itself. A surprisingly high transfer efficiency of about 75 $`\%`$ is observed. The fitted exponentials (solid lines in Fig.3a) correspond to a model which neglects two–body collision losses. The decay time constants of 239 $`\pm `$ 4 ms in the upper trace and 229 $`\pm `$ 8 ms ms in the lower trace agree within the errors and are in accordance with the $`10^8`$ mbar vacuum conditions. For SMOT loading the same decay time is found. Although a model accounting for inelastic two–body collisions yields slightly better fits for the lower trace in Fig.3a, slow fluctuations of the initial sample sizes in our present data do not allow us to extract reliable values for the collision rate.

In Fig.3b TOF spectra are shown for three different cases. The upper trace (1) shows a TOF spectrum for atoms trapped in the TMOT for 370 ms with a loading period of 240 ms. In trace (2) the TMOT was loaded for 240 ms but subsequently the atoms were released into the magnetic trap and held there for 130 ms. In trace (3) the SMOT continuously loaded the magnetic trap for 240 ms followed by 130 ms without further loading. Note that in either case (2) and (3) the temperature found in the magnetic trap is significantly lower than that of the loaded atomic sample. In trace (3) the initial sample in the SMOT has a temperature of about 3 mK, while that of the magnetically trapped sample is only 611 $`\mu `$K. In (2) the initial sample temperature is 182 $`\mu `$K as seen in trace (1), while the temperature in the magnetic trap is only 134 $`\mu `$K. The fits in Fig.3b (solid black lines) used to evaluate temperatures are derived from a TOF model with three fit parameters: the initial vertical diameters and atom numbers of the fraction of atoms participating in the ballistic flight, and the temperatures. The initial sizes found in these fits are consistent with those observed. The diameter of the TMOT is estimated to be 2 mm by scanning the 430 nm optical pumping beam with 0.5 mm diameter through the atomic sample and observing the 657 nm fluorescence peak of Fig.2a. This corresponds to the best fit in trace (1) obtained for 2.4 mm. The initial diameter for the TOF measurement of trace (2) is estimated similarly to be about 4 mm corresponding to the value of 4.1 mm in the best fit. The best fit value of the initial diameter for trace (3) of 7.9 mm does not reflect the size of the trapped population but is determined by the 3 mm maximal radius of the optical pumping beam. In traces (2) and (3) we also recognize a hot fraction of atoms occurring at early times in the TOF-spectra which are not accounted for in our model. Particularly, in the case of TMOT loading (trace (2)) a well distinguished hot fraction (at several mK) is visible. For TMOT loading, TOF spectra recorded for trapping times shorter than 100 ms show additional structure which reflects non–equilibrium trap dynamics as is illustrated in Fig.4. The initial sharp peaks, resulting from the 430 nm depumping photons, indicate the release of the atoms from the magnetic trap. One recognizes an oscillation of population between hotter and colder fractions of atoms occuring at earlier or later times in the TOF spectra.

In order to explain the temperature decrease in the magnetic trap we first consider the case of SMOT loading in trace (3). The 3P2 trap potential is continuously loaded by the cold flux of atoms emerging from the trapping volume of the SMOT with $`\sigma `$=1 mm $`1/e^2`$–radius via intermediate population of the 1D2 state where the atoms spend on average 10 ms. During this process the atoms remain subjected to magnetic trapping since the 1D2 state itself provides a trap potential with 2/3 of the size of that of the 3P2 state. If the initial atomic sample is smaller than the equilibrium distribution inside the magnetic trap, an expansion occurs which reduces the mean kinetic energy of the initial sample $`k_BT_i`$ by the average potential energy of the final equilibrium distribution $`\rho `$ minus the average potential energy of the initial distribution. Thus, for the quadrupole potential U the final kinetic energy is calculated to be $`k_BT_f=k_BT_i/3`$ \+ $`0.172`$ $`\times \sigma \times U_0`$. The second term corresponds to 90 $`\mu `$K for SMOT loading and may be neglected as compared to typical initial SMOT temperatures of 3 mK. Thus, temperatures above 1 mK are expected, exceeding the observed 0.6 mK. In case of TMOT loading in trace (2) a similar deviation is found. Here $`0.172`$ $`\times \sigma \times U_0`$ amounts to 108 $`\mu `$K and thus the expected temperature is 169 $`\mu `$K as compared to 134 $`\mu `$K observed.

Let us next estimate the capture efficiencies beginning with SMOT loading. We first calculate the average Zeeman detuning $`\delta _B`$ experienced by the different Zeeman components of the 1P1 fraction of the SMOT sample in the quadrupole field U(x,y,z). With $`b`$=26 Gauss/cm we get $`\delta _B(m_J)/\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.08\times m_J`$. Using these Zeeman detunings we calculate the average relative excitation probabilities of the 1P1 Zeeman components finding 37 % for the high field seeking $`m_J`$=-1 state, 34 % for the non–magnetic state, and 29 % for the low field seeking $`m_J`$=1 state. With the help of the Clebsch–Gordan coefficients we derive the relative populations of the Zeeman sublevels in the 1D2 and 3P2 states respectively. We find 18 % population in the $`m_J`$=2, and 19 % population in the $`m_J`$=1 low field seeking component of the 3P2 level which are the two trapped states. In case of TMOT loading all atoms leaving the 1P1 state should be captured in the TMOT and about 20 % of those atoms should be transfered to each of the two magnetically trapped Zeeman sublevels. For SMOT loading only a fraction of the magnetically trapped atoms can contribute to the 657 nm fluorescence peak following the optical pumping pulse. In order to calculate the transfer efficiency by optical pumping we have numerically integrated the product of the thermal equilibrium distribution in the 3P2 potential $`\rho (x,y,z)=(32\pi )^1(U_0/k_BT)^3`$ $`exp(U(x,y,z)/k_BT)`$ and the local optical pumping probability during the 0.5 ms pumping pulse. To derive the local pumping probability we have solved a rate equation including all levels involved and account for the local intensity, polarization and the Zeeman detunings from resonance due to the magnetic quadrupole field. Temperatures are inserted as obtained from Fig.3b. For SMOT loading we find that a fraction of 39 % of the $`m_J`$=2 atoms and 14 % of the $`m_J`$=1 atoms is transfered. For TMOT loading no loss should occur in the optical pumping transfer.

For SMOT loading we typically observe a 657 nm fluorescence peak with $`2.9\times 10^7`$ atoms. Accounting for the expected transfer efficiency by optical pumping discussed in the previous paragraph we obtain $`5.4\times 10^7`$ trapped $`m_J`$=2 atoms and $`5.7\times 10^7`$ trapped $`m_J`$=1 atoms. Assuming thermal equilibrium at 611 $`\mu `$K, the peak density is $`3.4\times 10^8cm^3`$ for $`m_J`$=2 atoms and $`1\times 10^8cm^3`$ for $`m_J`$=1 atoms. Accounting for the loading time of 240 ms a capture rate of the $`m_J`$=2 component of $`3.6\times 10^8s^1`$ is observed. This is to be compared with 18 % of the overall transfer rate of $`1.9\times 10^{10}s^1`$, i.e. $`3.4\times 10^9s^1`$. For TMOT loading we find $`2.4\times 10^8`$ fluorescing atoms, and accordingly $`1.2\times 10^8`$ atoms in each of the two magnetically trapped Zeeman sublevels. Assuming thermal equilibrium at 135 $`\mu `$K, we find a peak density of $`6.7\times 10^{10}cm^3`$ for $`m_J`$=2 atoms and $`2\times 10^{10}cm^3`$ for $`m_J`$=1 atoms. The observed $`m_J`$=2 capture rate is $`7.9\times 10^8s^1`$ and has to be compared with 20 % of the overall transfer rate of $`1.9\times 10^{10}s^1`$, i.e. $`3.8\times 10^9s^1`$. Presently, we cannot resolve the discrepancies between the expected and the observed capture rates which amount to a factor 9.4 for SMOT loading and a factor 4.8 for TMOT loading.

In summary, we have applied magnetic trapping to the group of earth alkaline atoms, preparing several times $`10^8`$ calcium atoms in the 3P2 metastable state at peak densities near $`10^{11}cm^3`$ and temperatures around 0.13 mK. This represents favorable starting conditions for the formation of a metastable calcium BEC. Technical improvements (e.g. an extra transient cooling phase in the TMOT scheme, as explained in ref. Gru:02 , or a simple decrease of the background pressure) promise at least an order of magnitude improvement of the initial phase space density.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work has been supported in part by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SPP 1116), DAAD probral/bu, and the European training network CAUAC.


text:
# B⁽¹⁾{_𝑛} and A⁽²⁾{_{2𝑛}} reflection K-matrices

## 1 Introduction

Recently there have been many efforts to introduce boundaries into integrable systems for possible applications in condensed matter physics and statistical systems with non-periodic boundary conditions. The bulk Boltzmann weights of an exactly solvable lattice system are usually the non-zero matrix elements of a $``$-matrix $`(u)`$ which satisfies the Yang-Baxter equation .

$$_{12}(u)_{13}(u+v)_{23}(v)=_{23}(v)_{13}(u+v)_{12}(u),$$
(1.1)
in $`V^1V^2V^3`$, where $`_{12}=\mathrm{𝟏}`$, $`_{23}=\mathrm{𝟏}`$, etc.

An $``$ matrix is said to be regular if it satisfies the property $`(0)=P`$, where $`P`$ is the permutation matrix in $`V^1V^2`$: $`P(|\alpha |\beta )=|\beta |\alpha `$ for $`|\alpha ,|\beta V`$. In addition, we will require  that $`(u)`$ satisfies the following properties

$`\mathrm{regularity}`$ $`:`$ $`_{12}(0)=f(0)^{1/2}P_{12},`$
$`\mathrm{unitarity}`$ $`:`$ $`_{12}(u)_{12}^{t_1t_2}(u)=f(u),`$
$`\mathrm{PT}\mathrm{symmetry}`$ $`:`$ $`P_{12}_{12}(u)P_{12}=_{12}^{t_1t_2}(u),`$
$`\mathrm{cros}\text{sin}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{symmetry}`$ $`:`$ $`_{12}(u)=U_1_{12}^{t_2}(u\rho )U_1^1,`$ (1.2)
where $`f(u)`$ is some scalar function, $`t_i`$ denotes transposition in the space $`i`$ , $`\rho `$ is the crossing parameter and $`U`$ a crossing matrix, both being specific to each model . Note that unitarity and crossing-symmetry together imply the useful relation

$$M_1_{12}^{t_2}(u\rho )M_1^1_{12}^{t_1}(u\rho )=f(u).$$
(1.3)
where

$$M=U^tU=M^t.$$
(1.4)
The boundaries entail new physical quantities called reflection matrices which depend on the boundary properties. The boundary weights then follow from $`K`$-matrices which satisfy boundary versions of the Yang-Baxter equation : the reflection equation

$$_{12}(uv)K_1^{}(u)_{12}^{t_1t_2}(u+v)K_2^{}(v)=K_2^{}(v)_{12}(u+v)K_1^{}(u)_{12}^{t_1t_2}(uv),$$
(1.5)
and the dual reflection equation

$$_{12}(u+v)(K_1^+)^{t_1}(u)M_1^1_{12}^{t_1t_2}(uv2\rho )M_1(K_2^+)^{t_2}(v)$$

$$=(K_2^+)^{t_2}(v)M_1_{12}(uv2\rho )M_1^1(K_1^+)^{t_1}(u)_{12}^{t_1t_2}(u+v).$$
(1.6)
In this case there is an isomorphism between $`K^{}`$ and $`K^+`$ :

$$K^{}(u):K^+(u)=K^{}(u\rho )^tM.$$
(1.7)
Therefore, given a solution to the reflection equation (1.5) we can also find a solution to the dual reflection equation (1.6).

Due to the significance of the $`K`$-matrices in the construction of integrable models with open boundaries, a lot of work has been directed to the study  and classification  of them.

While the investigation of particular solutions has been made to a number of lattice models, Batchelor at al  have derived diagonal solutions for face and vertex models associated with several affine Lie algebras, the classification of all possible $`K`$-matrices has been a harder problem. However, recently we have proposed a procedure which allows the classification of the $`D_{n+1}^{(2)}`$  and $`A_{n1}^{(1)}`$ reflection $`K`$-matrices . In spite of these papers we decided to continue in this line in order to include the $`B_n^{(1)}`$ and $`A_{2n}^{(2)}`$ regular reflection $`K`$-matrices.

We have organized this paper as follows. In Section $`2`$ we choose the reflection equations and in Section $`3`$ their general solutions are derived. In Section $`4`$ reduced solutions are presented. The last section is reserved for the conclusion. The $`K`$-matrices for $`B_1^{(1)}`$ and $`A_2^{(2)}`$ models are written explicitly in appendices.

## 2 B$`{}_{}{}^{(1)}{}_{n}{}^{}`$ and A$`{}_{}{}^{(2)}{}_{2n}{}^{}`$ reflection equations

The $``$-matrix for the vertex models associated to the $`B_n^{(1)}`$ and $`A_{2n}^{(2)}`$ affine Lie algebras as presented by Jimbo in  has the form

$``$ $`=`$ $`a_1{\displaystyle \underset{ii^{}}{}}E_{ii}E_{ii}+a_2{\displaystyle \underset{ij,j^{}}{}}E_{ii}E_{jj}+a_3{\displaystyle \underset{i<j,ij^{}}{}}E_{ij}E_{ji}+a_4{\displaystyle \underset{i>j,ij^{}}{}}E_{ij}E_{ji}`$ (2.1)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}a_{ij}E_{ij}E_{i^{}j^{}}`$
where $`E_{ij}`$ denotes the elementary $`2n+1`$ by $`2n+1`$ matrices ($`(E_{ij})_{ab}=\delta _{ia}\delta _{ib}`$) and the Boltzmann weights with functional dependence on the spectral parameter $`u`$ are given by

$`a_1(u)`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{e}^uq^2)(\mathrm{e}^u\zeta ),a_2(u)=q(\mathrm{e}^{2u}1)(\mathrm{e}^{2u}\zeta ),`$
$`a_3(u)`$ $`=`$ $`(q^21)(\mathrm{e}^u\zeta ),a_4(u)=\mathrm{e}^ua_3(u)`$ (2.2)
and

$$a_{ij}(u)=\{\begin{array}{cc}(q^2\mathrm{e}^u\zeta )(\mathrm{e}^u1)& (i=j,ii^{^{}})\\ q(\mathrm{e}^u\zeta )(\mathrm{e}^u1)+(\zeta 1)(q^21)\mathrm{e}^u& (i=j,i=i^{^{}})\\ (q^21)\left(\zeta q^{\stackrel{\_}{i}\stackrel{\_}{j}}(\mathrm{e}^u1)\delta _{ij^{}}(\mathrm{e}^u\zeta )\right)& (i<j)\\ (q^21)\mathrm{e}^u\left(q^{\stackrel{\_}{i}\stackrel{\_}{j}}(\mathrm{e}^u1)\delta _{ij^{}}(\mathrm{e}^u\zeta )\right)& (i>j)\end{array}$$
(2.3)
where $`q=e^{2\eta }`$ denotes an arbitrary parameter and $`\stackrel{\_}{i}`$ and $`i^{}`$ are defined by

$$\stackrel{\_}{i}=\{\begin{array}{c}i+1/2(i<n+1)\\ i(i=n+1)\\ i1/2(i>n+1)\end{array}\mathrm{and}i^{}=2n+2i.$$
(2.4)
Here $`\zeta =q^{2n1}`$ for the $`B_n^{(1)}`$ models and $`\zeta =q^{2n+1}`$ for the $`A_{2n}^{(2)}`$ models.

Regular solutions of the reflection equation (1.5) mean that the matrix $`K^{}(u)`$ in the form

$$K_{}(u)=\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{2n+1}{}}k_{i,j}(u)E_{ij}$$
(2.5)
satisfies the condition

$$k_{i,j}(0)=\delta _{i,j},i,j=1,2,\mathrm{},2n+1.$$
(2.6)
Substituting (2.1) and (2.5) into (1.5), we will get $`(2n+1)^4`$ functional equations for the $`k_{i,j}`$ matrix elements, many of which are dependent. In order to solve them, we shall proceed in the following way. First we consider the $`(i,j)`$ component of the matrix equation (1.5). By differentiating it with respect to $`v`$ and taking $`v=0`$, we get algebraic equations involving the single variable $`u`$ and $`(2n+1)^2`$ parameters

$$\beta _{i,j}=\frac{dk_{i,j}(v)}{dv}|_{v=0}i,j=1,2,\mathrm{},2n+1$$
(2.7)
Second, these equations are denoted by $`E[i,j]=0`$ and collected into blocks $`B[i,j]`$ , $`i=1,\mathrm{},2n(n+1)+1`$ and $`j=i,i+1,\mathrm{},2n(n+1)+1i`$, defined by

$$B[i,j]=\{\begin{array}{c}E[i,j]=0,\\ E[j,i]=0,\\ E[(2n+1)^2+1i,(2n+1)^2+1j]=0,\\ E[(2n+1)^2+1j,(2n+1)^2+1i]=0.\end{array}$$
(2.8)
For a given block $`B[i,j]`$, the equation $`E[(2n+1)^2+1i,(2n+1)^2+1j]=0`$ can be obtained from the equation $`E[i,j]=0`$ by interchanging

$$k_{i,j}k_{i^{},j^{}},\beta _{i,j}\beta _{i^{},,j^{}},a_3a_4,a_{ij}a_{i^{}j^{},}.$$
(2.9)
and the equation $`E[j,i]=0`$ is obtained from the equation $`E[i,j]=0`$ by the interchanging

$$k_{ij}k_{ji},\beta _{ij}\beta _{ji},a_{ij}a_{j^{}i^{}}.$$
(2.10)
In that way, we will have a better control about these equations.

Since the $``$-matrix (2.1) satisfies unitarity, PT invariances and crossing symmetry, the matrix $`K^+(u)`$ is obtained using

$$K^+(u)=K^{}(u2\rho )^\mathrm{t}M.$$
(2.11)
where from  we have

$$M=\mathrm{diag}(1,q,\mathrm{},q^{n1},1,q^{1n},q^{2n},\mathrm{},q^1,1),\rho =(2n1)\eta ,$$
(2.12)
for the $`B_n^{(1)}`$ models and

$$M=\mathrm{diag}(1,q,\mathrm{},q^{n1},1,q^{1n},q^{2n},\mathrm{},q^1,1),\rho =2(2n+1)\eta i\pi $$
(2.13)
for the $`A_{2n}^{(2)}`$ models.

Here we observe that the cases $`n=1`$ are well known: $`B_1^{(1)}`$ is the Zamolodchikov-Fateev model  or the $`A_1^{(1)}`$ model (spin-$`1`$ representation) for which $`M=1`$ and $`\rho =\eta `$ while $`A_2^{(2)}`$ is the Izergin-Korepin model  which has $`M=\mathrm{diag}(\mathrm{e}^{2\eta },1,\mathrm{e}^{2\eta })`$ and $`\rho =6\eta i\pi `$.

Having built a common ground for $`B_n^{(1)}`$ and $`A_{2n}^{(2)}`$ models, we may proceed in order to find their reflection solutions.

## 3 General solutions

Analyzing the reflection equations (1.5) for $`B_n^{(1)}`$ and $`A_{2n}^{(2)}`$ models we can see that the simplest are those involving only two matrix elements of the type $`k_{i,i^{^{}}}`$ (secondary diagonal). They belong to the blocks $`B[1,2n+3],B[1,4n+5],B[1,6n+7],\mathrm{}`$, and we chose to express their solutions in terms of the element $`k_{1,2n+1}`$with $`\beta _{1,2n+1}0`$:

$$k_{i,i^{^{}}}=\left(\frac{\beta _{i,i^{^{}}}}{\beta _{1,2n+1}}\right)k_{1,2n+1}.$$
(3.1)
Next, we look at the last blocks of the collection $`\{B[1,j]\}`$. Here we can write the matrix elements of the first row $`k_{1,j}(j1,2n+1)`$ in terms of the element $`k_{1,2n+1}`$ and their transpose in terms of the element $`k_{2n+1,1}`$. From the last blocks of the collection $`\{B[2n+3,j]\}`$, the matrix elements of the second row $`k_{2,j}(j2,2n)`$ are expressed in terms of $`k_{2,2n}`$ and their transpose in terms of $`k_{2n,2}`$. Following this procedure with the collections $`\{B[4n+5,j]\},\{B[6n+7,j]\},\mathrm{},`$ we will be able to write all non-diagonal matrix elements as:

$$k_{i,j}=\left(\frac{a_1a_{11}a_2^2}{a_3a_4a_{11}^2a_2^2a_{12}a_{21}}\right)\left(\beta _{i,j}a_3a_{11}\beta _{j^{^{}},i^{^{}}}a_2a_{ij^{^{}}}\right)\frac{k_{1,2n+1}}{\beta _{1,2n+1}}(j<i^{^{}})$$
(3.2)
and

$$k_{i,j}=\left(\frac{a_1a_{11}a_2^2}{a_3a_4a_{11}^2a_2^2a_{12}a_{21}}\right)\left(\beta _{i,j}a_4a_{11}\beta _{j^{^{}},i^{^{}}}a_2a_{ij^{^{}}}\right)\frac{k_{1,2n+1}}{\beta _{1,2n+1}}(j>i^{^{}})$$
(3.3)
where we have used (3.1) and the identities

$$a_{ij}=a_{j^{^{}}i^{^{}}}\mathrm{and}a_{1j}a_{j1}=a_{12}a_{21}(j1).$$
(3.4)
Taking into account the Boltzmann weights (2.2) and (2.3), we substitute these expressions in the remaining reflection equations and look at for those without diagonal matrix elements $`k_{i,i}`$, in order to fix some parameters $`\beta _{i,j}`$ ($`ij`$). For instance, from the diagonal blocks $`B[i,i]`$ one can see that their equations are solved by the relations

$$\beta _{i,j}k_{j,i}=\beta _{j,i}k_{i,j}$$
(3.5)
provided that

$$\beta _{i,j}\beta _{j^{^{}},i^{^{}}}=\beta _{j,i}\beta _{i^{^{}},j^{^{}}}.$$
(3.6)
This procedure is simple but too long due to a large number of equations with non-diagonal terms. After some algebraic manipulations we found two possibilities to express the parameters for the matrix elements below the secondary diagonal ($`\beta _{i,j}`$ with $`j>i^{^{}}`$) in terms of those above of the secondary diagonal:

$$\beta _{i,j}=\{\begin{array}{c}ϵq^{(\stackrel{\_}{i}\stackrel{\_}{i^{^{}}})/2+j2n1}\beta _{j^{^{}},i^{^{}}}\mathrm{for}j>n+1\\ \\ ϵq^{(\stackrel{\_}{j}\stackrel{\_}{j^{^{}}})/2+i2n1}\beta _{j^{^{}},i^{^{}}}\mathrm{for}jn+1\end{array}$$
(3.7)
where $`ϵ=\pm 1`$ for $`B_n^{(1)}`$ models and $`ϵ=\pm \frac{i}{q}`$ ($`i=\sqrt{1}`$) for $`A_{2n}^{(2)}`$ models.

These relations simplify considerably the expressions for the non-diagonal matrix elements (3.2) and (3.3):

$$k_{i,j}(u)=\{\begin{array}{c}\beta _{i,j}𝒢_n^{(ϵ)}(u),(j<i^{^{}})\\ \\ \beta _{i,i^{^{}}}\left(\frac{q^{n3/2}+ϵ\mathrm{e}^u}{q^{n3/2}+ϵ}\right)𝒢_n^{(ϵ)}(u)(j=i^{^{}})\\ \\ \beta _{i,j}\mathrm{e}^u𝒢_n^{(ϵ)}(u)(j>i^{^{}})\end{array}$$
(3.8)
where $`𝒢_n^{(ϵ)}(u)`$ is defined conveniently by a normalization of $`k_{1,2n+1}(u):`$

$$𝒢_n^{(ϵ)}(u)=\frac{1}{\beta _{1,2n+1}}\left(\frac{q^{n3/2}+ϵ}{q^{n3/2}+ϵ\mathrm{e}^u}\right)k_{1,2n+1}(u).$$
(3.9)
Now, we substitute these expressions in the remaining equations and look at the equations of the type

$$F(u)𝒢_n^{(ϵ)}(u)=0$$
(3.10)
where $`F(u)=_kf_k(\left\{\beta _{ij}\right\})\mathrm{e}^{ku}`$. The constraint equations $`f_k(\left\{\beta _{ij}\right\})0,k`$, can be solved in terms of the $`2n+1`$ parameters. Of course the expressions for $`k_{ij}`$ will depend on our choice of these parameter. After some attempts we concluded the choice $`\beta _{12}`$, $`\beta _{13}`$, …, $`\beta _{1,2n+1}`$ and $`\beta _{21}`$ as the most appropriate for our purpose.

Taking into account all fixed parameters in terms of these $`2n+1`$ parameters, we can rewrite the $`k_{ij}`$ $`(ij)`$ matrix elements for $`n1`$ in the following way:

The matrix elements in the secondary diagonal of $`K^{}(u)`$ are given by

$$k_{i,i^{}}(u)=\frac{q^{\stackrel{\_}{i}2n+3/2}}{(q+1)^2}\frac{\beta _{1,i^{}}^2}{\beta _{1,2n+1}}\left(q^{n3/2}+ϵ\right)\left(q^{n3/2}+ϵ\mathrm{e}^u\right)𝒢_n^{(ϵ)}(u),(i1,2n+1)$$
(3.11)
and

$$k_{2n+1,1}(u)=q^{2n3}\left(\frac{\beta _{21}}{\beta _{1,2n}}\right)^2\beta _{1,2n+1}\left(\frac{q^{n3/2}+ϵ\mathrm{e}^u}{q^{n3/2}+ϵ}\right)𝒢_n^{(ϵ)}(u).$$
(3.12)
For the first row and the first column of $`K^{}(u)`$ the matrix elements are

$`k_{1,j}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`\beta _{1,j}𝒢_n^{(ϵ)}(u),(j1,2n+1),`$ (3.13)
$`k_{i,1}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`q^{\stackrel{\_}{i}5/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta _{21}\beta _{1,i^{^{}}}}{\beta _{1,2n}}}\right)𝒢_n^{(ϵ)}(u),(i1,2n+1)`$ (3.14)
and in the last column and the last row, we have

$`k_{i,2n+1}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`ϵq^{\stackrel{\_}{i}n1}\beta _{1,i^{}}\mathrm{e}^u𝒢_n^{(ϵ)}(u),(i1,2n+1),`$ (3.15)
$`k_{2n+1,j}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`ϵq^{n3/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta _{21}\beta _{1,j}}{\beta _{1,2n}}}\right)\mathrm{e}^u𝒢_n^{(ϵ)}(u),(j1,2n+1).`$ (3.16)
The remaining non-diagonal matrix elements are given by

$$k_{ij}(u)=\{\begin{array}{c}q^{\stackrel{\_}{i}n}\left(\frac{q^{n3/2}+ϵ}{q+1}\right)\left(\frac{\beta _{1,i^{}}\beta _{1,j}}{\beta _{1,2n+1}}\right)𝒢_n^{(ϵ)}(u)(j<i^{})\\ \\ ϵq^{\stackrel{\_}{i}2n+1/2}\left(\frac{q^{n3/2}+ϵ}{q+1}\right)\left(\frac{\beta _{1,i^{}}\beta _{1,j}}{\beta _{1,2n+1}}\right)\mathrm{e}^u𝒢_n^{(ϵ)}(u)(j>i^{})\end{array}.$$
(3.17)
At this point the remaining reflection equations involve the diagonal matrix elements $`k_{ii}(u)`$ and $`4n+2`$ parameters. However, almost all of them have only two diagonal matrix elements. Working with those containing consecutive elements we can get the following relations:

$$k_{i+1,i+1}(u)=\{\begin{array}{c}k_{i,i}(u)+\left(\beta _{i+1,i+1}\beta _{i,i}\right)𝒢_n^{(ϵ)}(u)(1in)\\ \\ k_{i,i}(u)+\left(\beta _{i+1,i+1}\beta _{i,i}\right)\mathrm{e}^u𝒢_n^{(ϵ)}(u)(n+2<i2n+1)\end{array}$$
(3.18)
and two special relations

$`k_{n+1,n+1}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`k_{n,n}(u)+\left(\beta _{n+1,n+1}\beta _{n,n}\right)𝒢_n^{(ϵ)}(u)ϵ_n^{(ϵ)}(u),`$ (3.19)
$`k_{n+2,n+2}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`k_{n+1,n+1}(u)+\left(\beta _{n+2,n+2}\beta _{n+1,n+1}\right)\mathrm{e}^u𝒢_n^{(ϵ)}(u)q^{n1/2}_n^{(ϵ)}(u),`$ (3.20)
where we have defined a scalar function

$$_n^{(ϵ)}(u)=\left(\frac{q^{2n}}{q+1}\right)\left(\frac{q^{n3/2}+ϵ}{q+1}\right)\left(\frac{\beta _{1,n}\beta _{1,n+2}}{\beta _{1,2n+1}}\right)\left(\mathrm{e}^u1\right)𝒢_n^{(ϵ)}(u).$$
(3.21)
It means that we can express all diagonal matrix elements in terms of $`𝒢_n^{(ϵ)}(u)`$ and $`k_{11}(u)`$:

$$k_{i,i}(u)=k_{11}(u)+(\beta _{i,i}\beta _{11})𝒢_n^{(ϵ)}(u)$$
(3.22)
for $`1in,`$

$$k_{n+1,n+1}(u)=k_{11}(u)+(\beta _{n+1,n+1}\beta _{11})𝒢_n^{(ϵ)}(u)ϵ_n^{(ϵ)}(u)$$
(3.23)
and

$$k_{i,i}(u)=k_{11}(u)+(\beta _{n+1,n+1}\beta _{11})𝒢_n^{(ϵ)}(u)+(\beta _{i,i}\beta _{n,n})\mathrm{e}^u𝒢_n^{(ϵ)}(u)\left(q^{n1/2}+ϵ\right)_n^{(ϵ)}(u)$$
(3.24)
for $`n+2i2n+1.`$

The most important fact is that these recurrence relations are closed by the solution of the block $`B[2n+2,4n+2]`$. From this block we can get another expression for $`k_{2n+1,2n+1}`$:

$$k_{2n+1,2n+1}(u)=\mathrm{e}^{2u}k_{11}(u)+(\beta _{2n+1,2n+1}\beta _{11}2)\mathrm{e}^u\left(\frac{q^{n3/2}+ϵ\mathrm{e}^u}{q^{n3/2}+ϵ}\right)𝒢_n^{(ϵ)}(u).$$
(3.25)
Taking $`i=2n+1`$ into (3.24) and comparing with (3.25) we can find $`k_{11}(u)`$ without solve any additional equation:

$`k_{11}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{e}^u\left(\beta _{n+1,n+1}\beta _{11}\right)(\mathrm{e}^u1)}{\mathrm{e}^{2u}1}}\right)𝒢_n^{(ϵ)}(u)\left({\displaystyle \frac{q^{n1/2}+ϵ}{\mathrm{e}^{2u}1}}\right)_n^{(ϵ)}(u)`$ (3.26)
$`ϵ\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta _{2n+1,2n+1}\beta _{11}2}{q^{n3/2}+ϵ}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^u}{\mathrm{e}^u+1}}𝒢_n^{(ϵ)}(u)`$
Here we recall that $`ϵ=\pm 1`$ for the $`B_n^{(1)}`$ models and $`ϵ=\pm \frac{i}{q}`$ for the $`A_{2n}^{(2)}`$ models.

These relations were derived for $`n>1`$. It turns out that the cases $`n=1`$ are ruled out and their general solution are presented in appendices. Indeed, these relations hold for the $`A_2^{(2)}`$ model after some modifications.

Before we substitute these expressions into the reflection equations we first need fix some parameters. To do this we can, for instance, look at the combination $`\mathrm{e}^uk_{11}(u)+k_{22}(u)`$ from several block equations. Consistency conditions of these results will give us all constraint equations to fasten the $`4n+2`$ remaining parameters. Following this procedure we can fix $`2n1`$ diagonal parameters, $`\beta _{i,i}`$ ($`i1,2n+1`$):

$$\beta _{i,i}=\{\begin{array}{c}\beta _{11}+(1)^n\left(\frac{q^{n3/2}+ϵ}{q^{n3/2}}\right)\left(_{j=0}^{i2}(q)^j\right)\frac{\beta _{1,n}\beta _{1,n+2}}{\beta _{1,2n+1}}(1<in)\\ \\ \beta _{n+2,n+2}ϵ\sqrt{q}\left(\frac{q^{n3/2}+ϵ}{q^{n3/2}}\right)\left(_{j=0}^{in3}(q)^j\right)\frac{\beta _{1,n}\beta _{1,n+2}}{\beta _{1,2n+1}}(n+2<i<2n+1)\end{array}$$
(3.27)
where

$`\beta _{n+1,n+1}`$ $`=`$ $`\beta _{11}+{\displaystyle \frac{q(q^{n3/2}+ϵ)}{q+1}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _{1.n+1}^2}{\beta _{1,2n+1}}}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{q^n+(1)^n(q+1)ϵ\sqrt{q}}{q^{n1/2}(q+1)}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\beta _{1,n}\beta _{1,n+2}}{\beta _{1,2n+1}}}\right\}`$ (3.28)
$`\beta _{n+2,n+2}`$ $`=`$ $`\beta _{11}+{\displaystyle \frac{(q^{n3/2}+ϵ)(q^{n1/2}ϵ)}{q^{n3/2}(q+1)}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _{1.n+1}^2}{\beta _{1,2n+1}}}`$ (3.29)
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{2q^n+(1)^n(1+q)+ϵ\sqrt{q}(q1)}{(q^{n1/2}ϵ)(q+1)}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\beta _{1,n}\beta _{1,n+2}}{\beta _{1,2n+1}}}\}`$
and $`n1`$ non-diagonal parameters

$`\beta _{21}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q^{2n4}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{q^{n3/2}+ϵ}{q+1}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _{12}\beta _{1,2n}^2}{\beta _{1,2n+1}^2}}`$ (3.30)
$`\beta _{1,j}`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^{n+j}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _{1,n}\beta _{1,n+2}}{\beta _{1,2n+2j}}},j=2,3,\mathrm{},n1`$ (3.31)
Next, we can substitute these expression into the block $`B[2n+1,2n+2]`$ to fix the two last parameters $`\beta _{2n+1,2n+1}`$ and $`\beta _{1,n}`$:

$`\beta _{2n+1,2n+1}`$ $`=`$ $`\beta _{11}+2+(1)^n{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ(ϵ^21)}{q^{n9/2}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{q^{n3/2}+ϵ}{q+1}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _{1,n}\beta _{1,n+2}}{\beta _{1,2n+1}}},`$ (3.32)
$`\beta _{1,n}`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^n{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ(q+1)}{\left(ϵ\sqrt{q}(1)^n\right)^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta _{1,n+1}^2}{\beta _{1,n+2}}}2{\displaystyle \frac{q^{n3/2}(q+1)}{(q^{n3/2}+ϵ)(q^{n1/2}ϵ)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _{1,2n+1}}{\beta _{1,n+2}}}\right).`$ (3.33)
In that way, we have derived the $`B_n^{(1)}`$ and $`A_{2n}^{(2)}`$ general solutions for the boundary Yang-Baxter equations (1.5) and their dual equations (1.6), using (2.11).

The final result are two solutions with $`n+2`$ parameters $`\beta _{1,n+1},\beta _{1,n+2},\mathrm{},\beta _{1,2n+1}`$ and $`\beta _{11}`$. The number of free parameters is $`n+1`$ because we still have to use the regular condition (2.6). For instance, we can choose the arbitrary functions as

$$k_{1,2n+1}(u)=\frac{1}{2}\beta _{1,2n+1}(\mathrm{e}^{2u}1)$$
(3.34)
and fix the parameter $`\beta _{11}`$ by the regular condition.

Let us summarize these results: First, we have from (3.11) to (3.17) all non-diagonal matrix elements. Second, the diagonal matrix elements are obtained using (3.22), (3.23) and (3.24) with $`k_{11}(u)`$ given by (3.26). Finally we substitute into these matrix elements all fixed parameters which are given by (3.27)–(3.33). The final expressions for these matrix elements are very cumbersome.

## 4 Reduced solutions

In the previous section we have used the condition $`\beta _{1,2n+1}0`$ and considered all $`\beta _{i,j}`$ different from zero. Nevertheless, the cases $`\beta _{1,2n+1}=0`$ and all $`\beta _{i,j}=0`$ $`(ji,i^{})`$ should be considered separately.

In this section we will relax these conditions. First we observe that the parameters $`\beta _{i,j}`$ and $`\beta _{j,i}`$ $`(ij)`$ are linked by the relation (3.5) and the constraint equations (3.6) and (3.7) together the normalization condition (2.6) imply that

$$\mathrm{if}\beta _{i,j}=0,\mathrm{then}\{\begin{array}{c}k_{ij}(u)=0,\mathrm{for}ij\\ \mathrm{or}\\ k_{ij}(u)=1,\mathrm{for}i=j\end{array}$$
(4.1)
In our general solutions we have $`n+1`$ free parameters. Therefore,we can generate several reduced solutions taking one or more free parameters equal to zero.

From the reflection equations for $`n>1`$ one can see that the vanishing of an $`k_{i,i^{}}`$ element implies that the only elements different from zero are those in the $`i`$th-row and in the $`i^{}`$th-column of $`K^{}`$, i.e.

$$\beta _{i,i^{}}=0\left\{k_{i,l}(u)=0(li)\mathrm{and}k_{l,i^{}}(u)=0(li^{})\right\}$$
(4.2)
Similar consideration holds for their tranpose elements. This procedure gives us several $`K`$-matrices which can be obtained from the general solution after an appropriate choice of parameters. For example, to get diagonal solutions from the general solutions it is enough to take the limit $`\beta _{i,i^{}}0`$. This limit procedure is not trivial due to our initial choice for the free parameters and one can lose solutions. We can outline this problem solving the reflection equations again but now with diagonal $`K`$-matrices.

### 4.1 Diagonal solutions

Solving the reflection equation we found $`2n1`$ diagonal solutions for the $`B_n^{(1)}`$ models and $`2n+1`$ diagonal solutions for the $`A_{2n}^{(2)}`$ models. We denoted these solutions by $`𝕂_ϵ^{[p]}`$ and $`𝕂_{[\beta ]}`$. The matrix elements of $`𝕂_ϵ^{[p]}`$ are given by

$`k_{11}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`k_{22}(u)=\mathrm{}=k_{p,p}(u)=\mathrm{e}^u`$
$`k_{p+1,p+1}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`k_{p+1,p+1}(u)=\mathrm{}=k_{2n+1p,2n+1p}(u)={\displaystyle \frac{q^{2pn1/2}\mathrm{e}^u+ϵ}{q^{2pn1/2}+ϵ\mathrm{e}^u}}`$
$`k_{2n+2p,2n+2p}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`k_{2n+3p,2n+3p}(u)=\mathrm{}=k_{2n+1,2n+1}(u)=\mathrm{e}^u`$ (4.3)
while the matrix elements of $`𝕂_{[\beta ]}`$ are

$`k_{11}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta (\mathrm{e}^u1)+2}{\beta (\mathrm{e}^u1)+2}}\right)`$
$`k_{22}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}=k_{n+1,n+1}(u)=\mathrm{}=k_{2n,2n}(u)=1`$
$`k_{2n+1,2n+1}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta (q^{2n3}\mathrm{e}^u1)+2}{\beta (q^{2n3}\mathrm{e}^u1)+2}}\right)`$ (4.4)
where $`\beta =\beta _{n+1,n+1}\beta _{11}`$ is the free parameter. These solutions hold for $`n1`$.

For the $`B_n^{(1)}`$ models the diagonal solutions are $`𝕂_ϵ^{[p]}(p=2,3,\mathrm{},n)`$ with $`ϵ=\pm 1`$ and the one parameter solution $`𝕂_{[\beta ]}`$. For the $`A_{2n}^{(2)}`$ models the diagonal solutions are $`𝕂_ϵ^{[p]}(p=1,2,\mathrm{},n)`$ with $`ϵ=\pm \frac{i}{q}`$ and the trivial solution which is multiple of the identity.

Here we notice that the solutions $`𝕂_ϵ^{[p=n]}`$ were already computed by Batchelor at al . Moreover, the cases $`n=1`$ are well known: The diagonal solution for $`B_1^{(1)}`$ model is the matrix $`𝕂_{[\beta ]}`$ (4.4)

$$𝕂_{[\beta ]}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{\beta (\mathrm{e}^u1)+2}{\beta (\mathrm{e}^u1)+2}& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& \frac{\beta (q^1\mathrm{e}^u1)+2}{\beta (q^1\mathrm{e}^u1)+2}\end{array}\right)$$
(4.5)
while for the $`A_2^{(2)}`$ model the diagonal solutions are

$$𝕂^{[0]}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right),𝕂_{i/q}^{[1]}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{e}^u& 0& 0\\ 0& \frac{q\sqrt{q}\mathrm{e}^u+i}{q\sqrt{q}+i\mathrm{e}^u}& 0\\ 0& 0& \mathrm{e}^u\end{array}\right),𝕂_{i/q}^{[1]}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{e}^u& 0& 0\\ 0& \frac{q\sqrt{q}\mathrm{e}^ui}{q\sqrt{q}i\mathrm{e}^u}& 0\\ 0& 0& \mathrm{e}^u\end{array}\right).$$
(4.6)
These solutions were obtained for the first time by Menzincescu and Nepomechie in  and in , together with Rittenberg.

### 4.2 The case $`\beta _{i,j}=0`$ $`(ji,i^{})`$

Following our classification procedure we still have to consider the case for which all $`\beta _{i,j}=0`$ ($`ji,i^{}`$). The corresponding non-zero matrix elements are $`k_{i,i}`$ (main diagonal) and $`k_{i,i^{}}`$ (secondary diagonal).

For the $`B_n^{(1)}`$ models it is not a new type of solution because it is a limit of the general solutions. Taking the limit $`\beta _{i,j}0`$ ($`ji,i^{}`$) into the general solutions for each $`B_n^{(1)}`$ model ($`n1`$) we can find one reduced solution whose normalized matrix elements are given by

$`k_{11}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`k_{22}(u)=\mathrm{}=k_{n,n}(u)=1`$
$`k_{n+1,n+1}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{2u}q}{1q}}`$
$`k_{n+2,n+2}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`k_{n+3,n+3}(u)=\mathrm{}=k_{2n+1,2n+1}(u)=\mathrm{e}^{2u}`$ (4.7)
and

$$k_{i,i^{}}(u)=\{\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{2}\beta _{i,i^{}}(\mathrm{e}^{2u}1)i<n+1\\ \\ \frac{q}{(q1)^2}\frac{2}{\beta _{i^{},i}}\left(\mathrm{e}^{2u}1\right)i>n+1\end{array}$$
(4.8)
Observe that this limit procedure reduced to $`n`$ the number of free parameters.

For each $`A_{2n}^{(2)}`$ model ($`n1`$) we find the following $`K`$-matrix

$`k_{11}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`k_{22}(u)=\mathrm{}=k_{n,n}(u)=1+\beta _{11}(\mathrm{e}^u1)`$
$`k_{n+1,n+1}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`\beta _{11}\mathrm{e}^u{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{2u}q}{1q}}(\beta _{11}1)`$
$`k_{n+2,n+2}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`k_{n+3,n+3}(u)=\mathrm{}=k_{2n+1,2n+1}(u)=\mathrm{e}^{2u}\left[1+\beta _{11}(\mathrm{e}^u1)\right]`$ (4.9)
and

$$k_{i,i^{}}(u)=\{\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{2}\beta _{i,i^{}}(\mathrm{e}^{2u}1)i<n+1\\ \\ q\left(\frac{\beta _{11}1}{q1}\right)^2\frac{2}{\beta _{i^{},i}}\left(\mathrm{e}^{2u}1\right)i>n+1\end{array}$$
(4.10)
Note that in this solution, the number of free parameters is same of the general solutions. Therefore it is not a limit of our general solution. This is a new type of $`K`$-matrix with $`n+1`$ free parameters. In particular, for the Izergin-Korepin model, it has the form

$$K^{}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1+\beta _{11}(\mathrm{e}^u1)& 0& \frac{1}{2}\beta _{13}(\mathrm{e}^{2u}1)\\ 0& \beta _{11}\mathrm{e}^u\frac{\mathrm{e}^{2u}q}{1q}(\beta _{11}1)& 0\\ \frac{1}{\beta _{13}}\frac{2q(\beta _{11}1)^2}{(q1)^2}(\mathrm{e}^{2u}1)& 0& \mathrm{e}^{2u}\left[1+\beta _{11}(\mathrm{e}^u1)\right]\end{array}\right)$$
(4.11)
This two free parameter solution for $`A_2^{(2)}`$ model was derived for the first time by Kim .

## 5 Conclusion

We still are believing that a direct computation should be a starting point to obtain and classify the solutions of the boundary Yang-Baxter equations.

After a systematic study of their functional equations we find solutions for the vertex models associated with the $`B_n^{(1)}`$ and $`A_{2n}^{(2)}`$ affine Lie algebras. For the $`B_n^{(1)}`$ models there is a ruled out solution when $`n=1`$. But, for $`n>1`$ their solutions following the same rules used for obtain the $`A_{2n}^{(2)}`$ solutions. These models have a rich spectrum of diagonal solutions: For each $`B_n^{(1)}`$ model there are $`2n1`$ diagonal solutions, being $`2n2`$ without free parameters and one $`1`$-free parameter solution. For the $`A_{2n}^{(2)}`$ models we found $`2n+1`$ diagonal solutions without any free parameters.

To complete the classification for all non-exceptional Lie algebras we still have to consider the vertex models associated with the $`C_n^{(1)}`$, $`D_n^{(1)}`$,and $`A_{2n1}^{(2)}`$ Lie algebras.

Acknowledgment: This work was supported in part by Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo–FAPESP–Brasil and by Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento–CNPq–Brasil.

## Appendix A The B$`{}_{}{}^{(1)}{}_{1}{}^{}`$ general solution

In this appendix we will present the $`K`$-matrix solutions for the $`B_1^{(1)}`$ model. The corresponding $`K^{}`$ matrix has the form

$$K^{}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}k_{11}& k_{12}& k_{13}\\ k_{21}& k_{22}& k_{23}\\ k_{31}& k_{32}& k_{33}\end{array}\right).$$
(A.1)
Analyzing the reflection equations we can see that the relations (3.7) vanish. Therefore we do not have the simplified form for non-diagonal elements (3.8) in terms of the function $`𝒢(u)`$.

Solving the reflection equations we find the following non-diagonal elements

$`k_{21}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _{21}}{\beta _{12}}}k_{12}(u),k_{12}(u)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{q}\beta _{23}(\mathrm{e}^u1)+\beta _{12}(q\mathrm{e}^u1)}{q\mathrm{e}^{2u}1}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{k_{13}(u)}{\beta _{13}}},`$
$`k_{32}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _{21}}{\beta _{12}}}k_{23}(u),k_{23}(u)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{q}\beta _{12}(\mathrm{e}^u1)+\beta _{23}(q\mathrm{e}^u1)}{q\mathrm{e}^{2u}1}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^uk_{13}(u)}{\beta _{13}}},`$
$`k_{31}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta _{21}}{\beta _{12}}}\right)^2k_{13}(u)`$ (A.2)
where

$$\beta _{21}=\sqrt{q}\left(\frac{(q1)\beta _{12}\beta _{23}2(q+1)\beta _{13}}{q^21}\right)\frac{\beta _{12}}{\beta _{13}^2}$$
(A.3)
In the same way, we also could not find a recurrence relation of the type (3.18) for the diagonal elements. Instead of that, we find the diagonal matrix elements by a direct computation:

$`k_{11}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{k_{13}(u)}{\beta _{13}(\mathrm{e}^{2u}1)}}`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{q}\left[(q\mathrm{e}^u1)\beta _{12}^2+(\mathrm{e}^uq)\beta _{23}^2\right]+(q+1)(q\mathrm{e}^u1)\beta _{12}\beta _{23}}{(1+q)(q\mathrm{e}^{2u}1)(\mathrm{e}^u+1)}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{k_{13}(u)}{\beta _{13}^2}}`$
$`k_{22}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{e}^{2u}q)k_{13}(u)}{\beta _{13}(q1)(\mathrm{e}^{2u}1)}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1+q)(q\mathrm{e}^{2u}1)(\mathrm{e}^u+1)}}\{\sqrt{q}\mathrm{e}^u(q\mathrm{e}^u1)(\beta _{12}^2+\beta _{23}^2)`$
$`+[(\mathrm{e}^u+q)(q\mathrm{e}^{2u}1)+2q\mathrm{e}^u(\mathrm{e}^u1)]\beta _{12}\beta _{23}\}{\displaystyle \frac{k_{13}(u)}{\beta _{13}^2}}`$
$`k_{33}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{2u}k_{13}(u)}{\beta _{13}(\mathrm{e}^{2u}1)}}`$ (A.4)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{q}\left[(q\mathrm{e}^u1)\beta _{23}^2+(\mathrm{e}^uq)\beta _{12}^2\right]+(q+1)(q\mathrm{e}^u1)\beta _{12}\beta _{23}}{(1+q)(q\mathrm{e}^{2u}1)(\mathrm{e}^u+1)}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{2u}k_{13}(u)}{\beta _{13}^2}}`$
This is the $`3`$-parameter solution for the $`B_1^{(1)}`$ model or the Zamolodchikov-Fateev model, which was obtained for the first time by Inami at al .

Note that in the limit $`\beta _{23}=\pm \beta _{12}`$ $``$ $`\beta _{32}=\pm \beta _{21}`$ this solution is unfolded in two $`2`$-parameter solutions which satisfy, up to minor modifications, the procedure used in the previous section to find the $`B_n^{(1)}`$ $`(n>1)`$ solutions. The corresponding diagonal solution is given by (4.5).

## Appendix B The A$`{}_{}{}^{(2)}{}_{2}{}^{}`$ general solutions

In this appendix we consider the $`K`$-matrix solution for the Izergin-Korepin model and try to understand the words ”up to minor modifications” used previously.

Solving the $`A_2^{(2)}`$ reflection equations we still have the relations (3.7):

$$\beta _{23}=ϵ\beta _{12},\beta _{32}=ϵ\beta _{21}$$
(B.1)
where $`ϵ=\pm i/q`$. Let us to consider the case $`ϵ=i/q.`$

The non-diagonal matrix elements can be read from (3.8)

$`k_{12}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`\beta _{12}𝒢(u),k_{21}(u)=\beta _{21}𝒢(u),k_{23}(u)=\beta _{23}\mathrm{e}^u𝒢(u)`$
$`k_{31}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`\beta _{31}𝒢(u),k_{32}(u)=\beta _{32}𝒢(u)`$ (B.2)
where we have used the notation $`𝒢(u)`$ for the function $`𝒢_1^{(ϵ)}(u)`$

$$𝒢(u)=\frac{1}{\beta _{13}}\left(\frac{\sqrt{q}+i}{\sqrt{q}+i\mathrm{e}^u}\right)k_{13}(u)$$
(B.3)
and $`\beta _{31}`$ is the last non-diagonal parameter fixed before we consider the diagonal term

$$\beta _{31}=\left(\frac{\beta _{21}}{\beta _{12}}\right)^2\beta _{13}.$$
(B.4)
For the diagonal terms we still have the special recurrence relations (3.20)

$`k_{22}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`k_{11}(u)+(\beta _{22}\beta _{11})𝒢(u){\displaystyle \frac{i}{q}}𝒫(u),`$
$`k_{33}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`k_{22}(u)+(\beta _{33}\beta _{22})\mathrm{e}^u𝒢(u)\sqrt{q}𝒫(u),`$ (B.5)
but with a new scalar function $`𝒫(u)`$ different from $`_1^{(ϵ)}`$ given by (3.21)

$$𝒫(u)=\frac{\sqrt{q}\beta _{21}\beta _{13}}{\beta _{12}}\left(\frac{\mathrm{e}^u1}{\sqrt{q}+i}\right)𝒢(u).$$
(B.6)
Again, the block $`B[4,6]`$ close the recurrence relation

$$k_{33}(u)=\mathrm{e}^{2u}k_{11}(u)+(\beta _{33}\beta _{11}2)\mathrm{e}^u𝒢(u)\left(\frac{\sqrt{q}+i\mathrm{e}^u}{\sqrt{q}+i}\right),$$
(B.7)
which gives us the $`k_{11}(u)`$ element

$`k_{11}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{e}^u\left(\beta _{22}\beta _{11}\right)(\mathrm{e}^u1)}{\mathrm{e}^{2u}1}}\right)𝒢(u)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{q}+\frac{i}{q}}{\mathrm{e}^{2u}1}}\right)𝒫(u)`$ (B.8)
$`i\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta _{33}\beta _{11}2}{\sqrt{q}+i}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^u}{\mathrm{e}^u+1}}𝒢(u)`$
and we are leaving with the problem to find $`\beta _{33}`$, $`\beta _{22}`$ and $`\beta _{21}`$

$`\beta _{33}`$ $`=`$ $`\beta _{11}+2+i\left({\displaystyle \frac{q^2+1}{q}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\beta _{21}\beta _{13}}{\beta _{12}}},`$
$`\beta _{22}`$ $`=`$ $`\beta _{11}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{2q^{3/2}}{q^{3/2}i}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+qiq^{3/2}}{\sqrt{q}}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\beta _{21}\beta _{13}}{\beta _{12}}}`$ (B.9)
and

$$\beta _{21}=\left(\frac{2iq}{(\sqrt{q}+i)(q^{3/2}i)}\right)\frac{\beta _{12}}{\beta _{13}}\left(\frac{i}{\sqrt{q}(q+1)}\right)\frac{\beta _{12}^2}{\beta _{13}^2}.$$
(B.10)
Differences from the $`A_{2n}^{(2)}`$ ($`n>1`$) to $`A_2^{(2)}`$ procedure are due to our previous choice of the free parameters. It means that we can not take the limit $`n1`$ in the $`A_{2n}^{(2)}`$ general solutions to get the solutions for the $`A_2^{(2)}`$ model.

Finally, we observe that there is an apparent simplification in these calculus when we are comparing with those presented in . However, after we substitute the fixed parameters the final form for this solution is still cumbersome. Nevertheless, there is an equivalent solution for the $`A_2^{(2)}`$ model derived by Nepomechie  which looks simpler.

There are three diagonal solutions for this model which were already presented in (4.6) as well as a second type of solution obtained by Kim was presented in (4.11).