text:
# New spin Calogero–Sutherland models related to 𝐵_𝑁-type Dunkl operators

## I Introduction

The completely integrable and exactly solvable models of Calogero Ca71  and Sutherland Su7172  describe a system of $`N`$ quantum particles in one dimension with long-range pairwise interaction. These models and their subsequent generalizations (see OP83  and references therein for a comprehensive review) have been extensively applied in many different fields of physical interest, such as fractional statistics and anyons Po89 ; Ha9495 ; ILO99 , quantum Hall liquids AI94 , Yang–Mills theories GN94 ; DF98 , and propagation of soliton waves Po95 . A significant effort has been devoted over the last decade to the extension of scalar Calogero–Sutherland models to systems of particles with internal degrees of freedom or “spin” HH92 ; BGHP93 ; HW93 ; MP93 ; MP94 ; Ya95 ; BM96 ; In97 ; Du98 ; FGGRZ01 . These models have attracted considerable interest due to their connection with integrable spin chains of Haldane–Shastry type Ha88 ; Sh88  through the “freezing trick” of Polychronakos Po93 .

The exactly solvable and integrable spin models introduced in HH92 ; MP93  generalize the original rational (Calogero) and trigonometric (Sutherland) scalar models, and are invariant with respect to the Weyl group of type $`A_N`$. The exact solvability of both models can be established by relating the Hamiltonian to a quadratic combination of either the Dunkl Du89  or the Dunkl–Cherednik Ch9194  operators of $`A_N`$ type, whose relevance in this context was first pointed out by Polychronakos Po92 . We shall use the term “Dunkl operators” to collectively refer to this type of operators. Up to the best of our knowledge, only two $`B_N`$-invariant spin Calogero–Sutherland models have been proposed so far in the literature, namely the rational and the trigonometric spin models constructed by Yamamoto in Ya95 . The exact solvability of the rational Yamamoto model was later proved in Ref. Du98  using the Dunkl operator formalism. The exact solvability of the trigonometric Yamamoto model will be proved in this paper.

In a recent paper FGGRZ01  the authors proposed a new systematic method for constructing spin Calogero–Sutherland models of type $`A_N`$. One of the key ingredients of the method was the introduction of a new family of Dunkl-type operators which, together with the Dunkl operators defined in Du89 ; Ch9194 , preserve a certain polynomial module of finite dimension. It was shown that a wide class of quadratic combinations of all three types of Dunkl operators always yields a spin Calogero–Sutherland model. In this way all the previously known exactly solvable spin Calogero–Sutherland models of $`A_N`$ type are recovered and, what is more important, several new exactly and quasi-exactly solvable spin models are obtained. By quasi-exactly solvable (QES) we mean here that the Hamiltonian preserves a known finite-dimensional subspace of smooth functions, so that a finite subset of the spectrum can be computed algebraically; see Tu88 ; Sh89 ; Us94  for further details. If the Hamiltonian leaves invariant an infinite increasing sequence of finite-dimensional subspaces, we shall say that the model is exactly solvable (ES).

In this paper we extend the method of Ref. FGGRZ01  to construct new families of (Q)ES spin Calogero–Sutherland models of $`BC_N`$ type. To this end, we define in Section II a new set of Dunkl operators of $`B_N`$ type leaving invariant a certain polynomial subspace of finite dimension, which is also preserved by the original Dunkl operators of $`B_N`$ type introduced in Du98 . In Section III, we show that a suitable quadratic combination of all three types of Dunkl operators discussed in Section II can be mapped into a multi-parameter (Q)ES physical Hamiltonian with spin. This approach is a generalization of the construction used to prove the integrability of the $`A_N`$ spin Calogero–Sutherland models, in which only a single set of Dunkl operators is involved. Our method is also related to the so-called hidden symmetry algebra approach to scalar $`N`$-body QES models MRT96 ; HS99 ; GGR00 , where the Hamiltonian is expressed as a quadratic combination of the generators of a realization of $`𝔰𝔩(N+1)`$. We then show that the sets of Dunkl operators used in our construction are invariant under inversions and scale transformations. This property is exploited in Section IV to perform a complete classification of the $`BC_N`$-type (Q)ES spin Calogero–Sutherland models that can be constructed with the method described in this paper. The resulting potentials can be divided into nine inequivalent classes, out of which only two (the rational and trigonometric Yamamoto models) were previously known. In particular, we obtain four new families of elliptic QES spin Calogero–Sutherland models of $`BC_N`$ type. Section V is devoted to the discussion of the general structure of the potentials listed in Section IV. We prove that all the potentials in the classification are expressible in a unified way in terms of a Weierstrass $`\mathrm{}`$ function with suitable (sometimes infinite) half-periods. This provides a natural spin counterpart of Olshanetsky and Perelomov’s formula for a general scalar potential related to the $`BC_N`$ root system. Finally, in Section VI we illustrate the method by exactly computing several energy levels and their corresponding eigenstates for an elliptic spin $`1/2`$ potential in the two- and three-particle cases.

## II $`B_N`$-type Dunkl Operators

In this section we introduce a new familiy of $`B_N`$-type Dunkl operators which will play a central role in our construction of new (Q)ES spin Calogero–Sutherland models.

Let $`f(𝐳)`$ be an arbitrary function of $`𝐳=(z_1,\mathrm{},z_N)^N`$. Consider the permutation operators $`K_{ij}=K_{ji}`$ and the sign reversing operators $`K_i`$, whose action on the function $`f`$ is given by

$`(K_{ij}f)(z_1,\mathrm{},z_i,\mathrm{},z_j,\mathrm{},z_N)=f(z_1,\mathrm{},z_j,\mathrm{},z_i,\mathrm{},z_N),`$ (1)
$`(K_if)(z_1,\mathrm{},z_i,\mathrm{},z_N)=f(z_1,\mathrm{},z_i,\mathrm{},z_N),`$
where $`i,j=1,\mathrm{},N`$. It follows that $`K_{ij}`$ and $`K_i`$ verify the relations

$$\begin{array}{c}K_{ij}^2=1,K_{ij}K_{jk}=K_{ik}K_{ij}=K_{jk}K_{ik},K_{ij}K_{kl}=K_{kl}K_{ij},\\ K_i^2=1,K_iK_j=K_jK_i,K_{ij}K_k=K_kK_{ij},K_{ij}K_j=K_iK_{ij},\end{array}$$
(2)
where the indices $`i,j,k,l`$ take distinct values in the range $`1,\mathrm{},N`$. The operators $`K_{ij},K_i`$ span the Weyl group of type $`B_N`$, also called the hyperoctahedral group. We shall also employ the customary notation $`\stackrel{~}{K}_{ij}=K_iK_jK_{ij}`$. Let us consider the following set of Dunkl operators:

$`J_i^{}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{}{z_i}}+a\left({\displaystyle \underset{ji}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z_iz_j}}(1K_{ij})+{\displaystyle \underset{ji}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z_i+z_j}}(1\stackrel{~}{K}_{ij})\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{b}{z_i}}(1K_i),`$ (3)
$`J_i^0`$ $`=z_i{\displaystyle \frac{}{z_i}}{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{a}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{ji}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{z_i+z_j}{z_iz_j}}(1K_{ij})+{\displaystyle \underset{ji}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{z_iz_j}{z_i+z_j}}(1\stackrel{~}{K}_{ij})\right),`$ (4)
$`J_i^+`$ $`=z_i^2{\displaystyle \frac{}{z_i}}mz_i+a\left({\displaystyle \underset{ji}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{z_iz_j}{z_iz_j}}(1K_{ij}){\displaystyle \underset{ji}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{z_iz_j}{z_i+z_j}}(1\stackrel{~}{K}_{ij})\right)b^{}z_i\left(1(1)^mK_i\right),`$ (5)
where $`a,b,b^{}`$ are nonzero real parameters, $`m`$ is a nonnegative integer, and $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$. In Eqs. (3)–(5), the symbol $`_{ji}`$ denotes summation in $`j`$ with $`j=1,\mathrm{},i1,i+1,\mathrm{},N`$. In general, any summation or product index without an explicit range will be understood in this paper to run from $`1`$ to $`N`$, unless otherwise constrained. It shall also be clear in each case whether a sum symbol with more than one index present denotes single or multiple summation.

The operators $`J_i^{}`$ in Eq. (3) have been used by Dunkl Du98  to construct a complete set of eigenvectors for Yamamoto’s $`B_N`$ rational spin model Ya95 . The operators $`J_i^0`$ were also introduced by Dunkl in Ref. Du98 . To the best of our knowledge, the operators $`J_i^+`$ have not been considered previously in the literature.

The operators (3)–(5) obey the commutation relations

$$[J_i^\pm ,J_j^\pm ]=0,[J_i^0,J_j^0]=\frac{a^2}{4}\underset{ki,j}{}(K_{ij}+\stackrel{~}{K}_{ij})(K_{jk}+\stackrel{~}{K}_{jk}K_{ik}\stackrel{~}{K}_{ik}),$$
(6)
$$[K_{ij},J_k^ϵ]=0,K_{ij}J_i^ϵ=J_j^ϵK_{ij},[K_i,J_j^ϵ]=0,K_iJ_i^ϵ=(1)^ϵJ_i^ϵK_i,$$
(7)
where $`ϵ=\pm ,0`$, and the indices $`i,j,k`$ take distinct values in the range $`1,\mathrm{},N`$. The operators $`J_i^{}`$ (respectively $`J_i^+`$), $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$, together with $`K_{ij}`$ and $`K_i`$, $`i,j=1,\mathrm{},N`$, span a degenerate affine Hecke algebra, see Ch9194 . The operators $`J_i^0`$ do not commute, but since $`J_i^0+\frac{a}{2}_{j<i}(K_{ij}+\stackrel{~}{K}_{ij})\frac{a}{2}_{j>i}(K_{ij}+\stackrel{~}{K}_{ij})`$ do, it can be shown that the latter operators, together with $`K_{ij}`$ and $`K_i`$, also define a degenerate affine Hecke algebra.

It is well-known Du98  that the operators $`J_i^{}`$ and $`J_i^0`$ preserve the space $`𝒫_n`$ of polynomials in $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_N`$ of degree at most $`n`$, for all $`n`$. Moreover, for any nonnegative integer $`n`$, the space $`_n`$ spanned by the monomials $`_iz_i^{l_i}`$ with $`0l_in`$ is also invariant under the action of both $`J_i^{}`$ and $`J_i^0`$. Let us prove this assertion in the case of $`J_i^0`$. Since $`(z_i\frac{}{z_i}\frac{m}{2})_n_n`$, it suffices to show that

$$\frac{z_i+z_j}{z_iz_j}(1K_{ij})\underset{k}{}z_k^{l_k}_n,\text{and}\frac{z_iz_j}{z_i+z_j}(1\stackrel{~}{K}_{ij})\underset{k}{}z_k^{l_k}_n,$$
(8)
for any pair of indices $`1ijN`$. For the first inclusion we note that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{z_i+z_j}{z_iz_j}}(1K_{ij}){\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}z_k^{l_k}`$ $`=\left({\displaystyle \underset{ki,j}{}}z_k^{l_k}\right)(z_i+z_j)(z_iz_j)^{\mathrm{min}(l_i,l_j)}\mathrm{sign}(l_il_j){\displaystyle \frac{z_i^{|l_il_j|}z_j^{|l_il_j|}}{z_iz_j}}`$ (9)
$`=\left({\displaystyle \underset{ki,j}{}}z_k^{l_k}\right)(z_i+z_j)(z_iz_j)^{\mathrm{min}(l_i,l_j)}\mathrm{sign}(l_il_j){\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{|l_il_j|1}{}}}z_i^{|l_il_j|1k}z_j^k,`$
where

$$\mathrm{sign}(p)=\{\begin{array}{cc}1,\hfill & p<0,\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & p=0,\hfill \\ 1,\hfill & p>0.\hfill \end{array}$$

The resulting polynomial thus belongs to $`_n`$. Indeed, it is a linear combination of monomials $`_kz_k^{\stackrel{~}{l}_k}`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{l}_k=l_k`$ for $`ki,j`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{l}_i,\stackrel{~}{l}_j\mathrm{max}(l_i,l_j)`$. Likewise, the second inclusion in (8) follows from the identity

$`{\displaystyle \frac{z_iz_j}{z_i+z_j}}(1\stackrel{~}{K}_{ij}){\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}z_k^{l_k}`$ $`=\left({\displaystyle \underset{ki,j}{}}z_k^{l_k}\right)(z_iz_j)(z_iz_j)^{\mathrm{min}(l_i,l_j)}s(l_i,l_j){\displaystyle \frac{z_j^{|l_il_j|}(1)^{l_i+l_j}z_i^{|l_il_j|}}{z_i+z_j}}`$ (10)
$`=\left({\displaystyle \underset{ki,j}{}}z_k^{l_k}\right)(z_iz_j)(z_iz_j)^{\mathrm{min}(l_i,l_j)}s(l_i,l_j){\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{|l_il_j|1}{}}}(z_i)^{|l_il_j|1k}z_j^k,`$
where

$$s(p,q)=\{\begin{array}{cc}1,\hfill & p<q,\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & p=q,\hfill \\ (1)^{p+q},\hfill & p>q.\hfill \end{array}$$

We omit the analogous proof for the operators $`J_i^{}`$. Unlike the previous types of Dunkl operators, the operators $`J_i^+`$ in Eq. (5) do not preserve the polynomial spaces $`𝒫_n`$ and $`_k`$ with $`km`$. However, the space $`_m`$ is invariant under the action of $`J_i^+`$. In fact, the operator

$$z_i^2\frac{}{z_i}mz_ib^{}z_i\left(1(1)^mK_i\right),$$

preserves $`_m`$, and, just as we did in the case of $`J_i^0`$, one can show that both

$$\frac{z_iz_j}{z_iz_j}(1K_{ij})\text{and}\frac{z_iz_j}{z_i+z_j}(1\stackrel{~}{K}_{ij})$$

preserve $`_n`$ for any nonnegative integer $`n`$.

## III $`BC_N`$-type spin many-body Hamiltonians

In Section II we have shown that all three sets of $`B_N`$-type Dunkl operators (3)–(5) preserve the finite-dimensional polynomial space $`_m`$. In this section we shall use this fundamental property to construct several families of (Q)ES many-body Hamiltonians with internal degrees of freedom.

Let $`𝔖=\mathrm{span}\{|s_1,\mathrm{},s_Ns_i=M,M+1,\mathrm{},M;M\frac{1}{2}\}`$ be the Hilbert space of the particles’ internal degrees of freedom or “spin”. We shall denote by $`S_{ij}`$ and $`S_i`$, $`i,j=1,\mathrm{},N`$, the spin permutation and spin reversing operators, respectively, whose action on a spin state $`|s_1,\mathrm{},s_N`$ is defined by

$`S_{ij}|s_1,\mathrm{},s_i,\mathrm{},s_j,\mathrm{},s_N=|s_1,\mathrm{},s_j,\mathrm{},s_i,\mathrm{},s_N,`$ (11)
$`S_i|s_1,\mathrm{},s_i,\mathrm{},s_N=|s_1,\mathrm{},s_i,\mathrm{},s_N.`$
The operators $`S_{ij}`$ and $`S_i`$ are represented in $`𝔖`$ by $`(2M+1)^N`$-dimensional Hermitian matrices, and obey identities analogous to (2). The notation $`\stackrel{~}{S}_{ij}=S_iS_jS_{ij}`$ shall also be used in what follows.

We shall deal in this paper with a system of $`N`$ identical fermions, so that the physical states are completely antisymmetric under permutations of the particles. A physical state $`\psi `$ must therefore satisfy $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0\psi =\psi `$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ is the antisymmetrisation operator defined by the relations $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2=\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}\mathrm{\Lambda }_0=\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$, $`j>i=1,\mathrm{},N`$, with $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}=K_{ij}S_{ij}`$. Since $`K_{ij}^2=1`$, the above relations are equivalent to $`K_{ij}\mathrm{\Lambda }_0=S_{ij}\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$, $`j>i=1,\mathrm{},N`$. For the lowest values of $`N`$, the antisymmetriser $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ is given by

$`N=2:\mathrm{\Lambda }_0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1\mathrm{\Pi }_{12}),`$
$`N=3:\mathrm{\Lambda }_0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}(1\mathrm{\Pi }_{12}\mathrm{\Pi }_{13}\mathrm{\Pi }_{23}+\mathrm{\Pi }_{12}\mathrm{\Pi }_{13}+\mathrm{\Pi }_{12}\mathrm{\Pi }_{23}).`$
Our aim is to construct new (Q)ES Hamiltonians symmetric under the Weyl group of type $`B_N`$ generated by the permutation operators $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}`$ and the sign reversing operators $`K_iS_i`$. The corresponding algebraic eigenfunctions will be antisymmetric under a change of sign of both the spatial and spin variables of any particle, and therefore satisfy $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\psi =\psi `$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the projection on states antisymmetric under permutations and sign reversals. The total antisymmetriser $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is determined by the relations $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2=\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and

$$K_{ij}\mathrm{\Lambda }=S_{ij}\mathrm{\Lambda },K_i\mathrm{\Lambda }=S_i\mathrm{\Lambda },j>i=1,\mathrm{},N.$$
(12)
It may be easily shown that

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{1}{2^N}\left(\underset{i}{}(1K_iS_i)\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }_0.$$

Following closely the procedure outlined in FGGRZ01 , we shall consider a quadratic combination of the Dunkl operators (3)–(5) of the form

$$H^{}=\underset{i}{}\left(c_{++}(J_i^+)^2+c_{00}(J_i^0)^2+c_{}(J_i^{})^2+c_0J_i^0\right),$$
(13)
where $`c_{++},c_{00},c_{},c_0`$ are arbitrary real constants such that $`c_{++}^2+c_{00}^2+c_{}^20`$. The second-order differential-difference operator (13) possesses the following remarkable properties. First, it is a quasi-exactly solvable operator, since it leaves invariant the polynomial space $`_m`$. In particular, if $`c_{++}=0`$ the operator $`H^{}`$ preserves $`_n`$ (and $`𝒫_n`$) for any nonnegative integer $`n`$, and is therefore exactly solvable. Secondly, $`H^{}`$ commutes with $`K_{ij}`$, $`K_i`$, $`S_{ij}`$, and $`S_i`$ for all $`i,j=1,\mathrm{},N`$. This follows immediately from the commutation relations (7). Note that none of the terms

$$\underset{i}{}[J_i^\pm ,J_i^0],\underset{i}{}\{J_i^\pm ,J_i^0\},\underset{i}{}J_i^\pm $$

commute with $`K_i`$, and for that reason they have not been included in the definition of $`H^{}`$. We have also discarded the term $`_i\{J_i^+,J_i^{}\}`$ because it differs from $`2_i\left[(J_i^0)^2+(b^{}b)J_i^0\right]`$ by a constant operator.

Since $`H^{}`$ preserves the polynomial module $`_m`$, commutes with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and acts trivially on $`𝔖`$, the module

$$\overline{}{}_{m}{}^{}=\mathrm{\Lambda }(_m𝔖)$$
(14)
is also invariant under $`H^{}`$. It follows from Eqs. (12) that the action of the operators $`K_{ij}`$ and $`K_i`$ on the module $`\overline{}_m`$ coincides with that of the spin operators $`S_{ij}`$ and $`S_i`$, respectively. Therefore, the differential operator $`\overline{H}`$ obtained from $`H^{}`$ by the formal substitutions $`K_{ij}S_{ij}`$, $`K_iS_i`$, $`i,j=1,\mathrm{},N`$, also preserves the module $`\overline{}_m`$. For the same reason, if the coefficient $`c_{++}`$ in Eq. (13) vanishes, the operator $`\overline{H}`$ leaves the modules $`\overline{}_n`$ and $`\overline{𝒫}{}_{n}{}^{}=\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝒫_n𝔖)`$ invariant for any non-negative integer $`n`$. Using the formulae (3)–(5) in the Appendix for the squares of the Dunkl operators, we get the following explicit expression for the gauge spin Hamiltonian $`\overline{H}`$:

$`\overline{H}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\left(P(z_i)_{z_i}^2+Q(z_i)_{z_i}+R(z_i)\right)+4a{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{z_iP(z_i)}{z_i^2z_j^2}}_{z_i}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{bc_{}}{z_i^2}}(1+S_i)+b^{}c_{++}z_i^2\left(1+(1)^mS_i\right)\right)`$
$`a`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}P(z_i)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+S_{ij}}{(z_iz_j)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1+\stackrel{~}{S}_{ij}}{(z_i+z_j)^2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{ac_{++}}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}\left((z_i+z_j)^2(1+S_{ij})+(z_iz_j)^2(1+\stackrel{~}{S}_{ij})\right)+\overline{C},`$ (15)
where

$`P(z)=c_{++}z^4+c_{00}z^2+c_{},`$ (16)
$`Q(z)=2c_{++}\left(1mb^{}+2a(1N)\right)z^3+\left(c_0+c_{00}\left(1m+2a(1N)\right)\right)z+{\displaystyle \frac{2bc_{}}{z}},`$
$`R(z)=c_{++}m(m1+2b^{})z^2,`$
$`\overline{C}=c_{00}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{Nm^2}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{12}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{i,j,k}{}^{}}\left[4(S_{ij}+\stackrel{~}{S}_{ij})(S_{ik}+\stackrel{~}{S}_{ik})\right]+6{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}(1S_iS_j)\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{a}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}(2+S_{ij}+\stackrel{~}{S}_{ij})\right]{\displaystyle \frac{Nmc_0}{2}}.`$
Hereafter, the symbol $`_{i,j,k}^{}`$ denotes summation in $`i,j,k`$ with $`ijki`$.

One of the main ingredients of our method is the fact that the gauge spin Hamiltonian $`\overline{H}`$ can be reduced to a physical spin Hamiltonian

$$H=\underset{i}{}_{x_i}^2+V(𝐱),$$
(17)
where $`V(𝐱)`$ is a Hermitian matrix-valued function, by a suitable change of variables $`𝐳=𝜻(𝐱)`$, $`𝐱=(x_1,\mathrm{},x_N)`$ and a gauge transformation with a scalar function $`\mu (𝐱)`$, namely

$$\mu \overline{H}|_{𝐳=𝜻(𝐱)}\mu ^1=H.$$
(18)
We emphasize that in general there is no (matrix or scalar) gauge factor and change of coordinates reducing a given matrix second-order differential operator in $`N`$ variables to a physical Hamiltonian of the form (17); see GKO94 ; FK97  and references therein for more details. The quadratic combination $`H^{}`$ has precisely been chosen so that such a gauge factor and change of variables can be easily found for $`\overline{H}`$. For instance, we have omitted the otherwise valid term $`_i[J_i^+,J_i^{}]`$ because it involves first-order derivatives with matrix-valued coefficients, which are usually very difficult to gauge away. The gauge factor $`\mu `$ and change of variables $`𝐳=𝜻(𝐱)`$ in Eq. (18) are respectively given by

$$\mu =\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{i}{}^{z_i}\frac{Q(y_i)}{2P(y_i)}\mathrm{d}y_i\right)\underset{i<j}{}(z_i^2z_j^2)^a\underset{i}{}P(z_i)^{\frac{1}{4}},$$
(19)
and

$$x_i=\zeta ^1(z_i)=^{z_i}\frac{\mathrm{d}y}{\sqrt{P(y)}},i=1,\mathrm{},N.$$
(20)
The physical spin potential $`V`$ reads

$`V`$ $`=a{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}\left[P(z_i)\left({\displaystyle \frac{a+S_{ij}}{(z_iz_j)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{a+\stackrel{~}{S}_{ij}}{(z_i+z_j)^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{c_{++}}{2}}\left((z_i+z_j)^2(1+S_{ij})+(z_iz_j)^2(1+\stackrel{~}{S}_{ij})\right)\right]`$ (21)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\left[b^{}c_{++}z_i^2\left(1+(1)^mS_i\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{bc_{}}{z_i^2}}(1+S_i)+W(z_i)\right]+C,`$
where

$$W(z)=\frac{1}{2}\left(Q^{}\frac{P^{\prime \prime }}{2}\right)+\frac{1}{4P}\left(Q\frac{P^{}}{2}\right)\left(Q\frac{3P^{}}{2}\right)+cz^2,$$
(22)
and

$`C=aN(N1)\left[c_0{\displaystyle \frac{c_{00}}{3}}\left(a(2N1)+3(m1)\right)\right]\overline{C},`$ (23)
$`c=c_{++}\left(2a^2(N1)(2N1)+4a(N1)(b^{}+m1)+m(2b^{}+m1)\right).`$
Note that the change of variables (20), and hence the potential $`V(𝐱)`$, are defined up to an arbitrary translation in each coordinate $`x_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$. The hermiticity of the potential (21) is a consequence of the Hermitian character of the spin operators $`S_{ij}`$ and $`S_i`$.

The invariance of the module $`\overline{}_m`$ under the gauge spin Hamiltonian $`\overline{H}`$ and Eq. (18) imply that the finite-dimensional module

$$_m=\mu (𝐱)\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(_m\left(𝜻(𝐱)\right)𝔖\right).$$
(24)
is invariant under the physical spin Hamiltonian $`H`$. Therefore, any quadratic combination $`H^{}`$ of the form (13) leads to a (quasi-)exactly solvable spin many-body potential (21)–(23) (provided of course that the module $`_m`$ is not trivial). In particular, if the coefficient $`c_{++}`$ vanishes, the spin Hamiltonian $`H`$ with potential (21) is exactly solvable, since it leaves invariant the infinite chains of finite-dimensional modules $`_n`$ and $`𝒩_n=\mu (𝐱)\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(𝒫_n\left(𝜻(𝐱)\right)𝔖\right)`$, $`n`$ .

Our goal is to obtain a complete classification of the (Q)ES spin potentials of the form (21)–(23). The key observation used to perform this classification is the fact that different gauge spin Hamiltonians $`\overline{H}`$ may yield the same physical potential. This follows from the form invariance of the linear spaces $`\mathrm{span}\{J_i^{}(𝐳),J_i^0(𝐳),J_i^+(𝐳)\}`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$, under projective (gauge) and scale transformations, given respectively by

$`z_jw_j={\displaystyle \frac{1}{z_j}},`$ $`J_i^ϵ(𝐳)\stackrel{~}{J_i^ϵ}(𝐰)=\left({\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}z_j^m\right)J_i^ϵ(𝐳)\left({\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}z_j^m\right),j=1,\mathrm{},N,ϵ=\pm ,0,`$ (25)
and
$`z_jw_j=\lambda z_j,`$ $`J_i^ϵ(𝐳)\stackrel{~}{J_i^ϵ}(𝐰)=J_i^ϵ(𝐳),j=1,\mathrm{},N,ϵ=\pm ,0,`$ (26)
where $`\lambda 0`$ is real or purely imaginary. Indeed, we get

$$\stackrel{~}{J_i^{}}(𝐰)=J_i^+(𝐰)|_{b^{}b},\stackrel{~}{J_i^0}(𝐰)=J_i^0(𝐰),\stackrel{~}{J_i^+}(𝐰)=J_i^{}(𝐰)|_{bb^{}},$$

for the projective transformations (25), and $`\stackrel{~}{J_i^ϵ}(𝐰)=\lambda ^ϵJ_i^ϵ(𝐰)`$ for the scale transformations (26). This implies that the resulting quadratic combination $`\stackrel{~}{H}^{}`$ is still of the form (13), with (in general) different coefficients $`\stackrel{~}{c}_{++}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{c}_{00}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{c}_{}`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{c}_0`$. Using these transformations, we can reduce the polynomial $`P(z)`$ in (III) to one of the following seven canonical forms:

$`1.1,`$ $`5.\nu (e^{2\mathrm{i}\theta }z^2)(e^{2\mathrm{i}\theta }z^2),`$ (27)
$`2.\pm \nu z^2,`$ $`6.\pm \nu (1z^2)(1k^2z^2),`$
$`3.\pm \nu (1+z^2),`$ $`7.\nu (1z^2)(1k^2+k^2z^2),`$
$`4.\pm \nu (1z^2)^2,`$
where $`\nu >0`$, $`0<k<1`$, and $`0<\theta \pi /4`$.

## IV Classification of QES spin Calogero–Sutherland models

We present in this section the complete classification of all the (Q)ES spin Calogero–Sutherland models that can be constructed applying the procedure described in the previous sections. To further simplify the classification, we note that the scaling $`(c_{ϵϵ},c_0)(\lambda c_{ϵϵ},\lambda c_0)`$ induces the mapping

$$V(𝐱;c_{ϵϵ},c_0)V(𝐱;\lambda c_{ϵϵ},\lambda c_0)=\lambda V(\sqrt{\lambda }𝐱;c_{ϵϵ},c_0)$$
(28)
of the corresponding potentials. For this reason, in Cases 2–7 we shall only list the potential for a suitably chosen value of the parameter $`\nu `$. Note furthermore that in Cases 2–4 and 6, once the potential has been computed for a positive value $`\nu _0`$ of the parameter $`\nu `$, its counterpart for the opposite value $`\nu =\nu _0`$ can be immediately obtained using (28), namely

$$V(𝐱;\nu _0,c_0)=V(\mathrm{i}𝐱;\nu _0,c_0).$$

For the models constructed to be symmetric under the Weyl group of type $`B_N`$ spanned by the operators $`K_{ij}S_{ij}`$ and $`K_iS_i`$, $`1i<jN`$, the change of variables $`𝐳=𝜻(𝐱)`$ should be an odd function of $`𝐱`$, since only in this case $`𝐱𝐱`$ corresponds to $`𝐳𝐳`$. In all cases except the second one, this has essentially the effect of fixing the arbitrary constants on which the change of variables (20) depends. For example, in Case 7 with $`\nu =4`$ the change of variables is of the form $`z_i=\pm \mathrm{cn}(2x_i+\xi _ik)\pm \mathrm{cn}(2x_i+\xi _i)`$, $`1iN`$. Imposing that $`z_i`$ be an odd function of $`x_i`$ for all $`i`$ and using the identity

$$\mathrm{cn}(2x_i+\xi _i)+\mathrm{cn}(2x_i+\xi _i)=\frac{2\mathrm{cn}\xi _i\mathrm{cn}(2x_i)}{1k^2\mathrm{sn}^2\xi _i\mathrm{sn}^2(2x_i)},$$

we obtain the condition

$$\xi _i=(2l_i1)K,l_i,1iN,$$

where $`KK(k)`$ is the complete elliptic integral of the first kind

$$K(k)=_0^{\frac{\pi }{2}}\frac{\mathrm{d}\theta }{\sqrt{1k^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }}.$$

Since $`\mathrm{cn}(2x_iK+2l_iK)=(1)^{l_i}\mathrm{cn}(2x_iK)`$, symmetry under exchange of the particles requires that $`l_i`$ be independent of $`i`$, so that $`z_i=\pm \mathrm{cn}(2x_iK)`$ for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$. Taking into account that both the potential $`V`$ and the gauge function $`\mu `$ are even functions of $`𝐳`$ by Eqs. (19)–(22), we see that the change of variables in this case can be taken as $`z_i=\mathrm{cn}(2x_iK)`$, $`1iN`$.

In the classification that follows, we have routinely discarded constant operators of the form

$$V_0=\gamma _0+\gamma _1\underset{i}{}S_i+\gamma _2\underset{i<j}{}S_iS_j+\gamma _3\underset{i<j}{}(S_{ij}+\stackrel{~}{S}_{ij})+\gamma _4\underset{i,j,k}{}^{}(S_{ij}+\stackrel{~}{S}_{ij})(S_{ik}+\stackrel{~}{S}_{ik}),\gamma _i.$$
(29)
This is justified, since the operator $`V_0`$ commutes with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (it actually commutes with $`K_{ij}`$, $`S_{ij}`$, $`K_i`$, and $`S_i`$ for $`1i<jN`$) and therefore preserves the spaces $`_n`$ and $`𝒩_n`$ for all $`n`$.

All the potentials in the classification presented below are singular on the hyperplanes $`x_i=x_j`$, $`1i<jN`$, where they diverge as $`(x_ix_j)^2`$. In some cases there may be other singular hyperplanes, near which the potential behaves as the inverse squared distance to the hyperplane. We shall accordingly choose as domain of the functions in the Hilbert space of the system a maximal open subset $`X`$ of the open set

$$x_N<x_{N1}<\mathrm{}<x_2<x_1$$
(30)
containing no singularities of the potential. In all cases except Case 2b, we shall take as boundary conditions defining the eigenfunctions of $`H`$ their square integrability on the region $`X`$ and their vanishing on the boundary $`X`$ of $`X`$ faster than the square root of the distance to the boundary. Since the algebraic eigenfunctions that we shall construct are in all cases regular inside $`X`$, when this set is bounded the square integrability of the algebraic eigenfunctions on $`X`$ is an automatic consequence of their vanishing on $`X`$. In Case 2b, the potential is regular and periodic in each coordinate in an unbounded domain. Therefore the square integrability of the eigenfunctions should be replaced by a Bloch-type boundary condition in this case.

For each of the potentials in the classification, we shall list the domain chosen for its eigenfunctions and the restrictions imposed by the boundary conditions discussed above on the parameters on which the potential depends. In particular, the singularity of the potential at $`x_i=x_j`$, $`1i<jN`$, forces the parameter $`a`$ to be greater than $`1/2`$. Similarly, in all cases except for the second one the potential is also singular on the hyperplanes $`x_i=0`$, $`1iN`$, and the vanishing of the algebraic eigenfunctions on these hyperplanes as $`\left|x_i\right|^{\frac{1}{2}+\delta }`$ with $`\delta >0`$ requires that $`b>1/2`$. The conditions

$$a>\frac{1}{2},b>\frac{1}{2}$$

shall therefore be understood to hold in all cases. For similar reasons, in Cases 4b, 5, and 6b we must also have

$$b^{}>\frac{1}{2}.$$

The potential in each case will be expressed as

$$V(𝐱)=V_{\text{spin}}(𝐱)+\underset{i}{}U(x_i),$$

where the last term, which does not contain the spin operators $`S_{ij}`$ and $`S_i`$, can be viewed as the contribution of a scalar external field.

We shall use in the rest of this section the convenient abbreviations

$$x_{ij}^\pm =x_i\pm x_j,\alpha =a(N1)+\frac{1}{2}(b+b^{}+m).$$

Case 1.$`P(z)=1`$.
Change of variables: $`z=x`$.
Gauge factor:

$$\mu (𝐱)=\underset{i<j}{}(x_{ij}^{}x_{ij}^+)^a\underset{i}{}x_i^b\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{2}\omega x_i^2}.$$
(31)
Scalar external potential:

$$U(x)=\omega ^2x^2.$$
(32)
Spin potential:

$$V_{\text{spin}}(𝐱)=2a\underset{i<j}{}\left[(x_{ij}^{})^2(a+S_{ij})+(x_{ij}^+)^2(a+\stackrel{~}{S}_{ij})\right]+b\underset{i}{}x_i^2(b+S_i).$$
(33)
Parameters: $`\omega =\frac{1}{2}c_0>0.`$
Domain: $`0<x_N<\mathrm{}<x_1`$.

Case 2a.$`P(z)=4z^2`$.
Change of variables: $`z=e^{2x}`$.
The most general change of variables in this case is $`z_i=\lambda e^{\pm 2x_i}`$, $`1iN`$, but the following formulas are independent of the choice of sign in the exponent and the value of the constant $`\lambda `$.
Gauge factor:

$$\mu (𝐱)=\underset{i<j}{}\left[\mathrm{sinh}(2x_{ij}^{})\right]^a.$$
(34)
Scalar external potential: $`U(x)=0.`$
Spin potential:

$$V_{\text{spin}}(𝐱)=2a\underset{i<j}{}\left[\mathrm{sinh}^2x_{ij}^{}(a+S_{ij})\mathrm{cosh}^2x_{ij}^{}(a+\stackrel{~}{S}_{ij})\right].$$
(35)
Parameters: $`c_0=4m.`$
Domain: $`x_N<\mathrm{}<x_1`$.

Case 2b.$`P(z)=4z^2`$.
Change of variables: $`z=\mathrm{e}^{2\mathrm{i}x}`$.
Again, the most general change of variables is $`z_i=\lambda e^{\pm 2\mathrm{i}x_i}`$, $`1iN`$, but the following formulas do not change when this is taken into account.
Gauge factor:

$$\mu (𝐱)=\underset{i<j}{}\left[\mathrm{sin}(2x_{ij}^{})\right]^a.$$
(36)
Scalar external potential: $`U(x)=0.`$
Spin potential:

$$V_{\text{spin}}(𝐱)=2a\underset{i<j}{}\left[\mathrm{sin}^2x_{ij}^{}(a+S_{ij})+\mathrm{cos}^2x_{ij}^{}(a+\stackrel{~}{S}_{ij})\right].$$
(37)
Parameters: $`c_0=4m.`$
Domain: $`x_N<\mathrm{}<x_1<x_N+\frac{\pi }{2}`$.
Both potentials in this case are invariant under a simultaneous translation of all the particles’ coordinates. The choice $`c_0=\pm 4m`$, which simplifies the form of the gauge factor, amounts to fixing the center of mass energy of the system. Note also that the potentials in this case do *not* possess $`B_N`$ symmetry, due to the fact that the change of variables cannot be made an odd function of $`x`$ for any choice of the arbitrary constants. In fact, the sign change $`z_kz_k`$ corresponds to the translation $`x_kx_k+\mathrm{i}\pi /2`$ or $`x_kx_k+\pi /2`$, which (as any overall translation) leaves the potential invariant. The potentials in this case are therefore best interpreted as $`A_N`$-type potentials depending both on spin permutation and sign reversing operators.

For the hyperbolic potential 2a, none of the algebraic formal eigenfunctions are true eigenfunctions, since they are not square integrable on their domain. On the other hand, the algebraic eigenfunctions of the periodic potential 2b are clearly periodic in each coordinate and regular on their domain, and thus qualify as true eigenfunctions.

Case 3a.$`P(z)=4(1+z^2)`$.
Change of variables: $`z=\mathrm{sinh}(2x)`$.
Gauge factor:

$$\mu (𝐱)=\underset{i<j}{}\left[\mathrm{sinh}(2x_{ij}^{})\mathrm{sinh}(2x_{ij}^+)\right]^a\underset{i}{}\left[\mathrm{sinh}(2x_i)\right]^b\left[\mathrm{cosh}(2x_i)\right]^\beta .$$
(38)
Scalar external potential:

$$U(x)=4\beta (\beta 1)\mathrm{cosh}^2(2x).$$
(39)
Spin potential:

$`V_{\text{spin}}(𝐱)=2a`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}\left[\left(\mathrm{sinh}^2x_{ij}^{}\mathrm{cosh}^2x_{ij}^+\right)(a+S_{ij})+\left(\mathrm{sinh}^2x_{ij}^+\mathrm{cosh}^2x_{ij}^{}\right)(a+\stackrel{~}{S}_{ij})\right]`$ (40)
$`+4b{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mathrm{sinh}^2(2x_i)(b+S_i).`$
Parameters: $`\beta ={\displaystyle \frac{c_0}{8}}\left(a(N1)+b+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}\right)<\left(2a(N1)+b+m\right).`$
Domain: $`0<x_N<\mathrm{}<x_1`$.

Case 3b.$`P(z)=4(1+z^2)`$.
Change of variables: $`z=\mathrm{i}\mathrm{sin}(2x)`$.
Gauge factor:

$$\mu (𝐱)=\underset{i<j}{}\left[\mathrm{sin}(2x_{ij}^{})\mathrm{sin}(2x_{ij}^+)\right]^a\underset{i}{}\left[\mathrm{sin}(2x_i)\right]^b\left[\mathrm{cos}(2x_i)\right]^\beta .$$
(41)
Scalar external potential:

$$U(x)=4\beta (\beta 1)\mathrm{cos}^2(2x).$$
(42)
Spin potential:

$$V_{\text{spin}}(𝐱)=2a\underset{i<j}{}\left[\left(\mathrm{sin}^2x_{ij}^{}+\mathrm{cos}^2x_{ij}^+\right)(a+S_{ij})+\left(\mathrm{sin}^2x_{ij}^++\mathrm{cos}^2x_{ij}^{}\right)(a+\stackrel{~}{S}_{ij})\right]+4b\underset{i}{}\mathrm{sin}^2(2x_i)(b+S_i).$$
(43)
Parameters: $`\beta =\left({\displaystyle \frac{c_0}{8}}+a(N1)+b+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}\right)>{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}`$ or $`\beta =0`$.
Domain: $`0<x_N<\mathrm{}<x_1<\frac{\pi }{4}`$, if $`\beta >\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`\beta 1`$; $`0<x_N<\mathrm{}<x_1<\frac{\pi }{2}x_2`$, if $`\beta =0,1`$.

Case 4a.$`P(z)=(1z^2)^2`$.
Change of variables: $`z=\mathrm{tanh}x`$.
Gauge factor:

$$\mu (𝐱)=\underset{i<j}{}\left(\mathrm{sinh}x_{ij}^{}\mathrm{sinh}x_{ij}^+\right)^a\underset{i}{}\mathrm{e}^{\beta \mathrm{cosh}(2x_i)}(\mathrm{sinh}x_i)^b(\mathrm{cosh}x_i)^{b^{}+m}.$$
(44)
Scalar external potential:

$$U(x)=2\beta ^2\mathrm{cosh}(4x)+4\beta (1+2\alpha )\mathrm{cosh}(2x).$$
(45)
Spin potential:

$$\begin{array}{c}V_{\text{spin}}(𝐱)=2a\underset{i<j}{}\left[\mathrm{sinh}^2x_{ij}^{}(a+S_{ij})+\mathrm{sinh}^2x_{ij}^+(a+\stackrel{~}{S}_{ij})\right]\hfill \\ \hfill +b\underset{i}{}\mathrm{sinh}^2x_i(b+S_i)b^{}\underset{i}{}\mathrm{cosh}^2x_i\left(b^{}+(1)^mS_i\right).\end{array}$$
(46)
Parameters: $`\beta ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\left(c_0+2(bb^{})\right)<0,`$ or $`\beta =0`$ and $`\alpha <0`$.
Domain: $`0<x_N<\mathrm{}<x_1`$.
Alternatively, we could have taken the change of variables as $`z=\mathrm{tanh}\left(x\frac{\mathrm{i}\pi }{2}\right)=\mathrm{coth}x`$. The gauge factor, external potential and spin potential become, respectively,

$`\mu (𝐱)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}\left(\mathrm{sinh}x_{ij}^{}\mathrm{sinh}x_{ij}^+\right)^a{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mathrm{e}^{\beta \mathrm{cosh}(2x_i)}(\mathrm{cosh}x_i)^b(\mathrm{sinh}x_i)^{b^{}+m},`$ (47)
$`U(x)`$ $`=2\beta ^2\mathrm{cosh}(4x)4\beta (1+2\alpha )\mathrm{cosh}(2x),`$ (48)
and

$$\begin{array}{c}V_{\text{spin}}(𝐱)=2a\underset{i<j}{}\left[\mathrm{sinh}^2x_{ij}^{}(a+S_{ij})+\mathrm{sinh}^2x_{ij}^+(a+\stackrel{~}{S}_{ij})\right]\hfill \\ \hfill b\underset{i}{}\mathrm{cosh}^2x_i(b+S_i)+b^{}\underset{i}{}\mathrm{sinh}^2x_i\left(b^{}+(1)^mS_i\right).\end{array}$$
(49)
Case 4b.$`P(z)=(1z^2)^2`$.
Change of variables: $`z=\mathrm{i}\mathrm{tan}x`$.
Gauge factor:

$$\mu (𝐱)=\underset{i<j}{}\left(\mathrm{sin}x_{ij}^{}\mathrm{sin}x_{ij}^+\right)^a\underset{i}{}\mathrm{e}^{\beta \mathrm{cos}(2x_i)}(\mathrm{sin}x_i)^b(\mathrm{cos}x_i)^{b^{}+m}.$$
(50)
Scalar external potential:

$$U(x)=2\beta ^2\mathrm{cos}(4x)4\beta (1+2\alpha )\mathrm{cos}(2x).$$
(51)
Spin potential:

$$\begin{array}{c}V_{\text{spin}}(𝐱)=2a\underset{i<j}{}\left[\mathrm{sin}^2x_{ij}^{}(a+S_{ij})+\mathrm{sin}^2x_{ij}^+(a+\stackrel{~}{S}_{ij})\right]\hfill \\ \hfill +b\underset{i}{}\mathrm{sin}^2x_i(b+S_i)+b^{}\underset{i}{}\mathrm{cos}^2x_i\left(b^{}+(1)^mS_i\right).\end{array}$$
(52)
Parameters: $`\beta ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\left(c_0+2(b^{}b)\right).`$
Domain: $`0<x_N<\mathrm{}<x_1<\frac{\pi }{2}`$.
The change of variable can also be taken as $`z=\mathrm{i}\mathrm{tan}\left(x\frac{\pi }{2}\right)=\mathrm{i}\mathrm{cot}x`$. Since this is the result of applying an overall *real* translation to the particles’ coordinates, we shall not list the corresponding formulas for the potential and gauge factor.

Case 5.$`P(z)=\left(\mathrm{e}^{2\mathrm{i}\theta }z^2\right)\left(\mathrm{e}^{2\mathrm{i}\theta }z^2\right)`$.
Change of variables:

$$z=\frac{\mathrm{sn}x\mathrm{dn}x}{\mathrm{cn}x},$$

where the modulus of the elliptic functions is $`k=\mathrm{cos}\theta `$. We shall also use in what follows the customary notation $`k^{}`$ for the complementary modulus $`\sqrt{1k^2}`$.
Gauge factor:

$$\begin{array}{c}\mu (𝐱)=\underset{i<j}{}\left(\frac{\mathrm{sn}x_{ij}^{}\mathrm{dn}x_{ij}^{}\mathrm{sn}x_{ij}^+\mathrm{dn}x_{ij}^+}{1k^2\mathrm{sn}^2x_{ij}^{}\mathrm{sn}^2x_{ij}^+}\right)^a\underset{i}{}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\beta \mathrm{arctan}\left[\frac{k}{k^{}}\mathrm{cn}(2x_i)\right]\right\}\hfill \\ \hfill \times \left[\mathrm{sn}(2x_i)\right]^b\left[1+\mathrm{cn}(2x_i)\right]^{\frac{1}{2}(b^{}b+m)}\left[\mathrm{dn}(2x_i)\right]^\alpha .\end{array}$$
(53)
Scalar external potential:

$$U(x)=4k^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{dn}_{}^{2}(2x)\left[\beta ^2\alpha (\alpha +1)\frac{k\beta }{k^{}}(1+2\alpha )\mathrm{cn}(2x)\right].$$
(54)
Spin potential:

$`V_{\text{spin}}(𝐱)=2a`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{dn}^2x_{ij}^{}}{\mathrm{sn}^2x_{ij}^{}}}k^2k^{}{}_{}{}^{2}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sn}^2x_{ij}^+}{\mathrm{dn}^2x_{ij}^+}}\right)(a+S_{ij})+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{dn}^2x_{ij}^+}{\mathrm{sn}^2x_{ij}^+}}k^2k^{}{}_{}{}^{2}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sn}^2x_{ij}^{}}{\mathrm{dn}^2x_{ij}^{}}}\right)(a+\stackrel{~}{S}_{ij})\right]`$ (55)
$`+b`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cn}x_i}{\mathrm{sn}x_i\mathrm{dn}x_i}}\right)^2(b+S_i)+b^{}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sn}x_i\mathrm{dn}x_i}{\mathrm{cn}x_i}}\right)^2\left(b^{}+(1)^mS_i\right).`$
Parameters: $`\beta ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8kk^{}}}\left(c_0+2(k^2k^2)(bb^{})\right).`$
Domain: $`0<x_N<\mathrm{}<x_1<K`$.

An alternative form for the change of variables in this case is

$$z=\frac{\mathrm{sn}(xK)\mathrm{dn}(xK)}{\mathrm{cn}(xK)}=\frac{\mathrm{cn}x}{\mathrm{sn}x\mathrm{dn}x}.$$

The resulting potential is obtained from the previous one by applying the overall real translation $`x_ix_iK`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$. Note also that, although $`z_i`$ is singular at the zeros of $`\mathrm{cn}x_i`$, the algebraic eigenfunctions satisfy the appropriate boundary condition on these hyperplanes on account of the inequality $`b^{}>1/2`$ and the identity

$$1+\mathrm{cn}(2x)=\frac{2\mathrm{cn}^2x}{1k^2\mathrm{sn}^4x}.$$

Case 6a.$`P(z)=4(1z^2)(1k^2z^2)`$.
Change of variables: $`z=\mathrm{sn}(2x)`$.
Here, as in the remaining cases, the Jacobian elliptic functions have modulus $`k`$.
Gauge factor:

$$\mu (𝐱)=\underset{i<j}{}\frac{\left(\mathrm{sn}x_{ij}^{}\mathrm{cn}x_{ij}^{}\mathrm{dn}x_{ij}^{}\mathrm{sn}x_{ij}^+\mathrm{cn}x_{ij}^+\mathrm{dn}x_{ij}^+\right)^a}{\left(1k^2\mathrm{sn}^2x_{ij}^{}\mathrm{sn}^2x_{ij}^+\right)^{2a}}\underset{i}{}\left[\mathrm{sn}(2x_i)\right]^b\left[\mathrm{cn}(2x_i)\right]^\beta \left[\mathrm{dn}(2x_i)\right]^\beta ^{}.$$
(56)
Scalar external potential:

$$U(x)=4k^{}{}_{}{}^{2}[\beta (\beta 1)\mathrm{cn}^2(2x)\beta ^{}(\beta ^{}1)\mathrm{dn}^2(2x)].$$
(57)
Spin potential:

$`V_{\text{spin}}(𝐱)=2a`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cn}^2x_{ij}^{}\mathrm{dn}^2x_{ij}^{}}{\mathrm{sn}^2x_{ij}^{}}}+k^{}{}_{}{}^{4}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sn}^2x_{ij}^+}{\mathrm{cn}^2x_{ij}^+\mathrm{dn}^2x_{ij}^+}}\right)(a+S_{ij})+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cn}^2x_{ij}^+\mathrm{dn}^2x_{ij}^+}{\mathrm{sn}^2x_{ij}^+}}+k^{}{}_{}{}^{4}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sn}^2x_{ij}^{}}{\mathrm{cn}^2x_{ij}^{}\mathrm{dn}^2x_{ij}^{}}}\right)(a+\stackrel{~}{S}_{ij})\right]`$
$`+4b`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mathrm{sn}^2(2x_i)(b+S_i)+4k^2b^{}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mathrm{sn}^2(2x_i)(b^{}+(1)^mS_i).`$ (58)
Parameters:

$$\beta =\frac{1}{8k^{}^2}\left(c_0+4(1+k^2)(bb^{})\right)\alpha >\frac{1}{2}\text{ or }\beta =0,\beta ^{}=\frac{1}{8k^{}^2}\left(c_0+4(1+k^2)(bb^{})\right)\alpha .$$

Domain: $`0<x_N<\mathrm{}<x_1<\frac{K}{2}`$, if $`\beta >\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`\beta 1`$; $`0<x_N<\mathrm{}<x_1<Kx_2`$, if $`\beta =0,1`$.

Case 6b.$`P(z)=4(1z^2)(1k^{}{}_{}{}^{2}z_{}^{2})`$.
Change of variables:

$$z=\mathrm{i}\frac{\mathrm{sn}(2x)}{\mathrm{cn}(2x)}.$$

Gauge factor:

$$\mu (𝐱)=\underset{i<j}{}\frac{\left(\mathrm{sn}x_{ij}^{}\mathrm{cn}x_{ij}^{}\mathrm{dn}x_{ij}^{}\mathrm{sn}x_{ij}^+\mathrm{cn}x_{ij}^+\mathrm{dn}x_{ij}^+\right)^a}{\left(1k^2\mathrm{sn}^2x_{ij}^{}\mathrm{sn}^2x_{ij}^+\right)^{2a}}\underset{i}{}\left[\mathrm{sn}(2x_i)\right]^b\left[\mathrm{cn}(2x_i)\right]^{b^{}+m}\left[\mathrm{dn}(2x_i)\right]^\beta ^{}.$$
(59)
Scalar external potential:

$$U(x)=4\left[\beta (\beta 1)k^2\mathrm{sn}^2(2x)\beta ^{}(\beta ^{}1)k^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{dn}_{}^{2}(2x)\right].$$
(60)
Spin potential:

$`V_{\text{spin}}(𝐱)=2a`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{dn}^2x_{ij}^{}}{\mathrm{sn}^2x_{ij}^{}\mathrm{cn}^2x_{ij}^{}}}+k^4{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sn}^2x_{ij}^+\mathrm{cn}^2x_{ij}^+}{\mathrm{dn}^2x_{ij}^+}}\right)(a+S_{ij})+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{dn}^2x_{ij}^+}{\mathrm{sn}^2x_{ij}^+\mathrm{cn}^2x_{ij}^+}}+k^4{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sn}^2x_{ij}^{}\mathrm{cn}^2x_{ij}^{}}{\mathrm{dn}^2x_{ij}^{}}}\right)(a+\stackrel{~}{S}_{ij})\right]`$
$`+4b`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mathrm{sn}^2(2x_i)(b+S_i)+4k^{}{}_{}{}^{2}b_{}^{}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mathrm{cn}^2(2x_i)(b^{}+(1)^mS_i).`$ (61)
Parameters:

$$\beta =\frac{1}{8k^2}(c_0+4(1+k^{}{}_{}{}^{2})(b^{}b))\alpha ,\beta ^{}=\frac{1}{8k^2}(c_0+4(1+k^{}{}_{}{}^{2})(b^{}b))\alpha .$$

Domain: $`0<x_N<\mathrm{}<x_1<\frac{K}{2}`$.
In spite of the singularity of $`z_i`$ at the zeros of $`\mathrm{cn}(2x_i)`$, the vanishing of the gauge factor on these hyperplanes clearly implies that the algebraic eigenfunctions fulfill the appropriate boundary condition.

Case 7.$`P(z)=4(1z^2)(k^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+k^2z^2)`$.
Change of variables:

$$z=\mathrm{cn}(2xK)=k^{}\frac{\mathrm{sn}(2x)}{\mathrm{dn}(2x)}.$$

Gauge factor:

$$\mu (𝐱)=\underset{i<j}{}\frac{\left(\mathrm{sn}x_{ij}^{}\mathrm{cn}x_{ij}^{}\mathrm{dn}x_{ij}^{}\mathrm{sn}x_{ij}^+\mathrm{cn}x_{ij}^+\mathrm{dn}x_{ij}^+\right)^a}{\left(1k^2\mathrm{sn}^2x_{ij}^{}\mathrm{sn}^2x_{ij}^+\right)^{2a}}\underset{i}{}\left[\mathrm{sn}(2x_i)\right]^b\left[\mathrm{cn}(2x_i)\right]^\beta \left[\mathrm{dn}(2x_i)\right]^{b^{}+m}.$$
(62)
Scalar external potential:

$$U(x)=4\left[\beta ^{}(\beta ^{}1)k^2\mathrm{sn}^2(2x)+\beta (\beta 1)k^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{cn}_{}^{2}(2x)\right].$$
(63)
Spin potential:

$`V_{\text{spin}}(𝐱)=2a`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cn}^2x_{ij}^{}}{\mathrm{sn}^2x_{ij}^{}\mathrm{dn}^2x_{ij}^{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sn}^2x_{ij}^+\mathrm{dn}^2x_{ij}^+}{\mathrm{cn}^2x_{ij}^+}}\right)(a+S_{ij})+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cn}^2x_{ij}^+}{\mathrm{sn}^2x_{ij}^+\mathrm{dn}^2x_{ij}^+}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sn}^2x_{ij}^{}\mathrm{dn}^2x_{ij}^{}}{\mathrm{cn}^2x_{ij}^{}}}\right)(a+\stackrel{~}{S}_{ij})\right]`$
$`+4b`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mathrm{sn}^2(2x_i)(b+S_i)4k^{}{}_{}{}^{2}b_{}^{}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mathrm{dn}^2(2x_i)(b^{}+(1)^mS_i).`$ (64)
Parameters:

$$\beta =(\frac{c_0}{8}+\frac{1}{2}(k^2k^{}{}_{}{}^{2})(b^{}b)+\alpha )>\frac{1}{2}\text{ or }\beta =0,\beta ^{}=\frac{c_0}{8}+\frac{1}{2}(k^2k^{}{}_{}{}^{2})(b^{}b)\alpha .$$

Domain: $`0<x_N<\mathrm{}<x_1<\frac{K}{2}`$, if $`\beta >\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`\beta 1`$; $`0<x_N<\mathrm{}<x_1<Kx_2`$, if $`\beta =0,1`$.

## V Discussion

The $`BC_N`$-type potentials constructed in the previous section can be expressed in a unified way that we shall now describe. In the first place, apart from irrelevant constant operators of the form (29), the spin potential can be written as

$`V_{\text{spin}}(𝐱)=2a`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}\left[\left(v(x_{ij}^{})+v(x_{ij}^++P_1)\right)(a+S_{ij})+\left(v(x_{ij}^+)+v(x_{ij}^{}+P_1)\right)(a+\stackrel{~}{S}_{ij})\right]`$
$`+b`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\left(v(x_i)+v(x_i+P_1)\right)(b+S_i)+b^{}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\left(v(x_i+P_2)+v(x_i+P_1+P_2)\right)\left(b^{}+(1)^mS_i\right),`$ (65)
where $`v`$ is a (possibly degenerate) elliptic function, and $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$ are suitably chosen primitive half-periods of $`v`$ (see Table 1).

In particular, when one of the periods $`P_i`$ of $`v`$ goes to infinity, expressions like $`v(x+P_i)`$ with $`x`$ finite are defined as zero. In Case 1, both periods are infinite and $`v(x+P_1+P_2)`$ is also defined as zero. Furthermore, the constant $`K^{}K^{}(k)`$ in the elliptic Cases 5–7 is the complete elliptic integral of the first kind defined by $`K^{}(k)=K(k^{})`$. Using this notation, it is easy to verify that in the non-degenerate elliptic Cases 5–7 the scalar external potential $`U(x)`$ can be written as

$$U(x)=\lambda (\lambda 1)\left[v\left(x+\frac{1}{2}P_1\right)+v\left(x\frac{1}{2}P_1\right)\right]+\lambda ^{}(\lambda ^{}1)\left[v\left(x+\frac{1}{2}P_1+P_2\right)+v\left(x\frac{1}{2}P_1+P_2\right)\right],$$
(66)
where $`\lambda =\beta `$ and $`\lambda ^{}=\beta ^{}`$ in Cases 6–7, while $`\lambda =\alpha +\mathrm{i}\beta `$ and $`\lambda ^{}=\alpha \mathrm{i}\beta `$ in Case 5. Formula (66) holds also in Case 3, with $`\lambda =\beta `$ and $`\lambda ^{}=0`$. In Cases 1 and 4 Eq. (66) cannot be directly applied, since in these cases all the terms in (66) are either indeterminate or zero. However, the potentials in Cases 4a and 4b can be obtained from that of Case 5 in the limits $`\theta 0`$ and $`\theta \pi /2`$, respectively. Likewise, applying the rescaling $`x_i\nu x_i`$ ($`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$, $`\nu >0`$) to the potential of type 3a or 3b one obtains the potential of type 1 by taking $`\beta =\omega /(4\nu ^2)`$ and letting $`\nu 0`$.

The function $`v(x)`$ that determines the potential $`V(𝐱)`$ in the elliptic Cases 5–7 according to Eqs. (65) and (66) can be expressed in a systematic way in terms of the Weierstrass function $`\mathrm{}(x;\omega _1,\omega _3)`$ with primitive half-periods $`\omega _1=K`$ and $`\omega _3=\mathrm{i}K^{}`$. Indeed, dropping inessential constant operators we have

$$v(x)=ϵ[\mathrm{}(x;\omega _1,\omega _3)+\mathrm{}(x+2P_2;\omega _1,\omega _3)],$$
(67)
where $`P_2`$ is the primitive half-period of $`v`$ listed in Table 1, and $`ϵ=1`$ for Cases 6–7 while $`ϵ=1/2`$ for Case 5 (the only case in which $`2P_2=2K`$ is a period of $`\mathrm{}`$). Since in Cases 6–7 $`P_1`$ and $`2P_2`$ are primitive half-periods of $`\mathrm{}`$, the well-known second-order modular transformation of the Weierstrass function La89  applied to Eq. (67) leads to the equality

$$v(x)=\mathrm{}(x;P_1,P_2),$$
(68)
where the primitive half-periods $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$ are listed in Table 1, and we have dropped an irrelevant additive constant. Substituting Eq. (68) into Eqs. (65) and (66) and applying once again a modular transformation to the one-particle terms we readily obtain the following remarkable expression for the potential $`V(𝐱)`$ in Cases 5–7:

$`V(𝐱)=2a`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}\left[\left(\mathrm{}(x_{ij}^{};P_1,P_2)+\mathrm{}(x_{ij}^++P_1;P_1,P_2)\right)(a+S_{ij})+\left(\mathrm{}(x_{ij}^+;P_1,P_2)+\mathrm{}(x_{ij}^{}+P_1;P_1,P_2)\right)(a+\stackrel{~}{S}_{ij})\right]`$
$`+4b`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mathrm{}(2x_i;P_1,2P_2)(b+S_i)+4b^{}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mathrm{}(2x_i+2P_2;P_1,2P_2)\left(b^{}+(1)^mS_i\right)`$ (69)
$`+4`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\left[\lambda (\lambda 1)\mathrm{}(2x_i+P_1;P_1,2P_2)+\lambda ^{}(\lambda ^{}1)\mathrm{}(2x_i+P_1+2P_2;P_1,2P_2)\right].`$
One of the main results in this paper is thus the fact that the potential (V) is QES provided that the *ordered* pair $`(P_1,P_2)`$ is chosen from Cases 5–7 in Table 1. In fact, the remaining $`BC_N`$-type (Q)ES spin potentials listed in Section IV can be obtained from the potentials in Eqs. (V) by sending one or both of the half-periods of the Weierstrass function to infinity. This is of course reminiscent of the analogous property of the integrable scalar Calogero–Sutherland models associated to root systems OP83 .

The potentials in Cases 1, 2, and 3 are ES for all values of the parameters. (In Case 3, the dependence of the parameter $`\beta `$ on $`m`$ through $`\alpha `$ can be absorbed in the coefficient $`c_0`$.) The potentials of type 4 are also ES for $`\beta =0`$. The elliptic potentials in Cases 5–7 are always QES.

All the potentials presented in Section IV are new, except for Cases 1 and 4. Case 1 is the rational $`B_N`$-type model introduced by Yamamoto Ya95  and studied by Dunkl Du98 . Case 4b for $`\beta =0`$ is Yamamoto’s $`B_N`$-type trigonometric potential with $`\lambda _1=b`$ (in the notation of Ref. Ya95 ), and either $`\lambda _1^{}=b^{}<1/2`$ for $`m`$ even or $`\lambda _1^{}=b^{}>1/2`$ for $`m`$ odd. Our results thus establish the exact solvability of the trigonometric Yamamoto model when $`\left|\lambda _1^{}\right|>1/2`$.

It should be noted that the method developed in this paper admits a number of straightforward generalizations. In the first place, the algebraic states could be chosen symmetric under sign reversals. The resulting Hamiltonians would coincide with the ones presented in Section IV with $`S_i`$ replaced by $`S_i`$. In particular, if $`b=b^{}=0`$ one can obtain algebraic eigenfunctions of both types (symmetric and antisymmetric under sign reversals) for the same Hamiltonian. The construction can also be applied to a system of $`N`$ identical bosons, just by replacing the antisymmetriser $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ by the projector on states symmetric under permutations of the particles. Choosing a system of fermions is motivated by the fact that the internal degrees of freedom can be naturally interpreted as the physical spin of the particles when $`M=1/2`$.

The procedure described in Section III relies on the algebraic identities analogous to (2) satisfied by the spin operators $`S_{ij}`$ and $`S_i`$, and not on the particular realization (11). For instance, replacing the operators $`S_{ij}`$ by new operators $`\widehat{S}_{ij}`$ spanning one of the anyon-like realizations introduced by Basu-Mallick BM96  would yield further families of (Q)ES spin Calogero–Sutherland models.

## VI Exact solutions for an elliptic QES model

As an illustration of the procedure described in the previous sections, we shall now compute the algebraic sector of the spectrum for the elliptic QES potential of type 6a in Eqs. (57)–(IV) in the case of two and three particles of spin $`1/2`$ ($`N=2,3`$ and $`M=1/2`$), for $`m=1,2,3`$. Note that in the spin $`1/2`$ case, the spin permutation and sign reversing operators $`S_{ij}`$ and $`S_i`$ can be expressed in terms of the usual one-particle $`\mathrm{SU}(2)`$ spin operators $`𝝈_i=(\sigma _i^1,\sigma _i^2,\sigma _i^3)`$ in the more familiar way

$$S_{ij}=2𝝈_i𝝈_j+\frac{1}{2},S_i=2\sigma _i^1.$$

The operator $`H^{}`$ corresponding to the potential (57)–(IV) reads

$$H^{}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}(4k^2(J_i^+)^24(1+k^2)(J_i^0)^2+4(J_i^{})^2+c_0J_i^0)+\overline{C}{}_{}{}^{}+E_0,$$
(70)
where $`\overline{C}^{}`$ is the constant operator obtained by replacing $`S_{ij}`$ by $`K_{ij}`$ and $`S_i`$ by $`K_i`$ in the expression (16) for $`\overline{C}`$, and the scalar constant $`E_0`$ is given by

$$E_0=c_0N\left(a(N1)+b^{}+m+\frac{1}{2}\right)2N(1+k^2)\left(2a(N1)(2b^{}+m)+2b^{}(b^{}+m+1)+m+\frac{2}{3}(N1)(2N1)a^2\right).$$

Let us first consider the two-particle case ($`N=2`$), for which the spin space $`𝔖`$ is spanned by the four spin states $`|\pm \pm |\pm \frac{1}{2}\pm \frac{1}{2}`$. For $`m=1`$ the polynomial module $`\overline{}_1`$ is the one-dimensional space $`\mathrm{span}\{\phi _1\}`$, with

$$\phi _1=(z_1z_2)(|++|)+(z_1+z_2)(|+|+).$$
(71)
Therefore, the spin state

$$\psi _1(𝐱)=\frac{\mu (𝐱)}{1k^2\mathrm{sn}^2x_{12}^{}\mathrm{sn}^2x_{12}^+}[\mathrm{sn}x_{12}^{}\mathrm{cn}x_{12}^+\mathrm{dn}x_{12}^+(|++|)+\mathrm{sn}x_{12}^+\mathrm{cn}x_{12}^{}\mathrm{dn}x_{12}^{}(|+|+)]$$
(72)
is an eigenfunction of the Hamiltonian of type 6a, where the gauge factor $`\mu (𝐱)`$ is given in Eq. (56). The corresponding eigenvalue is $`E_1=E_0c_0`$.

If $`m=2`$, the antisymmetrised polynomial module $`\overline{}_2`$ is the three-dimensional space $`\mathrm{span}\{\phi _1,\phi _2,\phi _3\}`$, where $`\phi _1`$ is given by Eq. (71) and

$`\phi _2=(z_1^2z_2^2)(|+++||+|+),`$ (73)
$`\phi _3=z_1z_2(z_1z_2)(|++|)+z_1z_2(z_1+z_2)(|+|+).`$
The matrix of the gauge spin Hamiltonian $`\overline{H}`$ (or $`H^{}`$) in the basis $`\{\phi _1,\phi _2,\phi _3\}`$ is given by

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}E_0c_04(1+k^2)& 0& 8(2b+1)\\ 0& E_02c_0& 0\\ 8(2b^{}+1)k^2& 0& E_03c_04(1+k^2)\end{array}\right),$$

whose eigenvalues are

$$E_{1,3}=E_02c_04(1+k^2)\mathrm{\Delta },E_2=E_02c_0,$$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\left[c_0^2+64k^2(2b+1)(2b^{}+1)\right]^{1/2}`$. The corresponding physical wavefunctions are

$`\psi _{1,3}(𝐱)={\displaystyle \frac{\mu (𝐱)}{1k^2\mathrm{sn}^2x_{12}^{}\mathrm{sn}^2x_{12}^+}}[\mathrm{sn}x_{12}^{}\mathrm{cn}x_{12}^+\mathrm{dn}x_{12}^+(c_0\mathrm{\Delta }+8k^2(2b^{}+1)\mathrm{sn}(2x_1)\mathrm{sn}(2x_2))(|++|)`$
$`+\mathrm{sn}x_{12}^+\mathrm{cn}x_{12}^{}\mathrm{dn}x_{12}^{}(c_0\mathrm{\Delta }8k^2(2b^{}+1)\mathrm{sn}(2x_1)\mathrm{sn}(2x_2))(|+|+)],`$ (74)
$`\psi _2(𝐱)=\mu (𝐱){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sn}x_{12}^{}\mathrm{cn}x_{12}^{}\mathrm{dn}x_{12}^{}\mathrm{sn}x_{12}^+\mathrm{cn}x_{12}^+\mathrm{dn}x_{12}^+}{\left(1k^2\mathrm{sn}^2x_{12}^{}\mathrm{sn}^2x_{12}^+\right)^2}}(|+++||+|+).`$
For $`m=3`$ the antisymmetrised polynomial module $`\overline{}_3`$ is spanned by the spin functions $`\phi _1,\mathrm{},\phi _6`$, where

$`\phi _4=(z_1^3z_2^3)(|++|)+(z_1^3+z_2^3)(|+|+),`$ (75)
$`\phi _5=z_1z_2(z_1^2z_2^2)(|+++|+|++|+),`$
$`\phi _6=z_1^2z_2^2(z_1z_2)(|++|)+z_1^2z_2^2(z_1+z_2)(|+|+).`$
The matrix representing $`\overline{H}E_0`$ in the basis $`\{\phi _1,\mathrm{},\phi _6\}`$ is

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}c_08(1+k^2)& 0& 8(2b+1)& 8(4a+2b+3)& 0& 0\\ 0& 2c_08(1+k^2)& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 8(2b^{}+3)k^2& 0& 3c_016(1+k^2)& 16a(1+k^2)& 0& 8(2b+3)\\ 8(2b^{}+1)k^2& 0& 0& 3c_0+16a(1+k^2)& 0& 8(2b+1)\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 4c_08(1+k^2)& 0\\ 0& 0& 8(2b^{}+1)k^2& 8(4a+2b^{}+3)k^2& 0& 5c_08(1+k^2)\end{array}\right).$$

Clearly, $`E_02c_08(1+k^2)`$ and $`E_04c_08(1+k^2)`$ belong to the spectrum of $`\overline{H}`$ and hence of $`H`$, with corresponding eigenfunctions given respectively by $`\psi _2(𝐱)`$ in Eq. (74) and

$$\psi _5(𝐱)=\mu (𝐱)\frac{\mathrm{sn}x_{12}^{}\mathrm{cn}x_{12}^{}\mathrm{dn}x_{12}^{}\mathrm{sn}x_{12}^+\mathrm{cn}x_{12}^+\mathrm{dn}x_{12}^+}{\left(1k^2\mathrm{sn}^2x_{12}^{}\mathrm{sn}^2x_{12}^+\right)^2}\mathrm{sn}(2x_1)\mathrm{sn}(2x_2)(|+++|+|++|+).$$
(76)
The remaining algebraic levels are the roots of a fourth degree polynomial, whose expression is too long to display here. For instance, if $`a=b=b^{}=1`$, $`k^2=1/2`$, and $`c_0=14`$ (so that $`\beta =0`$), the algebraic levels are approximately $`E_1=327.4`$, $`E_2=288`$, $`E_3=281.4`$, $`E_4=262.2`$, $`E_5=260`$, and $`E_6=201.0`$.

In the three-particle case, the spin space $`𝔖`$ is spanned by the eight states $`|\pm \pm \pm `$. If $`m=1`$, the antisymmetrised space $`\overline{}_1`$ is trivial. For $`m=2`$, the antisymmetrised space $`\overline{}_2`$ is spanned by the single state

$$\begin{array}{c}\phi _1=z_{12}^{}z_{13}^{}z_{23}^{}(|++++|)z_{12}^{}z_{13}^+z_{23}^+(|+++|+)\hfill \\ \hfill z_{12}^+z_{13}^+z_{23}^{}(|++|++)+z_{12}^+z_{13}^{}z_{23}^+(|+++|+),\end{array}$$
(77)
where $`z_{ij}^\pm =z_i\pm z_j`$. Consequently, $`\psi _1(𝐱)=\mu (𝐱)\phi _1(𝐳)`$, with $`z_i=\mathrm{sn}(2x_i)`$, is an eigenfunction of $`H`$ with eigenvalue $`E_03c_04(1+k^2)`$.

When $`m=3`$, a basis for $`\overline{}_3`$ is given by the function $`\phi _1`$ in Eq. (77) and

$`\phi _2=z_{12}^{}z_{13}^{}z_{23}^{}(z_1+z_2+z_3)(|+++|)+z_{12}^{}z_{13}^+z_{23}^+(z_1+z_2z_3)(|+|++)`$ (78)
$`+z_{12}^+z_{13}^+z_{23}^{}(z_1+z_2+z_3)(|+|++)+z_{12}^+z_{13}^{}z_{23}^+(z_1z_2+z_3)(|++|+),`$
$`\phi _3=z_{12}^{}z_{13}^{}z_{23}^{}(z_1z_2+z_1z_3+z_2z_3)(|++++|)+z_{12}^{}z_{13}^+z_{23}^+(z_1z_2+z_1z_3+z_2z_3)(|++|++)`$
$`+z_{12}^+z_{13}^+z_{23}^{}(z_1z_2+z_1z_3z_2z_3)(|++|++)z_{12}^+z_{13}^{}z_{23}^+(z_1z_2z_1z_3+z_2z_3)(|+++|+),`$
$`\phi _4=z_1z_2z_3[z_{12}^{}z_{13}^{}z_{23}^{}(|+++|)+z_{12}^{}z_{13}^+z_{23}^+(|++|+)`$
$`+z_{12}^+z_{13}^+z_{23}^{}(|++|+)+z_{12}^+z_{13}^{}z_{23}^+(|+|++)].`$
The matrix of $`\overline{H}`$ in the basis $`\{\phi _1,\mathrm{},\phi _4\}`$ reads

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccc}E_03c_016(1+k^2)& 0& 8(4a+2b+3)& 0\\ 0& E_04c_0+8(1+k^2)(2a1)& 0& 8(2b+1)\\ 8(2b^{}+1)k^2& 0& E_05c_0+8(1+k^2)(2a1)& 0\\ 0& 8(4a+2b^{}+3)k^2& 0& E_06c_016(1+k^2)\end{array}\right).$$

The eigenvalues of this matrix are

$$E_{1,3}=E_04c_0+4(1+k^2)(2a3)\mathrm{\Delta }_{},E_{2,4}=E_05c_0+4(1+k^2)(2a3)\mathrm{\Delta }_+,$$

where

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_+`$ $`=\left[\left(c_0+4(1+k^2)(2a+1)\right)^2+64k^2(2b+1)(4a+2b^{}+3)\right]^{1/2},`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$ $`=\left[\left(c_04(1+k^2)(2a+1)\right)^2+64k^2(2b^{}+1)(4a+2b+3)\right]^{1/2}.`$
The corresponding eigenfunctions are

$`\psi _{1,3}(𝐱)=\mu (𝐱)\left[\left(c_04(1+k^2)(2a+1)\mathrm{\Delta }_{}\right)\phi _1(𝐳)+8k^2(2b^{}+1)\phi _3(𝐳)\right],`$
$`\psi _{2,4}(𝐱)=\mu (𝐱)\left[\left(c_0+4(1+k^2)(2a+1)\mathrm{\Delta }_+\right)\phi _2(𝐳)+8k^2(4a+2b^{}+3)\phi _4(𝐳)\right],`$
with $`z_i=\mathrm{sn}(2x_i)`$.

## Appendix

In this Appendix we present a list of identities satisfied by the Dunkl operators (3)–(5) used to compute the gauge spin Hamiltonian (III).

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(J_i^{})^2={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}_{z_i}^2+4a{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{z_i}{z_i^2z_j^2}}_{z_i}+2b{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z_i}}_{z_i}+a{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{K_{ij}1}{(z_iz_j)^2}}+a{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{K}_{ij}1}{(z_i+z_j)^2}}+b{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{K_i1}{z_i^2}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(J_i^0)^2={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\left(_{z_i}^2+\left(1m+2a(1N)\right)z_i_{z_i}\right)+4a{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{z_i^3}{z_i^2z_j^2}}_{z_i}+a{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{z_iz_j}{(z_iz_j)^2}}(K_{ij}1)`$
$`a{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{z_iz_j}{(z_i+z_j)^2}}(\stackrel{~}{K}_{ij}1)+{\displaystyle \frac{Nm^2}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{12}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{i,j,k}{}^{}}\left[4(K_{ij}+\stackrel{~}{K}_{ij})(K_{ik}+\stackrel{~}{K}_{ik})\right]+6{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}(1K_iK_j)\right),`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(J_i^+)^2={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\left(_{z_i}^42\left(b^{}+m1+2a(N1)\right)z_i^3_{z_i}\right)+4a{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{z_i^5}{z_i^2z_j^2}}_{z_i}+a{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{z_i^2z_j^2}{(z_iz_j)^2}}(K_{ij}1)`$
$`+a{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{z_i^2z_j^2}{(z_i+z_j)^2}}(\stackrel{~}{K}_{ij}1)+b^{}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}z_i^2\left((1)^mK_i1\right)+m(m1+2b^{}){\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}z_i^2,`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}J_i^0={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}z_i_{z_i}{\displaystyle \frac{Nm}{2}}.`$
The symbol $`_{i,j,k}^{}`$ means summation in $`i,j,k`$ with $`ijki`$.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was partially supported by the DGES under grant PB98-0821. R. Zhdanov would like to acknowledge the financial support of the Spanish Ministry of Education and Culture during his stay at the Universidad Complutense de Madrid.


format: text

text:
# Spurious oscillations from local self-interaction correction in high energy photoionization calculations for metal clusters

## References


text:
# Interstellar Medium Surrounding the WO Star in the Galaxy IC 1613: New Optical and Radio ObservationsAstronomy Reports, Vol. 45 , No 6, 2001, Translated from Astronomicheskii Zhurnal, Vol. 78, No. 6. Translated by D. Gabuzda

## 1 Introduction

Only six WR stars of more than five hundred such objects in the Local Group of galaxies belong to the rare WO class, which represents a very brief final evolutionary stage of massive stars approaching the naked CO-core stage (see Barlow & Hummer (1982), Kingsburg et al. (1995) and references therein). WO stars are characterized by powerful stellar winds with terminal velocities reaching $`5000\text{km}\text{s}^1`$ ( Barlow & Hummer,1982; Torres et al., 1986; Dopita et al., 1990; Potcaro et al., 1992 ) and their effective temperatures can be as high as $`10^5`$ K (Dopita et al, 1990; Maeder & Meynet, 1989; Melnik & Heydari-Malayeri, 1991; Polcaro et al., 1991). One of these six stars was discovered by D’Odorico & Rosa (1982) (see also Davidson & Kinman 1982; Armandroff & Massey, 1985) in the dwarf irregular galaxy IC 1613. The star was identified by the specific wide bands it produces in the spectrum of the core of the bright emission nebula S3 from the list of Sandage (1971) – a giant $`29^{\prime \prime }\times 9^{\prime \prime }(93\times 30`$ pc) H II region. Throughout this paper, we adopt the distance 660 kpc for IC 1613, as derived by Saha et al. (1992). The central region of S3 shows bright He II 4686Å emission (D’Odorico & Rosa, 1982; Smith (1995), Garnett et al., 1991). A detailed spectral analysis of the nebula and a discussion of its chemical composition are presented by Garnett et al.(1991) and Kingsburgh & Barlow (1995) – hereafter KB95. The nebula S3 was found to be a source of thermal radio emission (Goss & Lozinskaya, 1995); the full size at half-maximum intensity of the radio source ($`19^{\prime \prime }\times 14^{\prime \prime }`$) corresponds to a bright region of the optical nebula visible on deep H$`\alpha `$ images taken by Hodge et al. (1990) and Hunter et al. (1993).

Our observations made with a scanning Fabry-Perot interferometer mounted on the 6-m telescope of the Special Astrophysical Observatory (SAO) and narrow-band H$`\alpha `$ and \[O III\] images taken with the 4-m telescope of the Kitt Peak National Observatory resulted in the discovery of a faint external bipolar feature (hereafter called the bipolar shell) extending far beyond the bright nebula S3 (Lozinskaya, 1997; Afanasiev et al., 2000 – Paper I). The sizes of the two external components–the southeastern and northwestern shells–are $`35^{\prime \prime }\times 24^{\prime \prime }(112\times 77`$ pc) and $`60^{\prime \prime }\times 70^{\prime \prime }(190\times 220`$ pc), respectively. Radial-velocity measurements at the maximum and the H$`\alpha `$ line halfwidths provide evidence for expansion of the bipolar shell, with lower limits to the expansion velocities of the southeastern and northwestern shells being 50 and at least $`70\text{km}\text{s}^1`$, respectively.

In Paper I we proposed a scenario for the formation of the unique bipolar feature by the stellar wind of the WO star, which is embedded in a dense layer at the boundary of a supercavity in the galaxy’s H I distribution. We identified this supercavity by analyzing the H I column density distribution in IC 1613 published by Lake and Skillman (1989). At that time, we hypothesized the presence of a dense shell surrounding the supercavity and a physical association with the WO star, but were not able to prove that this was the case.

In the current paper, we report the results of new observations of the nebula associated with the WO star in the galaxy IC 1613. We observed the bright core of the nebula S3 using the MPFS multipupil fiber spectrograph mounted on the SAO 6-m telescope (Section 2). We obtained integrated spectra of individual compact clumps in the central bright region, and reconstructed the radial-velocity field from our H$`\beta `$ and \[O III\] 5007Å measurements. We also obtained observations of a large sector of IC 1613 at 21 cm with the Very Large Array (VLA; Section 3). We derived a detailed image of the neutral-gas distribution, which revealed a giant dense ring or H I shell surrounding the supercavity, and showed that the WO star does indeed reside in this dense ring and is physically interacting with it. We also found a local H I deficiency and two extended features, testifying to the presence of a neutral gas component associated with the ionized bipolar shell. In Section 4, we discuss the results of the observations and analyze a possible scenario for the formation of the extended bipolar feature.

## 2  Spectroscopic observations of the WO star and nebula S3

### 2.1  Observations and Data Reduction

The spectroscopic observations were made on November 29 and 30, 1999 using the new integral-field spectrograph MPFS (multipupil fiber spectrograph) mounted at the primary focus of the SAO 6-m telescope. A description of the spectrograph can be found at the web-page
`http://www.sao.ru/~gafan/devices.htm`

Compared to the earlier version of the Afanasiev et al.(1990), the new spectrograph has a larger field of view, wider spectral range, and higher quantum efficiency. The spectrograph uses a $`1024\times 1024`$ CCD as a detector and allows a set of spectra to be taken simultaneously from 240 spatial elements (‘micropupils’) forming a $`16\times 15`$ array in the plane of the sky. The angular size of an image element can be varied from 0$`.^{\prime \prime }`$5 to $`1.0^{\prime \prime }`$. A spectrum of the sky background 4$`.^{}`$5 from the center of the field of view is taken simultaneously. Table 1 gives a log of the MPFS observations.

These observations were reduced using IDL-based software developed by the SAO Laboratory for Spectroscopy and Photometry of Extragalactic Objects. The preliminary data reduction included bias-frame subtraction, flat-field correction, cosmic-hits removal, extraction of individual spectra from the CCD images, and wavelength calibration using the spectrum of a He-Ne-Ar lamp. We then subtracted the night-sky spectrum from the linearized spectra and used a number of spectrophotometric standards observed at the same zenith angle as IC 1613 to convert the observed fluxes to an absolute energy scale. We used the same standards to derive the seeing estimates given in Table 1.

Analysis of the observations showed that the data obtained on November 29 and 30, 1999 yielded consistent values for the main parameters measured (line fluxes and velocities). Therefore, we will consider further only the November 30, 1999 data, since they had higher angular resolution.

Figure 1a shows an \[O III\] line image of the central region of the nebula S3 surrounding the WO star from the data of Paper I, together with the boundaries of the field of view of our new MPFS observations.

### 2.2 The WO star.

We obtained the integrated spectrum of the WO star by co-adding 24 individual spectra, which exhibited the broad emission bands characteristic of Wolf-Rayet stars.

During the flux measurements, we fitted the emission lines using superpositions of two to six Gaussians; the resulting flux and equivalent-width estimates are summarized in Table 2. Note that the errors quoted in this table do not include uncertainty in the continuum level, which could contribute systematic errors to the equivalent widths. For comparison, this table also gives the fluxes and equivalent widths of the corresponding lines from KB95.

We observed a narrower spectral interval than KB96; it is clear from Table 2 that the two sets of observations do not show significant discrepancies. The differences between the equivalent widths are due primarily to the different methods used to determine the continuum level (unlike KB95, we did not take into account the nebular continuum component). Our flux estimates are higher than those of KB95 for most of the lines. This is likely due to the fact that our panoramic detector collected all the light from the star, whereas a long slit whose width ($`1^{\prime \prime }`$) was comparable to or smaller than the image size was used in KB95. To test this hypothesis, we integrated the spectra of the star only over the lenses lying within a $`1^{\prime \prime }\times 5^{\prime \prime }`$ rectangle aligned along $`PA=55^{}`$, i.e., in the direction of the slit used in KB95. The resulting WO-star line fluxes, indeed, proved to be a factor of 1.5–2 lower, on average, than the fluxes listed in Table 2. Moreover, as we show below, the emission-line brightness peak in the nebula does not coincide with the position of the star. This could have led to an offset during the positioning of the narrow slit on the star in KB95, resulting in further underestimation of the line fluxes.

We constructed images in the C IV+He II 4659Å, O V 5590Å, and C IV 5801Å emission lines by integrating the spectra over the intervals $`46004725`$, $`55355653`$, and $`57355850`$Å, after subtraction of narrow nebular line components blended with the WO-star lines. The centroids of all the images agree to within $`\pm 0.05^{\prime \prime }`$, and also agree with the centroid of a continuum image made in the vicinity of 6100Å. We estimate the FWHM of these emission-line images of the WO star to be $`1.85\pm 0.05^{\prime \prime }`$, $`1.84\pm 0.09^{\prime \prime }`$, and $`1.67\pm 0.03^{\prime \prime }`$, respectively, consistent with the seeing estimate of 1$`.^{}`$8 obtained for the standard star (Table 1). Note that, due to certain specific features of the spectrograph, the images constructed from the micropupil array are slightly elongated (1:1.15) along the Y axis (Fig. 1b). Therefore, all our FWHM estimates are based on measurements in the X direction.

The continuum image of the WO star was somewhat more extended (FWHM = $`2.2\pm 0.15^{\prime \prime }`$) and exhibited a faint base. (This could indicate the presence of a compact cluster made up of several stars, but firm conclusions require further observations).

### 2.3 Structure and emission spectrum of S3

We constructed an entire series of monochromatic images of the bright core of the nebula in the He II 4686Å, \[O III\] 5007Å, \[S II\] 6717+6731Å, and H$`\alpha `$ lines by obtaining Gaussian fits to the emission lines. The results are shown in Figs. 1c–1f. All the line profiles are fit well by single Gaussians, and do not show any systematic deviations. Note, however, that the expected relative gas velocities (up to $`100\text{km}\text{s}^1`$ in the bright core Paper I) are appreciably lower than the spectral resolution of our data ($`\text{FWHM}=350450\text{km}\text{s}^1`$).

It is evident from Fig. 1 that the morphology of the nebula is appreciably different in different lines. For example, the He II brightness peak is coincident with the position of the WO star; the He II brightness decreases with distance from the star, and the full size of the emission region is $`10^{\prime \prime }\times 9^{\prime \prime }`$. The situation is quite different in the brighter \[O III\] and H$`\alpha `$ lines, and also in the \[S II\] lines: the corresponding images exhibit several bright clumps $`23^{\prime \prime }`$ from the star (Fig. 1). The \[O III\] and H$`\alpha `$ images show two well-defined bright clumps north and northwest of the star (marked A and B, respectively, in Fig. 1b), and a more extended clump northeast of the star (clump C). This extended clump is especially prominent in the \[S II\] images, where clump A cannot be seen at all.

We discovered the clumpy structure of the S3 core in our earlier study in Paper I, based on uncalibrated \[O III\] and H$`\alpha `$ images of the region. However, having no emission spectra for the clumps, we mistook the WO star for a clump (clump No. 2 in Paper I). Clumps A and B from our new observations correspond to clumps 3 and 1, respectively, from Paper I; clump C, which can be confidently identified only in the \[S II\] lines, was not discovered earlier in the \[O III\] and H$`\alpha `$ images.

We obtained the integrated spectra of clumps A, B, and C; the positions of the image elements whose spectra were co-added in each clump are shown in Fig. 1b. Table 3 gives the relative line intensities for the three clumps, corrected for selective extinction. We assumed c(H$`\beta `$) = 0.1 and E(B–V)=0.069, in accordance with KB95. For comparison, Table 3 also presents the data of KB95 for the integrated spectrum of the central region of S3.

### 2.4 Ionized Gas Velocities in the Core of S3

We used the resulting spectra to construct the radial-velocity field for the central part of the nebula S3. We determined the velocity fields from measurements made in the main spectral lines from Gaussian fits to the corresponding line profiles. Analysis of the night-sky spectrum showed that, after linearization of the spectra, there remained systematic velocity variations in the night-sky lines across the field of $`\pm 0.10.15`$ channels, i.e., about $`15\text{km}\text{s}^1`$. We corrected our emission-line velocity fields for this systematic offset; Fig. 2 shows the results.

We used the resulting velocity fields to estimate the mean velocities in various lines for clumps A, B, and C and for the nebula region projected onto the WO star. In this last case, we used the same set of lenses used when co-adding the spectrum of the star (see Section 2.2.). The results are summarized in Table 4, where the quoted errors correspond to the velocity dispersion within individual spatial elements.

The resulting mean clump velocities are consistent with the mean velocity of the nebula S3 as a whole derived from our Fabry-Perot interferometric measurements ($`V_{HEL}=216\pm 1\text{km}\text{s}^1`$, Paper I, taking into account possible systematic absolute calibration errors of $`1020\text{km}\text{s}^1`$ for the interferometric observations), and are in full agreement with the measurements of Tomita et al. (1993), based on a single spectrogram of S3: $`V_{HEL}=235`$ to $`230\text{km}\text{s}^1`$. We show below (see Section 3) that the velocities of the densest H I clouds in the vicinity of S3 are $`230\text{km}\text{s}^1`$ or differ from this value by less than $`10\text{km}\text{s}^1`$.

Two cone-shaped regions where the velocities are systematically different from the mean are immediately apparent in Fig. 2. Our \[O III\] line measurements enable identification of the region where the velocities differ from the mean value by $`4050\text{km}\text{s}^1`$. Both deviations from the mean velocity agree with the velocity variations in the central part of the bright nebula S3 presented in Paper I, based on interferometric H$`\alpha `$ measurements. Note that the cone-shaped regions originate at the position of the star, a pattern that, generally speaking, might indicate an asymmetric stellar wind. However, firm conclusions require further observational evidence, since such velocity variations could also be a consequence of the inhomogeneous structure of the interstellar medium in the near environment of the star.

## 3  Radio observations in the 21-cm line

### 3.1  Observations and Data Reduction

We constructed a high angular resolution VLA H I map covering an extended region of the galaxy IC 1613, including the WO star and the associated bipolar shell (this was part of a large project to investigate the neutral-gas structure and kinematics in IC 1613 by Wilcots et al., in press). The maps shown below were constructed from combined B, C, and D-array VLA observations with a velocity resolution of $`2.57\text{km}\text{s}^1`$. The data were Hanning smoothed, subjected to the usual calibration procedure, and made into maps using the AIPS package. The results are represented in the form of a data cube with angular resolution $`7.^{\prime \prime }4\times 7.^{\prime \prime }0`$, which corresponds to a linear resolution of $``$23 pc.

Figure 3 shows the H I distribution for the eastern sector of the galaxy constructed using these data. A well-defined giant cavity (supercavity) surrounding a large fraction of the stellar population of IC 1613 is immediately apparent. This giant, low surface brightness region of 21-cm emission is also visible on the map of Lake & Skillman (1989). Earlier Paper I, we suggested that this region was deficient in neutral gas because it had been swept out, implying that the supercavity should be surrounded by a dense, wind-blown shell. Figure 3 shows that such a shell or ring of neutral gas does, indeed, exist, and that the WO star resides in a dense gas layer near its inner edge.

The angular size of the supercavity is about $`5^{}`$, corresponding to a linear size of 1 kpc. The characteristic thickness of the shell is $`\mathrm{\Delta }R12^{}`$, or 200–350 pc.

A sketch of the bipolar ionized shell surrounding the WO star and its relative position with respect to the H I supercavity are shown on an enlarged scale in Fig. 4, which presents the southeastern sector of the H I ring. This figure shows that the core of the ionized bipolar shell (previously known as S3) and its bright southeastern component are located in a dense region of the ring, whereas the extended, faint northwestern component is in the low-density medium inside the supercavity.

Figure 4 clearly shows a local decrease in the 21-cm brightness, filled by the ionized gas of the core and southeastern component. We can also see two prominent, extended H I features just on the outside of the two sides of the northwestern component of the ionized shell, which reproduce the shape of the shell. This structure probably provides evidence for a local neutral shell surrounding the bipolar shell.

The parameters of the most prominent H I clouds forming the local neutral shell surrounding the ionized bipolar feature are summarized in Table 5, which presents the central coordinates, total mass, and maximum column density of each cloud.

### 3.2  Neutral Gas Velocities

In order to reveal the possible effect of the expansion of the local neutral shell, we constructed the radial-velocity distribution within a right-ascension band passing through the WO star (Fig. 5). The band is $`200^{\prime \prime }`$ wide and therefore includes all clouds making up the local shell. This distribution clearly demonstrates velocity variations with distance from the star that are typical of an expanding shell (the so-called ‘velocity ellipse’) at right ascensions from $`01^h02^m28^s`$ to $`01^h02^m31^s`$. This region corresponds to the part of the local H I shell that is east of the WO star; the characteristic radius of this ‘half-shell’ is 100–140 pc. The velocity difference between the two sides of the neutral shell is $`20\text{km}\text{s}^1`$, suggesting an expansion velocity of $`10\text{km}\text{s}^1`$. The velocities of the densest ‘unaccelerated’ H I clouds in a large region surrounding the WO star are V$`{}_{Hel}{}^{}=230\pm 5\text{km}\text{s}^1`$.

## 4 Discussion

The results of spectroscopic observations of the WO star and the central region of the nebula S3 reported in this paper are in full agreement with earlier observations, within the errors, when the different slit locations are taken into account. The spectra of the compact clumps identified in this paper do not differ significantly from the those of the nebula S3 (see Garnett et al. (1991), KB95 and references therein). The relative line intensities listed in Table 3 are suggestive of a typical H II region ionized by a star with high effective temperature. The observed differences between the spectra of the three clumps could be due to different excitation conditions: distance from the exciting star and electron density. No shock signatures were found either in the emission spectra (the \[N II\] and \[S II\] lines are weak) or in the mean velocities of the bright clumps. The ionized gas velocities of the clumps in the central core of the nebula agree with velocity measurements of neutral gas clouds in the vicinity of the bipolar shell.

### 4.1  Electron density and He abundance in the nebula core.

The relative intensities of the \[S II\] doublet can be used to estimate the electron density in the three bright clumps identified in this paper. We determined the electron densities in clumps A, B, and C using formulas adopted from De Robertis et al.(1987), assuming that the electron temperature of the nebula is $`T_e=17000`$ K (as determined in KB95 from \[O III\] 4959/4363Å line intensities). The resulting values are listed in Table 6.

We derived the He abundance in the nebula from He I and He II line intensities of individual clumps using the diagnostic relations and recombination coefficients for hydrogen and helium from Kholtygin (1997),. We determined the relative helium abundances N(He<sup>+</sup>)/N(H) and N(He<sup>++</sup>)/N(H) and the total helium abundances N(He)/N(H) (in number) of the clumps. The results are given in Table 6, which also lists data adopted from KB95. We can see that our abundances coincide with those of KB95, and are in good agreement with the estimate of Davidson& Kinman (1982): N(He)/N(H) = $`0.073\pm 0.009`$. (In both Davidson & Kinman (1982) and KB95, the He abundances were obtained from the spectrum of the entire bright core of the nebula without subdividing it into individual clumps).

### 4.2  Velocity of the stellar wind of the WO star.

One of the major parameters determining the structure and kinematics of the interstellar medium at large distances from WR stars is the stellar-wind velocity. Kingsburgh et al.(1995) have shown (see also KB95) that the halfwidth of the C IV 5801Å line at zero intensity is a good estimator of the terminal wind velocities of WR stars. The C IV line halfwidth at zero intensity measured from our spectra for the WO star yields a terminal wind velocity of $`V_w=2910\text{km}\text{s}^1`$, which is virtually coincident with the value $`2850\text{km}\text{s}^1`$ obtained in KB95, given that the accuracy of our measurements is determined by the width of the spectral channel ($`130\text{km}\text{s}^1`$). We thus confirm the conclusion of KB95 that the terminal wind velocity of the WO star in IC 1613 is the lowest among the six objects of this class currently known in the Local-Group galaxies.

### 4.3  Large-scale Structure of the Interstellar Medium.

In principle, the giant H I ring shown in Fig. 3 could be the projection onto the plane of the sky of a shell or torus. A torus could be the result of the wind-blown supercavity breaking out of the gaseous disk of the galaxy. In both cases, the neutral gas ring surrounding the supercavity displays a characteristic filamentary structure. The filamentary system making up the H I ring bifurcates at its southeastern end. A system of arc-like filaments with characteristic lengths of $`11.5^{}`$, or 200–300 pc, is also apparent. This filamentary pattern undoubtedly testifies to the action of dynamically active processes that are responsible for the formation of the supercavity and the surrounding dense ring or shell. This large-scale structure apparently formed as the result of a burst of star formation in the region. However, determining the nature of this burst is a separate problem, which lies beyond the scope of this paper. Of interest to us here is the very existence of such a dense shell or torus surrounding the supercavity, since we consider this large-scale mass distribution to be responsible for the unique bipolar structure of the extended ionized shell associated with the WO star.

Lozinskaya (1997) suggested that the bipolar structure of the ionized shell surrounding the WO star might be the result of a strong stellar wind breaking out of the dense gas layer. Earlier Paper I, we associated this dense layer with a hypothetical wind-blown shell, which we suggested should surround the giant H I-deficient region in IC 1613 seen on the map of Lake & Skillman(1989). However, only in this paper have we finally been able to provide some evidence supporting this hypothesis. The following factors form our principal arguments.

1. One piece of evidence is the relative orientation of the bipolar ionized shell with respect to the H I supercavity. It is clear from Fig. 4 that the bright core of the nebula is extended along the boundary of the dense H I ring; the smaller southeastern component of the ionized bipolar shell lies inside a dense neutral gas layer, and the extended northwestern component lies in the low-density medium inside the supercavity.
2. Afanas’ev et al. (2000) showed that the southeastern component is brighter than the northwestern component, and also has a lower expansion velocity.
3. The local cavity and extended H I features whose discovery is reported in this paper testify to the presence of a neutral shell surrounding the ionized bipolar shell, providing direct evidence for a physical association of the WO star and the ionized bipolar shell with the supercavity and dense H I ring (the only alternative being a chance projection).

The gas density in the clouds making up the local H I shell surrounding the bright central and southeastern components of the ionized nebula can be derived from our maximum column density and total mass estimates, assuming that the clouds have the same sizes in the line-of-sight and transverse directions. The clouds that make up the local neutral H I shell have irregular structures. Clouds a, b, and e in Table 5, which make up the expanding part of the H I half-shell, have lengths in the plane of the sky ranging from 40 to 120 pc. For a column density of $`\left(59\right)\times 10^{20}`$ cm<sup>-2</sup>, this yields a characteristic density of $`n_{\text{H I}}1.57.5`$ cm<sup>-3</sup>.

For comparison, we present estimates of the average density of ionized gas in this nebula: Davidson & Kinman (1982) found $`n_e=8.5`$ cm<sup>-3</sup> based on the H$`\beta `$ emission of the central $`6^{\prime \prime }`$ of the nebula S3; Kenicutt (1984) reports $`n_e1`$ cm<sup>-3</sup> based on a study of the integrated H$`\alpha `$ emission of the bright nebula; and Goss & Lozinskaya (1995) found $`n_e=3.5`$ cm<sup>-3</sup> from their analysis of its thermal radio emission.

If the H I clouds surrounding the bright central and southeastern components of the bipolar ionized shell are, indeed, parts of a shell of neutral gas blown out by the stellar wind, the radius and expansion velocity of the expanding section east of the WO star should be $`100140`$ pc and about $`10\text{km}\text{s}^1`$, respectively (see Section 3.2). In the standard model (Castro et al.,1975; Weaver et al.,1975), we find the kinematic age of the wind-blown neutral shell to be $`t=\left(68\right)\times 10^6`$ yr. (Note that this estimate depends neither on the stellar wind power nor on the density of the surrounding gas). This age substantially exceeds the duration of the final WO stage, and corresponds to the main-sequence lifetime of a massive star ($`M3040M_{}`$). We thus conclude that the local neutral shell surrounding the bright southeastern and central components of the ionized nebula could have been produced by the stellar wind of the WR progenitor when it was still a main-sequence star. Note that, earlier Paper I, we concluded that the ionized bipolar shell was blown out by the successive action of the stellar wind from the central star, first at the WR and then at the WO stage.

Our estimates indicate that the terminal velocity of the stellar wind of the WO star reaches $`3000\text{km}\text{s}^1`$ (see Section 4.2); a mass-loss rate of $`2.9\times 10^5M_{}`$/yr was derived in KB95 based on the relation between the He II line luminosities and mass-loss rates for two WO stars. Accordingly, the power of the stellar wind of the WO star in IC 1613 is $`L_w10^{38}`$ erg/s. In all likelihood, the wind power was a factor of two to three lower during the earlier WR stage (WR stars have typically terminal velocities of $`2000\text{km}\text{s}^1`$), but the duration of the WR stage ($`5\times 10^5`$ yr) is at least an order of magnitude longer than that of the WO stage. The power of the stellar wind of the main-sequence progenitor could have been two orders of magnitude lower than at the final Wolf-Rayet stage, however, the main-sequence lifetime was at least an order of magnitude longer than the Wolf-Rayet stage.

The formation of the wind-blown shell is determined by the standard relation:

$$R=28\left(L_{36}/n_o\right)^{1/5}t_6^{3/5}$$

, where $`L_{36}`$ is the power of the stellar wind in units of $`10^{36}`$ erg/s, $`n_o`$ the density of the surrounding gas, $`R`$ the radius in pc, and $`t_6`$ the time in units of $`10^6`$ yr (Castro et al.,1975; Weaver et al.,1975). We can easily see that, although the mechanical energy inputs from the massive star during the WR and WO stages are comparable, the stellar wind produced during the main-sequence stage is capable of creating a larger shell than the powerful but short-lived stellar wind at the final stage. Therefore, this latter wind serves as an additional source of mechanical energy in an already formed, slowly expanding shell.

Our results for the two extended arc-like H I clouds surrounding the northwestern component of the ionized shell are much less conclusive. On the one hand, these formations could be the result of the stellar wind of the WO star and its progenitor breaking into the tenuous gas inside the supercavity. Our measurements, indeed, indicate that the H I surface density inside the supercavity is at least an order of magnitude lower than in the clouds listed in Table 5. The thickness of the emitting gas layer can be taken to be twice that of the supershell in the plane of the sky; i.e., about $`34^{}`$ (600–700 pc), according to Fig. 3. Accordingly, we find the mean gas density in the supercavity to be $`0.040.05`$ cm<sup>-3</sup>. If the observed ring-shaped H I distribution is the projection of a thick torus rather than a shell, the size of the emission region should be even larger, so that the above estimate should be considered an upper limit to the gas density inside the supercavity. The same standard relation yields a radius of $`R180`$ pc for a shell blown out in the tenuous medium of the estimated density over the time $`t=7\times 10^6`$ yr found above. This agrees with the observed size of the northwestern part of the local shell outlind by two extended arc-like H I clouds in Fig. 4.

On the other hand, the formation of such an arc-like structure outlined by these extended H I clouds could be the result of the collective stellar winds (and possible supernova explosions) from association No. 9 of the list of Hodge (1978), which is adjacent to and inside the supercavity. (This association is the largest in size and the richest in the galaxy). In this case, the stellar wind and ionizing radiation of the WO star act inside this already formed arclike feature.

We plan a detailed analysis of the kinematics of the ionized and neutral gas components in this region, and a comparison with the stellar population. This study should lead to unambiguous conclusions about the nature of the arclike formation and the possible genetic relation between the WO star and the association.

## 5  Conclusions

We have observed the central part of the nebula S3 surrounding the WO star (field spectroscopy with the 6-m telescope) and an extended surrounding region more than one kpc in size (21-cm VLA observations). We have mapped the brightness of the central nebula in the main spectral lines and constructed the radial-velocity distribution based on H$`\beta `$ and \[O III\] 5007Å line measurements.

We identified three compact clumps, and determined their integrated spectra, mean velocities, and electron densities. Our spectroscopic data for both the WO star and the central region of S3 are in agreement with previous observations (see Garnett et al.(1991), KB95 and references therein). The relative line intensities in the spectrum of the nebula are indicative of pure recombination emission from a highly excitated H II region.

We analyzed the structure and kinematics of the neutral gas in an extended region around IC 1613 that includes the WO star and the associated ionized bipolar shell. A giant, dense shell or toroidal formation of neutral gas about 1.5 kpc in size surrounds the H I supercavity. This giant structure was very likely produced by a burst of star formation in this region.

We also discovered for the first time a local deficiency in the brightness of the 21-cm line and two extended H I features, providing evidence that the extended ionized bipolar shell associated with the WO star (Lozinskaya, 1997 and Paper I) is, in turn, surrounded by a local shell of neutral gas. The mass and expansion velocity of this shell indicate that it was blown out by the stellar wind of the WO progenitor when it was still a main-sequence star.

Our new observations support a scenario in which the extended bipolar structure was produced by the stellar wind of the WO star residing in the dense ‘wall’ of the supercavity. The arclike structure of the extended H I clouds just outside the faint northwestern component of the ionized shell might have been shaped by the collective stellar wind (and supernova explosions?) of Hodge’s (1978) association no. 9. In this case, the wind and ionizing radiation of the WO star act inside this previously formed arclike structure.

* This work was supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Reearch (project code 98-02-16032) and the Astronomy State Science and Technology Program (project no. 1.3.1.2). The National Radio Astronomy Observatory is a facility of the National Science Foundation operated under cooperative agreement with Associated Universities, Inc. We are grateful to E. Blanton for sharing the H$`\alpha `$ line image of IC 1613 taken at Kitt Peak National Observatory, E. E. Gerasimenko for supporting the observations at the 6-m telescope of the Special Astrophysical Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences, and the Program Committee of the 6-m telescope for providing the observing time for this project.