text:
# On the space of almost complex structures

## Abstract

It is shown in the article  that the space of associated metrics and almost complex structures on the symplectic manifold is infinitely dimensional Kahler manifold. The results of  are generalized on the space of all almost complex structures of manifold.

1. The space of almost complex structures. Let $`M`$ is smooth closed oriented manifold of dimension $`2n`$.

Almost complex structure on $`M`$ is field of endomorphisms $`J_x:T_xMT_xM`$, varying smoothly with $`xM`$ satisfying the anti-involution property: $`J^2=Id`$, where $`Id`$ is identical endomorphism.

Let $`𝒜`$ is the space of all smooth almost complex structures on $`M`$. It is the space of smooth sections of the bundle $`A(M)`$ over $`M`$, with automorfisms $`J_x`$ of $`T_xM`$, such that $`J_x^2=I_x`$ as the fiber $`A_x(M)`$ over the point $`xM`$. Since the space $`𝒜`$ is space of sections $`𝒜=\mathrm{\Gamma }(A(M))`$, then it is infinitely dimensional smooth ILH-manifold.

Let $`J𝒜`$ is almost complex structure on $`M`$. Differentiating the property $`J^2=1`$, one can obtain that space $`T_J𝒜`$ consists of endomorphisms $`K:TMTM`$, anticommutating with $`J`$, $`JK+KJ=0`$. Denote space of such operators on $`TM`$ as $`\mathrm{End}_J(TM)`$. Thus,

$$T_J𝒜=\mathrm{End}_J(TM).$$

As the space $`𝒜`$ is smooth ILH-manifold, one can define local maps in usual way. There is more natural parameterization by using the Cayley transformation.

Let $`J_0`$ is any fixed almost complex structure. The tangent space $`T_{J_0}𝒜`$ consists of endomorphisms $`K:TMTM`$, anticommutating with almost complex structure $`J_0`$$`KJ_0=J_0K`$. That is why we have $`J_0e^K=e^KJ_0`$ for the exponential mapping $`e^K`$. It immediately follows, that operator

$$J=J_0e^K$$

is almost complex structure. The last equality gives parameterization of the space $`𝒜`$ in the neiborhood of the element $`J_0`$ by endomorphisms $`K`$, anticommutating with $`J_0`$:

$$E:\mathrm{End}_{J_0}(TM)𝒜,KJ=J_0e^K.$$

In the matrix theory the rational dependence $`w=\frac{1+iz}{1iz}`$, $`z=i\frac{1w}{1+w}`$ is used instead of transcendental one $`w=e^{iz}`$. Apply this transformation to the operator $`K`$, which has property $`KJ_0=J_0K`$, we obtain

$$J=J_0\left(1+K\right)\left(1K\right)^1.$$

It is easy to see, that

$$J=J_0\left(1+K\right)\left(1K\right)^1=\left(1K\right)\left(1+K\right)^1J_0.$$

That is why $`J`$ is almost complex structure. When we defined such almost complex structure we supposed that $`1K`$ is degenerated. It is enough to this, that the operator $`K(x)`$ has to have no properly numbers equaled to unit at each point $`xM`$. Clearly, that set of such endomorphisms is open in the space $`\mathrm{End}_{J_0}(TM)`$ of all endomorphisms $`K:TMTM`$, anticommutating with $`J_0`$. Denote this set by $`𝒱(J_0)`$,

$$𝒱(J_0)=\{K\mathrm{End}(TM);KJ_0=J_0K,1K\text{ invertible }\}.$$

Proposition 1. Relations

$$J=J_0\left(1+K\right)\left(1K\right)^1,$$
$`(1)`$
$$K=\left(1JJ_0\right)^1\left(1+JJ_0\right)$$

give one-to-one correspondence between the set of endomorphisms $`K:TMTM`$,
anticommutating with almost complex structure $`J_0`$ such that $`1K`$ is invertible, and the set of almost complex structure $`J`$ on $`M`$ for which endomorphism $`1JJ_0`$ is invertible.

Remark. Algebraic clearer relation

$$J=\left(1K\right)J_0\left(1K\right)^1$$

follows from the (1).

Set

$$𝒰(J_0)=\{J𝒜;1JJ_0\text{ isomorphism }TM\}$$

is open in $`𝒜`$. That is why mapping

$$\mathrm{\Phi }:𝒰(J_0)𝒱(J_0),JK,$$

$$K=(1JJ_0)^1(1+JJ_0)$$
$`(2)`$
gives local coordinates in the neiborhood of $`J_0`$. If $`K=\mathrm{\Phi }(J)`$, then

$$J=J_0(1+K)(1K)^1.$$

We will denote such almost complex structure as $`J_K`$.

The formulas of ”changing coordinates” are easy obtained from (2). If $`J𝒰(J_0)𝒰(J_1)`$ and $`K=(1JJ_0)^1(1+JJ_0)`$$`P=(1JJ_1)^1(1+JJ_1)`$, then

$$P=(1(1K)(1+K)^1J_0J_1)^1(1+(1K)(1+K)^1J_0J_1).$$

Let $`A\mathrm{End}_{J_0}(TM)`$. Find element $`A^{}T_{J_K}𝒜`$, which corresponds to element $`A`$ under differential of coordinate mapping:

$$d\mathrm{\Phi }_K^1:T_K\mathrm{End}_{J_0}(TM)T_{J_K}𝒜.$$

It is enough to take the curve $`K_t=K+tA`$ and differentiate equality $`J_{K_t}=J_0(1+K_t)(1K_t)^1`$ with respect to $`t`$.

$$A^{}=\frac{d}{dt}|_{t=0}J(K_t)=J_0\frac{d}{dt}|_{t=0}K_t(1K)^1+J_0(1+K)\frac{d}{dt}|_{t=0}(1K_t)^1=$$

$$=J_0A(1K)^1+J_0(1+K)(1K)^1A(1K)^1=J_0(1+(1+K)(1K)^1)A(1K)^1=$$

$$=J_0(1K+1+K)(1K)^1A(1K)^1=2J_0(1K)^1A(1K)^1.$$

Therefore, we obtain

$$A^{}=2J_0(1K)^1A(1K)^1.$$

The following expressions are easy obtained:

$$A^{}=J_0A(1K)^1+JA(1K)^1,$$

$$A^{}=2J_K(1K)(1K^2)^1A(1K)^1.$$

2. Pseudo-Riemannian structure on $`𝒜`$. Fix Riemannian structure $`g_0`$ on the manifold $`M`$. Then one can define the following structures on the space $`𝒜`$:

1. The weak Pseudo-Riemannian structure. If $`A,BT_J𝒜`$, then their inner product is defined by formula:

$$(A,B)_J=_M\mathrm{tr}(AB)𝑑\mu (g_0),$$

where $`\mu (g_0)`$ is Riemannian volume element.

2. Almost complex structure.

$$𝐉_J:T_J𝒜T_J𝒜,𝐉_J(A)=AJ.$$

3. Antisymmetric non-degenerated 2-form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ on $`𝒜`$. If $`A,BT_J𝒜`$, then

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_J(A,B)=_M\mathrm{tr}(AJB)𝑑\mu (g_0)=(𝐉_JA,B)_J.$$

The expressions of these structures in local ”coordinates” on $`𝒜`$ in the neiborhood $`𝒰(J_0)`$ of the element $`J_0`$ are easy found:

$$(A,B)_K=(A^{},B^{})_{J_K}=_M\mathrm{tr}(A^{}B^{})𝑑\mu (g_0)=$$

$$=4_M\text{tr}((1K^2)^1A(1K^2)^1B)𝑑\mu (g_0).$$

To the form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_K(A,B)=\mathrm{\Omega }_J(A^{},B^{})=(A^{}J,B^{})_J=((AJ_0)^{},B^{})_J=$$

$$=4_M\mathrm{tr}((AJ_0)^{}B^{})𝑑\mu =4_M\mathrm{tr}\left((1+K)^1AJ_0(1K)^1(1+K)^1B(1K)^1\right)𝑑\mu =$$

$$=4_M\mathrm{tr}\left((1K^2)^1AJ_0(1K^2)^1B\right)𝑑\mu .$$

Show, that almost complex structure $`𝐉`$ on $`𝒜`$ is integrable. Notice for this, that model space $`\mathrm{End}_{J_0}(TM)`$, using for parameterization of the space $`𝒜`$ in neiborhood of point $`J_0`$ has complex structure too:

$$\mathrm{End}_{J_0}(TM)\mathrm{End}_{J_0}(TM),AAJ_0.$$

It seems, that these structures coincide.

Theorem 1. Almost complex structure $`𝐉`$ on manifold $`𝒜`$ is integrable. Corresponding complex structure coincides with complex structure on $`𝒜`$, obtained by parameterization $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$.

Proof. Let $`A\mathrm{End}_{J_0}(TM)`$. Then $`d\mathrm{\Phi }_K^1(AJ_0)=2J_0(1K)^1AJ_0(1K)^1=2J_0(1K)^1A(1K)^1(1K)J_0(1K)^1=d\mathrm{\Phi }_K(A)J_K`$.

Notice, that weak Pseudo-Riemannian structure on $`𝒜`$ is Hermitian with respect to complex structure $`𝐉`$. Really, if $`A,BT_J𝒜`$ are any tangent elements, then they anticommutating with $`J`$ and we obtain

$$(𝐉(A),𝐉(B))_J=_M\mathrm{tr}(AJBJ)𝑑\mu =_M\mathrm{tr}(AB)𝑑\mu =(A,B)_J.$$

Fundamental form of Hermitian weak Pseudo-Riemannian structure $`(A,B)_J`$ on $`𝒜`$ coincides with form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ defined as above.

Theorem 2. Fundamental form $`\mathrm{\Omega }_J`$ on $`𝒜`$ is closed.

Proof. Show, that exterior differential $`\mathrm{\Omega }_J`$ is equal to zero at any point $`J_0𝒜`$, $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{J_0}=0`$. Use coordinates on $`𝒜`$: $`J=J_0(1+K)(1K)^1`$. $`K=0`$ corresponds to the $`J_0`$. It is enough to show, that $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_K=0`$ when $`K=0`$. Use standard formula for exterior differential:

$$d\mathrm{\Omega }(A_0,A_1,A_2)=A_0\mathrm{\Omega }(A_1,A_2)A_1\mathrm{\Omega }(A_0,A_2)+A_2\mathrm{\Omega }(A_0,A_1)$$

$$\mathrm{\Omega }([A_0,A_1],A_2)+\mathrm{\Omega }([A_0,A_2],A_1)+\mathrm{\Omega }([A_1,A_2],A_0).$$

Let $`A_0,A_1,A_2`$ are constant vector fields on the space $`\mathrm{End}_{J_0}(TM)`$. Then all the Lie brackets are equal to zero. Show that other addends $`A_i\mathrm{\Omega }(A_j,A_k)`$ are equal to zero too.

Field $`A^{}`$ on $`𝒜`$ corresponds to $`A\mathrm{End}_{J_0}(TM)`$ by following formula:

$$AA^{}=2J(1+K)^1A(1K)^1.$$

Then $`𝐉(A^{})=(AJ_0)^{}=2(1+K)^1AJ_0(1K)^1`$. We obtain expression of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in coordinate map:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_K(A,B)=\mathrm{\Omega }_J(A^{},B^{})=(A^{}J,B^{})_J=((AJ_0)^{},B^{})_J=$$

$$=4_M\mathrm{tr}((AJ_0)^{}B^{})𝑑\mu =4_M\mathrm{tr}\left((1+K)^1AJ_0(1K)^1(1+K)^1B(1K)^1\right)𝑑\mu =$$

$$=4_M\mathrm{tr}\left((1K^2)^1AJ_0(1K^2)^1B\right)𝑑\mu .$$

Let $`A=A_1,B=A_2`$ are constant operators (i.e. they are not depend on $`K`$). By linearity of integral and trace it is enough to differentiate expression $`(1K^2)^1A_1J_0(1K^2)^1A_2`$ with respect to $`K`$ for finding derivative of $`A_0\mathrm{\Omega }(A_1,A_2)`$. One can think that $`K_t=tA_0`$. As $`\frac{d}{dt}|_{t=0}(1K_t^2)^1=\frac{d}{dt}|_{t=0}(1t^2A_0^2)^1=0`$, then $`A_0\mathrm{\Omega }(A_1,A_2)=\frac{d}{dt}|_{t=0}\mathrm{\Omega }_{K_t}(A_1,A_2)=0`$. The theorem is proved.

Remark. Manifold $`𝒜`$ isn’t Kahlerian, because the inner product on $`𝒜`$ is not positively defined.

Study the matter of curvature of the space $`𝒜`$.

Theorem 3. Space $`𝒜`$ has following geometrical characteristics (in local map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$).

1) Inner product is given by formula:

$$(A,B)_K=4_M\mathrm{tr}\left((1K^2)^1A(1K^2)^1B\right)𝑑\mu ,$$

where $`A,B\mathrm{End}_{J_0}(TM)`$.

2) Covariant derivative of vector fields given by (constant) operators $`A`$ and $`B`$:

$$_AB=AK(1K^2)^1B+BK(1K^2)^1A.$$

3) Curvature tensor:

$$R(A,B)C=(1K^2)[[(1K^2)^1A,(1K^2)^1B],(1K^2)^1C],$$

where $`A,B,C\mathrm{End}_{J_0}(TM)`$.

4) Geodesics, which have beginning at point $`J_0`$ in directions $`A\mathrm{End}_{J_0}(TM)`$ are the curves $`K(t)`$ on domain $`𝒱(J_0)`$:

$$K(t)=\mathrm{tanh}(t/2A)=\left(e^{t/2A}+e^{t/2A}\right)^1\left(e^{t/2A}e^{t/2A}\right).$$

Proof. Property 1) is already shown. 2) Covariant derivative is calculated on six-term formula . As operators $`A,B,C`$ are constant this formula becames:

$$(_AB,C)_K=\frac{1}{2}\left(A(B,C)_K+B(A,C)_KC(A,B)_K\right).$$

In calculations we use that integral and trace are linear and we use the formula:

$$\left((1K_t^2)^1\right)^{}=(1K^2)^1(AK+KA)(1K^2)^1,$$

where $`K_t=K+tA`$ is variation of operator $`K`$ in direction $`A`$. Then, for example,

$$A(B,C)_K=4\frac{d}{dt}|_{t=0}\left(_M\mathrm{tr}((1K_t^2)^1B(1K_t^2)^1C)𝑑\mu \right)=$$

$$=4_M\text{tr}((1K^2)^1((AK+KA)(1K^2)^1B+B(1K^2)^1(AK+KA))(1K^2)^1Cd\mu $$

Applying six-term formula we obtain:

$$(_AB,C)_K=\frac{1}{2}_M\text{tr}((1K^2)^1(AK(1K^2)^1B+BK(1K^2)^1A+BK(1K^2)^1A+$$

$$+AK(1K^2)^1B))(1K^2)^1C)d\mu .$$

Therefore

$$_AB=AK(1K^2)^1B+BK(1K^2)^1A$$

for constant vector fields.

3) Curvature tensor is found by formula $`R(A,B)C=_A_BC_B_AC+_{[A,B]}C`$. As $`A`$ and $`B`$ are constant vector fields, then $`[A,B]=0`$. Covariant derivative $`_BC=BK(1K^2)^1C+CK(1K^2)^1B`$ depends on point $`K`$, then $`_A_BC=d_A_BC+\mathrm{\Gamma }(A,_BC)`$.

$$d_A_BC=\frac{d}{dt}|_{t=0}(BK_t(1K_t^2)^1C+CK_t(1K_t^2)^1B)=BA(1K^2)^1C+$$

$$+BK(1K^2)^1(AK+KA)(1K^2)^1C+CA(1K^2)^1B+$$

$$+CK(1K^2)^1(AK+KA)(1K^2)^1B.$$

We obtain

$$R(A,B)C=(1K^2)[(1K^2)^1C,[(1K^2)^1A,(1K^2)^1B]].$$

4) Direct verification shows that curve $`K(t)=\mathrm{tanh}(t/2A)`$ satisfies to equation $`K^{\prime \prime }=\mathrm{\Gamma }(K^{},K^{})`$ and, that is why, it is geodesic on coordinate domain $`𝒱(J_0)`$ of space $`𝒜`$.

Remark. The theorem gives expression of geodesics $`K(t)=\mathrm{tanh}(t/2A)`$ in local map in neiborhood of $`J_0`$. On the space $`𝒜`$ geodesics are following:

$$J_t=J_0e^{tA},$$

where $`AJ_0=J_0A`$.

3. Submanifold $`𝒜`$ of associated almost complex structures. Suppose, that manifold $`M`$ is symplectic. It means, that closed non-degenerated 2-form $`\omega `$ of class $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ is given on $`M`$. The manifold $`M`$ has even dimension, $`\mathrm{dim}M=2n`$. It is natural to research metrics and almost complex structures which are associated with symplectic form $`\omega `$.

Definition 2. Almost complex structures $`J`$ on $`M`$ is called positive associated with symplectic form $`\omega `$, if for any vector fields $`X,Y`$ on $`M`$ conditions:

1) $`\omega (JX,JY)=\omega (X,Y)`$,

2) $`\omega (X,JX)>0`$, if $`X0`$.
are hold.

Definition 3. Every positive associated almost complex structures $`J`$ defines Riemannian metric $`g`$ on $`M`$ by equality

$$g(X,Y)=\omega (X,JY),$$

which is also called associated.

Associated metric $`g`$ has following properties:

1) $`g(JX,JY)=g(X,Y)`$,

2) $`g(JX,Y)=\omega (X,Y)`$.

Let $`𝒜_\omega `$ is space of all smooth positive associated almost complex structures on symplectic manifold $`M^{2n},\omega `$ and $`𝒜`$ is space of all smooth associated metrics.

Given spaces $`𝒜_\omega `$ and $`𝒜`$ are spaces of smooth sections of corresponding bundles over $`M`$. That is why they are infinitely dimensional smooth $`ILH`$-manifolds.

Let $`J𝒜_\omega `$ and $`g`$ is corresponding (unique) associated Riemannian structure. It is easy to see , that tangent space $`T_J𝒜_\omega `$ to manifold of positive associated almost complex structures consists of symmetric endomorphisms $`P:TMTM`$, anticommutating with $`J`$

$$T_J𝒜_\omega =\{P\mathrm{End}(TM);PJ=JP,g(PX,Y)=g(X,PY)\}.$$

Such space we will denote $`\mathrm{End}_{SJ}(TM)`$. Therefore $`T_J𝒜_\omega =\mathrm{End}_{SJ}(TM)`$.

Pseudo-Riemannian structure on $`𝒜`$ is positive defined on the submanifold $`𝒜_\omega `$. So $`𝒜_\omega `$ is weak Riemannian manifold. Manifold $`𝒜_\omega `$ has  the same properties as space $`𝒜`$ (theorems 1 – 3).

Theorem 4. Space $`𝒜_\omega `$ is totally geodesics submanifold in $`𝒜`$.

Proof follows from coinciding of covariant derivatives on both spaces $`𝒜`$ and $`𝒜_\omega `$ .

Corollary. Manifold $`𝒜_\omega `$ is Kahlerian.

4. Submanifold $`𝒜𝒪`$ of orthogonal almost complex structures. Consider matter about difference between positive associated almost complex structures and other ones.

Let $`J_0`$ is some positive associated almost complex structures and $`g_0`$ is corresponding metric. Space $`𝒜`$ of all almost complex structures is parameterized by endomorphisms $`K:TMTM`$, anticommutating with $`J_0`$. As $`J_0^T=J_0`$, then we have

$$J_0K^T=K^TJ_0$$

from equality $`KJ_0=J_0K`$. So operator $`K`$ splits in sum $`K=P+L`$ of symmetrical $`K`$ and antisymmetrical $`L`$ endomorphisms, each of which anticommutates with $`J_0`$,

$$\mathrm{End}_{J_0}(TM)=\mathrm{End}_{SJ_0}(TM)\mathrm{End}_{AJ_0}(TM).$$

At exponential parameterization of space $`𝒜`$

$$E:\mathrm{End}_{J_0}(TM)𝒜,KJ=J_0e^K,$$

subspace $`\mathrm{End}_{SJ_0}(TM)`$ of symmetrical endomorphisms parameterizes associated almost complex structures, and subspace $`\mathrm{End}_{AJ_0}(TM)`$ of antisymmetrical endomorphisms using for parameterization of remain, non-associated almost complex structures.

Thus, submanifold, which is transversal to $`𝒜_\omega `$ is parameterized by mapping

$$E_A:\mathrm{End}_{AJ_0}(TM)𝒜,LJ=J_0e^L.$$

As endomorphism $`L`$ is antisymmetrical, then $`e^L`$ is orthogonal transformation anticommutating with $`J_0`$.

So submanifold, which is transversal to $`𝒜_\omega `$ in neiborhood of $`J_0`$ formed by almost complex structures $`J`$, such that $`J=J_0O`$, where $`O`$ is orthogonal transformation, anticommutating with $`J_0`$. Such almost complex structures are orthogonal and they form submanifold in space $`𝒜_\omega `$.

Let $`J_0`$ is some positive associated almost complex structure and $`g_0`$ is corresponding metric.

Consider the set $`𝒜𝒪(M)`$ $`g_0`$ of orthogonal almost complex structure $`J`$:

$$𝒜𝒪(M)=\{J𝒜:g_0(JX,JY)=g_0(X,Y),J\text{ gives the same orientation as }J_0\}$$

This set is $`ILH`$-submanifold of the space $`𝒜`$.

It is easy to see that tangent space $`T_J𝒜𝒪(M)`$ consists of antisymmetrical endomorphisms $`K:TMTM`$, anticommutating with $`J`$

$$T_J𝒜𝒪)(M)=\{K\mathrm{End}(TM);KJ=JK,g_0(KX,Y)=g_0(X,KY)\}.$$

We will denote such space as $`\mathrm{End}_{AJ}(TM)`$. Thus $`T_J𝒜𝒪(M)=\mathrm{End}_{AJ}(TM)`$.

Almost complex structure $`𝐉`$ on $`𝒜`$ lefts submanifold $`T_J𝒜𝒪(M)T_J𝒜`$ invariant. Therefore $`𝒜𝒪(M)`$ is complex submanifold in $`𝒜`$. Pseudo-Riemannian structure on $`𝒜`$ is negative defined on $`𝒜𝒪(M)`$. So $`𝒜𝒪(M)`$ can be viewed as weak Riemannian manifold.

It is easy to see, that all computations in the proof of theorem 3 can be repeated in this case. Therefore manifold $`𝒜𝒪(M)`$ has the same properties as the space $`𝒜`$ (theorems 1 – 2).

Theorem 5. Submanifold $`𝒜𝒪(M)`$ is totally geodesic submanifold in $`𝒜`$.

Proof follows from coinciding of covariant derivatives on spaces $`𝒜𝒪(M)`$ and $`𝒜`$, this checked by direct calculations.

Corollary. Manifold $`𝒜𝒪(M)`$ is Kahlerian.


format: text

text:
# Orbital Zeeman effect: Signature of a massive spin wave mode in ferromagnetism

\[

## Abstract

By deriving the quantum hydrodynamic equations for an isotropic single-band ferromagnet in an arbitrary magnetic field, we find that a massive mode recently predicted splits under the action of the field. The splitting is a peculiarity of charged fermions and is linear in the field to leading order in $`q`$ bearing resemblance to the Zeeman effect in this limit, and providing a clear signature for the experimental observation of this mode.

\] Magnetism in solids has been one of the most studied subjects in physics for the past decades. In particular the behavior of propagating spin waves in metallic materials has now a long list of contributions in the literature. Spin waves in ferromagnetic materials were first predicted by Bloch and Slater and later observed in iron by Lowde. These first theories were constructed based on lattice models of local moments. Predictions for spin waves using Fermi liquid theory were first made by Silin for paramagnetic systems. Paramagnetic spin-waves were found to propagate only under an applied magnetic field. Abrikosov and Dzyaloshinskii were the first to develop a theory of itinerant ferromagnetism based on Landau’s theory of Fermi liquids. Although correct at the phenomenological level, the microscopic foundations for this theory were estabilished only much later by Dzyaloshinskii and Kondratenko.

In this paper we derive the hydrodynamic equations of the ferromagnetic Fermi liquid theory (FFLT) for a finite magnetic field and show that an intrisic degeneracy of a recently predicted massive mode exists and is lifted under the external field, similarly to the Zeeman splitting of a single spin in a magnetic field. Underneath this effect we identify the breaking of chiral symmetry by the external magnetic field in the case of charged fermions, which relates to the orbital motion developed under the Lorentz force. Besides being a clear signature of the massive mode, it is suggested that quantization of this mode will lead to a system of massive magnons with “up” and “down” states that split under an external field. We estimate the values for the fields where the effect will be observed in typical weak ferromagnets.

For isotropic metals, the equations describing dynamics of paramagnetic spin waves are similar to the ones that result from FFLT in the small moments limit. This is expected since in this limit quasi-particles can be defined and one recovers the kinetic behavior of ordinary Fermi liquid theory. However, FFLT rests on the assumption of a quite different, symmetry-broken, ground state and the resulting spin waves propagate with no external magnetic field present. The Goldstone mode associated with spontaneously broken spin rotation invariance has been the paradigm of spin-waves in an isotropic single band ferromagnet and can be derived from FFLT (as well as from lattice models). However, FFLT contains spin-wave modes that have not yet been observed, as pointed out in Ref., where the proper hydrodynamics and parameters for the propagation of the lowest in energy of these modes have been studied. Such mode is not a Goldstone mode, hence its dispersion may in principle be gapped for $`q=0`$. Indeed, for low $`q`$ and zero external magnetic field, its dispersion has been shown to be of the form $`\omega =\omega _1^+\alpha q^2`$, and propagation is possible only in the quantum hydrodynamic regime (at temperatures for which collisions are almost absent). This is in contrast to the Goldstone mode which is purelly quadratic and also propagates at collision dominated temperatures. Propagation of the massive mode also requires that the interactions have some finite amplitude with $`p`$-wave symmetry. Lack of observation of such a mode in neutron scattering experiments can be attributed to the low spectral weight the mode carries at small $`q`$ ($`q^2`$ when rated against the Goldstone mode), however indirect signs of its existence have already been observed.

We begin our derivation by writing the equal time propagator for a system of interacting fermions, $`G_{\sigma _1\sigma _2}(𝐫_1𝐫_2)a_{\sigma _1}^{}(𝐫_1)a_{\sigma _2}(𝐫_2)`$, where $`a`$ is the usual fermion anihilation Heisenberg operator and the average is taken with a ferromagnetic ground state. The equation of motion for $`G`$ is, in spin space, $`_tG(𝐫_1𝐫_2)+(i/\mathrm{})𝑑𝐫^{}[(𝐫_1𝐫^{})G(𝐫^{}𝐫_2)G(𝐫_1𝐫^{})(𝐫^{}𝐫_2)]=g[G],`$ where $``$ is the interaction Hamiltonian and the functional $`g[G]`$ is the full time-derivative of $`G`$. Following an usual script, one turns to a mixed $`𝐫`$ \- $`𝐩`$ representation by defining $`_𝐩(𝐫)=𝑑𝐫^{}e^{i𝐩𝐫^{}/\mathrm{}}(𝐫+𝐫^{}/2,𝐫𝐫^{}/2)`$, and likewise for $`𝒩_𝐩(𝐫)`$, which brings the equation of motion to the form

$`_t𝒩_𝐩(𝐫)+{\displaystyle }`$ $`D\tau [_{𝐩^{}+\mathrm{}𝐤/2}(𝐫^{}+\mathrm{}𝐬/2)𝒩_𝐩^{}(𝐫^{})`$ (1)
$``$ $`𝒩_𝐩^{}(𝐫^{})_{𝐩^{}\mathrm{}𝐤/2}(𝐫^{}\mathrm{}𝐬/2)]=J[𝒩_𝐩],`$ (2)
where $`D\tau id𝐫^{}d𝐬d𝐩^{}d𝐤e^{i[(𝐩^{}𝐩)𝐬+(𝐫𝐫^{})𝐤]}/(2\pi )^6\mathrm{}`$. Expanding Eq.(2) in $`𝐬`$ and $`𝐤`$ yields a formal series in $`\mathrm{}`$,

$`_t𝒩_𝐩(𝐫)J`$ $`[𝒩_𝐩]={\displaystyle \underset{n,m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^n}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}}\right)^{n+m1}`$ (4)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{m}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{r_{\alpha _j}p_{\beta _l}}}[{\displaystyle \frac{^2_𝐩(𝐫)}{r_{\beta _l}p_{\alpha _j}}},𝒩_𝐩(𝐫)]_\pm ,`$
where we have (anti) commutation if $`m+n`$ is (odd) even and sumation over repeated Greek indices.

It is clear from this expression that the repeated action of the derivatives on the fluctuating fields generate coefficients that are higher order in $`q`$ for higher powers of $`\mathrm{}`$. If we keep terms up to first order in $`q`$,

$`_t𝒩_𝐩(𝐫)+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}[_𝐩(𝐫),𝒩_𝐩`$ $`(𝐫)]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{_𝐩(𝐫),𝒩_𝐩(𝐫)\}`$ (5)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}`$ $`\{𝒩_𝐩(𝐫),_𝐩(𝐫)\}=J[𝒩_𝐩],`$ (6)
where square braces indicate the usual commutator while curly braces are Poisson brackets. Therefore, keeping first order in $`q`$ leads to the same result obtained by dropping terms in the series that are explicitly $`𝒪(\mathrm{}^2)`$. However, $`_𝐩(𝐫)`$ is itself a function of $`\mathrm{}`$, which disables, at this point, comparison with a semi-classical approach.

For the ferromagnetic Fermi liquid there are two distinct underlying scenarios that we call (following Ref.) classical and quantum spin hydrodynamics. We want here to discuss in a general way the origin of these two regimes. For this purpose, it should be recalled that the equilibrium density matrix for a ferromagnetic state is written in the quite general form,

$$𝒩_{𝐩\sigma \sigma ^{}}^0=n_𝐩^0\delta _{\sigma \sigma ^{}}+\eta (𝐩)𝐦_0𝝉_{\sigma \sigma ^{}},$$
(7)
where $`𝝉`$ are Pauli matrices and $`𝐦_0`$ is the equilibrium magnetization density, which is a conserved quantity of the ferromagnetic Hamiltonian. From this it is clear that the commutator in (6) is zero unless there are fluctuations about equilibrium.

At high temperatures, thermal fluctuations dominate and this commutator remains irrelevant. The remaining “classical” terms lead to the known Bloch-like hydrodynamics for the Goldstone mode. This regime is refered to as “classical spin hydrodynamics.”

At low temperatures quantum fluctuations dominate, and the commutator in (6) becomes important. It remains finite as long as the fluctuations contain, besides the usual Goldstone-mode, contributions from non conserved quantities as it is the case of spin-current, whose oscillations give rise to the gapped mode studied in Ref., where this regime has been called “quantum spin hydrodynamics.”

The crossover temperature for these two regimes has been found to scale with $`(\omega _1^+)^{1/2}`$, where $`\omega _1^+2|𝐦_0|(F_1^a/3F_0^a)/\mathrm{}N(0)`$ is the gap, $`F_{\mathrm{}}^{(a)s}`$ are the usual dimensionless spin (anti) symmetric interaction parameters, and $`N(0)`$ is the density of states at the Fermi surface.

The preceding discussion is general and establishes the origin of the massive mode. We now turn to the small moments limit, where kinetic equations can be amenably derived. In this limit, we write the effective quasiparticle Hamiltonian and density matrix respectively as $`_{𝐩\sigma \sigma ^{}}(𝐫)=ϵ_𝐩(𝐫)\delta _{\sigma \sigma ^{}}+𝐡_𝐩(𝐫)𝝉_{\sigma \sigma ^{}},`$ and $`𝒩_{𝐩\sigma \sigma ^{}}(𝐫)=n_𝐩(𝐫)\delta _{\sigma \sigma ^{}}+𝝈_𝐩(𝐫)𝝉_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}`$. These forms for the Hamiltonian and density immediately give

$$\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}[_𝐩(𝐫),𝒩_𝐩(𝐫)]=\frac{2}{\mathrm{}}\left(𝝈_𝐩(𝐫)\times 𝐡_𝐩(𝐫)\right)𝝉.$$
(8)
Here the internal field is given by

$$𝐡_𝐩(𝐫)=\frac{\gamma \mathrm{}}{2}𝐇+\frac{2\pi ^2\mathrm{}^2}{m^{}k_F}\underset{𝐩^{}\mathrm{}}{}F_{\mathrm{}}^aP_{\mathrm{}}(\widehat{𝐩}\widehat{𝐩}^{})𝝈_𝐩^{}(𝐫),$$
(9)
where $`P_{\mathrm{}}`$ are Legendre polynomials, $`𝐇`$ is an external magnetic field, and all coupling constants are $`\mathrm{}`$ independent. We see then from Eqs.(8) and (9) that the commutator of Eq.(6) gives two contributions: a zero-th order term in $`\mathrm{}`$ which is just the (Larmor) precession of the internal magnetization and a first order term in $`\mathrm{}`$ that is the precession about the field generated internally. Carefull examination of Eq.(4) shows that this term is the $`only`$ first order term in $`\mathrm{}`$ of the series. That is, provided that the effective Hamiltonian is of the Fermi liquid type, the long wavelength limit is equivalent to a Wentzel-Kramers-Brillouin or (eikonal) semi-classical approximation.

We want now to have the Lorentz-force operator explicitly factorized. This is achieved by rewriting Eq.(6) in a gauge transformed “frame” for which $`𝐀=0`$. Also, to leading order in the fluctuations, the non-commuting parts of the Poisson brackets can be dropped, giving

$`_t𝒩_𝐩(𝐫)+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}`$ $`[_𝐩(𝐫),𝒩_𝐩(𝐫)]+\{𝒩_𝐩(𝐫),_𝐩(𝐫)\}`$ (10)
$`+`$ $`e\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝒩_𝐩(𝐫)}{𝐩}}\times {\displaystyle \frac{_𝐩(𝐫)}{𝐩}}\right)𝐇=J[𝒩_𝐩].`$ (11)
We see that the gauge boost factorizes a non-chiral term whose amplitude is proportional to $`e|𝐇|`$. This is the contribution from the orbital motion of charged quasiparticles, a result similar to the one found in the theory of normal metals, where it is known simply to shift the paramagnetic resonances. In the isotropic ferromagnetic case we are studying here this term plays a more essential role. Equation (11) is formally identical to the one obtained in a normal metal. The difference rests on the broken symmetry ground state, whose density is given by Eq.(7).

Let $`^{+()}`$ be a simultaneous proper (improper) rotation of real and momentum axes and likewise $`𝒮𝒰^{+()}`$ for the spin axes. Examination of Eq.(11) reveals that in the absence of a magnetic field, $`^\pm `$ are symmetry operations both in the paramagnetic and ferromagnetic cases, $`𝒮𝒰^{}`$ is not a symmetry in either case, and $`𝒮𝒰^+`$ distinguishes the two cases, being a broken symmetry in the ferromagnetic case. The presence of $`𝐇`$ adds two terms to the equation, one that couples to spin through $`𝐡_𝐩`$ and the orbital one discussed above which couples to charge. In a charged paramagnet, the former will break $`𝒮𝒰^+`$ symmetry yielding propagating paramagnons as a consequence, while the latter will break $`^{}`$ (chiral) symmetry. However, since the spin modes are sustained by a finite $`𝐇`$, the degeneracies associated with chiral symmetry are lifted with $`𝐇`$, before spin waves can propagate.

In the isotropic ferromagnet, spin waves can propagate in the absence of $`𝐇`$, for the $`𝒮𝒰^+`$ is a spontaneously broken symmetry and the internal “sustaining” field is provided by $`𝐦_0`$. Hence propagating modes exist before the formation of orbits with the breaking of $`^{}`$ by a finite $`𝐇`$, and some of these modes may be degenerate. Breaking chiral symmetry should then lift such degeneracies. Note that the Goldstone mode should not be affected by $`𝐇`$ (apart, of course, from shifting) for the term breaking chiral symmetry only couples to charge. However, the gapped spin-wave mode splits as it is seen in the dispersion relations of Fig.(1).

In order to see how this happens, we finish linearizing Eq.(11), and then solve it in the hydrodynamic limit. In particular, since we are seeking equations on the total magnetization density $`𝒎\mathrm{tr}[𝝉_𝐩𝒩_𝐩]`$, and spin current tensor $`𝒋_{\sigma }^{}{}_{i}{}^{}\mathrm{tr}[𝝉_𝐩(_𝐩/p_i)𝒩_𝐩]`$, we trace the product of $`𝝉`$ with Eq.(11) and keep only terms that are linear in the fluctuations. The result is a set of coupled equations,

$$_t\delta 𝒎+_\alpha 𝒋_{\sigma }^{}{}_{\alpha }{}^{}=\gamma 𝐇_0\times \delta 𝒎\gamma \delta 𝐇\times 𝐦_0,$$
(12)
which is just the continuity equation, and

$`_t𝒋_{\sigma }^{}{}_{\alpha }{}^{}c_s^2_\alpha `$ $`(\delta 𝒎+\chi _0\delta 𝐇)+\mathrm{H}^{}ϵ_{\alpha z\beta }𝒋_{\sigma }^{}{}_{\beta }{}^{}`$ (14)
$`=\gamma (𝐇_0\omega _1^+\widehat{𝐦}_0)\times 𝒋_{\sigma }^{}{}_{\alpha }{}^{}\omega _D^{}𝒋_{\sigma }^{}{}_{\alpha }{}^{}.`$
Here $`\delta 𝒎𝒎𝐦_0`$, $`\delta 𝐇𝐇𝐇_0`$ where $`𝐇_0`$ is a uniform magnetic field applied parallel to the $`z`$ axis defined by the equilibrium magnetization $`𝐦_0`$, $`\chi _0\gamma \mathrm{}N(0)/2|1+F_0^a|`$, $`\mathrm{H}^{}=e|𝐇_0|(1+F_1^a/3)/m^{}`$ is the orbital amplitude, $`c_s^2=(v_F^2/3)|1+F_0^a|(1+F_1^a/3)`$ is the squared spin wave velocity, and $`\omega _D^{}=(1+F_1^a/3)/\tau _D`$ is the $`p`$-wave amplitude of the scattering integral for a spin-diffusion relaxation time $`\tau _D`$.

We consider the response to a driving field $`\delta 𝐇`$ which is transverse to $`\widehat{z}`$ and oscillates with frequency $`\omega `$. It is then easy to see that the three longitudinal components $`\widehat{z}𝒋_{\sigma }^{}{}_{\alpha }{}^{}`$ vanish together with $`\delta m_z`$. This means that there are no magnetization gradients in the longitudinal direction and there is no transport of longitudinal magnetization in any direction.

The remaining 6 components can be conveniently “folded” onto the complex “vector” $`𝒋_\sigma ^+\widehat{x}𝒋_{\sigma }^{}{}_{\alpha }{}^{}\widehat{x}_\alpha +i\widehat{y}𝒋_{\sigma }^{}{}_{\alpha }{}^{}\widehat{x}_\alpha `$, which measures the transport of transverse magnetization $`\delta m^+\delta m_x+i\delta m_y`$ under the driving field $`\delta H^+\delta H_x+i\delta H_y`$. Solving Eqs.(12) and (14) for the Fourier components yields

$`𝒋_\sigma ^+={\displaystyle \frac{\delta H^+c_s^2}{P_4(\mathrm{\Omega })}}[\gamma `$ $`|𝐦_0|\chi _0(\omega \omega _L)]`$ (15)
$`\times `$ $`[\mathrm{\Omega }^2𝐪i\mathrm{\Omega }𝐇^{}\times 𝐪(𝐇^{}𝐪)𝐇^{}],`$ (16)
and $`\delta m^+=\delta H^+\gamma |𝐦_0|P_3(\mathrm{\Omega })/P_4(\mathrm{\Omega }),`$ where $`\mathrm{\Omega }\omega \omega _Lz_0`$, $`\omega _L`$ is the Larmor frequency, $`z_0\omega _1^+i\omega _D^{}`$, $`P_3(\mathrm{\Omega })=\mathrm{\Omega }^3+(c_s^2q^2\chi _0/\gamma |𝐦_0|)\mathrm{\Omega }^2\mathrm{H}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{\Omega }(c_s^2\chi _0/\gamma |𝐦_0|)(𝐇^{}𝐪)^2,`$ $`P_4(\mathrm{\Omega })=\mathrm{\Omega }^4+z_0\mathrm{\Omega }^3+(c_s^2q^2\mathrm{H}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})\mathrm{\Omega }^2z_0\mathrm{H}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{\Omega }c_s^2(𝐇^{}𝐪)^2,`$ and $`𝐇^{}\mathrm{H}^{}\widehat{z}`$. For simplicity we specialize to the case $`𝐇_0𝐪`$ (indicated by $`\theta =90^o`$ in the figures). This condition is obtained in practice by sheding neutrons or photons adequately on a finite sample’s surface, and is the condition that maximizes the non-chiral orbital contribution in Eq.(16); in the infinite system, we can think of transverse magnons if we wish to quantize the hydrodynamics. Longitudinal magnons will be treated elsewhere. In Fig.(1) we see the dispersion relations for different values of the external field. These are obtained by looking into the free modes ($`\delta 𝐇=0`$). It is clear that the degeneracy is only exact at $`q=0`$. We see also that it constitutes a three-fold degeneracy, however, the two constant branches shown ($`\omega \omega _L\mathrm{\Delta }\omega =\omega _1^+`$) are spurious when $`𝐇_0=0`$ in the sense that there is no spectral weight associated with them, as seen in Fig.(2) where $`S(q,\omega )\mathrm{Im}[\delta m^+/\delta H^+]`$ (which is the important quantity in experiments) is plotted as a function of $`\omega `$ and $`\mathrm{H}^{}`$.

Under a finite magnetic field only one of the spurious branches develops weight while the degeneracy is lifted.

The important point to note is that the frequencies of the Goldstone mode (the traditional spin-waves) only shift their loci as the external magnetic field increases whereas the gapped mode splits. This can be seen in Fig.(3) where the behavior of these dispersions with the external field is shown (including the Goldstone mode). It is then clear that the splitting of the gapped mode should be considered as a distinctive feature in experiments searching for a direct observation of it. It should be helpful to make a statement about the quantities involved for some traditional materials: From data found in the literature we estimate the fields shown to be in the range of hundreds of Gauss for typical weak ferromagnets like MnSi, ZrZn2, and Ni3Al. This corresponds to a gap of tenths of meV in these materials.

For small values of $`\mathrm{H}^{}`$ and $`q`$ (up to $`0.1\omega _1^+`$), the dispersions may be put in the simple form $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega =c_s^2q^2/\omega _1^+`$ for the Goldstone mode and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega =\pm \mathrm{H}^{}+\omega _1^+\alpha q^2`$ for the gapped mode. Quantization of the theory in this limit will yield massive magnons with an “up-down” degeneracy which is lifted by the magnetic field, in much the same way as in the Zeeman effect of a single spin. The possible existence of (low temperature) magnons with mass and a Zeeman-like degeneracy makes room for new questions realated, e.g., to the collective behavior of a handful of these excitations. Before these questions are put forward it is, however, prudent to focus on the issue of whether these results can be observed by traditional experiments. The spectral weight of this mode, of order of $`10^2`$ the usual spin waves (see Fig.(2)) stands as an obstacle. Our main emphasis here is whence on the additional criterium such a degeneracy provides to track down the massive mode. In a companion longer article we also discuss how these results are expected to show in a conduction ressonance experiment.

The authors aknowledge fruitful discussions with K. Blagoev. Financial support for this work has been provided by DOE Grant DEFG0297ER45636, and FAPESP Grants 01/01713-3, 00/07660-6, and 00/10805-6.


text:
# I introduction

## I introduction

In the study of one dimensional long-range interacting systems, Gaudin type models  ocupied an important place, due to their role in establishing the integrability of the Seiberg-Witten theory  and diagonalizing the BCS hamiltonian of ultrasmall metallic grains . They also served as a testing ground for ideas such as the functional Bethe ansatz and general procedure of separation of variables .

The $`t`$-$`J`$ model was proposed in an attempt to understand high-$`T_c`$ superconductivity . It is a correlated electron system with nearest-neighbor hopping ($`t`$) and anti-ferromagnetic exchange ($`J`$) of electrons. Using the nested algebraic Bethe ansatz method, Essler and Korepin obtained the eigenvalues of the periodic system . Soon after the open boundary case was studied in .

In , the periodic $`t`$-$`J`$ Gaudin model was investigated and its eigenvalues were obtained. In this paper, we study both the periodic and open boundary $`t`$-$`J`$ Gaudin models by a method different from that used in .

The Knizhnik-Zamolodchikov (KZ) equations were first proposed as a set of differential equations satisfied by correlation functions of the Wess-Zumino-Witten models . The connection between Gaudin type magnets and the KZ equations has been studied by many authors . We are interested in the super KZ equations associated with $`sl(2|1)^{(1)}`$ superalgebra. We will construct and solve these KZ equations with the help of the $`t`$-$`J`$ Gaudin models.

The outline of this paper is as follows: In the first part of this paper (section 2-4), we study the periodic $`t`$-$`J`$ Gaudin model and its corresponding KZ equation. The $`t`$-$`J`$ model hamiltonian is constructed in section 2, and diagonalized in section 3, by using the algebraic Bethe ansatz method. We also derive its off-shelled Bethe ansatz equations, and use them, in section 4, to construct solution to the corresponding KZ equation. The second part of this paper is devoted to dealing with the open boundary $`t`$-$`J`$ Gaudin model. In sections 5 and 6, we construct and diagonalize the open boundary $`t`$-$`J`$ Gaudin model. In section 7, we obtain solution to the KZ equation associated with the boundary Gaudin model.

## II Periodic $`t`$-$`J`$ Gaudin model

### II.1 $`t`$-$`J`$ model with periodic boundary condition

The supersymmetric $`t`$-$`J`$ model is described by the R-matrix arising from the 3-dimensional representation of $`sl(2|1)^{(1)}`$. In the Fermionic, Fermionic and Bosonic (FFB) grading of the representation space, the R-matrix is given by

$$R(\lambda )=\left(\begin{array}{ccccccccc}a(\lambda )& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& b(\lambda )& 0& c_{}(\lambda )& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& b(\lambda )& 0& 0& 0& c_{}(\lambda )& 0& 0\\ 0& c_+(\lambda )& 0& b(\lambda )& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& a(\lambda )& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& b(\lambda )& 0& c_{}(\lambda )& 0\\ 0& 0& c_+(\lambda )& 0& 0& 0& b(\lambda )& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& c_+(\lambda )& 0& b(\lambda )& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& w(\lambda )\end{array}\right),$$
(II.1)
where $`\eta `$ is a crossing parameter and

$`a(\lambda )=1,b(\lambda )={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda )}{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda \eta )}},w(\lambda )={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda +\eta )}{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda \eta )}},`$
$`c_+(\lambda )={\displaystyle \frac{e^\lambda \mathrm{sinh}(\eta )}{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda \eta )}},c_{}(\lambda )={\displaystyle \frac{e^\lambda \mathrm{sinh}(\eta )}{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda \eta )}},`$ (II.2)
This $`R`$-matrix satisfies the graded Yang-Baxter equation (YBE)

$$R(\lambda \mu )_{a_1a_2}^{b_1b_2}R(\lambda )_{b_1a_3}^{c_1b_3}R(\mu )_{b_2b_3}^{c_2c_3}()^{(ϵ_{b_1}+ϵ_{c_1})ϵ_{b_2}}=R(\mu )_{a_2a_3}^{b_2b_3}R(\lambda )_{a_1b_3}^{b_1c_3}R(\lambda \mu )_{b_1b_2}^{c_1c_2}()^{(ϵ_{a_1}+ϵ_{b_1})ϵ_{b_2}},$$
(II.3)
where $`ϵ_a`$ is the Grassman parity: $`ϵ_a=0`$ for bosons and $`ϵ_a=1`$ for fermions. The R-matrix satisfies the unitarity and cross-unitarity relations,

$`R_{12}(\lambda )R_{21}(\lambda )=\rho (\lambda )id,\rho (\lambda )=\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda +\eta )\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda \eta ),`$
$`R_{12}^{st_1}(\lambda \eta )M_1R_{21}^{str_1}M_1^1=\stackrel{~}{\rho }(\lambda )id,\stackrel{~}{\rho }(\lambda )=\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda )\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda \eta ),`$ (II.4)
where $`M`$ is a diagonal matrix diag$`(e^{2\eta },1,1)`$ and $`st`$ is the super-transposition defined by

$$(A^{st})_{ij}=A_{ji}(1)^{(ϵ_i+1)ϵ_j}.$$
(II.5)
Consider the L-operator

$`L_{aq}(\lambda )R_{aq}(\lambda ),`$ (II.6)
where $`a`$ represents the auxiliary space and $`q`$ represents the quantum space. The L-operator also obeys the (graded) YBE

$`R_{12}(\lambda \mu )L_1(\lambda )L_2(\mu )=L_2(\mu )L_1(\lambda )R_{12}(\lambda \mu ).`$ (II.7)
The tensor product is graded, namely,

$`(FG)_{ac}^{bd}=F_a^bG_c^d()^{(ϵ_a+ϵ_b)ϵ_c}.`$ (II.8)
The row-to-row monodromy matrix $`T_N(\lambda )`$ is defined as the product of $`N`$ operators,

$`T_a(\lambda )=L_{a1}(\lambda z_1)L_{a2}(\lambda z_2)\mathrm{}L_{aN}(\lambda z_N),`$ (II.9)
In matrix form,

$`\{[T(\lambda )]^{ab}\}_{\beta _1\mathrm{}\beta _N}^{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _N}`$ $`=`$ $`L_1(\lambda z_1)_{a\alpha _1}^{c_1\beta _1}L_2(\lambda z_2)_{c_1\alpha _2}^{c_2\beta _2}\mathrm{}L_N(\lambda z_N)_{c_{N1}\alpha _N}^{b\beta _N}`$
$`(1)^{_{j=1}^{N1}(ϵ_{\alpha _j}+ϵ_{\beta _j})_{i=j+1}^Nϵ_{\alpha _i}}`$
By repeatedly using the YBE, one can easily check that the monodromy matrix satisfies

$`R(\lambda \mu )T_1(\lambda )T_2(\mu )=T_2(\mu )T_1(\lambda )R(\lambda \mu ).`$ (II.11)
The transfer matrix $`t(\lambda )`$ is defined as the supertrace of the monodromy matrix over the auxiliary space:

$`t(\lambda )=strT(\lambda )={\displaystyle (1)^{ϵ_a}T(\lambda )_{aa}}.`$ (II.12)
Using the YBE, one can show that the transfer matrix $`t(\lambda )`$ constitutes a one-parameter commuting family, i.e.

$$[t(\lambda ),t(\mu )]=0.$$
(II.13)
Therefore, the $`t`$-$`J`$ model is integrable.

### II.2 Supersymmetric $`t`$-$`J`$ Gaudin model

Supersymmetric $`t`$-$`J`$ Gaudin model can be obtained by taking the quasi-classical limit $`\eta 0`$ of the transfer matrix at the point $`\lambda =z_j`$ . So we expand the R-matrix, L-operator and transfer matrix around the point $`\eta =0`$ to get

$`R(\lambda )=1+\eta \widehat{R}(\lambda )+𝒪(\eta ^2),`$ (II.14)
$`L(\lambda )=1+\eta (\lambda )+𝒪(\eta ^2),`$ (II.15)
$`t(z_j)=1+\eta \widehat{t}(z_j)+𝒪(\eta ^2).`$ (II.16)
Then the Hamiltonian of periodic $`t`$-$`J`$ Gaudin model can be obtained from the second term of (II.16).

From (II.14), we have

$`\widehat{R}_{ij}(\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{coth}(\lambda )e_{33}^i\stackrel{s}{}e_{33}^j+\mathrm{coth}(\lambda )[e_{11}^i\stackrel{s}{}e_{22}^j+e_{11}^i\stackrel{s}{}e_{33}^j`$ (II.17)
$`+e_{22}^i\stackrel{s}{}e_{11}^j+e_{33}^i\stackrel{s}{}e_{11}^j+e_{33}^i\stackrel{s}{}e_{22}^j]`$
$`+e^\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda )}}\left[e_{13}^i\stackrel{s}{}e_{31}^j+e_{23}^i\stackrel{s}{}e_{32}^je_{12}^i\stackrel{s}{}e_{21}^j\right]`$
$`+e^\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda )}}\left[e_{31}^i\stackrel{s}{}e_{13}^j+e_{32}^i\stackrel{s}{}e_{23}^je_{21}^i\stackrel{s}{}e_{12}^j\right],`$
where $`e_{ij}^k`$ is a matrix acting on the $`k`$-th space with elements $`(e_{ij})_{\alpha \beta }=\delta _{i\alpha }\delta _{j\beta }`$. Denote by $`S,S^{},S^z,Q_{\pm 1},Q_{\pm 1}^{}`$ and $`T^z`$ the generators of $`sl(2|1)`$, which satisfy, among others,

$$[S^{},S]=S^z,\{Q_1^{},Q_1\}=T^z,\{Q_1^{},Q_1\}=S^z+T^z.$$
(II.18)
In the fundamental representation, they take the form,

$`S^z=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right),T^z=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right),`$ (II.25)
$`S=e_{21},S^{}=e_{12},Q_1=e_{32},`$
$`Q_1^{}=e_{23},Q_1=e_{31},Q_1^{}=e_{13}.`$ (II.26)
Thus,

$`\widehat{R}_{ij}(\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{coth}(\lambda )\left[(1(S_i^z)^2)(1(S_j^z)^2)\right]`$
$`+\mathrm{coth}(\lambda )[(1T_i^z)(2T_j^zS_j^z(S_j^z)^2)+(2T_i^zS_i^z(S_i^z)^2)(1T_j^z)`$
$`+(1T_i^zS_i^z)(1(S_j^z)^2)+(1(S_i^z)^2)(1T_j^zS_j^z)]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{e^\lambda }{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda )}}\left[S_i^{}S_j+{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma =,}{}}Q_{i,\sigma }^{}Q_{i,\sigma }\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{e^\lambda }{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda )}}\left[S_iS_j^{}+{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma =,}{}}Q_{i,\sigma }Q_{i,\sigma }^{}\right]`$
Using the standard fermionic representation

$`S_j=c_{j,1}^{}c_{j,1},S_j^{}=c_{j,1}^{}c_{j,1},S_j^z=n_{j,1}n_{j,1},`$
$`T_j^z=1n_{j,1},Q_{j,\sigma }^{}=c_{j,\sigma }^{}(1n_{j,\sigma }),Q_{j,\sigma }=c_{j,\sigma }(1n_{j,\sigma }),`$ (II.28)
where $`n_{j,\pm }=c_{j,\pm }^{}c_{j,\pm }`$ and $`n_{j,+}+n_{j,}=n_j`$, we have

$`\widehat{R}_{ij}(\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{coth}(\lambda )\left[(1(n_{i,}n_{i,})^2)(1(n_{j,}n_{j,})^2)\right]`$ (II.29)
$`+\mathrm{coth}(\lambda )[n_{i,}(1+n_{j,}(n_{j,}n_{j,})^2)+(1+n_{i,}(n_{i,}n_{i,})^2)n_{j,}`$
$`+n_{i,}(1(n_{i,}n_{i,})^2)+(1(n_{i,}n_{i,})^2)n_{j,}]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{e^\lambda }{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda )}}\left[c_{i,}^{}c_{i,_{}}c_{j,}^{}c_{j,}+{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma =,}{}}c_{i,\sigma }^{}(1n_{i,\sigma })c_{j,\sigma }(1n_{j,\sigma })\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{e^\lambda }{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda )}}\left[c_{i,}^{}c_{i,_{}}c_{j,}^{}c_{j,}+{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma =,}{}}c_{i,\sigma }(1n_{i,\sigma })c_{j,\sigma }^{}(1n_{j,\sigma })\right].`$
Similarly, from the eq.(II.15), we obtain the elements of the Lax matrix,

$`_{11}^j=\mathrm{coth}(\lambda )\mathrm{coth}(\lambda )n_{j,1},_{22}^j=\mathrm{coth}(\lambda )\mathrm{coth}(\lambda )n_{j,1},`$
$`_{33}^j=\mathrm{coth}(\lambda )+\mathrm{coth}(\lambda )\left[1(n_{j,1}n_{j,1})^2\right],`$
$`_{12}^j={\displaystyle \frac{e^\lambda }{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda )}}c_{j,1}^+c_{j,1}_{21}^j={\displaystyle \frac{e^\lambda }{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda )}}c_{j,1}^+c_{j,1},`$
$`_{13}^j={\displaystyle \frac{e^\lambda }{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda )}}c_{j,1}(1n_{j,1})_{31}^j={\displaystyle \frac{e^\lambda }{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda )}}c_{j,1}^+(1n_{j,1}),`$
$`_{23}^j={\displaystyle \frac{e^\lambda }{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda )}}c_{j,1}(1n_{j,1})_{32}^j={\displaystyle \frac{e^\lambda }{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda )}}c_{j,1}^+(1n_{j,1}),`$ (II.30)
Finally, the Hamiltonian of the $`t`$-$`J`$ Gaudin model can be written as

$`H_j`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dt(\lambda =z_j)}{d\eta }}|_{\eta =0}.`$ (II.31)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1j}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}(z_jz_k)}}\{\mathrm{cosh}(z_jz_k)[n_{j,1}n_{k,1}n_{j,1}n_{k,1}+(1n_j)(1n_k)]`$
$`+e^{(z_jz_k)}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma =\pm 1}{}}c_{j,\sigma }^{}(1n_{j,\sigma })c_{k,\sigma }(1n_{k,\sigma })S_j^{}S_k\right]`$
$`+e^{z_jz_k}[{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma =\pm 1}{}}c_{j,\sigma }(1n_{j,\sigma })c_{k,\sigma }^{}(1n_{k,\sigma })S_jS_k^{}]\}.`$
## III Bethe ansatz for the $`t`$-$`J`$ Gaudin model

Hamiltonian (II.31) can be diagonalized by using the algebraic Bethe ansatz method. To simplify calculation, we use the gauge transformation

$$R(\lambda )\mathrm{diag}(e^{\lambda /2},e^{\lambda /2},e^{\lambda /2})\stackrel{s}{}1R(\lambda )\mathrm{diag}(e^{\lambda /2},e^{\lambda /2},e^{\lambda /2})\stackrel{s}{}1$$
(III.1)
to get

$$R(\lambda )=\left(\begin{array}{ccccccccc}a(\lambda )& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& b(\lambda )& 0& c_{}(\lambda )& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& b(\lambda )& 0& 0& 0& d(\lambda )& 0& 0\\ 0& c_+(\lambda )& 0& b(\lambda )& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& a(\lambda )& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& b(\lambda )& 0& d(\lambda )& 0\\ 0& 0& d(\lambda )& 0& 0& 0& b(\lambda )& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& d(\lambda )& 0& b(\lambda )& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& w(\lambda )\end{array}\right),$$
(III.2)
where $`d(\lambda )=\mathrm{sinh}(\eta )/\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda \eta )`$. The corresponding $`L`$-matrix can be written as

$`L_n(\lambda )`$ (III.6)
$`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}b(\lambda )(b(\lambda )a(\lambda ))e_{11}^n& c_{}(\lambda )e_{21}^n& d(\lambda )e_{31}^n\\ c_+(\lambda )e_{12}^n& b(\lambda )(b(\lambda )a(\lambda ))e_{22}^n& d(\lambda )e_{32}^n\\ d(\lambda )e_{13}^n& d(\lambda )e_{23}^n& b(\lambda )(b(\lambda )w(\lambda ))e_{33}^n\end{array}\right).`$
We expand the row-to-row monodromy matrix (II.9) around $`\eta =0`$:

$`T(\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}A_{11}(\lambda )& A_{12}(\lambda )& B_1(\lambda )\\ A_{21}(\lambda )& A_{22}(\lambda )& B_2(\lambda )\\ C_1(\lambda )& C_2(\lambda )& D(\lambda )\end{array}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`1+\eta \widehat{T}(\lambda )+𝒪(\eta ^2)`$
$`=`$ $`1+\eta \left(\begin{array}{ccc}\widehat{A}_{11}(\lambda )& \widehat{A}_{12}(\lambda )& \widehat{B}_1(\lambda )\\ \widehat{A}_{21}(\lambda )& \widehat{A}_{22}(\lambda )& \widehat{B}_2(\lambda )\\ \widehat{C}_1(\lambda )& \widehat{C}_2(\lambda )& \widehat{D}(\lambda )\end{array}\right)+𝒪(\eta ^2).`$ (III.15)
By the graded YBE (II.11), one finds

$`[\widehat{T}_1(\lambda ),\widehat{T}_2(\mu )]=[\widehat{T}_1(\lambda )+\widehat{T}_2(\mu ),\widehat{R}_{12}(\lambda \mu )],`$ (III.16)
and the commutation relations,

$`\widehat{C}_{s_1}(\mu _1)\widehat{C}_{s_2}(\mu _2)`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{C}_{s_2}(\mu _2)\widehat{C}_{s_1}(\mu _1),`$ (III.17)
$`\widehat{D}(z_j)\widehat{C}_s(\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{coth}(z_j\mu )\widehat{C}_s(\mu )D(z_j)|_{\eta =0}+\widehat{C}_s(\mu )\widehat{D}(z_j)`$ (III.18)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}(\mu z_j)}}E_j^{}(s)\widehat{D}(\mu )`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}(\mu z_j)}}\widehat{C}_s(z_j)D(\mu )_{\eta =0},`$
$`\widehat{A}_{s_1s_2}(z_j)\widehat{C}_{p_1}(\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`\left(r_{MN}^{s_2p_1}(z_j\mu )\right)_{\eta =0}^{}\widehat{C}_s(\mu )A_{s_1m}(z_j)_{\eta =0}+\widehat{C}_{p_1}(\mu )\widehat{A}_{s_1s_2}(z_j)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}(\mu z_j)}}E_j^{}(s_2)\widehat{A}_{s_1p_1}(\mu )`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}(\mu z_j)}}\widehat{C}_{s_2}(z_j)A_{s_1p_1}(\mu )_{\eta =0},`$
where $`j`$ indicates the lattice position and $`E_j^{}(s)`$ acts on the quantum space with $`E_j^{}(s)=e_{13}`$ for $`s=1`$ and $`E_j^{}(s)=e_{23}`$ for $`s=2`$; the r-matrix $`r(\lambda )`$ is defined by

$$r(\lambda )=\frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda )}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda \eta )& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{sinh}(\lambda )& e^\lambda \mathrm{sinh}(\eta )& 0\\ 0& e^\lambda \mathrm{sinh}(\eta )& \mathrm{sinh}(\lambda )& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{sinh}(\lambda \eta )\end{array}\right)$$
(III.20)
Define the vacuum state:

$`|0>_n=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ 1\end{array}\right),|0>=_{k=1}^N|0>_k.`$ (III.24)
Then,

$`\widehat{B}_a(\lambda )|0>=0,\widehat{C}_a(\lambda )|0>0,`$
$`\widehat{D}(\lambda )|0>={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}2\mathrm{coth}(\lambda z_i)|0>`$
$`\widehat{A}_{ab}(\lambda )|0>=\{\begin{array}{c}0\text{for }\lambda =z_j,\text{ and }ab\hfill \\ _{i=1}^N\mathrm{coth}(\lambda z_i)\text{for }\lambda z_j,\text{ and }a=b\hfill \end{array}.`$ (III.27)
where $`j=1,2,\mathrm{},N.`$

Define the Bethe state

$`\varphi =\widehat{C}_{d_1}(\mu _1)\widehat{C}_{d_2}(\mu _2)\mathrm{}\widehat{C}_{d_n}(\mu _n)|0>F^{d_1\mathrm{}d_n},`$ (III.28)
where $`F^{d_1\mathrm{}d_n}`$ is a function of the spectral parameters $`\mu _j`$. We moreover define state

$$\varphi ^{(1)}=\widehat{C}^{(1)}(\mu _1^{(1)})\widehat{C}^{(1)}(\mu _2^{(1)})\mathrm{}\widehat{C}^{(1)}(\mu _m^{(1)}).$$
(III.29)
Then $`\varphi ^{(1)}`$ spans a subspace of the space spanned by $`\varphi `$. Applying the transfer matrix to these states and keeping in mind of the commutation relation (III.18), we can find the eigenvalues $`E_j`$ of $`t(z_j)`$ and the Bethe ansatz equations. This is done as follows. Firstly, from (III.27) we have

$`\widehat{D}(z_j)\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{n}{}}}\mathrm{coth}(z_j\mu _\alpha )2{\displaystyle \underset{k=1,j}{\overset{N}{}}}\mathrm{coth}(z_jz_k)\right]\varphi `$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^{\alpha 1}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\mu _\alpha z_j)}}[2{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\mathrm{coth}(\mu _\alpha z_k)`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\beta =1,\alpha }{\overset{n}{}}}\mathrm{coth}(\mu _\alpha \mu _\beta )]E^{}_j(d_\alpha )\varphi _\alpha `$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^{\alpha 1}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\mu _\alpha z_j)}}\widehat{C}_{d_\alpha }(z_j)\varphi _\alpha ,`$
where $`\varphi _\alpha =_{\beta =1,\alpha }^n\widehat{C}_{d_\beta }(\mu _\beta )`$. Secondly, the action of $`\widehat{A}(z_j)`$ on $`\varphi `$ is given by

$`\widehat{A}_{aa}(z_j)\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^{\alpha 1}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\mu _\alpha z_j)}}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\mathrm{coth}(\mu _\alpha z_k)+\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1)}(\mu _\alpha )\right]E_j^{}(d_\alpha )\varphi _\alpha `$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^{\alpha 1}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\mu _\alpha z_j)}}\widehat{C}_{d_\alpha }(z_j)\varphi _\alpha ,`$
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1)}(\mu _\alpha )`$ is the operator

$`t^{(1)}(\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\eta }}str\left[r_{m_1n_1}^{ad_1}(\lambda \mu _1)r_{m_2n_2}^{m_1d_2}(\lambda \mu _2)\mathrm{}r_{m_nn_n}^{m_{n1}d_M}(\lambda \mu _n)\right]_{\eta =0}.`$
Using results in the appendix, we obtain

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1)}(\mu _\alpha )={\displaystyle \underset{\beta =1,\alpha }{\overset{n}{}}}\mathrm{coth}(\mu _\alpha \mu _\beta ){\displaystyle \underset{\gamma =1}{\overset{m}{}}}\mathrm{coth}(\mu _\alpha \mu _\gamma ^{(1)}),`$ (III.33)
where $`\mu _1^{(1)},\mathrm{},\mu _m^{(1)}`$ satisfy the constraints

$`f_\gamma ^{(1)}{\displaystyle \underset{\beta =1,\alpha }{\overset{n}{}}}\mathrm{coth}(\mu _\beta \mu _\gamma ^{(1)})+2{\displaystyle \underset{\delta =1,\gamma }{\overset{m}{}}}\mathrm{coth}(\mu _\gamma ^{(1)}\mu _\delta ^{(1)})=0.`$
Thus, from (II.31),(III)-(III) and (III.33)-(III), we obtain the off-shell Bethe ansatz equations

$`H_j\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`E_j\varphi +{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{M}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^{\alpha 1}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\mu _\alpha z_j)}}f_\alpha E_j^{}(d_\alpha )\varphi _\alpha ,`$ (III.35)
where $`\mu _\alpha `$ satisfy the condition $`f^{(1)}\gamma =0`$ and

$`E_j`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{n}{}}}\mathrm{coth}(z_j\mu _\alpha )2{\displaystyle \underset{k=1,j}{\overset{N}{}}}\mathrm{coth}(z_jz_k)`$ (III.36)
$`f_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\gamma =1}{\overset{m}{}}}\mathrm{coth}(\mu _\alpha \mu _\gamma ^{(1)})+{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\mathrm{coth}(\mu _\alpha z_k),`$ (III.37)
$`\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{n}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}(\mu _\alpha z_k)}}E_k^{}(d_\alpha )\right)|0>F^{d_1\mathrm{}d_n}`$ (III.38)
$`\varphi _\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\beta =1,\alpha }{\overset{n}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}(\mu _\beta z_k)}}E_k^{}(d_\beta )\right)|0>F^{d_1\mathrm{}d_n}.`$ (III.39)
## IV Super KZ equation

As a set of partial differential equations, the KZ equations take the form

$$_j\mathrm{\Psi }=0\text{for}j=1,2,\mathrm{},N,$$
(IV.1)
where the differential operator $`_j`$ is defined by the Gaudin Hamiltonian $`H_j`$:

$$_j=\kappa \frac{}{z_j}H_j$$
(IV.2)
with $`\kappa `$ being a parameter. Substituting (II.31) into (IV.2), we can check

$$[_j,_k]=0,$$
(IV.3)
which ensures the integrability of the KZ equation.

To simplify our calculation, we make the following transformation

$`H_jH_j+2{\displaystyle \underset{k=1,j}{\overset{N}{}}}\mathrm{coth}(z_jz_k),`$
$`E_jE_j+2{\displaystyle \underset{k=1,j}{\overset{N}{}}}\mathrm{coth}(z_jz_k)={\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{n}{}}}\mathrm{coth}(z_j\mu _\alpha ).`$
Under this transformation, the form of the off-shell Bethe ansatz equations is invariant.

The function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(z)`$ can be constructed by the hypergeometric function $`\chi (z,\mu )`$ which oebys the equations

$`\kappa {\displaystyle \frac{}{z_j}}\chi `$ $`=`$ $`E_j\chi ,`$
$`\kappa {\displaystyle \frac{}{\mu _\alpha }}\chi `$ $`=`$ $`f_\alpha \chi ,`$ (IV.4)
and the constraint $`f_\gamma ^{(1)}=0`$. The solution to the above equations is given by

$$\chi (z,\mu )=\underset{\beta <\alpha }{}[\mathrm{sinh}(\mu _\alpha \mu _\gamma ^{(1)})]^{1/\kappa }\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}[\mathrm{sinh}(z_j\mu _\alpha )]^{1/\kappa }$$
(IV.5)
with $`\mu _\alpha `$ satisfying the condition $`f_\gamma ^{(1)}=0`$. With the help of $`\chi (z,\mu )`$, the function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(z)`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(z)=_C\mathrm{}_C𝑑\mu _1\mathrm{}𝑑\mu _n\chi (t,z)\varphi (t,z),$$
(IV.6)
where the integration path $`C`$ is a closed contour in the Riemann surface such that the integrand resumes its initial value after $`t_\alpha `$ has described it. Substituting the expressions of $`_j`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }(z)`$ into (IV.1), we can show that the KZ equation is satisfied. The proof is as follows

$`\kappa {\displaystyle \frac{}{z_j}}\mathrm{\Psi }(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _C}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _C}𝑑\mu _1\mathrm{}𝑑\mu _n\left(\kappa {\displaystyle \frac{\chi }{z_j}}\varphi +\kappa \chi {\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{z_j}}\right)`$ (IV.7)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _C}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _C}𝑑t_1\mathrm{}𝑑\mu _n\left(\chi E_j\varphi +\kappa \chi {\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{z_j}}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _C}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _C}d\mu _1\mathrm{}d\mu _n[\chi H_j\varphi \chi {\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{n}{}}}W(\mu _\alpha ,z_j)f_\alpha E_j^{}(d_\alpha )\varphi _\alpha `$
$`\kappa \chi {\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\mu _\alpha }}\left(W(\mu _\alpha ,z_j)\varphi _\alpha E_j^{}(d_\alpha )\right)]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _C}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _C}d\mu _1\mathrm{}d\mu _n[\chi H_j\varphi `$
$`\kappa {\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\mu _\alpha }}\left(\chi W(\mu _\alpha ,z_j)\varphi _\alpha E_j^{}(d_\alpha )\right)]`$
$`=`$ $`H_j\mathrm{\Psi },`$
where $`W(\mu _\alpha ,z)=(1)^{\alpha 1}/\mathrm{sinh}(\mu _\alpha z).`$

## V Open boundary $`t`$-$`J`$ Gaudin model

In this and the next section, we discuss the open boundary $`t`$-$`J`$ Gaudin system. We start with the graded reflection relation ,

$`R(\lambda \mu )_{a_1a_2}^{b_1b_2}K(\lambda )_{b_1}^{c_1}R(\lambda +\mu )_{b_2c_1}^{c_2d_1}K(\mu )_{c_2}^{d_2}(1)^{(ϵ_{b_1}+ϵ_{c_1})ϵ_{b_2}}`$
$`=K(\mu )_{a_2}^{b_2}R(\lambda +\mu )_{a_1b_2}^{b_1c_2}K(\lambda )_{b_1}^{c_1}R(\lambda \mu )_{c_2c_1}^{d_2d_1}(1)^{(ϵ_{b_1}+ϵ_{c_1})ϵ_{c_2}},`$ (V.1)
where the $`K(\lambda )`$ is the reflection K-matrix. The diagonal solutions of the reflection equation were found in . In the present paper, we only consider a special case in which $`K(\lambda )=1`$.

Following the standard procedure, we define the double-row monodromy matrix

$`𝒯(\lambda )=T(\lambda )K(\lambda )T^1(\lambda ).`$ (V.2)
Here $`T(\lambda )`$ is same as in the periodic case. One can check that the following relation is satisfied:

$`R(\lambda \mu )_{a_1a_2}^{b_1b_2}𝒯(\lambda )_{b_1}^{c_1}R(\lambda +\mu )_{b_2c_1}^{c_2d_1}𝒯(\mu )_{c_2}^{d_2}(1)^{(ϵ_{b_1}+ϵ_{c_1})ϵ_{b_2}}`$
$`=𝒯(\mu )_{a_2}^{b_2}R(\lambda +\mu )_{a_1b_2}^{b_1c_2}𝒯(\lambda )_{b_1}^{c_1}R(\lambda \mu )_{c_2c_1}^{d_2d_1}(1)^{(ϵ_{b_1}+ϵ_{c_1})ϵ_{c_2}}.`$ (V.3)
The dual reflection relation reads

$`R_{12}(\mu \lambda )K_1^+(\lambda )M_1^1R_{21}(\eta \lambda \mu )K_2^+(\mu )M_2^1`$
$`=K_2^+(\mu )M_2^1R_{12}(\eta \lambda \mu )K_1^+(\lambda )M_1^1R_{21}(\mu \lambda ),`$ (V.4)
where $`M`$ is a diagonal matrix $`M=\mathrm{diag}(e^{2\eta },1,1)`$. Solution $`K^+`$ associated with $`K(\lambda )=1`$ is given by

$$K^+(\lambda )MK(\lambda +\eta /2)=\mathrm{diag}(e^{2\eta },1,1).$$
(V.5)
Define the boundary transfer matrix,

$$t^b(\lambda )=strK^+(\lambda )𝒯(\lambda ).$$
(V.6)
By (II.4) and (V.3), one can show the commutativity of the transfer matrix for different $`\lambda `$ values.

Similar to the periodic case, the boundary $`t`$-$`J`$ Gaudin system can be obtained by expanding the boundary transfer matrix at the point $`\lambda =z_j`$ around $`\eta =0`$:

$`t^b(\lambda =z_j)=1+\eta H_j^b+𝒪(\eta ^2).`$ (V.7)
The second term on the right hand side gives the Hamiltonian of the open boundary $`t`$-$`J`$ Gaudin model. Explicitly,

$`H_j`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dt(z_j)}{d\eta }}|_{\eta =0}`$ (V.8)
$`=`$ $`2(1+3\mathrm{coth}(2z_j))n_j`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{k=1j}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}(z_jz_k)}}\{\mathrm{cosh}(z_jz_k)[n_{j,1}n_{k,1}n_{j,1}n_{k,1}+(1n_j)(1n_k)]`$
$`+e^{(z_jz_k)}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma =\pm 1}{}}c_{j,\sigma }^{}(1n_{j,\sigma })c_{k,\sigma }(1n_{k,\sigma })S_j^{}S_k\right]`$
$`+e^{z_jz_k}[{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma =\pm 1}{}}c_{j,\sigma }(1n_{j,\sigma })c_{k,\sigma }^{}(1n_{k,\sigma })S_jS_k^{}]\}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{k=1j}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}(z_j+z_k)}}\{\mathrm{cosh}(z_j+z_k)[[n_{j,1}n_{k,1}n_{j,1}n_{k,1}+(1n_j)(1n_k)]`$
$`e^{(z_j+z_k)}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma =\pm 1}{}}c_{j,\sigma }(1n_{j,\sigma })c_{k,\sigma }^{}(1n_{k,\sigma })+S_jS_k^{}\right]`$
$`e^{z_j+z_k}[{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma =\pm 1}{}}c_{j,\sigma }^{}(1n_{j,\sigma })c_{k,\sigma }(1n_{k,\sigma })+S_j^{}S_k]\}.`$
## VI Bethe ansatz for boundary $`t`$-$`J`$ Gaudin model

As in the periodic case, we write the double-monodromy matrix as

$`𝒯(\lambda )=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}𝒜_{11}(\lambda )& 𝒜_{12}(\lambda )& _1(\lambda )\\ 𝒜_{21}(\lambda )& 𝒜_{22}(\lambda )& _2(\lambda )\\ 𝒞_1(\lambda )& 𝒞_2(\lambda )& 𝒟(\lambda )\end{array}\right).`$ (VI.4)
Around $`\eta =0`$:

$`𝒯(\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`1+\eta \widehat{𝒯}(\lambda )+𝒪(\eta ^2)`$ (VI.8)
$`=`$ $`1+\eta \left(\begin{array}{ccc}\widehat{𝒜}_{11}(\lambda )& \widehat{𝒜}_{12}(\lambda )& \widehat{}_1(\lambda )\\ \widehat{𝒜}_{21}(\lambda )& \widehat{𝒜}_{22}(\lambda )& \widehat{}_2(\lambda )\\ \widehat{𝒞}_1(\lambda )& \widehat{𝒞}_2(\lambda )& \widehat{𝒟}(\lambda )\end{array}\right)+𝒪(\eta ^2).`$
Applying $`\widehat{𝒯}(\lambda =z_j),j=1,2,\mathrm{},N,`$ to the vacuum state (III.24), we have

$`\widehat{B}_a(z_j)|0>=0,\widehat{C}_a(z_j)|0>0`$
$`\widehat{D}(z_j)|0>={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}2(\mathrm{coth}(z_jz_i)+\mathrm{coth}(z_jz_i))|0>.`$
$`\widehat{A}_{ab}(\lambda )|0>=\{\begin{array}{c}0\text{for }\lambda =z_j,\text{ and }ab\hfill \\ _{i=1}^N(\mathrm{coth}(\lambda +z_i)+\mathrm{coth}(\lambda z_i))\text{for }\lambda z_j,\text{ and }a=b\hfill \end{array}.`$ (VI.11)
(VI.12)
The Bethe state of the boundary system can still be taken as

$`\varphi _b=\widehat{C}_{d_1}(\mu _1)\widehat{C}_{d_2}(\mu _2)\mathrm{}\widehat{C}_{d_n}(\mu _n)|0>F^{d_1\mathrm{}d_n}.`$ (VI.13)
Write

$`\widehat{𝒜}(\lambda )_{ab}|_{\eta =0}=\widehat{\stackrel{~}{𝒜}}(\lambda )_{ab}|_{\eta =0}+\delta _{ab}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}(2\lambda )}}𝒟(\lambda )_{\eta =0},`$ (VI.14)
where

$`\widehat{\stackrel{~}{𝒜}}(\lambda )_{ab}|0>={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}(\mathrm{coth}(\lambda +z_i)+\mathrm{coth}(\lambda z_i)){\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{ab}}{\mathrm{sinh}(2\lambda )}}𝒟(\lambda )_{\eta =0}.`$ (VI.15)
Then

$`\widehat{t}^b(\lambda =z_j)`$ $``$ $`H_j^b={\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\eta }}\left(K^+𝒯(z_j)\right)_{\eta =0}`$ (VI.16)
$`=`$ $`\widehat{𝒜}_{aa}(z_j)+\widehat{𝒟}(z_j)`$
$`\left(k_a^+\right)_{\eta =0}^{}𝒜(z_j)_{\eta =0}U𝒟(\lambda )_{\eta =0},`$
where $`a=1,2`$ and $`U=2/\mathrm{sinh}(2z_j)`$. The last term in (VI.16) corresponds to the boundary condition.

We now find commutation relations between $`\widehat{\stackrel{~}{𝒜}}_{ab}(\lambda ),\widehat{𝒟}(\lambda )`$ and $`\widehat{𝒞}_{d_i}(\mu )`$. After a tedious but direct computation, we get

$`\widehat{𝒞}_{d_1}(\mu _1)\widehat{𝒞}_{d_2}(\mu _2)`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{𝒞}_{c_2}(\mu _2)\widehat{𝒞}_{c_1}(\mu _1),`$ (VI.17)
$`\widehat{𝒟}(z_j)\widehat{𝒞}_d(\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{𝒞}_d(\mu )\widehat{𝒟}(z_j){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}(2z_j)}{\mathrm{sinh}(z_j\mu )\mathrm{sinh}(z_j+\mu )}}\widehat{𝒞}_d(\mu )D(z_j)|_{\eta =0}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}(z_j\mu )}}\left(E_j^{}(d)\widehat{𝒟}(\mu )+\widehat{𝒞}_d(z_j)𝒟(\mu )|_{\eta =0}\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}(z_j+\mu )}}\left(E_j^{}(d)\widehat{\stackrel{~}{𝒜}}_{bd}(\mu )+\widehat{𝒞}_b(z_j)\stackrel{~}{𝒜}_{bd}(\mu )|_{\eta =0}\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{coth}(2\mu )}{\mathrm{sinh}(z_j\mu )}}E_j^{}(d)𝒟(\mu )|_{\eta =0}{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{cosh}(z_j+\mu )}{\mathrm{sinh}^2(z_j+\mu )}}E_j^{}(b)\stackrel{~}{𝒜}_{bd}(\mu )|_{\eta =0},`$
$`\widehat{\stackrel{~}{𝒜}}_{a_1d_1}(z_j)\widehat{𝒞}_{d_2}(\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{𝒞}_{d_2}(\mu )\widehat{\stackrel{~}{𝒜}}_{a_1d_1}(z_j)`$ (VI.19)
$`+\left(r_{12}(z_j+\mu +\eta )_{a_1c_2}^{c_1b_2}r_{21}(z_j\mu )_{b_1b_2}^{d_1d_2}\right)_{\eta =0}^{}\widehat{𝒞}_{c_2}(\mu )\stackrel{~}{𝒜}_{c_1b_1}(\lambda )|_{\eta =0}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}(z_j\mu )}}\delta _{a_1b_2}\delta _{b_1d_1}\left(E_j^{}(b_1)\widehat{\stackrel{~}{𝒜}}_{a_1d_2}(\mu )+\widehat{𝒞}_{d_1}(z_j)\stackrel{~}{𝒜}_{a_1d_2}(\mu )|_{\eta =0}\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}(z_j+\mu )}}\delta _{a_1d_2}\delta _{b_2d_1}\left(E_j^{}(b_2)\widehat{𝒟}(\mu )+\widehat{𝒞}_{b_2}(z_j)𝒟(\mu )|_{\eta =0}\right)`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\eta )r_{12}(2z_j+\eta )_{a_1b_1}^{b_2d_1}}{\mathrm{sinh}(z_j\mu )}}\right)_{\eta =0}^{\prime \prime }E_j^{}(b_1)\stackrel{~}{𝒜}_{b_2d_2}(\mu )|_{\eta =0}`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(2\mu )sin(\eta )r_{12}(2z_j+\eta )_{a_1b_2}^{d_2d_1}}{\mathrm{sinh}(z_j+\mu +\eta )\mathrm{sinh}(2\mu +\eta )}}\right)_{\eta =0}^{\prime \prime }E_j^{}(b_2)𝒟(\mu )|_{\eta =0},`$
$`𝒟(z_j)_{\eta =0}\widehat{𝒞}_d(\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{𝒞}_d(\mu )𝒟(z_j)_{\eta =0}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}(z_j\mu )}}E_j^{}(d)𝒟(\mu )_{\eta =0}`$ (VI.20)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}(z_j+\mu )}}E_j^{}(b)\stackrel{~}{𝒜}_{bd}(\mu )_{\eta =0},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}_{a_1d_1}(z_j)_{\eta =0}\widehat{𝒞}_{d_2}(\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{𝒞}_{d_2}(\mu )\stackrel{~}{𝒜}_{a_1d_1}(z_j)_{\eta =0}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}(z_j\mu )}}E_j^{}(d_1)\stackrel{~}{𝒜}_{a_1d_2}(\mu )_{\eta =0}`$ (VI.21)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}(z_j+\mu )}}\delta _{a_1d_2}E_j^{}(d_1)𝒟(\mu )_{\eta =0}`$
Then, applying (VI.16) to the Bethe state and using the above commutation relations repeatedly, we obtain the off-shelled Bethe ansatz equations

$`H_j^b\varphi ^b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dt(\lambda =z_j)}{d\eta }}|_{\eta =0}\varphi ^b`$ (VI.22)
$`=`$ $`E_j^b\varphi ^b{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{n}{}}}W^b(\mu _\alpha ,z_j)f_\alpha ^bE_j^{}\varphi _\alpha ^b,`$
where

$`\varphi ^b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{n}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{sinh}(\mu _\alpha )\mathrm{cosh}(z_k)}{\mathrm{sinh}(\mu _\alpha z_k)\mathrm{sinh}(\mu _\alpha +z_k)}}E_k^{}(d_\alpha )\right)|0>F^{d_1\mathrm{}d_n},`$ (VI.23)
$`\varphi _\alpha ^b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\beta =1,\alpha }{\overset{n}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{sinh}(\mu _\beta )\mathrm{cosh}(z_k)}{\mathrm{sinh}(\mu _\beta z_k)\mathrm{sinh}(\mu _\beta +z_k)}}E_k^{}(d_\beta )\right)|0>F^{d_1\mathrm{}d_n}.`$ (VI.24)
$`E_j^b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\mathrm{sinh}(z_j)}}2{\displaystyle \underset{k=1,j}{\overset{N}{}}}\left[\mathrm{coth}(z_j+z_k)+\mathrm{coth}(z_jz_k)\right]`$ (VI.25)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{n}{}}}\left[\mathrm{coth}(z_j+\mu _\alpha )+\mathrm{coth}(z_j\mu _\alpha )\right]`$
$`f_\alpha ^b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\mathrm{sinh}(2\mu _\alpha )}}{\displaystyle \underset{\beta =1,\alpha }{\overset{n}{}}}\left(\mathrm{coth}(\mu _\alpha \mu _\beta )+\mathrm{coth}(\mu _\alpha +\mu _\beta )\right)`$ (VI.26)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\left(\mathrm{coth}(\mu _\alpha z_k)+\mathrm{coth}(\mu _\alpha +z_k)\right)+\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^{(1)}(\mu _\alpha ),`$
$`W^b(\mu _\alpha ,z_j)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^{\alpha 1}2\mathrm{sinh}(z_j)\mathrm{cosh}(\mu _\alpha )}{\mathrm{sinh}(z_j+\mu _\alpha )\mathrm{sinh}(z_j\mu _\alpha )}}.`$ (VI.27)
Here $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^{(1)}`$ is the eigenvalue of the nested transfer matrix

$`t_b^{(1)}(\lambda )`$ (VI.28)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\eta }}[strK^{(1)+}r(\lambda +\mu _1+\eta )_{ac_1}^{a_1e_1}r(\lambda +\mu _2+\eta )_{a_1c_2}^{a_2e_2}\mathrm{}r(\lambda +\mu _n+\eta )_{a_{n1}c_n}^{a_ne_n}`$
$`K^{(1)}r_{21}(\lambda \mu _n)_{b_ne_n}^{b_{n1}d_n}\mathrm{}r_{21}(\lambda \mu _2)_{b_2e_2}^{b_1d_2}r_{21}(\lambda \mu _n)_{b_1e_1}^{b_nd_1}],`$
where

$$K^{(1)+}=diag(e^{2\eta },1),K^{(1)}=(1\mathrm{sinh}(\eta )/\mathrm{sinh}(2\lambda +\eta ))id.$$

The detailed calculation of the nested eigenvalue is discussed in the appendix. Here we write the result

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^{(1)}(\mu _\alpha )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\mu _\alpha }}{\mathrm{sinh}(\mu _\alpha )}}+{\displaystyle \underset{\beta =1,\alpha }{\overset{n}{}}}[\mathrm{coth}(\mu _\alpha \mu _\beta )+\mathrm{coth}(\mu _\alpha +\mu _\beta ))`$ (VI.29)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\gamma =1}{\overset{m}{}}}[\mathrm{coth}(\mu _\alpha \mu _\gamma ^{(1)})+\mathrm{coth}(\mu _\alpha +\mu _\gamma ^{(1)})),`$
where $`\mu _\gamma ^{(1)}`$ satisfies the nested Bethe ansatz equation

$`f_\gamma ^{b^{(1)}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\beta =1}{\overset{n}{}}}\left(\mathrm{coth}(\stackrel{~}{\mu }_\gamma ^{(1)}+\stackrel{~}{\mu }_\beta )+\mathrm{coth}(\stackrel{~}{\mu }_\gamma ^{(1)}\stackrel{~}{\mu }_\beta )\right)`$ (VI.30)
$`2{\displaystyle \underset{\delta =1,\gamma }{\overset{m}{}}}\left(\mathrm{coth}(\stackrel{~}{\mu }_\gamma ^{(1)}+\stackrel{~}{\mu }_\delta ^{(1)})+\mathrm{coth}(\stackrel{~}{\mu }_\gamma ^{(1)}\stackrel{~}{\mu }_\delta ^{(1)})\right)`$
$`=`$ $`0.`$
Substituting the nested eigenvalue into (VI.26), we obtain the Bethe ansatz equations for the boundary $`t`$-$`J`$ Gaudin model

$`f_\alpha ^b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\mu _\alpha }}{\mathrm{cosh}(\mu _\alpha )}}+{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\left(\mathrm{coth}(\mu _\alpha z_k)+\mathrm{coth}(\mu _\alpha +z_k)\right)`$ (VI.31)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\gamma =1}{\overset{m}{}}}\left(\mathrm{coth}(\mu _\alpha \mu _\gamma ^{(1)})+\mathrm{coth}(\mu _\alpha +\mu _\gamma ^{(1)})\right)`$
$`=`$ $`0.`$
## VII Super KZ equation in the boundary case

As in the periodic case, the KZ equations are

$$_j\mathrm{\Psi }=0,_j=\kappa \frac{}{z_j}H_j^b,j=1,2,\mathrm{},N,$$
(VII.1)
but now $`H_j^b`$ is the hamiltonian of the boundary $`t`$-$`J`$ Gaudin model. We make the transformation

$`H_j`$ $``$ $`H_j2/\mathrm{sinh}(2z_j)+2{\displaystyle \underset{k=1,j}{\overset{N}{}}}\left[\mathrm{coth}(z_j+z_k)+\mathrm{coth}(z_jz_k)\right],`$
$`E_j^b`$ $``$ $`E_j^b2/\mathrm{sinh}(2z_j)+2{\displaystyle \underset{k=1,j}{\overset{N}{}}}\left[\mathrm{coth}(z_j+z_k)+\mathrm{coth}(z_jz_k)\right]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{n}{}}}\left[\mathrm{coth}(z_j+\mu _\alpha )+\mathrm{coth}(z_j\mu _\alpha )\right]`$
This transformation leaves invariant the form of the off-shell Bethe ansatz equations.

To construct $`\mathrm{\Psi }(z)`$, we introduce a hypergeometric function $`\chi (z,\mu )`$ which satisfies the following equations

$`\kappa {\displaystyle \frac{}{z_j}}\chi =E_j^b\chi ,`$
$`\kappa {\displaystyle \frac{}{\mu _\alpha }}\chi =f_\alpha ^b\chi ,`$ (VII.2)
and the contraint $`f_\gamma ^{b^{(1)}}=0`$. Solving these two equations, one gets

$`\chi (z,\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{n}{}}}\left(1+e^{2\mu _\alpha }\right)^{1/\kappa }{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{n}{}}}[\mathrm{sinh}(\mu _\alpha \mu _\gamma ^{(1)})\mathrm{sinh}(\mu _\alpha \mu _\gamma ^{(1)})]^{1/\kappa }`$ (VII.3)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}[\mathrm{sinh}(z_j+\mu _\alpha )\mathrm{sinh}(z_j\mu _\alpha )]^{1/\kappa },`$
where $`\mu _\gamma ^{(1)}`$ satisfies the nested Bethe ansatz equation $`f_\gamma ^{b^{(1)}}=0`$. With the help of $`\chi (z,\mu )`$, the function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(z)`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(z)=_C\mathrm{}_C𝑑\mu _1\mathrm{}𝑑\mu _M\chi (t,z)\varphi (t,z),$$
(VII.4)
where the integration path $`C`$ is a closed contour in the Riemann surface such that the integrand resumes its initial value after $`t_\alpha `$ has described it. Substituting the expressions of $`_j`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }(z)`$ into (IV.1), we can show that the KZ equation is satisfied. The proof is as follows

$`\kappa {\displaystyle \frac{}{z_j}}\mathrm{\Psi }(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _C}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _C}𝑑\mu _1\mathrm{}𝑑\mu _M\left(\kappa {\displaystyle \frac{\chi }{z_j}}\varphi +\kappa \chi {\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{z_j}}\right)`$ (VII.5)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _C}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _C}𝑑t_1\mathrm{}𝑑\mu _M\left(\chi E_j^b\varphi +\kappa \chi {\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{z_j}}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _C}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _C}d\mu _1\mathrm{}d\mu _M[\chi H_j^b\varphi +\chi {\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{M}{}}}W(\mu _\alpha ,z_j)f_\alpha E_j^{}(d_\alpha )\varphi _\alpha ^b`$
$`+\kappa \chi {\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\mu _\alpha }}\left(W(\mu _\alpha ,z_j)\varphi _\alpha ^bE_j^{}(d_\alpha )\right)]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _C}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _C}d\mu _1\mathrm{}d\mu _M[\chi H_j^b\varphi `$
$`+\kappa {\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\mu _\alpha }}\left(\chi W(\mu _\alpha ,z_j)\varphi _\alpha ^bE_j^{}(d_\alpha )\right)]`$
$`=`$ $`H_j^b\mathrm{\Psi },`$
where

$$W(\mu _\alpha ,z)=\frac{(1)^{\alpha 1}2\mathrm{cosh}(z_j)\mathrm{sinh}(\mu _\alpha )}{\mathrm{sinh}(\mu _\alpha +z_j)\mathrm{sinh}(\mu _\alpha z_j)}.$$

Acknowledgements This work has been financially supported by Australian Research Council.

## Appendix A Details on the nested Bethe ansatz

### A.1 Periodic case

The nested Bethe ansatz was used to obtain eigenvalues of the transfer matrix constructed from the following $`r`$-matrix:

$`r(\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda )}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda \eta )& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{sinh}(\lambda )& e^\lambda \mathrm{sinh}(\eta )& 0\\ 0& e^\lambda \mathrm{sinh}(\eta )& \mathrm{sinh}(\lambda )& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{sinh}(\lambda \eta )\end{array}\right).`$ (A.10)
One can check that this $`r`$-matrix satisfies the unitarity and cross-unitarity relations

$`r_{12}(\lambda )r_{21}(\lambda )=\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda +\eta )\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda +\eta )id.,`$
$`r_{12}^{st_1}(2\eta \lambda )r_{21}^{st_2}(\lambda )=\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda )\mathrm{sinh}(2\lambda \eta )id.,`$ (A.12)
and the YBE

$`r_{12}(\lambda \mu )L_1^{(1)}(\lambda )L_2^{(1)}(\mu )=L_2^{(1)}(\mu )L_1^{(1)}(\lambda )r_{12}(\lambda \mu ),`$ (A.13)
where

$$L_j^{(1)}(\lambda )=\frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda )}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{sinh}\left(\lambda \eta \frac{1+\sigma _j^z}{2}\right)& \sigma _j^{}\mathrm{sinh}(\eta )\\ \sigma _j^+\mathrm{sinh}(\eta )& \mathrm{sinh}\left(\lambda \eta \frac{1+\sigma _j^z}{2}\right)\end{array}\right)$$
(A.14)
with $`\sigma ^\pm ,\sigma ^z`$ being the usual Pauli matrices. The monodromy matrix is

$`T^{(1)}(\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`L_m^{(1)}(\lambda \mu _m)\mathrm{}L_2^{(1)}(\lambda \mu _2)L_1^{(m)}(\lambda \mu _1)`$ (A.17)
$``$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}A^{(1)}(\lambda )& B^{(1)}(\lambda )\\ C^{(1)}(\lambda )& D^{(1)}(\lambda )\end{array}\right),`$
which satisfies

$`r_{12}(\lambda \mu )T_1^{1)}(\lambda )T_2^{1)}(\mu )=T_2^{1)}(\mu )T_1^{1)}(\lambda )r_{12}(\lambda \mu ).`$ (A.18)
The transfer matrix of the nested system is defined by

$$t^{(1)}(\lambda )=strT^{(1)}(\lambda ).$$
(A.19)
One can easily prove the commutativity of the transfer matrix: $`[t^{(1)}(\lambda ),t^{(1)}(\mu )]=0`$.

Expanding $`r,L^{(1)},T^{(1)}`$ and $`T^{(1)}`$ around $`\eta =0`$:

$`r(\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`1+\eta \widehat{r}(\lambda )|_{\eta =0}+𝒪(\eta ^2),`$
$`L^{(1)}(\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`1+\eta \widehat{L}^{(1)}(\lambda )|_{\eta =0}+𝒪(\eta ^2),`$
$`T^{(1)}(\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`1+\eta \widehat{T}^{(1)}(\lambda )|_{\eta =0}+𝒪(\eta ^2),`$
$`t^{(1)}(\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`2+\eta \widehat{t}^{(1)}(\lambda )|_{\eta =0}+𝒪(\eta ^2),`$ (A.20)
where

$`\widehat{r}(\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\mathrm{coth}(\lambda )& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& e^\lambda /\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda )& 0\\ 0& e^\lambda /\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda )& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{coth}(\lambda )\end{array}\right).`$ (A.25)
$`\widehat{L}_k^{(1)}(\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1+\sigma _k^z}{2}\mathrm{coth}(\lambda )& \sigma _k^{}e^\lambda /\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda )\\ \sigma _k^+e^\lambda /\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda )& \frac{1\sigma _k^z}{2}\mathrm{coth}(\lambda )\end{array}\right).`$ (A.28)
$`\widehat{T}^{(1)}(\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\widehat{A}^{(1)}(\lambda )& \widehat{B}^{(1)}(\lambda )\\ \widehat{C}^{(1)}(\lambda )& \widehat{D}^{(1)}(\lambda )\end{array}\right),`$ (A.31)
$`t^{(1)}(\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`str\left(\begin{array}{cc}\widehat{A}^{(1)}(\lambda )& \widehat{B}^{(1)}(\lambda )\\ \widehat{C}^{(1)}(\lambda )& \widehat{D}^{(1)}(\lambda )\end{array}\right)=\widehat{A}^{(1)}(\lambda )\widehat{D}^{(1)}(\lambda ).`$ (A.34)
By the nested YBE (A.18), we find the following commutation relations

$`\widehat{C}^{(1)}(\lambda )\widehat{C}^{(1)}(\mu ^{(1)})`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{C}^{(1)}(\mu ^{(1)})\widehat{C}^{(1)}(\lambda ),`$ (A.35)
$`\widehat{A}^{(1)}(\lambda )\widehat{C}^{(1)}(\mu ^{(1)})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{coth}(\lambda \mu ^{(1)})\widehat{C}^{(1)}(\mu ^{(1)})+\widehat{C}^{(1)}(\mu ^{(1)})\widehat{A}^{(1)}(\lambda )`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\lambda +\mu ^{(1)}}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda \mu ^{(1)})}}\left(C^{(1)}(\lambda )\widehat{A}^{(1)}(\mu ^{(1)})+\widehat{C}^{(1)}(\lambda )D^{(1)}(\mu ^{(1)})\right)_{\eta =0},`$
$`\widehat{D}^{(1)}(\lambda )\widehat{C}^{(1)}(\mu ^{(1)})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{coth}(\lambda \mu ^{(1)})\widehat{C}^{(1)}(\mu ^{(1)})_{\eta =0}+\widehat{C}^{(1)}(\mu ^{(1)})\widehat{D}^{(1)}(\lambda )`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\lambda +\mu ^{(1)}}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda \mu ^{(1)})}}\left(C^{(1)}(\lambda )\widehat{D}^{(1)}(\mu ^{(1)})+\widehat{C}^{(1)}(\lambda )\stackrel{~}{A}^{(1)}(\mu ^{(1)})\right)_{\eta =0}.`$
For the nest transfer matrix, we choose its vacuum state as

$`|0>_k^{(1)}=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\end{array}\right),|0>^{(1)}=_{k=1}^n|0>_k^{(1)}.`$ (A.40)
Applying the $`T`$-operator to the vacuum state, we have

$`\widehat{A}^{(1)}(\lambda )|0>^{(1)}=\widehat{B}^{(1)}(\lambda )|0>^{(1)}=0,\widehat{C}^{(1)}(\lambda )|0>^{(1)}0,`$
$`\widehat{D}^{(1)}(\lambda )|0>^{(1)}={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}}\mathrm{coth}(\lambda \mu _i)\lambda \mu _k(k=1,2,\mathrm{},m).`$ (A.41)
The eigenvector of the nested transfer matrix (A.34) can be constructed from

$$\varphi ^{(1)}=\widehat{C}^{(1)}(\mu _1^{(1)})\widehat{C}^{(1)}(\mu _2^{(1)})\mathrm{}\widehat{C}^{(1)}(\mu _m^{(1)}).$$
(A.42)
Applying the nested transfer matrix to the above state and keeping in mind $`\lambda =\mu _\alpha `$, we obtain

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1)}(\mu _\alpha )={\displaystyle \underset{\beta =1,\alpha }{\overset{n}{}}}\mathrm{coth}(\mu _\alpha \mu _\beta ){\displaystyle \underset{\gamma =1}{\overset{m}{}}}\mathrm{coth}(\mu _\alpha \mu _\gamma ^{(1)}),`$ (A.43)
where $`\mu _1^{(1)},\mathrm{},\mu _m^{(1)}`$ satisfy the constraints

$`f_\gamma ^{(1)}{\displaystyle \underset{\beta =1,\alpha }{\overset{n}{}}}\mathrm{coth}(\mu _\beta \mu _\gamma ^{(1)})+2{\displaystyle \underset{\delta =1,\gamma }{\overset{m}{}}}\mathrm{coth}(\mu _\gamma ^{(1)}\mu _\delta ^{(1)})=0.`$ (A.44)
### A.2 Open boundary case

In the open boundary case, we have boundary reflection and dual relection equations

$`r_{12}(\lambda \mu )K_1^{(1)}(\lambda )r_{21}(\lambda +\mu )K_2^{(1)}(\mu )=K_2^{(1)}(\mu )r_{12}(\lambda +\mu )K_1^{(1)}(\lambda )r_{21}(\lambda \mu ),`$
(A.45)
$`r_{12}(\mu \lambda )K_1^{(1)^+}(\lambda )M_1^1r_{21}(2\eta \lambda \mu )K_2^{(1)^+}(\mu )M_2^1`$
$`=K_2^{(1)^+}(\mu )M_2^1r_{12}(2\eta \lambda \mu )K_1^{(1)^+}(\lambda )M_1^1r_{21}(\mu \lambda ).`$ (A.46)
One can check $`K^{(1)}=2\mathrm{cosh}(\eta +\lambda )\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda )/\mathrm{sinh}(2\lambda +\eta )`$ and $`K^{(1)^+}=\mathrm{diag}(e^{2\eta },1)`$ are solutions to the first and second equations, respectively.

Using the nested monodromy matrix (A.17), we define the double-row monodromy matrix for the open boundary system

$`𝒯^{(1)}(\lambda )`$ $``$ $`T^{(1)}(\stackrel{~}{\lambda })K^{(1)}(\lambda )T^{(1)^1}(\stackrel{~}{\lambda })`$ (A.49)
$`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}𝒜^{(1)}(\lambda )& ^{(1)}(\lambda )\\ 𝒞^{(1)}(\lambda )& 𝒟^{(1)}(\lambda )\end{array}\right),`$
where $`T^{(1)}`$ and $`T^{(1)^1}`$ are defined by

$`T_{aa_n}^{(1)}(\stackrel{~}{\lambda })_{c_1\mathrm{}c_n}^{e_1\mathrm{}e_n}`$ $`=`$ $`r(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }+\stackrel{~}{\mu }_1)_{ac_1}^{a_1e_1}r(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }+\stackrel{~}{\mu }_2)_{a_1c_2}^{a_2e_2}\mathrm{}r(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }+\stackrel{~}{\mu }_n)_{a_{n1}c_n}^{a_ne_n}`$ (A.50)
$`=`$ $`L_1^{(1)}(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }+\stackrel{~}{\mu }_1)L_2^{(1)}(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }+\stackrel{~}{\mu }_2)\mathrm{}L_n^{(1)}(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }+\stackrel{~}{\mu }_n),`$
$`T^{(1)^1}(\stackrel{~}{\lambda })`$ $`=`$ $`r_{21}(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }\stackrel{~}{\mu }_n)_{b_ne_n}^{b_{n1}d_n}\mathrm{}r(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }\stackrel{~}{\mu }_2)_{b_2e_2}^{b_1d_2}r(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }\stackrel{~}{\mu }_1)_{b_1e_1}^{ad_1}`$ (A.51)
$`=`$ $`L_n^{(1)^1}(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }+\stackrel{~}{\mu }_n)\mathrm{}L_2^{(1)^1}(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }+\stackrel{~}{\mu }_2)L_1^{(1)^1}(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }+\stackrel{~}{\mu }_1),`$
respectively, and the $`L`$-operator takes the form

$`L_k^{(1)}(\lambda )=\left(\begin{array}{cc}b(\lambda )(b(\lambda )a(\lambda ))e_k^{11}& c_{}(\lambda )e_k^{21}\\ c_+(\lambda )e_k^{12}& b(\lambda )(b(\lambda )a(\lambda ))e_k^{22}\end{array}\right).`$ (A.54)
Let $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }=\lambda +\eta /2,\stackrel{~}{\mu }=\mu \eta /2`$, one sees that the above definitions coincide with (VI.28).

The double-row monodromy matrix satisfies the reflection equation

$$r_{12}(\lambda \mu )𝒯_1^{(1)}(\lambda )r_{21}(\lambda +\mu )𝒯_2^{(1)}(\mu )=𝒯_2^{(1)}(\mu )r_{12}(\lambda +\mu )𝒯_1^{(1)}(\lambda )r_{21}(\lambda \mu ),$$
(A.55)
Thus, we can define the transfer matrix as

$$t_b^{(1)}(\lambda )=strK^{(1)^+}𝒯^{(1)}(\lambda ).$$
(A.56)
Around $`\eta =0`$, we have the expansions

$`𝒯^{(1)}(\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`1+\eta \left(\begin{array}{cc}\widehat{𝒜}^{(1)}(\lambda )& \widehat{}^{(1)}(\lambda )\\ \widehat{𝒞}^{(1)}(\lambda )& \widehat{𝒟}^{(1)}(\lambda )\end{array}\right)_{\eta =0}+𝒪(\eta ^2),`$ (A.59)
$`t_b^{(1)}(\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`2+\eta \widehat{t}_b^{(1)}(\lambda )_{\eta =0}+𝒪(\eta ^2).`$ (A.60)
Write

$`\widehat{𝒜}^{(1)}(\lambda )|_{\eta =0}=\widehat{\stackrel{~}{𝒜}}^{(1)}(\lambda )|_{\eta =0}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{2\lambda }}{\mathrm{sinh}(2\lambda )}}𝒟^{(1)}(\lambda )|_{\eta =0}.`$ (A.61)
The we find the commutation relations between $`\widehat{t}_b^{(1)}(\lambda )`$ and $`\widehat{𝒞}^{(1)}(\mu ^{(1)})`$

$`\widehat{𝒞}^{(1)}(\lambda )\widehat{𝒞}^{(1)}(\mu ^{(1)})=\widehat{𝒞}^{(1)}(\mu ^{(1)})\widehat{𝒞}^{(1)}(\lambda ).`$ (A.62)
$`\widehat{𝒟}^{(1)}(\lambda )\widehat{𝒞}^{(1)}(\mu ^{(1)})`$ (A.63)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}(2\lambda )}{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda +\mu ^{(1)})\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda \mu ^{(1)})}}\widehat{𝒞}^{(1)}(\mu ^{(1)})𝒟^{(1)}(\lambda )_{\eta =0}+\widehat{𝒞}^{(1)}(\mu ^{(1)})\widehat{𝒟}^{(1)}(\lambda )`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{(\lambda \mu ^{(1)})}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda \mu ^{(1)})}}\left(𝒞^{(1)}(\lambda )\widehat{𝒟}^{(1)}(\mu ^{(1)})+\widehat{𝒞}^{(1)}(\lambda )𝒟^{(1)}(\mu ^{(1)})\right)_{\eta =0}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{e^{(\lambda +\mu ^{(1)})}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda +\mu ^{(1)})}}\left(𝒞^{(1)}(\lambda )\widehat{\stackrel{~}{𝒜}}^{(1)}(\mu ^{(1)})+\widehat{𝒞}^{(1)}(\lambda )\stackrel{~}{𝒜}^{(1)}(\mu ^{(1)})\right)_{\eta =0},`$
$`\widehat{\stackrel{~}{𝒜}}^{(1)}(\lambda )\widehat{𝒞}^{(1)}(\mu ^{(1)})`$ (A.64)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}(2\lambda )}{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda +\mu ^{(1)})\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda \mu ^{(1)})}}\widehat{𝒞}^{(1)}(\mu ^{(1)})\stackrel{~}{𝒜}^{(1)}(\lambda )_{\eta =0}+\widehat{𝒞}^{(1)}(\mu ^{(1)})\widehat{\stackrel{~}{𝒜}}^{(1)}(\lambda )`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{(\lambda +\mu ^{(1)})}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda +\mu ^{(1)})}}\left(𝒞^{(1)}(\lambda )\widehat{𝒟}^{(1)}(\mu )+\widehat{𝒞}^{(1)}(\lambda )𝒟^{(1)}(\mu )\right)_{\eta =0}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{e^{(\lambda \mu ^{(1)})}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda \mu ^{(1)})}}\left(𝒞^{(1)}(\lambda )\widehat{\stackrel{~}{𝒜}}^{(1)}(\mu ^{(1)})+\widehat{𝒞}^{(1)}(\lambda )\stackrel{~}{𝒜}^{(1)}(\mu ^{(1)})\right)_{\eta =0},`$
$`𝒟^{(1)}(\lambda )\widehat{𝒞}(\mu ^{(1)})_{\eta =0}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{𝒞}(\mu ^{(1)})𝒟^{(1)}(\lambda )_{\eta =0}+{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\lambda \mu ^{(1)}}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda \mu ^{(1)})}}𝒞^{(1)}(\lambda )𝒟^{(1)}(\mu ^{(1)})_{\eta =0}`$ (A.65)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\lambda +\mu ^{(1)}}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda \mu ^{(1)})}}𝒞^{(1)}(\lambda )\stackrel{~}{𝒜}^{(1)}(\mu ^{(1)})_{\eta =0},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}^{(1)}(\lambda )\widehat{𝒞}(\mu )_{\eta =0}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{𝒞}(\mu )\stackrel{~}{𝒜}^{(1)}(\lambda )+{\displaystyle \frac{e^{(\lambda \mu )}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda \mu )}}𝒞^{(1)}(\lambda )\stackrel{~}{𝒜}^{(1)}(\mu )_{\eta =0}`$ (A.66)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{(\lambda +\mu )}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda \mu )}}𝒞^{(1)}(\lambda )𝒟^{(1)}(\mu )_{\eta =0},`$
Substituting $`K^{(1)}(\lambda )=2\mathrm{cosh}(\eta +\lambda )\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda )/\mathrm{sinh}(2\lambda +\eta )`$ and $`K^{(1)^+}(\lambda )=\mathrm{diag}(e^{2\eta },1)`$ into the nested transfer matrix, one obtains the transfer matrix $`\widehat{t}_b^{(1)}(\stackrel{~}{\lambda })`$ of the $`t`$-$`J`$ Gaudin model

$`\widehat{t}_b^{(1)}(\stackrel{~}{\lambda })`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\eta }}str\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{2\eta }& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}𝒜^{(1)}(\stackrel{~}{\lambda })& ^{(1)}(\stackrel{~}{\lambda })\\ 𝒞^{(1)}(\stackrel{~}{\lambda })& 𝒟^{(1)}(\stackrel{~}{\lambda })\end{array}\right)_{\eta =0}`$
$`=`$ $`\widehat{𝒜}^{(1)}(\lambda )\widehat{𝒟}^{(1)}(\lambda )2𝒜^{(1)}(\stackrel{~}{\lambda })_{\eta =0}`$
$`=`$ $`\widehat{\stackrel{~}{𝒜}}^{(1)}(\lambda )\widehat{𝒟}^{(1)}(\lambda )2\stackrel{~}{𝒜}^{(1)}(\stackrel{~}{\lambda })_{\eta =0}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{2\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}}{\mathrm{sinh}(2\stackrel{~}{\lambda })}}𝒟^{(1)}(\stackrel{~}{\lambda })_{\eta =0}.`$ (A.72)
As in the periodic case, define the vacuum state for the nested open boundary system

$$|0>^{(1)}=_{k=1}^n|0>_k^{(1)}$$
(A.73)
with $`|0>_k^{(1)}\left(\begin{array}{c}0\hfill \\ 1\hfill \end{array}\right).`$ Then, applying the elements of $`\widehat{𝒯}(\lambda )`$ to the vacuum, we obtain

$`\widehat{}^{(1)}(\lambda )|0>=0,\widehat{𝒞}^{(1)}(\lambda )|0>0,`$ (A.74)
$`\widehat{𝒟}^{(1)}(\lambda )|0>`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}(2\lambda )}}+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}(\mathrm{coth}(\lambda +\mu _i)+\mathrm{coth}(\lambda \mu _i))|0>^{(1)}`$ (A.75)
$`\lambda \mu _k(k=1,2,\mathrm{},m).`$
Using the nested YBE (A.18) and the transformation (A.61), we obtain

$`\widehat{\stackrel{~}{𝒜}}^{(1)}(\lambda )|0>^{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{e^\lambda }{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda )}}|0>^{(1)}.`$ (A.76)
The eigenvalues of the nested open boundary Gaudin system can be obtained by applying $`\widehat{t}_b^{(1)}(\lambda )`$ to the eigenvector

$$\varphi _b^{(1)}=\widehat{𝒞}^{(1)}(\mu _1^{(1)})\widehat{𝒞}^{(1)}(\mu _2^{(1)})\mathrm{}\widehat{𝒞}^{(1)}(\mu _m^{(1)})|0>.$$
(A.77)
The result is

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1)}(\stackrel{~}{\lambda })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{(\lambda })}{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda )}}+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\left(\mathrm{coth}(\lambda +\stackrel{~}{\mu }_i)+\mathrm{coth}(\lambda \mu _i)\right)`$ (A.78)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{m}{}}}\left(\mathrm{coth}(\lambda +\mu _l^{(1)})+\mathrm{coth}(\lambda \mu _l^{(1)})\right),`$
where $`\mu _l^{(1)}`$ satisfy the constraints

$`f_\gamma ^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\left(\mathrm{coth}(\mu _j^{(1)}+\mu _i)+\mathrm{coth}(\mu _j^{(1)}\mu _i)\right)`$ (A.79)
$`2{\displaystyle \underset{l=1,j}{\overset{m}{}}}\left(\mathrm{coth}(\mu _j^{(1)}+\mu _l^{(1)})+\mathrm{coth}(\mu _j^{(1)}\mu _l^{(1)})\right)`$
$`=`$ $`0.`$