text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Classifying integrable systems solvable in the framework of the quantum inverse scattering method  by underlying dynamical symmetry algebras, one could say that the Gaudinmodels are the simplest ones being based on loop algebras and classical $`r`$-matrices. Moresophisticated solvable models correspond to more complicated algebras: Yangians, quantum affine algebras, elliptic quantum groups, dynamical quantum groups, etc.

Gaudin models  are related to classical $`r`$-matrices, and the density of GaudinHamiltonians

$$H^{(a)}=\underset{ba}{\overset{N}{}}r_{ab}(z_az_b)$$
(1.1)
coincides with the $`r`$-matrix. Condition of their commutativity $`[H^{(a)},H^{(b)}]=0`$ is nothing else but the classical Yang-Baxter equation (YBE)

$$[r_{ab}(z_az_b),r_{ac}(z_az_c)+r_{bc}(z_bz_c)]+[r_{ac}(z_az_c),r_{bc}(z_bz_c)]=0,$$
(1.2)
where $`r`$ is antisymmetric and belongs to the tensor product $`𝔤𝔤`$ of a Lie algebra $`𝔤`$, or its representations and the indices fix the corresponding factors in the $`N`$-fold tensor product of this algebra (see Section 2).

The Gaudin models (GM) related to classical $`r`$-matrices of simple Lie algebras were studied intensively (see  and references therein). The spectrum and eigenfunctions were found using different methods (coordinate and algebraic Bethe Ansatz , separated variables , etc.). The correlation functions were evaluated for $`𝔤=sl(2)`$ by the Gauss factorization approach . A relation to the Knizhnik-Zamolodchikov (KZ) equation of conformal filed theory was established .

There exists a variety of classical $`r`$-matrices with trigonometric dependence on spectralparameter. Although algebraic construction of integrals of motion is straightforward thecalculation of the spectrum and the corresponding eigenstates, by means of algebraic Bethe Ansatz, still depends on the underlining Lie algebra and $`r`$-matrix. Moreover, many trigonometric $`r`$-matrices are invariant under diagonal action of the Cartan subalgebra only

$$[h_a+h_b,r_{ab}(z_az_b)]=0,$$
(1.3)
as opposed to the rational case where classical $`r`$-matrix is invariant under the action of the whole Lie algebra $`𝔤`$. Hence, one can modify the Gaudin Hamiltonian (1.1) by adding a local generator of the Cartan subalgebra

$$H_a\stackrel{~}{H}^{(a)}=gh_a+H^{(a)}.$$
(1.4)
This modification does not change the creation operators, but the Bethe equations and solutions to the KZ system. However, the dependence on the parameter $`g`$ (a magnetic field) will be described by a difference equation .

The aim of this paper is to review problems connected with Gaudin models by analyzing the model related to the trigonometric $`osp(1|2)`$ classical $`r`$-matrix. Results obtained here are in many respect similar to the ones we obtained in the case of $`osp(1|2)`$-invariant rational $`r`$-matrix . However, connection of Gaudin model with magnetic field and KZ equations requires modification of the later by adding dynamical difference equation .

There are additional peculiarities of Gaudin models related to classical $`r`$-matrices based on Lie superalgebras due to $`Z_2`$-grading of representation spaces and operators. The study of the $`osp(1|2)`$-invariant Gaudin model corresponding to the simplest non-trivial super-case of the $`osp(1|2)`$ invariant $`r`$-matrix  started in . The spectrum of the $`osp(1|2)`$ invariant Gaudin Hamiltonians $`H^{(a)}`$ was given, antisymmetry property of their eigenstates was claimed, and a two site model was connected with some physically interesting one (a Dicke model). Let us also point out that recently rational and trigonometric $`sl(2)`$ Gaudin models were used to describe different physical phenomena in metallic grains  and a condensate fragmentation of confined bosons . Connection with perturbed WZNW models of conformal field theory was found in .

The creation operators used in the $`sl(2)`$ Gaudin model (and similarly for $`sl(n)`$ case) coincide with one of the $`L`$-matrix entry . However, in the $`osp(1|2)`$ case, as it was shown for rational $`r`$-matrix , the creation operators are complicated polynomials of the two generators $`X^+(\lambda )`$ and $`v^+(\mu )`$ of the loop superalgebra. We introduce $`B`$-operators belonging to the Borel subalgebra of the trigonometric loop superalgebra $`_t(osp(1|2))`$ by a recurrence relation. Acting on the lowest spin vector (bare vacuum) $`B_M(\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _M)\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$ the $`B`$-operators generate exact eigenstates of the Gaudin Hamiltonians $`H^{(a)}`$, provided Bethe equations are imposed on parameters $`\{\mu _j\}`$ of the states. For this reason the $`B`$-operators are sometimes refereed to as the creation operators and the eigenstates as the Bethe vectors, or simply $`B`$-vectors. Furthermore, the recurrence relation is solved explicitly and the commutation relations between the $`B`$-operators and the generators of the loop superalgebra $`_t(osp(1|2))`$ as well as the generators of the global superalgebra $`osp(1|2)_t(osp(1|2))`$ are calculated. We prove that the constructed states are eigenvectors of the generator of the global Cartan subalgebra $`h_{gl}`$, but the $`B`$-vectors are not the lowest spin vectors anymore, as it was the case for the invariant model . Analogously to the rational case , a striking coincidence between the spectrum of the $`osp(1|2)`$ invariant Gaudin Hamiltonians of spin $`s`$ and the spectrum of the Hamiltonians of the $`sl(2)`$ Gaudin model of the integer spin $`2s`$ is also confirmed in the trigonometric case.

A connection between the $`B`$-states, when the Bethe equations are not imposed on their parameters (“off-shell Bethe states”), of the Gaudin models for simple Lie algebras to the solutions of the Knizhnik-Zamolodchikov equation was established in the papers . An explanation of this connection based on Wakimoto modules at critical level of the underlying affine algebra was given in . An explicit form of the Bethe vectors in the coordinate representation was given in both papers . The coordinate Bethe Ansatz for the $`B`$-states of the $`osp(1|2)`$ Gaudin model is obtained in our paper as well. Using commutation relations between the $`B`$-operators and the transfer matrix $`t(\lambda )`$, as well as the Hamiltonians $`H^{(a)}`$, we give an algebraic proof of the fact that explicitly constructed $`B`$-states yield a solution to the Knizhnik-Zamolodchikov equation corresponding to a conformal field theory. This connection permits us to calculate the norm of the eigenstates of the Gaudin Hamiltonians. An analogous connection is expected between quantum $`osp(1|2)`$ spin system related to the graded Yang-Baxter equation  and quantum Knizhnik-Zamolodchikov equation following the lines of . We point out possible modifications of the Gaudin Hamiltonians and corresponding modifications of the Knizhnik-Zamolodchikov equation, similar to the case of the $`sl(2)`$ Gaudin model which was interpreted in  as a quantization of the Schlesinger system for isomonodromy deformation.

The norm and correlation functions of the $`sl(2)`$ invariant Gaudin model were evaluated in  using Gauss factorization of a group element and Riemann-Hilbert problem. The study of this problem for the trigonometric Gaudin model based on the $`osp(1|2)`$ Lie superalgebra is in progress. However, we propose a formula for the scalar products of the Bethe states which is analogous to the $`sl(2)`$ case.

The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we review main data of the quantum trigonometric $`osp(1|2)`$ spin system: the $`osp(1|2)`$ solution to the graded Yang-Baxter equation ($`R`$-matrix), monodromy matrix $`T(\lambda )`$, the transfer matrix $`t(\lambda )=\mathrm{str}T(\lambda )`$, its eigenvalues and the Bethe equations. The eigenvectors of this quantum integrable spin system can be constructed only by a complicated recurrence procedure  which is not given here. Nevertheless it is useful to remind the main data of the quantum integrable spin system because some characteristics of the corresponding Gaudin model can be obtained easily as a quasi-classical limit of these data. The trigonometric $`osp(1|2)`$ Gaudin model and its creation operators $`B_M`$ are discussed thoroughly in Section 3. Some of the most important properties of these operators are formulated and demonstrated pure algebraically: antisymmetry with respect to their arguments, commutation relations with the trigonometric loop superalgebra generators, commutation relations with the generating function $`t(\lambda )`$ of the Gaudin Hamiltonians, a differential identity, valid in the case of the Gaudin realization of the loop superalgebra. Using these properties of the $`B`$-operators we prove in Section 4 that acting on the lowest spin vector $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$ these operators generate eigenvectors of the generating function of integrals of motion, provided the Bethe equations are imposed on the arguments of the $`B`$-operators. Possible modifications of the Gaudin Hamiltonians are pointed out, also. In particular, one of them yields Ricardson type Hamiltonian. An algebraic proof is given in Section 5 that constructed Bethe vectors are entering into solutions of the Knizhnik-Zamolodchikov equation of conformal field theory. Quasi-classical asymptotic with respect to a parameter of the Knizhnik-Zamolodchikov equation permits us to calculate the norm of the eigenstates of the Gaudin Hamiltonian. We pointed out that modification of Gaudin Hamiltonians by adding Cartan element requires more complicated change of KZ system, as opposed to the rational case. Further development on possible evaluation of correlation functions is discussed in Conclusion. Finally, some definitions of the orthosymplectic Lie superalgebra $`osp(1|2)`$ are given in the Appendix.

## 2 Quantum $`osp(1|2)`$ superalgebra and corresponding spin system

The quantum superalgebra $`𝒰_q\left(osp(1|2)\right)`$ as a deformation of the universal enveloping algebra of the Lie superalgebra $`osp(1|2)`$ (see Appendix), is generated by three elements $`h,v^+,v^{}`$ . The q-deformed commutation relations between the generators are

$$[h,v^\pm ]_{}=\pm v^\pm ,[v^+,v^{}]_+=\frac{q^hq^h}{qq^1}:=[h]_q.$$
(2.1)
Its center is spanned by the q-deformed Casimir element

$$c_2(q)=A(q)\left([h]_q\right)^2+B(q)\frac{\left(q^{1/2}+q^{1/2}\right)^2}{2}[v_{}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2},v_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}]_++\frac{\left(q+q^1\right)}{4}\left(q^h+q^h\right)[v^+,v^{}]_{}$$
(2.2)
with $`2A(q)=q+q^1+\frac{1}{2}(qq^1)^2`$ and $`B(q)=(q^{1/2}+q^{1/2})^2`$. The q-deformed Casimir element can be written also in the form

$$c_2(q)=\left([h1/2]_q\right)^2\left(q^{1/2}+q^{1/2}\right)^2v_{}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}v_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\left(q^{h1}+q^{h+1}\right)v^+v^{}.$$
(2.3)
Like in the case of the Lie superalgbra $`osp(1|2)`$ (see Appendix), there exists an element

$$c_1(q)=\left([h1/2]_q+\left(q^{1/2}+q^{1/2}\right)v^+v^{}\right),\left(c_1(q)\right)^2=c_2(q),$$
(2.4)
with a grading property $`[c_1,h]=0`$ and $`c_1v^\pm =v^\pm c_1`$. In the quasi-classical limit $`q1`$ the relations (2.1-4) are reduced to the Lie superalgebra $`osp(1|2)`$ ones . There is a coproduct map $`\mathrm{\Delta }:𝒰_q𝒰_q𝒰_q`$ consistent with the commutation relations (2.1) and a universal R-matrix $``$ as an element of $`𝒰_q𝒰_q`$ . Let us write its matrix form $`R(q)=(\rho \rho )`$ in the basis $`e_1e_1,e_1e_2,e_1e_3,\mathrm{},e_3e_3`$ of the tensor product of two copies of the fundamental representation $`V^{(1)}V^{(1)}`$, $`\rho :𝒰_q\mathrm{End}(V^{(1)})`$,

$`R(q)=\left(\begin{array}{ccccccccc}q& & & & & & & & \\ & 1& & a& & & & & \\ & & q^1& & b& & c& & \\ & & & 1& & & & & \\ & & & & 1& & b& & \\ & & & & & 1& & a& \\ & & & & & & q^1& & \\ & & & & & & & 1& \\ & & & & & & & & q\end{array}\right),`$ (2.14)
here $`a=qq^1`$, $`b=q^{3/2}q^{1/2}`$ and $`c=(1+q^1)(qq^1)`$. Multiplying $`R(q)`$ by the graded permutation $`𝒫`$ of $`V^{(1)}V^{(1)}:(𝒫)_{ab;cd}=(1)^{p(a)p(b)}\delta _{ad}\delta _{bc}`$, one gets the braid group form of the R-matrix $`\stackrel{ˇ}{R}(q)=R(q)𝒫`$ which has a spectral decomposition. Using the projectors on the irreducible representation components in the Clebsch-Gordan decomposition $`V^{(1)}V^{(1)}=V^{(2)}V^{(1)}V^{(0)}`$ one can represent this R-matrix in the form

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{R}(q)=q^2P_0(q)q^1P_1(q)+qP_2(q)$$
(2.15)
where projectors are

$`P_0(q)={\displaystyle \frac{q^{1/2}+q^{1/2}}{q^{3/2}+q^{3/2}}}\left(\begin{array}{ccccccccc}0& & & & & & & & \\ & 0& & & & & & & \\ & & q^1& & q^{1/2}& & 1& & \\ & & & 0& & & & & \\ & & q^{1/2}& & 1& & q^{1/2}& & \\ & & & & & 0& & & \\ & & 1& & q^{1/2}& & q& & \\ & & & & & & & 0& \\ & & & & & & & & 0\end{array}\right),`$ (2.25)
$`P_1(q)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{q+q^1}}\left(\begin{array}{ccccccccc}0& & & & & & & & \\ & q^1& & 1& & & & & \\ & & 1& & \nu & & 1& & \\ & 1& & q& & & & & \\ & & \nu & & \nu ^2& & \nu & & \\ & & & & & q^1& & 1& \\ & & 1& & \nu & & 1& & \\ & & & & & 1& & q& \\ & & & & & & & & 0\end{array}\right),`$ (2.35)
here $`\nu =q^{1/2}+q^{1/2}`$, and $`P_2(q)=IP_0(q)P_1(q)`$. By the Baxterization procedure, or simply changing functions $`(\lambda a)/(\lambda +a)`$ to the trigonometric ones $`\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda a)/\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda +a)`$ in the $`osp(1|2)`$\- invariant R-matrix  one gets the trigonometric $`R`$-matrix related to the quantum affine algebra $`𝒰_q(\widehat{osp(1|2)})`$

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{R}(\lambda ,\eta )=P_2\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda 2\eta )}{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda +2\eta )}P_1\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda 3\eta )}{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda +3\eta )}P_0,$$
(2.36)
here $`q=e^{2\eta }`$ (normalized to $`\lambda =0`$ $`\stackrel{ˇ}{R}=\mathrm{𝟏})`$. The $`L`$-operator of the quantum spin system on a one-dimensional lattice with $`N`$ sites coincides with $`R`$-matrix acting on a tensor product $`V_0V_a`$ of auxiliary space $`V_0`$ and the space of states at site $`a=1,2,\mathrm{}N`$

$$L_{0a}(\lambda z_a)=R_{0a}(\lambda z_a),$$
(2.37)
where $`z_a`$ is a parameter of inhomogeneity (site dependence) and $`R_{0a}(\lambda ,\eta )=𝒫\stackrel{ˇ}{R}(\lambda ,\eta )`$ is the usual R-matrix. Corresponding monodromy matrix $`T`$ is an ordered product of the $`L`$-operators

$$T(\lambda ;\{z_a\}_1^N)=L_{0N}(\lambda z_N)\mathrm{}L_{01}(\lambda z_1)=\underset{}{\underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}}L_{0a}(\lambda z_a).$$
(2.38)
The commutation relations of the $`T`$-matrix entries follow form the ($`Z_2`$-graded) FRT-relation

$$R_{12}(\lambda \mu )T_1(\lambda )T_2(\mu )=T_2(\mu )T_1(\lambda )R_{12}(\lambda \mu ).$$
(2.39)
Multiplying (2.39) by $`R_{12}^1`$ and taking the super-trace over $`V_1V_2`$, one gets commutativity of the transfer matrix

$$t(\lambda )=\mathrm{str}T(\lambda )=\underset{j}{}(1)^{j+1}T_{jj}(\lambda ;\{z_a\}_1^N)=T_{11}T_{22}+T_{33}$$
(2.40)
for different values of the spectral parameter $`t(\lambda )t(\mu )=t(\mu )t(\lambda )`$.

The choice of the $`L`$-operators (2.37) corresponds to the following space of states of the $`osp(1|2)`$-spin system

$$=\underset{a=1}{\stackrel{N}{}}V_a^{(1)}.$$

The eigenvalues of the transfer matrix $`t(\lambda )`$ in this space are

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\lambda ;\{\mu _j\}_1^M)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _1^{(N)}(\lambda ;\{z_a\}_1^N){\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{M}{}}}S_1(\lambda \mu _j)\alpha _2^{(N)}(\lambda ;\{z_a\}_1^N)\times `$ (2.41)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{M}{}}}S_1\left(\lambda \mu _j+\eta \right)S_1(\lambda \mu _j+2\eta )+`$
$`+`$ $`\alpha _3^{(N)}(\lambda ;\{z_a\}_1^N){\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{M}{}}}S_1\left(\lambda \mu _j+3\eta \right),`$
where $`\alpha _j^{(N)}(\lambda ;\{z_a\}_1^N)=_{b=1}^N\alpha _j(\lambda z_b);j=1,2,3,`$

$`\alpha _1(\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda +2\eta )\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda +3\eta ),\alpha _2(\lambda )=\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda )\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda +3\eta ),`$
$`\alpha _3(\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda )\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda +\eta ),S_n(\mu )={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\mu n\eta )}{\mathrm{sinh}(\mu +n\eta )}}.`$ (2.42)
Although according to (2.41) the eigenvalue has formally two sets of poles at $`\lambda =\mu _j\eta `$ and $`\lambda =\mu _j2\eta `$, the corresponding residues are zero due to the Bethe equations on the parameters $`\{\mu _j\}`$ of the eigenstate

$$\underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\mu _jz_a+\eta )}{\mathrm{sinh}(\mu _jz_a\eta )}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}S_1(\mu _j\mu _k)S_2(\mu _j\mu _k).$$
(2.43)
If we take different spins $`l_a`$ at different sites of the lattice and the following space of states

$$=\underset{a=1}{\stackrel{N}{}}V_a^{(l_a)},$$

then the factors on the left hand side of (2.43) will be spin dependent too.

Due to the more complicated structure of the $`R`$-matrix (2.36) (see (2.25), (2.35)) than the $`gl(n)`$, or $`gl(m|n)`$ trigonometric $`R`$-matrices, the commutation relations of the entries $`T_{ij}(\lambda )`$ of the $`T`$-matrix (2.38) have more terms and construction of the eigenstates of the transfer matrix $`t(\lambda )`$ by the algebraic Bethe Ansatz can be done only using a complicated recurrence relation expressed in terms of $`T_{ij}(\mu _k)`$ . It will be shown below that due to a simplification of this recurrence relation in the quasi-classical limit $`\eta 0`$ one can solve it and find the creation operators for the trigonometric $`osp(1|2)`$ Gaudin model explicitly. Furthermore, the commutation relations between the creation operators and the generators of the trigonometric loop superalgebra as well as the generating function $`t(\lambda )`$ of the Gaudin Hamiltonians will be given explicitly, yielding the solution to the eigenvalue problem.

## 3 $`osp(1|2)`$ trigonometric Gaudin model

As in the case of any simple Lie algebra, the trigonometric classical $`r`$-matrix of the orthosymplectic Lie superalgebra $`osp(1|2)`$ can be expressed in a pure algebraic form as an element in the tensor product $`osp(1|2)osp(1|2)`$

$`\widehat{r}\left(\lambda \right)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{coth}(\lambda )hh+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda )}}\left(e^\lambda X^+X^{}+e^\lambda X^{}X^+\right)`$ (3.1)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda )}}\left(e^\lambda v^+v^{}e^\lambda v^{}v^+\right),`$
and it is a solution of the $`Z_2`$-graded classical YBE (1.2) . This $`r`$-matrix can be decomposed naturally into positive and negative parts

$$\widehat{r}(\lambda )=\frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}\lambda }\left(e^\lambda r^{()}+e^\lambda r^{(+)}\right)$$
(3.2)
$$=\frac{e^\lambda }{\mathrm{sinh}\lambda }\left(\frac{1}{2}hh+2X^{}X^+v^{}v^+\right)+\frac{e^\lambda }{\mathrm{sinh}\lambda }\left(\frac{1}{2}hh+2X^+X^{}+v^+v^{}\right).$$

It can also be represented in another form useful for modifications

$$\widehat{r}(\lambda )=\mathrm{coth}(\lambda )c_2^{}+2\left(X^{}X^+X^+X^{}\right)\left(v^{}v^++v^+v^{}\right),$$
(3.3)
here

$$c_2^{}=hh+2\left(X^+X^{}+X^{}X^+\right)+\left(v^+v^{}v^{}v^+\right).$$
(3.4)
The matrix form of $`\widehat{r}`$ in the fundamental representation of $`osp(1|2)`$ follows from (3.1) by substituting appropriate $`3\times 3`$ matrices instead of the $`osp(1|2)`$ generators and taking into account $`Z_2`$-graded tensor product of even and odd matrices. One can get it also as the quasi-classical limit $`\eta 0`$ from the $`R`$-matrix (2.36). Let us write explicitly the matrix form of $`\widehat{r}`$ in the basis of the tensor product of two copies of the fundamental representation $`V^{(1)}V^{(1)}`$ (see Appendix)

$`r(\lambda )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda )}}\left(\begin{array}{ccccccccc}\mathrm{cosh}(\lambda )& & & & & & & & \\ & 0& & e^\lambda & & & & & \\ & & \mathrm{cosh}(\lambda )& & e^\lambda & & 2e^\lambda & & \\ & e^\lambda & & 0& & & & & \\ & & e^\lambda & & 0& & e^\lambda & & \\ & & & & & 0& & e^\lambda & \\ & & 2e^\lambda & & e^\lambda & & \mathrm{cosh}(\lambda )& & \\ & & & & & e^\lambda & & 0& \\ & & & & & & & & \mathrm{cosh}(\lambda )\end{array}\right)`$ (3.14)
with all the other entries of this $`9\times 9`$ matrix being identically equal to zero.

A quasi-classical limit $`\eta 0`$ of the FRT-relations (2.39) $`(R(\lambda ;\eta )=I+\eta r(\lambda )+𝒪(\eta ^2)`$ and $`T(\lambda ;\eta )=I+\eta L(\lambda )+𝒪(\eta ^2))`$ results in a matrix form of the loop superalgebra relation, the so-called Sklyanin linear bracket,

$$[\underset{1}{𝐿}(\lambda ),\underset{2}{𝐿}(\mu )]=[r_{12}(\lambda \mu ),\underset{1}{𝐿}(\lambda )+\underset{2}{𝐿}(\mu )].$$
(3.16)
Both sides of this relation have the usual commutators of even $`9\times 9`$ matrices $`\underset{1}{𝐿}(\lambda )=L(\lambda )I_3`$, $`\underset{2}{𝐿}(\mu )=I_3L(\mu )`$ and $`r_{12}(\lambda \mu )`$, where $`I_3`$ is $`3\times 3`$ unit matrix and $`L(\lambda )`$ has loop superalgebra valued entries:

$`L(\lambda )=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}h(\lambda )& v^{}(\lambda )& 2X^{}(\lambda )\\ v^+(\lambda )& 0& v^{}(\lambda )\\ 2X^+(\lambda )& v^+(\lambda )& h(\lambda )\end{array}\right).`$ (3.20)
From the expression (3.2) of the classical $`r`$-matrix it is natural to assume that the $`L`$-operator has a triangular decomposition $`L_\pm `$ as $`\lambda \pm \mathrm{}`$

$`L_+`$ $`=`$ $`hh_{gl}+4X^{}X_{gl}^+2v^{}v_{gl}^+,`$ (3.21)
$`L_{}`$ $`=`$ $`hh_{gl}+4X^+X_{gl}^{}+2v^+v_{gl}^{}.`$ (3.22)
Here the first factors are generators in the fundamental representation $`V^{(1)}`$ (see Appendix) and the second factors are generators of a finite dimensional $`osp(1|2)`$ Lie superagebra.

The relation (3.16) is a compact matrix form of the following commutation relations between the generators $`h(\lambda ),v^\pm (\mu ),X^\pm (\nu )`$ of the trigonometric loop superalgebra $`_t(osp(1|2))`$

$`[h(\lambda ),h(\mu )]_{}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`[h(\lambda ),X^\pm (\mu )]_{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pm \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda \mu )}}\left(\mathrm{cosh}(\lambda \mu )X^\pm (\mu )e^{(\lambda \mu )}X^\pm (\lambda )\right),`$
$`[X^+(\lambda ),X^{}(\mu )]_{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{(\lambda \mu )}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda \mu )}}\left(h(\lambda )h(\mu )\right),`$
$`[h(\lambda ),v^\pm (\mu )]_{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pm \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda \mu )}}\left(\mathrm{cosh}(\lambda \mu )v^\pm (\mu )e^{(\lambda \mu )}v^\pm (\lambda )\right),`$
$`[v^+(\lambda ),v^{}(\mu )]_+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{(\lambda \mu )}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda \mu )}}\left(h(\lambda )h(\mu )\right),`$
$`[v^\pm (\lambda ),v^\pm (\mu )]_+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pm \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda \mu )}}\left(e^{\pm (\lambda \mu )}X^\pm (\mu )e^{(\lambda \mu )}X^\pm (\lambda )\right),`$
$`[X^\pm (\lambda ),v^{}(\mu )]_{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\pm (\lambda \mu )}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda \mu )}}\left(v^\pm (\mu )v^\pm (\lambda )\right),`$
$`[X^\pm (\lambda ),v^\pm (\mu )]_{}`$ $`=`$ $`[X^\pm (\lambda ),X^\pm (\mu )]_{}=0.`$
In order to define a dynamical system besides the algebra of observables we need to specify a Hamiltonian. Due to the $`r`$-matrix relation (3.16) the elements

$`t(\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{str}L^2(\lambda )=h^2(\lambda )+2[X^+(\lambda ),X^{}(\lambda )]_++[v^+(\lambda ),v^{}(\lambda )]_{}`$ (3.24)
$`=`$ $`h^2(\lambda )+h^{}(\lambda )+4X^+(\lambda )X^{}(\lambda )+2v^+(\lambda )v^{}(\lambda )`$
commute for different values of the spectral parameter

$`t(\lambda )t(\mu )=t(\mu )t(\lambda ).`$ (3.25)
Thus, $`t(\lambda )`$ can be considered as a generating function of integrals of motion. The supertrace in (3.24) for an even matrix $`\{A_{ij}\}`$ means $`\mathrm{str}A=_{i=1}^3(1)^{p(i)}A_{ii}`$, and we use the grading $`p(1)=p(3)=0`$, $`p(2)=1`$ (see Appendix).

One way to show (3.25) is to notice that the commutation relation between $`t(\lambda )`$ and $`L(\mu )`$ can be written in the form

$`[t(\lambda ),L(\mu )]=[M(\lambda ,\mu ),L(\mu )],`$ (3.26)
where

$`M(\lambda ,\mu )=\underset{1}{str}\left(r_{12}(\lambda \mu )\underset{1}{𝐿}(\lambda )\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\underset{1}{str}\left(r_{12}^2(\lambda \mu )\right),`$ (3.27)
and the second term is a quantum correction, which is absent if we consider the left hand side of (3.16), (3) as Poisson brackets . Also, in the $`sl(n)`$ case this term does not contribute since is proportional to the unit matrix. Using (3.14) and (3.20) it is straightforward to calculate $`M(\lambda ,\mu )`$ explicitly

$`M(\lambda ,\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda \mu )}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{cosh}(\lambda \mu )h(\mu )& e^{\lambda \mu }v^{}(\mu )& 2e^{\lambda \mu }X^{}(\mu )\\ e^{(\lambda \mu )}v^+(\mu )& 0& e^{\lambda \mu }v^{}(\mu )\\ 2e^{(\lambda \mu )}X^+(\mu )& e^{(\lambda \mu )}v^+(\mu )& \mathrm{cosh}(\lambda \mu )h(\mu )\end{array}\right)`$ (3.31)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}^2(\lambda \mu )}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{cosh}^2(\lambda \mu )+1& 0& 0\\ 0& 2& 0\\ 0& 0& \mathrm{cosh}^2(\lambda \mu )+1\end{array}\right).`$ (3.35)
Substituting (3.31) into the equation (3.26) we obtain the commutation relations between $`t(\lambda )`$ and the generators of the superalgebra $`_t(osp(1|2))`$. In particular

$`[t(\lambda ),X^+(\mu )]_{}`$ $`=`$ $`4\mathrm{coth}(\lambda \mu )X^+(\mu )h(\lambda ){\displaystyle \frac{4e^{(\lambda \mu )}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda \mu )}}X^+(\lambda )h(\mu )+4X^+(\mu )`$ (3.36)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2e^{(\lambda \mu )}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda \mu )}}\left(v^+(\lambda )v^+(\mu )v^+(\mu )v^+(\lambda )\right),`$
$`[t(\lambda ),v^+(\mu )]_{}`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{coth}(\lambda \mu )v^+(\mu )h(\lambda ){\displaystyle \frac{2e^{(\lambda \mu )}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda \mu )}}v^+(\lambda )h(\mu )+v^+(\mu )`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda \mu )}}\left(e^{(\lambda \mu )}X^+(\lambda )v^{}(\mu )e^{(\mu \lambda )}X^+(\mu )v^{}(\lambda )\right).`$
Preserving some generality we can consider the representation space $``$ of the dynamical algebra to be a lowest spin $`\rho (\lambda )`$ representation of the loop superalgebra with the lowest spin vector $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$

$$h(\lambda )\mathrm{\Omega }_{}=\rho (\lambda )\mathrm{\Omega }_{},v^{}(\lambda )\mathrm{\Omega }_{}=0.$$
(3.38)
One can study spectrum and eigenstates of $`t(\lambda )`$ in this general representation $``$. However, to have a physical interpretation we will use a local realization of the trigonometric superalgebra $`_t(osp(1|2))`$ with

$$=\underset{a=1}{\stackrel{N}{}}V_a,$$

as a tensor product of $`osp(1|2)`$ representations. Then,

$$h(\lambda )=\underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{coth}(\lambda z_a)h_a$$
(3.39)
$`v^+(\lambda )={\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\lambda z_a}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda z_a)}}v_a^+,`$ $`v^{}(\lambda )={\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\lambda +z_a}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda z_a)}}v_a^{},`$ (3.40)
$`X^+(\lambda )={\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\lambda z_a}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda z_a)}}X_a^+,`$ $`X^{}(\lambda )={\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\lambda +z_a}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda z_a)}}X_a^{},`$ (3.41)
where $`h_a,v_a^\pm ,X_a^\pm \mathrm{End}(V_a)`$ are $`osp(1|2)`$ generators in a representation $`V_a`$ associated with each site $`a`$. If in this realization one considers the limits $`\lambda \pm \mathrm{}`$ then one finds the expressions of the generators of the global Lie superalgebra $`osp(1|2)_t(osp(1|2))`$ in terms of the local generators

$$Y_{gl}=\underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}Y_a,$$
(3.42)
here $`Y=(h,X^\pm ,v^\pm )`$.

In particular, a representation of the Gaudin realization can be obtained by considering at each site $`a`$ an irreducible representations $`V_a^{(l_a)}`$ of the Lie superalgebra $`osp(1|2)`$ defined by a spin $`l_a`$ and a lowest spin vector $`\omega _a`$ such that $`v_a^{}\omega _a=0`$ and $`h_a\omega _a=l_a\omega _a`$. Thus,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{}=\underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}\omega _a,\text{and}\rho (\lambda )=\underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}(l_a)\mathrm{coth}(\lambda z_a).$$
(3.43)
It is a well-known fact in the theory of Gaudin models  that the Gaudin Hamiltonian is related to the classical $`r`$-matrix (1.1), (3.2)

$`H^{(a)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{ba}{}}r_{ab}(z_az_b)={\displaystyle \underset{ba}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}(z_az_b)}}\left(e^{(z_az_b)}r_{ab}^{()}+e^{(z_bz_a)}r_{ab}^{(+)}\right)`$ (3.44)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{ba}{}}\mathrm{coth}(z_az_b)h_ah_b+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\mathrm{sinh}(z_az_b)}}\left(e^{(z_az_b)}X_a^+X_b^{}+e^{(z_az_b)}X_a^{}X_b^+\right)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}(z_az_b)}}\left(e^{(z_az_b)}v_a^+v_b^{}e^{(z_az_b)}v_a^{}v_b^+\right),`$
and can be obtained as the residue of the operator $`t(\lambda )`$ at the point $`\lambda =z_a`$ using the expansion

$`t(\lambda )=h_{gl}^2+{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{c_2(a)}{\mathrm{sinh}^2(\lambda z_a)}}+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\lambda z_a}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda z_a)}}H^{(a)}\right),`$ (3.45)
$`c_2(a)=h_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+2\left(X_a^+X_a^{}+X_a^{}X_a^+\right)+v_a^+v_a^{}v_a^{}v_a^+`$. As opposed to the rational $`osp(1|2)`$-invariant case , the generating function (3.45) commutes only with one generator $`h_{gl}`$ of the global superalgebra $`osp(1|2)`$

$$[t(\lambda ),h_{gl}]=0.$$
(3.46)
To construct the set of eigenstates of the generating function of integrals of motion $`t(\lambda )`$ we have to define appropriate creation operators. The creation operators used in the $`sl(2)`$ Gaudin model coincide with one of the $`L`$-matrix entry . However, in the $`osp(1|2)`$ case the creation operators are complicated functions of the two generators of the loop superalgebra $`X^+(\lambda )`$ and $`v^+(\mu )`$.

###### Definition 3.1

Let $`B_M(\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _M)`$ belong to the Borel subalgebra of the $`osp(1|2)`$ loop superalgebra $`_t(osp(1|2))`$ such that

$`B_M(\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _M)=v^+(\mu _1)B_{M1}(\mu _2,\mathrm{},\mu _M)`$
$`+2X^+(\mu _1){\displaystyle \underset{j=2}{\overset{M}{}}}(1)^j{\displaystyle \frac{e^{(\mu _1\mu _j)}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\mu _1\mu _j)}}B_{M2}^{(j)}(\mu _2,\mathrm{},\mu _M)`$ (3.47)
with $`B_0=1,`$ $`B_1(\mu )=v^+(\mu )`$ and $`B_M=0`$ for $`M<0`$. The notation $`B_{M2}^{(j)}(\mu _2,\mathrm{},\mu _M)`$ means that the argument $`\mu _j`$ is omitted.

As we will show below, the $`B`$-operators are such that the Bethe vectors are generated by their action on the lowest spin vector $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$ (3.38). To prove this result we will need some important properties of the $`B`$-operators. All the properties of the creation operators $`B_M(\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _M)`$ listed below can be demonstrated by induction method. Since the proofs are lengthy and quite technical we will present only two of them.

###### Lemma 3.1

The creation operators $`B_M(\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _M)`$ are antisymmetric functions of their arguments

$`B_M(\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _k,\mu _{k+1},\mathrm{},\mu _M)`$ $`=`$ $`B_M(\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _{k+1},\mu _k,\mathrm{},\mu _M),`$
here $`1k<M`$ and $`M2`$.

###### Lemma 3.2

The commutation relations between the creation operator $`B_M`$ and the generators $`v^+(\lambda )`$, $`h(\lambda )`$, $`v^{}(\lambda )`$ of the loop superalgebra are given by

$`v^+(\lambda )B_M`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^MB_Mv^+(\lambda )+2{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{M}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^j}{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda \mu _j)}}`$ (3.49)
$`\times \left(e^{(\lambda \mu _j)}X^+(\lambda )e^{(\mu _j\lambda )}X^+(\mu _j)\right)B_{M1}^{(j)},`$
$`h(\lambda )B_M`$ $`=`$ $`B_M(h(\lambda )+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}}\mathrm{coth}(\lambda \mu _i))+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}}(1)^i{\displaystyle \frac{e^{(\lambda \mu _i)}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda \mu _i)}}\times `$ (3.50)
$`\times \left(v^+(\lambda )B_{M1}^{(i)}+2X^+(\lambda ){\displaystyle \underset{ji}{\overset{M}{}}}(1)^{j+\mathrm{\Theta }(ij)}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{(\mu _i\mu _j)}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\mu _i\mu _j)}}B_{M2}^{(i,j)}\right)`$
$`v^{}(\lambda )B_M`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^MB_Mv^{}(\lambda )+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{M}{}}}(1)^{j1}B_{M1}^{(j)}({\displaystyle \frac{e^{(\lambda \mu _j)}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda \mu _j)}}(h(\lambda )h(\mu _j))`$ (3.51)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{kj}{\overset{M}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{(\lambda \mu _k)}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda \mu _k)}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{(\mu _k\mu _j)}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\mu _k\mu _j)}})+v^+(\lambda ){\displaystyle }_{i<j}^M(1)^{ij1}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{e^{(\mu _i\mu _j)}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\mu _i\mu _j)}}B_{M2}^{(i,j)}\left({\displaystyle \frac{e^{(\lambda \mu _i)}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda \mu _i)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{e^{(\lambda \mu _j)}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda \mu _j)}}\right).`$
here the upper index of $`B_{M1}^{(j)}`$ means that the argument $`\mu _j`$ is omitted, the upper index of $`B_{M2}^{(i,j)}`$ means that the parameters $`\mu _i,\mu _j`$ are omitted and $`\mathrm{\Theta }(j)`$ is Heaviside function

$$\mathrm{\Theta }(j)=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \text{if }j>0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{if }j0\hfill \end{array}.$$

It is useful to have explicit formulas for the commutators between the global generators and the $`B`$-operators.

###### Remark 3.1

The commutation relations between the generators of the global $`osp(1|2)`$ (3.42) and the $`B_M`$ elements follow from the previous lemma 3.2. To see this we take the appropriate limit $`\lambda \pm \mathrm{}`$ in (3.49), (3.50), (3.51). In this way we obtain

$`v_{gl}^+B_M`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^MB_Mv_{gl}^+2{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{M}{}}}(1)^jX^+(\mu _j)B_{M1}^{(j)},`$ (3.52)
$`h_{gl}B_M`$ $`=`$ $`B_M\left(h_{gl}+M\right),`$ (3.53)
$`v_{gl}^{}B_M`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^MB_Mv_{gl}^{}+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{M}{}}}(1)^jB_{M1}^{(j)}\left(h_{gl}+h(\mu _j)+{\displaystyle \underset{kj}{\overset{M}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{(\mu _j\mu _k)}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\mu _j\mu _k)}}\right)`$ (3.54)
###### Lemma 3.3

The generating function of integrals of motion $`t(\lambda )`$ (3.24) has the following commutation relation with the creation operator $`B_M(\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _M)`$

$$t(\lambda )B_M=B_Mt(\lambda )+B_M\left(2h(\lambda )\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}\mathrm{coth}(\lambda \mu _i)+2\underset{i<j}{\overset{M}{}}\mathrm{coth}(\lambda \mu _i)\mathrm{coth}(\lambda \mu _j)+M\right)$$

$$+2\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}(1)^i\frac{e^{(\lambda \mu _i)}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda \mu _i)}\left(v^+(\lambda )B_{M1}^{(i)}+2X^+(\lambda )\underset{ji}{\overset{M}{}}(1)^{j+\mathrm{\Theta }(ij)}\frac{e^{(\mu _i\mu _j)}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\mu _i\mu _j)}B_{M2}^{(i,j)}\right)$$

$$\times \widehat{\beta }_M(\mu _i)+4\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}(1)^{i+M}\frac{B_{M1}^{(i)}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda \mu _i)}\left(e^{(\lambda \mu _i)}X^+(\lambda )v^{}(\mu _i)e^{(\mu _i\lambda )}X^+(\mu _i)v^{}(\lambda )\right).$$
(3.55)
The notation used here for the operator $`\widehat{\beta }_M(\mu _i)`$ is $`\widehat{\beta }_M(\mu _i)=h(\mu _i)+_{ji}^M\mathrm{coth}(\mu _i\mu _j)`$.

In the trigonometric Gaudin realization $`(3.1719)`$ the creation operators $`B_M(\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _M)`$ have some specific analytical properties.

###### Lemma 3.4

The $`B`$-operators in the Gaudin realization $`(3.1719)`$ satisfy an important differential identity

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{z_a}}B_M`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{M}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\mu _j}}((1)^j{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\mu _jz_a}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\mu _jz_a)}}`$ (3.56)
$`\times `$ $`(v_a^+B_{M1}^{(j)}+2X_a^+{\displaystyle \underset{kj}{\overset{M}{}}}(1)^{k+\mathrm{\Theta }(jk)}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{(\mu _j\mu _k)}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\mu _j\mu _k)}}B_{M2}^{(j,k)})).`$
This identity will be a fundamental step in establishing a connection between the Bethe vectors and solutions to the KZ equation.

The proofs of the lemmas are based on the induction method. As illustrations, we prove explicitly lemma 3.1 and the formula (3.49) in lemma 3.2.

Proof of lemma 3.1. Consider $`M=2`$

$$B_2(\mu _1,\mu _2)=v^+(\mu _1)v^+(\mu _2)+\frac{2e^{(\mu _1\mu _2)}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\mu _1\mu _2)}X^+(\mu _1).$$

Using the commutation relations (3) it is straightforward to check that $`B_2(\mu _1,\mu _2)`$ is antisymmetric

$$B_2(\mu _1,\mu _2)=B_2(\mu _2,\mu _1).$$

Assume $`B_N(\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _N)`$ is antisymmetric $`N2`$ and for $`N<M`$. We have to prove that $`B_M(\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _M)`$ is antisymmetric also.

Consider $`j2`$, the antisymmetry of $`B_M(\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _M)`$ with respect to $`\mu _j`$ and $`\mu _{j+1}`$ follows directly form the recurrence relation (3.1) and our assumption. Namely, the terms $`B_{M2}^{(j)}(\mu _2,\mathrm{},\mu _M)e^{(\mu _1\mu _j)}/\mathrm{sinh}(\mu _1\mu _j)`$ and $`B_{M2}^{(j+1)}(\mu _2,\mathrm{},\mu _M)e^{(\mu _1\mu _{(j+1)})}/\mathrm{sinh}(\mu _1\mu _{(j+1)})`$ enter with the opposite sign.

Therefore we only have to show the antisymmetry of $`B_M(\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _M)`$ with respect to the interchange of $`\mu _1`$ and $`\mu _2`$. To see this we have to iterate the recurrence relation (3.1) twice and combine the appropriate terms

$`B_M(\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _M)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(v^+(\mu _1)v^+(\mu _2)+{\displaystyle \frac{2e^{(\mu _1\mu _2)}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\mu _1\mu _2)}}X^+(\mu _1)\right)B_{M2}(\mu _3,\mathrm{},\mu _M)`$
$`+`$ $`2v^+(\mu _1)X^+(\mu _2){\displaystyle \underset{j=3}{\overset{M}{}}}(1)^{j+1}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{(\mu _2\mu _j)}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\mu _2\mu _j)}}B_{M3}^{(j)}(\mu _3,\mathrm{},\mu _M)`$
$`+`$ $`2v^+(\mu _2)X^+(\mu _1){\displaystyle \underset{j=3}{\overset{M}{}}}(1)^j{\displaystyle \frac{e^{(\mu _1\mu _j)}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\mu _1\mu _j)}}B_{M3}^{(j)}(\mu _3,\mathrm{},\mu _M)`$
$`+`$ $`4X^+(\mu _1)X^+(\mu _2){\displaystyle \underset{j=3}{\overset{M}{}}}(1)^j{\displaystyle \frac{e^{(\mu _1\mu _j)}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\mu _1\mu _j)}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=3}{\overset{M}{}}}(1)^{k+\mathrm{\Theta }(jk)}\times `$
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{(\mu _2\mu _k)}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\mu _2\mu _k)}}B_{M4}^{(j,k)}(\mu _3,\mathrm{},\mu _M)`$
where $`B_{M4}^{(j,k)}(\mu _3,\mathrm{},\mu _M)`$ means that the arguments $`\mu _j`$ and $`\mu _k`$ are omitted. Since $`v^+(\mu )`$ commutes with $`X^+(\nu )`$, the antisymmetry of the right hand side of (3) with respect to $`\mu _1`$ and $`\mu _2`$ follows. Hence we have demonstrated the lemma. $`\mathrm{}`$

Proof of lemma 3.2. Here we prove explicitly only formula (3.49). In particular, when $`M=1`$ the expression (3.49) is just the anticommutator between $`v^+(\lambda )`$ and $`v^+(\mu )`$. Using the recurrence relations (3.1) it is straightforward to check that the formula (3.49) holds for $`M=2`$

$`v^+(\lambda )B_2(\mu _1,\mu _2)`$ $`=`$ $`B_2(\mu _1,\mu _2)v^+(\lambda )`$ (3.58)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda \mu _1)}}\left(e^{(\lambda \mu _1)}X^+(\lambda )e^{\lambda \mu _1}X^+(\mu _1)\right)v^+(\mu _2)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda \mu _2)}}\left(e^{(\lambda \mu _2)}X^+(\lambda )e^{\lambda \mu _2}X^+(\mu _2)\right)v^+(\mu _1).`$
Therefore we can proceed to demonstrate the lemma 3.3 by induction. Assume that the relation (3.49) holds for $`B_N`$, $`MN2`$. Then we have to show the formula (3.49) is valid for $`M+1`$. We use the recurrence relations (3.1) to write

$`v^+(\lambda )B_{M+1}`$ $`=`$ $`v^+(\lambda )\left(v^+(\mu _1)B_M+2X^+(\mu _1){\displaystyle \underset{j=2}{\overset{M+1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{(\mu _1\mu _j)}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\mu _1\mu _j)}}B_{M1}^{(j)}\right)`$ (3.59)
$`=`$ $`v^+(\mu _1)v^+(\lambda )B_M{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda \mu _1)}}\left(e^{(\lambda \mu _1)}X^+(\lambda )e^{\lambda \mu _1}X^+(\mu _1)\right)B_M`$
$`+`$ $`2X^+(\mu _1){\displaystyle \underset{j=2}{\overset{M+1}{}}}(1)^j{\displaystyle \frac{e^{(\mu _1\mu _j)}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\mu _1\mu _j)}}v^+(\lambda )B_{M1}^{(j)}.`$
Now we can substitute the expressions for $`v^+(\lambda )B_M`$ and $`v^+(\lambda )B_{M1}^{(j)}`$. After rearranging the terms in an appropriate way we have

$`v^+(\lambda )B_{M+1}`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^{M+1}B_{M+1}v^+(\lambda )+2{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{M+1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^j}{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda \mu _j)}}`$
$`\times \left(e^{(\lambda \mu _j)}X^+(\lambda )e^{(\mu _j\lambda )}X^+(\mu _j)\right)B_M^{(j)}.`$
This completes the proof of the lemma. $`\mathrm{}`$

The proofs of the other lemmas are analogous to the proofs we have illustrated above. They do not contain illuminating insights and are considerably longer than the two we have seen. Thus, we will omit them.

The recurrence relation (3.1) can be solved explicitly. To be able to express the solution in a compact form it is useful to introduce a contraction operator $`d`$.

###### Definition 3.2

Let $`d`$ be a contraction operator whose action on an ordered product $`\stackrel{M}{\underset{}{\underset{j=1}{}}}v^+(\mu _j)`$, $`M2`$, is given by

$$d\left(v^+(\mu _1)v^+(\mu _2)\mathrm{}v^+(\mu _M)\right)=2\underset{j=1}{\overset{M1}{}}X^+(\mu _j)\underset{k=j+1}{\overset{M}{}}(1)^{\sigma (jk)}\frac{e^{(\mu _j\mu _k)}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\mu _j\mu _k)}\underset{}{\underset{mj,k}{\overset{M}{}}}v^+(\mu _m)$$
(3.61)
where $`\sigma (jk)`$ is the parity of the permutation

$$\sigma :(1,2,\mathrm{},j,j+1,\mathrm{},k,\mathrm{},M)(1,2,\mathrm{},j,k,j+1,\mathrm{},M).$$

The $`d`$ operator can be applied on an ordered product $`\stackrel{M}{\underset{}{\underset{j=1}{}}}v^+(\mu _j)`$ consecutively several times, up to $`[M/2]`$, the integer part of $`M/2`$.

###### Theorem 3.1

Explicit solution to the recurrence relation (3.1) is given by

$$B_M(\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _M)=\underset{}{\underset{j=1}{\overset{M}{}}}v^+(\mu _j)+\underset{m=1}{\overset{[M/2]}{}}\frac{1}{m!}d^m\underset{}{\underset{j=1}{\overset{M}{}}}v^+(\mu _j)=\mathrm{exp}d\underset{}{\underset{j=1}{\overset{M}{}}}v^+(\mu _j).$$
(3.62)
The properties of the creation operators $`B_M`$ studied in the this Section will be fundamental tools in determining characteristics of the trigonometric $`osp(1|2)`$ Gaudin model. Our primary interest is to obtain the spectrum and the eigenvectors of the generating function of integrals of motion $`t(\lambda )`$ (3.24).

## 4 Spectrum and eigenstates of trigonometric $`osp(1|2)`$ Gaudin model

With the help of the creation operators $`B_M`$ it is possible to obtain the eigenvectors as well as the corresponding eigenvalues of the Hamiltonians of the trigonometric Gaudin model. This result is a direct consequence of the following theorem.

###### Theorem 4.1

The lowest spin vector $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$ (3.38) is an eigenvector of the generating function of integrals of motion $`t(\lambda )`$ (3.24) with the corresponding eigenvalue $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0(\lambda )`$

$$t(\lambda )\mathrm{\Omega }_{}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_0(\lambda )\mathrm{\Omega }_{},\mathrm{\Lambda }_0(\lambda )=\rho ^2(\lambda )+\rho ^{}(\lambda ).$$
(4.1)
Furthermore, the action of the $`B`$-operators (3.1) on the lowest spin vector $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$ yields the eigenvectors

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _M)=B_M(\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _M)\mathrm{\Omega }_{},$$
(4.2)
of the $`t(\lambda )`$ operator

$$t(\lambda )\mathrm{\Psi }(\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _M)=\mathrm{\Lambda }(\lambda ;\{\mu _j\}_{j=1}^M)\mathrm{\Psi }(\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _M),$$
(4.3)
with the eigenvalues

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(\lambda ;\{\mu _j\}_{j=1}^M)=y^2+_\lambda y,$$
(4.4)
here

$$y(\lambda ;\{\mu _j\}_{j=1}^M)=\rho (\lambda )+\underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}\mathrm{coth}(\lambda \mu _k),$$
(4.5)
provided that the Bethe equations are imposed on the parameters $`\{\mu _j\}_{j=1}^M`$ of the state (4.2)

$$\beta _M(\mu _j)=\rho (\mu _j)+\underset{kj}{\overset{M}{}}\mathrm{coth}(\mu _j\mu _k)=0.$$
(4.6)
Proof. The equation (4.1) can be checked by a direct substitution of the definitions of the operator $`t(\lambda )`$ and the lowest spin vector $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$, the equations (3.24) and (3.38), respectively.

To show the second part of the theorem, we use the equation (4.2) to express the Bethe vectors $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _M)`$

$$t(\lambda )\mathrm{\Psi }(\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _M)=t(\lambda )B_M(\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _M)\mathrm{\Omega }_{}.$$
(4.7)
Our next step is to use the third property of the $`B`$-operators, the equation (3.3), and the definition of the lowest spin vector $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$ the equation (3.38) in order to calculate the action of the operator $`t(\lambda )`$ on the Bethe vectors when the Bethe equations (4.6) are imposed

$`t(\lambda )B_M\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$ $`=`$ $`B_Mt(\lambda )\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$
$`+`$ $`\left(2\rho (\lambda ){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}}\mathrm{coth}(\lambda \mu _i)+2{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{\overset{M}{}}}\mathrm{coth}(\lambda \mu _i)\mathrm{coth}(\lambda \mu _j)+M\right)B_M\mathrm{\Omega }_{}.`$
We can express the first term on the right hand side since we know how the operator $`t(\lambda )`$ acts on the vector $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$, the equation (4.1). Thus we have

$$t(\lambda )B_M\mathrm{\Omega }_{}=\mathrm{\Lambda }(\lambda ;\{\mu _j\}_{j=1}^M)B_M\mathrm{\Omega }_{},$$
(4.9)
with

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(\lambda ;\{\mu _j\}_{j=1}^M)=\mathrm{\Lambda }_0(\lambda )+2\rho (\lambda )\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}\mathrm{coth}(\lambda \mu _i)+2\underset{i<j}{\overset{M}{}}\mathrm{coth}(\lambda \mu _i)\mathrm{coth}(\lambda \mu _j)+M,$$

and we complete the proof by expressing the eigenvalue as

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(\lambda ;\{\mu _j\}_{j=1}^M)=y^2+_\lambda y,\text{with}y(\lambda ;\{\mu _j\}_{j=1}^M)=\rho (\lambda )+\underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}\mathrm{coth}(\lambda \mu _k).$$

$`\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary 4.1

In the trigonometric Gaudin realization given by the equations (3.39), (3.40), (3.41) and (3.43) the Bethe vectors $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _M)`$ (4.2) are the eigenvectors of the Gaudin Hamiltonians (3.44) (see also )

$`H^{(a)}\mathrm{\Psi }(\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _M)=E_M^{(a)}\mathrm{\Psi }(\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _M),`$ (4.10)
with the eigenvalues

$`E_M^{(a)}={\displaystyle \underset{ba}{\underset{b=1}{\overset{N}{}}}}l_al_b\mathrm{coth}(z_az_b)+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{M}{}}}l_a\mathrm{coth}(\mu _jz_a),`$ (4.11)
when the Bethe equations are imposed

$`\beta _M(\mu _j)=\rho (\mu _j)+{\displaystyle \underset{kj}{\overset{M}{}}}\mathrm{coth}(\mu _j\mu _k)={\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}}(l_a)\mathrm{coth}(\mu _jz_a)+{\displaystyle \underset{kj}{\overset{M}{}}}\mathrm{coth}(\mu _j\mu _k)=0.`$
Proof. The statement of the corollary follows from residue of the equation (4.3) at the point $`\lambda =z_a`$. The residue can be determined using (3.45), (4.4) and (4.1). $`\mathrm{}`$

Comparing the eigenvalues $`E_M^{(a)}`$ (4.11) of the Gaudin Hamiltonians and the Bethe equations (4.1) with the corresponding quantities of the $`sl(2)`$ Gaudin model  we arrive to an interesting observation.

###### Remark 4.1

The spectrum of the $`osp(1|2)`$ trigonometric Gaudin model with the spins $`l_a`$ coincides with the spectrum of the $`sl(2)`$ trigonometric Gaudin system for the integer spins (see an analogous observation for partition functions of corresponding anisotropic vertex models in ).

###### Remark 4.2

The Bethe vectors are eigenstates of the global generator $`h_{gl}`$

$$h_{gl}\mathrm{\Psi }(\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _M)=\left(\underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}l_a+M\right)\mathrm{\Psi }(\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _M).$$
(4.13)
As oppose to the $`osp(1|2)`$-invariant model , these Bethe vectors are not the lowest spin vectors of the global $`osp(1|2)`$ since they are not annihilated by the generator $`v_{gl}^{}`$

$$v_{gl}^{}\mathrm{\Psi }(\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _M)0,$$
(4.14)
once the Bethe equations are imposed (4.1). These conclusions follow from the remark 3.1, in particular the equations (3.53) and (3.54), and the definition of the Bethe vectors (4.2).

As was pointed out already in  for the $`sl(2)`$ case, there are several modifications of the Hamiltonians (3.44). One of them is the Richardson’s pairing-force Hamiltonian . These modifications can be formulated in the framework of the universal $`L`$-operator and $`r`$-matrix formalism (3.16) .

Due to invariance of the $`r`$-matrix (3.14) with respect to the Cartan element

$`[r(\lambda ),hI+Ih]=0,hosp(1|2)`$ (4.15)
one can add to the $`L`$-operator the element $`h`$

$`L(\lambda )\stackrel{~}{L}(\lambda )=gh+L(\lambda ),`$ (4.16)
preserving commutation relations (3.16). Then

$`\stackrel{~}{t}(\lambda )=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{str}\stackrel{~}{L}^2(\lambda )=t(\lambda )+2gh(\lambda )+g^2,`$ (4.17)
will have the commutativity property, i.e. $`\stackrel{~}{t}(\lambda )\stackrel{~}{t}(\mu )=\stackrel{~}{t}(\mu )\stackrel{~}{t}(\lambda )`$. Hence we can take $`\stackrel{~}{t}(\lambda )`$ to be the generating function of the (modified) integrals of motion

$`\stackrel{~}{t}(\lambda )=(h_{gl}g)^2+{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{c_2(a)}{\mathrm{sinh}^2(\lambda z_a)}}+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\lambda z_a}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda z_a)}}\stackrel{~}{H}^{(a)}\right),`$ (4.18)
$$\stackrel{~}{H}^{(a)}=\underset{\lambda =z_a}{\mathrm{r}es}\stackrel{~}{t}(\lambda )=gh_a+H^{(a)}.$$
(4.20)
In this case the eigenstates $`\mathrm{\Psi }_M`$ are generated by the same B-operators. However, corresponding eigenvalues and Bethe equations are now given by

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(\lambda ;\{\mu _j\}_{j=1}^M)=(y+g)^2+_\lambda y,$$
(4.21)
here as before $`y(\lambda ;\{\mu _j\}_{j=1}^M)=_{a=1}^N(l_a)\mathrm{coth}(\lambda z_a)+_{k=1}^M\mathrm{coth}(\lambda \mu _k)`$,

$$\stackrel{~}{E}_M^{(a)}=E_M^{(a)}+g(l_a),$$
(4.22)
$$\underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}(l_a)\mathrm{coth}(\mu _jz_a)+\underset{kj}{\overset{M}{}}\mathrm{coth}(\mu _j\mu _k)+g=0.$$
(4.23)
The crucial step in the proof of these equations is the observation that the commutation relations between the operator $`\stackrel{~}{t}(\lambda )`$ (4.17) and the creation operators $`B_M`$ are equal to the commutation relations (3.3) but with modified operator $`\widehat{\beta }_M(\mu _j)\widehat{\beta }_M(\mu _j)+g`$. To see this notice the similarity between the terms with $`v^+(\lambda )B_{M1}^{(i)}`$ operators and with $`X^+(\lambda )B_{M2}^{(i,j)}`$ operators in the lemma 3.2 the equation (3.50) and in the lemma 3.3 the equation (3.3).

Richardson like Hamiltonian  can be obtained as a coefficient in the $`\lambda +\mathrm{}`$ expansion

$`\stackrel{~}{t}(\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`(h_{gl}+g)^2+4e^{2\lambda }((h_{gl}1+g)\left({\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}e^{2z_a}h_a\right)`$ (4.24)
$`+`$ $`4X_{gl}^+\left({\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}e^{2z_a}X_a^{}\right)+2v_{gl}^+\left({\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}e^{2z_a}v_a^{}\right))+O(e^{4\lambda }).`$
Let us denote the coefficient next to the factor $`4e^{2\lambda }`$ by $`H_+`$

$$H_+=\left(h_{gl}1+g\right)\left(\underset{i}{}e^{2z_a}h_a\right)+4X_{gl}^+\left(\underset{a}{}e^{2z_a}X_a^{}\right)+2v_{gl}^+\left(\underset{a}{}e^{2z_i}v_a^{}\right).$$
(4.25)
This Hamiltonian is obviously not symmetric. Similar Hamiltonian can be obtained as a coefficient in the $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$ expansion

$`\stackrel{~}{t}(\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`(h_{gl}g)^2+4e^{2\lambda }(\left({\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}e^{2z_a}h_a\right)(h_{gl}1g)`$ (4.26)
$`+`$ $`4\left({\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}e^{2z_a}X_a^+\right)X_{gl}^{}+2\left({\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}e^{2z_a}v_a^+\right)v_{gl}^{})+O(e^{4\lambda }).`$
Let us denote the coefficient next to the factor $`4e^{2\lambda }`$ by $`H_{}`$, which is also not symmetric. Thus, we choose the following symmetric combination for a trigonometric generalization of the Richardson Hamiltonian

$`H_R`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(H_++H_{}\right)=\left(h_{gl}1\right)\left({\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}\mathrm{cosh}(2z_a)h_a\right)+g\left({\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}\mathrm{sinh}(2z_a)h_a\right)`$ (4.27)
$`+`$ $`2\left(X_{gl}^+\left({\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}e^{2z_a}X_a^{}\right)+\left({\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}e^{2z_a}X_a^+\right)X_{gl}^{}\right)`$
$`+`$ $`v_{gl}^+\left({\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}e^{2z_a}v_a^{}\right)+\left({\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}e^{2z_a}v_a^+\right)v_{gl}^{}.`$
The eigenvalues of $`H_R`$ have different dependence on the quasi-momenta from the rational case

$$H_R\mathrm{\Psi }_M(\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _M)=E_R(M)\mathrm{\Psi }_M(\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _M),$$
(4.28)
with

$`E_R(M)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{M}{}}}\mathrm{cosh}(2\mu _j){\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}}l_a\mathrm{cosh}(2z_a)\right)\left(M{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}}l_a1\right)`$ (4.29)
$`+`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{M}{}}}\mathrm{sinh}(2\mu _j){\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}}l_a\mathrm{sinh}(2z_a)\right)g.`$
More complicated modifications of Gaudin models can be obtained considering quasi - classical limit of the quantum spin system with non-periodic boundary conditions and corresponding reflection equation . The $`L`$-operator can be expressed in terms of the original one (3.20) as

$$L^{(bGM)}(\lambda ;\{z_j\})=L(\lambda ;\{z_j\})L(\lambda ;\{z_j\}),$$
(4.30)
in the case of the open chain, and it will satisfy more complicated liner brackets, defining a subalgebra of the loop algebra (3.16) (see also  and references therein).

Most of the trigonometric Gaudin model relations have their counterparts in the rational $`osp(1|2)`$-invariant case. To show this one takes a scaling limit $`\lambda \epsilon \lambda `$, $`z_a\epsilon z_a`$,

$$\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}\epsilon L_{\mathrm{trig}}(\epsilon \lambda ;\{\epsilon z_a\})=L_{\mathrm{inv}}(\lambda ;\{z_a\}),$$
(4.31)
and in this way one reproduces known results for the $`osp(1|2)`$-invariant model. However, as we shall see in the next Section some relations of the invariant GM have quite complicated analogs in the trigonometric case (a generalization of KZ system to include a “magnetic field” parameter $`g`$, requires a difference dynamical equation ). Also the modified $`L`$-operator (4.16) requires to scale the parameter $`gg/\epsilon `$.

Another modification can be obtained by performing the similarity transformation on the $`r`$-matrix (3.1) by the tensor square of the element $`\mathrm{exp}(tX^+)`$. Then the sacling limit $`\lambda \epsilon \lambda `$, $`t\xi /2\epsilon `$ results in a modified $`r`$-matrix

$$\widehat{r}(\lambda )=\frac{c_2^{}}{\lambda }+\xi \left(hX^+X^+hv^+v^+\right).$$
(4.32)
The loop superalgebra will be modified, as well as corresponding Hamiltonians (1.1). Similarly, the algebraic Bethe Ansatz will require changes, although the Bethe equations and the spectrum will be the same as in the $`osp(1|2)`$-invariant case (see the $`sl(2)`$ case in ).

The expression of the eigenvectors of a solvable model in terms of local variables parameterized by sites of the chain or by space coordinates, is known as coordinate Bethe Ansatz . The coordinate representation of the Bethe vectors gives explicitly analytical dependence on the parameters $`\{\mu _i\}_1^M`$ and $`\{z_a\}_1^N`$ useful in a relation to the Knizhnik-Zamolodchikov equation (Section 5). Using the Gaudin realization (3.39), (3.40), (3.41) of the generators

$$v^+(\mu )=\underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{e^{\mu z_a}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\mu z_a)}v_a^+,X^+(\mu )=\underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{e^{\mu z_a}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\mu z_a)}X_a^+,$$

and the definition of the creation operators (3.62), one can get the coordinate representation of the $`B`$-operators:

$$B_M(\mu _1,\mu _2,\mathrm{},\mu _M)=\underset{\pi }{}\left(v_{a_1}^+\mathrm{}v_{a_M}^+\right)_\pi \underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}\phi (\{\mu _m^{(a)}\}_1^{𝒦_a};z_a),$$
(4.33)
where the first sum is taken over ordered partitions $`\pi `$ of the set $`(1,2,\mathrm{},M)`$ into subsets $`𝒦_a`$, $`a=1,2,\mathrm{},N`$, including empty subsets with the constraints

$$\underset{a}{}𝒦_a=(1,2,\mathrm{},M),𝒦_a𝒦_b=\mathrm{}\text{for}ab.$$

The corresponding subset of quasimomenta

$$\left(\mu _1^{(a)}=\mu _{j_1},\mu _2^{(a)}=\mu _{j_2},\mathrm{}\mu _{𝒦_a}^{(a)}=\mu _{j_{𝒦_a}};j_m𝒦_a\right),$$

where $`𝒦_a`$ is the cardinality of the subset $`𝒦_a`$, and $`j_k<j_{k+1}`$, entering into the coordinate wave function

$$\phi (\{\nu _m\}_1^𝒦;z)=\underset{\sigma 𝒮_𝒦}{}(1)^{p(\sigma )}\frac{e^{\nu _{\sigma (1)}\nu _{\sigma (2)}}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\nu _{\sigma (1)}\nu _{\sigma (2)})}\frac{e^{\nu _{\sigma (2)}\nu _{\sigma (3)}}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\nu _{\sigma (2)}\nu _{\sigma (3)})}\mathrm{}\frac{e^{\nu _{\sigma (𝒦)}z}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\nu _{\sigma (𝒦)}z)}.$$

Due to the alternative sum over permutations $`\sigma 𝒮_𝒦`$ this function is antisymmetric with respect to the quasi-momenta. Finally the first factor in (4.33)

$$\left(v_{a_1}^+\mathrm{}v_{a_M}^+\right)_\pi $$

means that for $`j_m𝒦_a`$ corresponding indices of $`v_{a_{j_m}}^+`$ are equal to $`a`$ so that $`v_{a_{j_m}}^+=v_a^+`$. One can collect these operators into product $`_{a=1}^N\left(v_a^+\right)^{𝒦_a}`$, consequently we have an extra sign factor $`(1)^{p(\pi )}`$.

This coordinate representation is similar to the representations obtained in  for the Gaudin models related to the simple Lie algebras (see also ). The $`Z_2`$-grading of superalgebra results in extra signs, while the complicated structure of the $`B_M`$-operators (for the $`sl(2)`$ Gaudin model they are just products of $`B_1`$-operators $`B_1(\mu _j)=X^+(\mu _j)`$) is connected with the fact that $`(v_j^+)^2=X_j^+0`$ while for $`jk`$ $`v_j^+`$ and $`v_k^+`$ anticommute.

## 5 Solutions to the Knizhnik-Zamolodchikov equation

Correlation functions $`\psi (z_1,\mathrm{},z_N)`$ of a two dimensional conformal field theory satisfy the Knizhnik-Zamolodchikov equation

$`\kappa _{z_a}\psi (z_1,\mathrm{},z_N)`$ $`=`$ $`H^{(a)}\psi (z_1,\mathrm{},z_N),`$ (5.1)
where $`H^{(a)}(a=1,\mathrm{},N)`$ are the Gaudin Hamiltonians (3.44) and $`\psi (z_1,\mathrm{},z_N)`$ is a function of $`N`$ complex variables with its values in a tensor product $`=\underset{a=1}{\stackrel{N}{}}V_a^{(l_a)}`$.

A relation between the Bethe vectors of the Gaudin model related to simple Lie algebras and the solutions to the Knizhnik-Zamolodchikov equation is well known for sometime . Approach used here to obtain solutions to the Knizhnik-Zamolodchikov equation corresponding to conformal field theory and Lie superalgebra $`osp(1|2)`$ starting from B-vectors (4.2) is based on .

A solution in question is represented as a contour integral over the variables $`\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _M`$

$`\psi (z_1,\mathrm{}z_N)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \mathrm{}\varphi (\stackrel{}{\mu }|\stackrel{}{z})\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{\mu }|\stackrel{}{z})𝑑\mu _1\mathrm{}𝑑\mu _M},`$ (5.2)
where an integrating factor $`\varphi (\stackrel{}{\mu }|\stackrel{}{z})`$ is a scalar function

$`\varphi (\stackrel{}{\mu }|\stackrel{}{z})={\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{\overset{M}{}}}\mathrm{sinh}(\mu _i\mu _j)^{\frac{1}{\kappa }}{\displaystyle \underset{a<b}{\overset{N}{}}}\mathrm{sinh}(z_az_b)^{\frac{l_al_b}{\kappa }}\left({\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{c=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\mathrm{sinh}(\mu _kz_c)^{\frac{l_c}{\kappa }}\right),`$ (5.3)
and $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{\mu }|\stackrel{}{z})`$ is a Bethe vector (4.2) where the corresponding Bethe equations are not imposed.

As a first step in the proof that $`\psi (z_1,\mathrm{}z_N)`$ given by (5.2) is a solution of (5.1) we differentiate the product $`\varphi \mathrm{\Psi }`$ with respect to $`z_a`$ and obtain

$`_{z_a}\left(\varphi \mathrm{\Psi }\right)=_{z_a}\left(\varphi \right)\mathrm{\Psi }+\varphi _{z_a}\left(\mathrm{\Psi }\right).`$ (5.4)
Using (5.3) the first term on the right hand side can be calculated explicitly

$`\kappa _{z_a}\varphi =({\displaystyle \underset{ba}{\underset{b=1}{\overset{N}{}}}}l_al_b\mathrm{coth}(z_az_b){\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{M}{}}}l_a\mathrm{coth}(z_a\mu _j))\varphi =E_M^{(a)}\varphi .`$ (5.5)
Furthermore, taking a residue of (3.3) at $`\lambda =z_a`$ we have

$`H^{(a)}\mathrm{\Psi }=E_M^{(a)}\mathrm{\Psi }+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{M}{}}}(1)^j{\displaystyle \frac{e^{(z_a\mu _j)}}{\mathrm{sinh}(z_a\mu _j)}}\beta _M(\mu _j)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{(j,a)},`$ (5.6)
where

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{(j,a)}=\left(v_a^+B_{M1}^{(j)}+2X_a^+{\displaystyle \underset{kj}{\overset{M}{}}}(1)^{k+\mathrm{\Theta }(jk)}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{(\mu _j\mu _k)}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\mu _j\mu _k)}}B_{M2}^{(j,k)}\right)\mathrm{\Omega }_{}.`$ (5.7)
Hence (5.4) can be written as

$`\kappa _{z_a}\left(\varphi \mathrm{\Psi }\right)=H^{(a)}\left(\varphi \mathrm{\Psi }\right)+\varphi {\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{M}{}}}(1)^j{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\mu _jz_a}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\mu _jz_a)}}\beta _M(\mu _j)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{(j,a)}+\kappa \varphi _{z_a}\left(\mathrm{\Psi }\right).`$ (5.8)
Moreover, from (5.3) we also have

$`\kappa _{\mu _j}\varphi =\left({\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}}(l_a)\mathrm{coth}(\mu _jz_a)+{\displaystyle \underset{jk}{\overset{M}{\underset{k=1}{}}}}\mathrm{coth}(\mu _j\mu _k)\right)\varphi =\beta _M(\mu _j)\varphi ,`$ (5.9)
and from the lemma 3.4 follows

$`_{z_a}\mathrm{\Psi }={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{M}{}}}(1)^j_{\mu _j}\left({\displaystyle \frac{e^{\mu _jz_a}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\mu _jz_a)}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{(j,a)}\right)`$ (5.10)
Thus, using (5.9) and (5.10), we can combine the last two terms in (5.8) into a sum of first oder derivatives in $`\mu _j`$

$`\kappa _{z_a}\left(\varphi \mathrm{\Psi }\right)=H^{(a)}\left(\varphi \mathrm{\Psi }\right)+\kappa {\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{M}{}}}(1)^j_{\mu _j}\left({\displaystyle \frac{e^{\mu _jz_a}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\mu _jz_a)}}\varphi \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{(j,a)}\right).`$ (5.11)
A closed contour integration of $`\varphi \mathrm{\Psi }`$ with respect to $`\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _M`$ will cancel the contribution from the terms under the sum in (5.11) and therefore $`\psi (z_1,\mathrm{}z_N)`$ given by (5.2) satisfies the Knizhnik-Zamolodchikov equation.

Conjugated Bethe vectors $`(B_M\mathrm{\Omega }_{})^{}`$ are entering into the solution $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }(z_1,\mathrm{}z_N)`$ of the dual Knizhnik-Zamolodchikov equation

$`\kappa {\displaystyle \frac{}{z_a}}\stackrel{~}{\psi }(z_1,\mathrm{},z_N)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }(z_1,\mathrm{},z_N)H^{(a)}.`$ (5.12)
The scalar product $`(\stackrel{~}{\psi }(z_1,\mathrm{},z_N),\psi (z_1,\mathrm{},z_N))`$ does not depend on $`\{z_j\}_1^N`$ and its quasi-classical limit $`\kappa 0`$ gives the norm of the Bethe vectors due to the fact that the stationary points of the contour integrals for $`\kappa 0`$ are solutions to the Bethe equations

$`{\displaystyle \frac{S}{\mu _j}}={\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}}(l_a)\mathrm{coth}(\mu _jz_a)+{\displaystyle \underset{jk}{\overset{M}{\underset{k=1}{}}}}\mathrm{coth}(\mu _j\mu _k)=0,`$ (5.13)
$`S(\stackrel{}{\mu }|\stackrel{}{z})`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa \mathrm{ln}\varphi ={\displaystyle \underset{a<b}{\overset{N}{}}}l_al_b\mathrm{ln}\left(\mathrm{sinh}(z_az_b)\right)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{\overset{M}{}}}\mathrm{ln}\left(\mathrm{sinh}(\mu _i\mu _j)\right){\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{M}{}}}l_a\mathrm{ln}\left(\mathrm{sinh}(z_a\mu _j)\right).`$
According to the remark in the end of Section 4 analytical properties of the Bethe vectors of the trigonometric $`osp(1|2)`$ Gaudin model coincide with the analytical properties of the trigonometric $`sl(2)`$ Gaudin model. Thus, the expression for the norm of the Bethe vectors $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ (4.2) obtained as the first term in the asymptotic expansion $`\kappa 0`$ coincides also

$`(\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi })=det\left({\displaystyle \frac{^2S}{\mu _j\mu _k}}\right),`$ (5.15)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2S}{\mu _j^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{l_a}{\mathrm{sinh}^2(\mu _jz_a)}}{\displaystyle \underset{kj}{\overset{M}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}^2(\mu _j\mu _k)}},{\displaystyle \frac{^2S}{\mu _j\mu _k}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}^2(\mu _j\mu _k)}},`$
for $`jk`$.

Finally we notice that the modification of the Gaudin Hamiltonians we discussed at the end of the previous Section, can be easily transfered to the corresponding modification of the Knizhnik-Zamolodchikov equations. The modification (4.16) for the $`sl(2)`$-invariant Gaudin model was studied in  as a quantization of the Schlesinger system (see also ). This modification is related with extra factor in the integrating scalar function (5.3)

$$\varphi _j=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{S_j}{\kappa }\right),j=0,1,$$
(5.17)
where $`S_0=S`$ (5) and

$$S_1=S_0+g\underset{j=1}{\overset{M}{}}\mu _jg\underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}l_az_a,$$
(5.18)
correspond to the modification (4.16).

Moreover, following the lines of , one can try to extend the connection between the KZ equation and the Guadin model based on the modified $`L`$-operator (4.16) by extending the KZ system to include an equation of the form

$$\left(\kappa \frac{}{g}H_{Rich}\right)\psi =0.$$
(5.19)
However, such a straightforward generalization has failed in the trigonometric case (see below). We can comment on the extension in the rational case  as a scaling limit of the trigonometric Gaudin model (4.31). The equations of original KZ system are defined by mutually commuting differential operators (see (3.4))

$$_a=\kappa \frac{}{z_a}\stackrel{~}{H}^{(a)}=\kappa \frac{}{z_a}gh_a\underset{ba}{}\frac{c_2^{}(a,b)}{z_az_b}.$$
(5.20)
The operator

$$_g=\kappa \frac{}{g}H_{Rich}=\kappa \frac{}{g}\underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}z_ah_a\frac{1}{2g}\left(c_2(gl)h_{gl}(h_{gl}1)\right),$$
(5.21)
is commuting pairwise with the operators $`_a`$. Thus in the rational case the KZ system can be generalized to include the operator $`_g`$.

To prove that the solution to the modified KZ system with $`\varphi _1`$ given by (5.17) and (5.18) is a solution to the generalized KZ system we have to extend the trigonometric KZ equations (5.1) with modified Hamiltonians $`gh_a+H^{(a)}`$ along the lines of . A difference equation must be introduced

$$K(z_1,\mathrm{},z_N;g)\psi (z_1,\mathrm{}z_N;g)=\psi (z_1,\mathrm{}z_N;g2\kappa ),$$
(5.22)
instead of (5.21). The operator $`K`$ is defined on the space $``$

$$K(z_1,\mathrm{},z_N;g)=\mathrm{exp}\left(2\underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}z_ah_a\right)P(g;h_{gl},v_{gl}^+,v_{gl}^{}),$$
(5.23)
where the operator $`P`$ depends on the global generators of the subalgebra $`osp(1|2)_t`$, and is constructed form the extremal projector $`p(h,v^+,v^{})`$ by a shift of the Cartan generator (see Appendix). We introduce only one $`K`$ operator since the rank of $`osp(1|2)`$ Lie superalgebra is one. In general case, of simple Lie superalgebra of rank $`r`$, one has to consider a set of $`K_k`$, $`k=1,\mathrm{},r`$ (see ).

## 6 Conclusion

By analyzing the model related to the trigonometric $`osp(1|2)`$ classical $`r`$-matrix the algebraic Bethe Ansatz approach to the Gaudin models is reviewed. The results presented in this paper are is some sense analogous to the ones we obtained for the $`osp(1|2)`$-invariant model . In particular, a striking similarity between some of the most fundamental characteristics of this system and the $`sl(2)`$ trigonometric Gaudin model was confirmed. Although explicitly constructed creation operators $`B_M`$ (3.62) of the Bethe vectors are complicated polynomials of the $`L`$-operator entries $`v^+(\lambda )`$ and $`X^+(\lambda )`$, the coordinate form of the eigenfunctions differs only in signs from the corresponding states in the case of $`sl(2)`$ trigonometric model, being antisymmetric functions of the quais-momenta. Moreover, the eigenvalues and the Bethe equations coincide, provided that the $`sl(2)`$ Gaudin model with integer spins is considered. Analogously, the KZ equations based on both trigonometric models and for the nontrivial magnetic field $`g`$ require extension of the system of equations by the dynamical difference equation.

Let us point out that by the method presented in this paper one can construct explicitly creation operators of the Gaudin models related to trigonometric Izergin-Korepin $`r`$-matrix  corresponding to the twisted affine algebra $`A_2^{(2)}`$. Similarly to the simple Lie algebra case solutions to the Knizhnik-Zamolodchikov equation were constructed from the Bethe vectors using algebraic properties of the creation operators $`B_M`$ and the Gaudin realization of the loop superalgebra $`_t(osp(1|2))`$. This interplay between the Gaudin model and the Knizhnik-Zamolodchikov equation enabled us to determine the norm of eigenfunctions of the Gaudin Hamiltonians

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(\mu _1,\mathrm{}\mu _M;\{z_a\}_1^N)^2=det\left(\frac{^2S}{\mu _j\mu _k}\right).$$

The difficult problem of correlation function calculation for general Bethe vectors

$$𝒞(\{\nu _j\}_1^M;\{\mu _i\}_1^M;\{\lambda _k\}_1^K)=(\mathrm{\Omega }_{},B_M^{}(\nu _1,\mathrm{}\nu _M)\underset{k=1}{\overset{K}{}}h(\lambda _k)B_M(\mu _1,\mathrm{}\mu _M)\mathrm{\Omega }_{})$$

was solved nicely for the $`sl(2)`$-invariant Gaudin model in  using the Gauss factorization of the loop algebra group element and the appropriate Riemann-Hilbert problem. Although the corresponding factorization is known even for the quantum superalgebra $`𝒰_q(osp(1|2))`$  the final expression of the correlation functions is difficult to obtain due to the complicated structure of the creation operators $`B_M(\mu _1,\mathrm{}\mu _M)=\text{Poly}(v^+,X^+)`$ (3.62). The study of this problem is in progress and the following expression for the scalar product of the Bethe states is conjectured (see )

$$(\mathrm{\Omega }_{},B_M^{}(\nu _1,\mathrm{}\nu _M)B_M(\mu _1,\mathrm{}\mu _M)\mathrm{\Omega }_{})=\underset{\sigma 𝒮_M}{}(1)^{p(\sigma )}det^\sigma ,$$

where the sum is over symmetric group $`𝒮_M`$ and $`M\times M`$ matrix $`^\sigma `$ is given by

$`_{jj}^\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\mu _j\nu _{\sigma (j)}}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\mu _j\nu _{\sigma (j)})}}\left(\rho (\mu _j)\rho (\nu _{\sigma (j)})\right){\displaystyle \underset{kj}{\overset{M}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\mu _j\mu _k}e^{(\nu _{\sigma (j)}\nu _{\sigma (k)})}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\mu _j\mu _k)\mathrm{sinh}(\nu _{\sigma (j)}\nu _{\sigma (k)})}},`$
$`_{jk}^\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\mu _j\mu _k}e^{(\nu _{\sigma (j)}\nu _{\sigma (k)})}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\mu _j\mu _k)\mathrm{sinh}(\nu _{\sigma (j)}\nu _{\sigma (k)})}},\text{for }j,k=1,2,\mathrm{}M.`$
## 7 Acknowledgements

We acknowledge useful discussions and communications with N. Yu. Reshetikhin, V. O. Tarasov and T. Takebe. This work was supported by the grant PRAXIS XXI/BCC/22204/99, INTAS grant N 99-01459 and FCT project POCTI/33858/MAT/2000.

## Appendix A Appendix: Orthosymplectic Lie superalgebra $`𝒐𝒔𝒑\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{|}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$

The rank of the orthosymplectic Lie algebra $`𝒐𝒔𝒑\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{|}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ is one and its dimension is five . The three even generators are $`𝒉\mathbf{,}𝑿^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{,}𝑿^{\mathbf{}}`$ and the two odd generators are $`𝒗^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{,}𝒗^{\mathbf{}}`$. The (graded) commutation relations of the generators are

$`\begin{array}{cc}\mathbf{[}𝒉\mathbf{,}𝑿^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{]}_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝟐}𝑿^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{,}\mathbf{[}𝑿^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{,}𝑿^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{]}_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{=}𝒉\mathbf{,}& \\ \mathbf{[}𝒉\mathbf{,}𝒗^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{]}_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\pm }𝒗^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{,}\mathbf{[}𝒗^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{,}𝒗^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{]}_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}𝒉\mathbf{,}& \\ \mathbf{[}𝑿^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{,}𝒗^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{]}_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{=}𝒗^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{[}𝒗^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{,}𝒗^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{]}_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝟐}𝑿^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{,}& \\ \mathbf{[}𝑿^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{,}𝒗^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{]}_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}& \end{array}`$ (A.5)
The Casimir element is

$`𝒄_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`𝒉^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}𝑿^\mathbf{+}𝑿^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{+}𝑿^{\mathbf{}}𝑿^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{\left(}𝒗^\mathbf{+}𝒗^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝒗^{\mathbf{}}𝒗^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{\right)}`$ (A.6)
$`\mathbf{=}`$ $`𝒉^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝒉\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟒}𝑿^\mathbf{+}𝑿^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒗^\mathbf{+}𝒗^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{.}`$
It is interesting to point out the existance of a “square root” of this element

$$𝒄_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{=}𝒉\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒗^\mathbf{+}𝒗^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{\left(}𝒄_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}𝒄_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟒}}\mathbf{,}$$
(A.7)
with a grading property $`\mathbf{[}𝒄_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}𝑿^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{]}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$, $`\mathbf{[}𝒄_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}𝒉\mathbf{]}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`𝒄_\mathrm{𝟏}𝒗^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}𝒗^\mathbf{\pm }𝒄_\mathrm{𝟏}`$. The finite dimensional irreducible representations $`𝑽^{\mathbf{(}𝒍\mathbf{)}}`$ of the $`𝒐𝒔𝒑\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{|}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ Lie superalgebra are parameterized by an integer $`𝒍`$, so that their dimensions $`\mathrm{𝟐}𝒍\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and the values of the Casimir element (A.6) $`𝒄_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}𝒍\mathbf{(}𝒍\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$ coincide with the same characteristics of the integer spin $`𝒍`$ irreducible representations of $`𝒔𝒍\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$.

The fundamental irreducible representation $`𝑽^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}`$ of $`𝒐𝒔𝒑\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{|}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ is three dimensional. We choose a grading of the basis vectors $`𝒆_𝒋\mathbf{;}𝒋\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟑}`$ to be $`\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$. Explicitly we have

$`𝒉`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{\left(}\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{𝟏}& \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟎}\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟎}\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\end{array}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{,}`$
$`𝒗_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}𝒗_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}^{𝒔𝒕}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{\left(}\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟎}\\ \mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}& \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟎}\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟏}& \mathrm{𝟎}\end{array}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{,}`$
together with $`𝑿^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{(}𝒗^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$. The matrix $`𝒗^\mathbf{+}`$ in the representation $`𝑽^{\mathbf{(}𝒍\mathbf{)}}`$ has $`\mathrm{𝟐}𝒍`$ non-zero elements on the second upper diagonal only, and these elements are

$$\mathbf{\{}\mathbf{(}𝒗^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}_{𝒋𝒋\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{\}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\sqrt{𝒍}\mathbf{,}\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{,}\sqrt{𝒍\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{,}\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{}\mathbf{,}\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{,}\sqrt{𝒍}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}𝒋\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒍\mathbf{.}$$
(A.10)
The extermal projector  for $`𝒐𝒔𝒑\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{|}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ (on the lowes weight vectors):

$`𝒑\mathbf{(}𝒉\mathbf{,}𝒗^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{,}𝒗^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{𝒌\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}}{\overset{\mathbf{}}{\mathbf{}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}^𝒌}{𝒌\mathbf{!}}}\mathbf{\left(}\mathbf{(}𝒗^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}^{\mathrm{𝟐}𝒌}\mathbf{(}𝒗^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}^{\mathrm{𝟐}𝒌}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}𝒗^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}^{\mathrm{𝟐}𝒌\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{(}𝒗^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}^{\mathrm{𝟐}𝒌\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝒉\mathbf{}𝒌\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}}}\mathbf{\right)}{\displaystyle \underset{𝒋\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}}{\overset{𝒌}{\mathbf{}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝒉\mathbf{}𝒋}}`$ (A.11)
$`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝒗^\mathbf{+}𝒗^{\mathbf{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝒉\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \underset{𝒌\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}}{\overset{\mathbf{}}{\mathbf{}}}}\mathbf{(}𝑿^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}^𝒌\mathbf{(}𝑿^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}^𝒌{\displaystyle \underset{𝒋\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}}{\overset{𝒌}{\mathbf{}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝒋\mathbf{(}𝒉\mathbf{}𝒋\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{\right)}`$
$`\mathbf{=}`$ $`𝒑_𝒔\mathbf{(}𝒉\mathbf{,}𝒗^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{,}𝒗^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}𝒑_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒉\mathbf{,}𝑿^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{,}𝑿^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}`$
here $`𝒑_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒉\mathbf{,}𝑿^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{,}𝑿^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ is the usual $`𝒔𝒍\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ extermal projector. There is no such factorization property for the extermal projector of the quantum superalgebra $`𝓤_𝒒\mathbf{(}𝒐𝒔𝒑\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{|}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{)}`$ .


format: text

text:
# On the Chern numbers of the Generalised Kummer Varieties

## 1. Introduction

The two main series of irreducible holomorphic symplectic complex manifolds are Hilbert schemes of points on a K3 surface and generalised Kummer varieties invented by Beauville . One can ask for their complex cobordism class tensored with $``$, which is given by the values of all their Chern numbers.

In  Ellingsrud, Göttsche and Lehn proved that the complex cobordism class of a Hilbert scheme $`X^{[n]}`$ of zero-dimensional subschemes of length $`n`$ on a smooth projective surface $`X`$ over the complex numbers depends only on the cobordism class of the surface $`X`$, i.e. on $`c_1(X)^2`$ and $`c_2(X)`$ (here and later on, top intersections on surfaces are to be understood as intersection numbers). They showed how this result can be used to calculate the Chern numbers of any such Hilbert scheme $`X^{[n]}`$ if one knows the Chern numbers of the varieties $`(^2)^{[k]}`$ and $`(\times )^{[k]}`$, which in turn can be calculated by means of Bott’s residue formula.

Therefore, the Chern numbers of the Hilbert schemes of points on a K3 surface can be efficiently calculated though now explicit formula is known. These numbers can, for example, be used to check the conjecture of  about the elliptic genus of the Hilbert schemes $`X^{[k]}`$ where $`X`$ is a K3 surface (see ). In this note, we want to give a method for computing the Chern numbers of the $`(n1)`$-dimensional generalised Kummer variety $`A^{[[n]]}`$ for an abelian surface $`A`$ and for general $`n`$ as this has not appeared in the literature so far.

The $`\chi _y`$-genus of $`A^{[[n]]}`$ has been calculated by Göttsche and Soergel . Expressing this genus in terms of Chern numbers by using the Hirzebruch-Riemann-Roch formula gives us enough information to deduce the Chern numbers of $`A^{[[n]]}`$ for $`n4`$.

Using the theory of Rozansky-Witten invariants, Sawon  produced a further relation that allowed him to compute all the Chern numbers for $`n5`$. The Chern numbers of $`A^{[[6]]}`$ were calculated by M. Britze and the author in . J. Sawon informed us that he also had computed these numbers. However, all these methods are not sufficient to compute the Chern numbers for $`n>6`$.

We will give a closed formula describing the value of any complex genus on a generalised Kummer variety in terms of genera of the Hilbert schemes of points on a fixed surface $`X`$ with $`c_1(X)^20`$. Since these are computable by means of Bott’s residue formula for $`X`$ being the projective plane $`^2`$ we can compute the Chern numbers of $`A^{[[n]]}`$ for any $`n`$. We have done this for $`n8`$ (see appendix).

## 2. The generalised Kummer varieties

Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective surface over the field of complex numbers. For every nonnegative integer we denote by $`X^{[n]}`$ the Hilbert scheme of zero-dimensional subschemes of $`X`$ of length $`n`$. By a result of Fogarty (), this scheme is smooth and projective of dimension $`2n`$. It can be viewed as a resolution $`\rho :X^{[n]}X^{(n)}`$ of the $`n`$-fold symmetric product $`X^{(n)}:=X^n/𝔖_n`$ of $`X`$. The morphism $`\rho `$, sending closed points, i.e. subschemes of $`X`$, to their support counting multiplicities, is called the Hilbert-Chow morphism.

Let us briefly recall the construction of the generalised Kummer varieties introduced by Beauville . Let $`A`$ be an abelian surface and $`n>0`$. There is an obvious summation morphism $`A^{(n)}A`$. We denote its composition with the Hilbert-Chow morphism $`\rho :A^{[n]}A^{(n)}`$ by $`\sigma :A^{[n]}A`$.

###### Definition 1.

The *$`n^{\text{th}}`$ generalised Kummer variety $`A^{[[n]]}`$* is the fibre of $`\sigma `$ over $`0A`$.

Beauville showed among other things the following property of the varieties $`A^{[[n]]}`$:

###### Proposition 1.

The $`n^{\mathrm{th}}`$ generalised Kummer variety is a smooth projective holomorphic symplectic variety of dimension $`2(n1)`$.

###### Proof.

. ∎

Since $`A`$ acts on itself by translation there is also an induced operation of $`A`$ on the Hilbert schemes $`A^{[n]}`$. Let us denote the restriction of this operation to the generalised Kummer variety by $`\nu :A\times A^{[[n]]}A^{[n]}`$. The following diagram is a cartesian one:

(1)
$$\begin{array}{ccc}A\times A^{[[n]]}& \stackrel{\nu }{}& A^{[n]}\\ \pi _A& & \sigma & & \\ A& \underset{n}{}& A.\end{array}$$

Here, $`n:AA,ana`$ is the (multiplication by $`n`$)-morphism. It is a Galois covering of degree $`n^4`$. Therefore, also $`\nu `$ is a Galois covering of degree $`n^4`$.

Next, we want to introduce certain line bundles on the Hilbert schemes and generalised Kummer varieties that are constructed from line bundles on the underlying surface:

Each line bundle $`L`$ on a smooth projective surface $`X`$ gives us a line bundle $`L_n`$ on $`X^{[n]}`$ in the following way: $`L^n:=\underset{n}{\underset{}{L\mathrm{}L}}`$ is a $`𝔖_n`$-invariant line bundle on the $`n^{\text{th}}`$-product $`X^n`$ of $`X`$. Therefore, we can define the sheaf $`L^{(n)}:=(\pi _{}(L^n))^{𝔖_n}`$ of $`𝔖_𝔫`$-invariant sections of $`\pi _{}(L^n)`$ on $`X^{(n)}`$ where $`\pi :X^nX^{(n)}`$ is the canonical projection. The pull-back $`L_n:=\rho ^{}L^{(n)}`$ by the Hilbert-Chow morphism is a line bundle on $`X^{[n]}`$. Note that $`\mathrm{Pic}(X)\mathrm{Pic}(X^{[n]}),LL_n`$ is a homomorphism of groups.

This construction has already appeared for example in  and . If $`X`$ is an abelian surface, we denote by $`L^{[[n]]}`$ the restriction of $`L_n`$ to the generalised Kummer variety $`X^{[[n]]}X^{[n]}`$. By using the seesaw principle (cf. ), it can be shown that

(2)
$$\nu ^{}L_n=L^nL^{[[n]]}$$

(cf. ).

## 3. Complex genera in general

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }:=\mathrm{\Omega }^\mathrm{U}`$ denote the complex cobordism ring. A complex genus $`\varphi `$ is a ring homomorphism $`\varphi :\mathrm{\Omega }R`$ into any $``$-algebra $`R`$. It is result of Milnor () that the complex cobordism ring is a polynomial ring in the cobordism classes of the complex projective spaces. The $`R`$-valued complex genera are in one-to-one correspondence with the formal power series $`f_\varphi R[[x]]`$ over $`R`$ with constant coefficient $`1`$. The correspondence is given as follows:

(3)
$$\varphi (X)=_X\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}f_\varphi (\gamma _i),$$

where $`X`$ is any complex manifold of dimension $`n`$ and $`\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _n`$ are the Chern roots of $`X`$. Therefore, the cobordism class of a manifold is determined by the values of its Chern numbers (take $`\varphi =\mathrm{id}_\mathrm{\Omega }:\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }`$). By Milnor’s result, the converse is also true, i.e. the cobordism class determines the Chern numbers.

Now, let us slightly generalise the notion of a genus.

###### Definition 2.

Let $`\varphi `$ be a complex genus. For a complex manifold $`X`$ together with a line bundle $`L`$ on $`X`$ we define

(4)
$$\varphi (X,L):=_Xe^{c_1(L)}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}f_\varphi (\gamma _i)$$

as *the genus $`\varphi `$ of the pair $`(X,L)`$*.

###### Remark 1.

Obviously, $`\varphi (X,𝒪_X)=\varphi (X)`$.

###### Example 1.

If $`\mathrm{td}(X)`$ denotes the Todd genus of $`X`$, and $`\chi (X,L)`$ the holomorphic Euler characteristic of the line bundle $`L`$ on $`X`$, we have by the Hirzebruch-Riemann-Roch theorem that

(5)
$$\mathrm{td}(X,L)=\chi (X,L).$$

The genera of pairs $`(X,L)`$ have the following properties, which follow directly from the appropriate properties of Chern classes/roots.

###### Proposition 2.

Let $`\varphi :\mathrm{\Omega }R`$ be any complex genus with values in $`R`$. We have

1. $`\varphi (X\times Y,LM)=\varphi (X,L)\varphi (Y,M)`$ for two complex manifolds $`X`$ and $`Y`$ together with a line bundle $`L`$ resp. $`M`$.
2. $`\varphi (X,\nu ^{}L)=\mathrm{deg}(\nu )\varphi (Y,L)`$ for any Galois covering $`\nu :XY`$ and any line bundle $`L`$ on $`Y`$.

Furthermore, any genus gives us a deformed genus in the following sense:

###### Definition 3.

Let $`\varphi `$ be a complex genus with values in the $``$-algebra $`R`$. By $`\varphi _t`$ we denote the genus with values in $`R[t]`$ given by

(6)
$$\varphi _t(X):=_X\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left(f_\varphi (\gamma _i)e^{t\gamma _i}\right)$$

for any complex manifold $`X`$.

###### Remark 2.

We have $`\varphi _n(X)=\varphi (X,K_X^n)`$ for any integer $`n`$ where $`K_X`$ is the canonical line bundle on $`X`$.

## 4. Complex genera of Hilbert schemes of points on surfaces

In this section we want to cite some of the results of  and give some corollaries which will be used later on.

Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective surface. Following , we define

(7)
$$H_X:=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}[X^{[n]}]z^n$$

as an invertible element in the formal power series ring $`\mathrm{\Omega }[[z]]`$. Analogously we define

(8)
$$K:=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}[A^{[[n]]}]z^n$$

in $`\mathrm{\Omega }[[z]]`$ where $`A`$ is any abelian surface. The cobordism class does not depend on the choice of $`A`$ since the generalised Kummer varieties deform with $`A`$. We can reformulate our task to determine the Chern numbers of the generalised Kummer varieties by asking: What is the value $`\varphi (K)R[[z]]`$ for any complex genus $`\varphi :\mathrm{\Omega }R`$.

There are various tautological bundles on $`X^{[n]}`$ (cf. ). The construction is as follows: Since $`X^{[n]}`$ represents a functor there is a universal family $`\mathrm{\Xi }_nX^{[n]}\times X`$. Let us denote by $`𝒪_n`$ its structure sheaf. For any locally free sheaf $`F`$ on $`X`$ we define the sheaf $`F^{[n]}:=p_{}(𝒪_nq^{}F)`$ on $`X^{[n]}`$, where $`p:X^{[n]}\times XX^{[n]}`$ and $`q:X^{[n]}\times XX`$ are the canonical projections.

The following lemma is a generalization of Theorem 4.2 in  for line bundles.

###### Lemma 1.

Let $`k`$ be a nonnegative integer, $`m_1,\mathrm{},m_k`$, and $`\varphi :\mathrm{\Omega }R`$ be a genus. Then there exist uniquely determined universal power series $`A_{i,j}R[[z]],1ijk`$, and $`B_1,\mathrm{},B_kR[[z]]`$, and $`C,DR[[z]]`$ depending only on $`\varphi `$ and $`m_1,\mathrm{},m_k`$ such that for every smooth projective surface $`X`$ and line bundles $`L_1,\mathrm{},L_k`$ on $`X`$ we have

(9)
$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\varphi (X^{[n]},det(L_1^{[n]})^{m_1}\mathrm{}det(L_k^{[n]})^{m_k})z^n\hfill \\ \hfill =\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{1ijk}{}c_1(L_i)c_1(L_j)A_{ij}+\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}c_1(L_i)c_1(X)B_i+c_1(X)^2C+c_2(X)D\right).\end{array}$$

###### Proof.

First note that for $`k=1`$ the statement of the theorem is just Theorem 4.2 of  for the case of line bundles with $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ (in the notation of ) being the Chern character of the $`m_1^{\mathrm{th}}`$ power of the determinant.

Theorem 4.2 of Ellingsrud, Göttsche and Lehn and the proof presented by them can be easily generalised for more than one bundle, i.e. for $`k>1`$. Therefore, our lemma as a specialization of this generalization is proven. ∎

From the lemma we conclude the following:

###### Proposition 3.

Let $`\varphi :\mathrm{\Omega }R`$ be a genus. Then there exist uniquely determined universal power series $`A_\varphi ,B_\varphi ,C_\varphi ,D_\varphi R[[z]]`$ depending only on $`\varphi `$ such that for every smooth projective surface $`X`$ together with a line bundle $`L`$ on it we have

(10)
$$\begin{array}{c}\varphi (H_{X,L}):=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\varphi (X^{[n]},L_n)z^n\hfill \\ \hfill =\mathrm{exp}\left(c_1(L)^2A_\varphi +c_1(L)c_1(X)B_\varphi +c_1(X)^2C_\varphi +c_2(X)D_\varphi \right).\end{array}$$

###### Proof.

As noted in section 5 of , we have

(11)
$$L_n=det(L)_n=det(L^{[n]})det(𝒪_X^{[n]})^1.$$

Therefore by the previous lemma,

(12)
$$\begin{array}{c}\varphi (H_{X,L})=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\varphi (X^{[n]},det(L^{[n]})det(𝒪_X^{[n]})^1)\hfill \\ \hfill =\mathrm{exp}(c_1(L)^2A_{11}+c_1(L)c_1(𝒪_X)A_{12}+c_1(𝒪_X)^2A_{22}\\ \hfill +c_1(L)c_1(X)B_1+c_1(𝒪_X)c_1(X)B_2+c_1(X)^2C+c_2(X)D)\end{array}$$

for certain power series $`A_{i,j},B_i,C,D`$ independent of $`X`$ and $`L`$. Since $`c_1(𝒪_X)=0`$ this proves the proposition with $`A_\varphi =A_{11},B_\varphi =B_1,C_\varphi =C`$ and $`D_\varphi =D`$. ∎

It is possible to express the power series $`A_\varphi `$ in terms of genera of Hilbert schemes of points on surfaces:

###### Proposition 4.

Let $`\varphi :\mathrm{\Omega }R`$ be any genus. For every smooth projective surface $`X`$,

(13)
$$c_1(X)^2A_\varphi =\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\varphi _1(H_X)\varphi _1(H_X)}{\varphi (H_X)^2}.$$

###### Proof.

In  it is proven that the canonical bundle of $`X^{[n]}`$ is $`K_n`$ where $`K`$ denotes the canonical bundle on $`X`$.

Using this we have by proposition 3 that

(14)
$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{ln}\varphi _m(H_X)=\mathrm{ln}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\varphi _m(X^{[n]})z^n=\mathrm{ln}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\varphi (X^{[n]},K_n^m)z^n\hfill \\ \hfill =m^2A_\varphi c_1(K)^2mB_\varphi c_1(K)c_1(X)+C_\varphi c_1(X)^2+D_\varphi c_2(X)\\ \hfill =(m^2A_\varphi +mB_\varphi +C_\varphi )c_1(X)^2+D_\varphi c_2(X),\end{array}$$

for all integers $`m`$, which proves the proposition. ∎

## 5. Complex genera of the generalised Kummer varieties

In this section we will relate the (generalised) complex genera of Beauville’s generalised Kummer variety to the complex genera of Hilbert schemes of points on surfaces, which we studied in the previous section.

The first step in this direction is the following:

###### Proposition 5.

Let $`\varphi :\mathrm{\Omega }R`$ be a complex genus with values in the $``$-algebra $`R`$. For every abelian surface $`A`$ together with a line bundle $`L`$ on it we have

(15)
$$c_1(L)^2\varphi (A^{[[n]]},L^{[[n]]})=2n^2\varphi (A^{[n]},L_n)$$

for all positive integers $`n`$.

###### Proof.

We will make use of (2). Recall that $`\nu `$ is a Galois covering of degree $`n^4`$. By proposition 2 we have

(16)
$$\begin{array}{c}\varphi (A,L^n)\varphi (A^{[[n]]},L^{[[n]]})=\varphi (A\times A^{[[n]]},L^nL^{[[n]]})\hfill \\ \hfill =\varphi (A\times A^{[[n]]},\nu ^{}L_n)=n^4\varphi (A^{[n]},L_n),\end{array}$$

which proves the theorem once we have shown that $`\varphi (A,L^n)=\frac{n^2}{2}c_1(L)^2`$. This follows from the fact that the Chern classes of an abelian surface are trivial:

(17)
$$\varphi (A,L^n)=_Af_\varphi (\gamma _1)f_\varphi (\gamma _2)e^{c_1(L^n)}=_A\frac{c_1(L^n)^2}{2}=\frac{n^2}{2}c_1(L)^2,$$

where we used that $`f_\varphi `$ is a power series with constant coefficient $`1`$. ∎

In  M. Britze and the author expressed the (holomorphic) Euler characteristic of the line bundle $`L^{[[n]]}`$ in terms of the Euler characteristic of $`L`$ in order to deduce a formula for the Euler characteristic of an arbitrary line bundle $`M`$ on $`A^{[[n]]}`$ as a polynomial in the Beauville-Bogomolov quadratic form of $`c_1(M)`$. By using the analogous expression of the Euler characteristic of the line bundle $`L_n`$ on $`A^{[n]}`$ (see ) we get the mentioned result of  as a corollary of the previous theorem:

###### Corollary 1 ().

The holomorphic Euler characteristic of the line bundle $`L^{[[n]]}`$ on $`A^{[[n]]}`$ is given by

(18)
$$\chi (A^{[[n]]},L^{[[n]]})=n\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\chi (A,L)+n1}{n1}\right).$$

###### Proof.

By lemma 5.1 of  we have

(19)
$$\chi (A^{[n]},L_n)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\chi (A,L)+n1}{n}\right).$$

Using this, the corollary follows from the proposition applied to the case for $`\varphi `$ being the Todd genus (remember example 1). Also note that $`\chi (A,L)=\frac{1}{2}c_1(L)^2`$ by the Hirzebruch-Riemann-Roch formula. ∎

If we are interested in the usual genera of the generalised Kummer varieties, i.e. the genera of the pairs $`(A^{[[n]]},𝒪_{A^{[[n]]}})`$, we can’t use proposition 5 directly since for $`L=𝒪_A`$ it just states $`0=0`$.

However, it is still possible to make use of the proposition. We have to look at all generalised Kummer varieties at the same time. Doing so we get the following main result of this work:

###### Theorem 1.

Let $`\varphi :\mathrm{\Omega }R`$ be a complex genus with values in the $``$-algebra $`R`$. For every smooth projective surface $`X`$ with $`_Xc_1(X)^20`$,

(20)
$$\varphi (K)=\frac{1}{c_1(X)^2}\left(z\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}z}\right)^2\mathrm{ln}\frac{\varphi _1(H_X)\varphi _1(H_X)}{\varphi (H_X)^2}.$$

###### Proof.

Let $`L`$ be any line bundle on $`A`$. We have

(21)
$$\begin{array}{c}c_1(L)^2\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\varphi (A^{[[n]]},L^{[[n]]})z^n=2\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}n^2\varphi (A^{[n]},L_n)z^n=2\left(z\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}z}\right)^2\varphi (H_{A,L})\hfill \\ \hfill =2\left(z\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}z}\right)^2\mathrm{exp}\left(c_1(L)^2A_\varphi +c_1(L)c_1(A)B_\varphi +c_1(A)^2C_\varphi +c_2(A)D_\varphi \right)\\ \hfill =2\left(z\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}z}\right)^2\mathrm{exp}\left(c_1(L)^2A_\varphi \right)=2\left(z\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}z}\right)^2c_1(L)^2A_\varphi +\mathrm{O}\left((c_1(L)^2)^2\right),\end{array}$$

which together with proposition 4 proves the theorem, since there are line bundles on $`A`$ with $`c_1(L)0`$. ∎

###### Remark 3.

Of course, everything still holds true if we replace the abelian surface $`A`$ from which we constructed the generalised Kummer varieties, by an arbitrary complex torus of dimension two.

## Appendix A The Chern numbers of the generalised Kummer varieties of dimension up to 14

We have used 1 to compute all Chern numbers of the generalised Kummer varieties of dimension up to fourteen. Our results are as follows:

| Chern number | Evaluated on $`A^{[[]]}`$ |
| --- | --- |
| $`c_2`$ | $`24`$ |
| $`c_2^2`$ | $`756`$ |
| $`c_4`$ | $`108`$ |
| $`c_2^3`$ | $`30208`$ |
| $`c_2c_4`$ | $`6784`$ |
| $`c_6`$ | $`448`$ |
| $`c_2^4`$ | $`1470000`$ |
| $`c_2^2c_4`$ | $`405000`$ |
| $`c_4^2`$ | $`111750`$ |
| $`c_2c_6`$ | $`37500`$ |
| $`c_8`$ | $`750`$ |
| $`c_2^5`$ | $`84478464`$ |
| $`c_2^3c_4`$ | $`26220672`$ |
| $`c_2c_4^2`$ | $`8141472`$ |
| $`c_2^2c_6`$ | $`3141504`$ |
| $`c_4c_6`$ | $`979776`$ |
| $`c_2c_8`$ | $`142560`$ |
| $`c_{10}`$ | $`2592`$ |
| $`c_2^6`$ | $`5603050432`$ |
| $`c_2^4c_4`$ | $`1881462016`$ |
| $`c_2^2c_4^2`$ | $`631808744`$ |
| $`c_4^3`$ | $`212190776`$ |
| $`c_2^3c_6`$ | $`268796752`$ |
| $`c_2c_4c_6`$ | $`90412056`$ |
| $`c_6^2`$ | $`12976376`$ |
| $`c_2^2c_8`$ | $`17075912`$ |
| $`c_4c_8`$ | $`5762400`$ |
| $`c_2c_{10}`$ | $`441784`$ |
| $`c_{12}`$ | $`2744`$ |

| Chern number | Evaluated on $`A^{[[]]}`$ |
| --- | --- |
| $`c_2^7`$ | $`421414305792`$ |
| $`c_2^5c_4`$ | $`149664301056`$ |
| $`c_2^3c_4^2`$ | $`53149827072`$ |
| $`c_2c_4^3`$ | $`18874417152`$ |
| $`c_2^4c_6`$ | $`24230756352`$ |
| $`c_2^2c_4c_6`$ | $`8610545664`$ |
| $`c_4^2c_6`$ | $`3059945472`$ |
| $`c_2c_6^2`$ | $`1397121024`$ |
| $`c_2^3c_8`$ | $`1914077184`$ |
| $`c_2c_4c_8`$ | $`681332736`$ |
| $`c_6c_8`$ | $`110853120`$ |
| $`c_2^2c_{10}`$ | $`71909376`$ |
| $`c_4c_{10}`$ | $`25700352`$ |
| $`c_2c_{12}`$ | $`1198080`$ |
| $`c_{14}`$ | $`7680`$ |

It is remarkable fact that all Chern numbers of the varieties $`A^{[[n]]}`$ with $`n8`$ are positive and divisible by $`n^3`$. As the known Chern numbers of Hilbert schemes of points on K3 surfaces are also positive one can wonder if, given a compact Hyperkähler manifold $`X`$, all Chern numbers of $`X`$ are positive.