# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

A curious connection between certain integrable quantum field theories and the theory of the Schrödinger equation has been the subject of some recent work . In this paper we extend these results by establishing a link between functional relations for $`A_2`$-related Bethe ansatz systems (see for example ) and third-order differential equations. Most of our analysis concerns a certain specialisation of the model, a particularly symmetric case that can also be related to the dilute A-model of .

In the cases studied in , the most general differential equation was a radial Schrödinger problem with ‘angular momentum’ $`l`$ and homogeneous potential $`x^{2M}`$, initially defined on the positive real axis $`x(0,\mathrm{})`$:

$$\left(\frac{d^2}{dx^2}+x^{2M}+\frac{l(l+1)}{x^2}\right)\psi (x,E)=E\psi (x,E).$$
(1.1)   
The relevant integrable quantum field theories were the massless twisted sine-Gordon models or, equivalently, the twisted XXZ/6-vertex models in their thermodynamic limits, and their reductions. It is worth noting that these models are all related to the Lie algebra $`A_1`$. Spectral functions associated with (1.1) satisfy functional relations , and these were mapped into functional equations appearing in the context of integrable quantum field theory in . We will follow a similar strategy here, taking a simple third-order ordinary differential equation as our starting-point and showing that the Stokes multipliers and certain spectral functions for this equation together satisfy relations which are essentially the analogues, for the Bethe ansatz systems treated in , of the T-Q systems which arise in the context of the integrable quantum field theories related to $`A_1`$ . This is the subject of §2, while in §3 we borrow some other ideas from integrable quantum field theory in order to derive a nonlinear integral equation for the spectral functions, an equation which is put to the test in a simple example in §4. Duality properties are discussed in §5, allowing us to find the equivalent of the angular-momentum term in (1.1) for the third-order equation. Connections with various perturbed conformal field theories are discussed and tested in §6. Finally §7 discusses the most general $`A_2`$-related BA equations that arise in this context, and §8 contains our conclusions.

## 2 The differential equation

We begin with the following third-order ordinary differential equation:

$$y^{\prime \prime \prime }(x,E)+P(x,E)y(x,E)=0,$$
(2.1)   
and initially restrict ourselves to purely homogeneous ‘potentials’ $`x^{3M}`$, giving $`P(x,E)`$ the form

$$P(x,E)=x^{3M}E.$$
(2.2)   
These are the simplest higher-order generalisations of the $`l=0`$ cases of (1.1), and so we expect that some of the properties of that equation, used in the analysis of , will be preserved. In particular, motivated by the results of  for second-order equations, we suppose that (2.1) has a solution $`y=y(x,E)`$ such that:   
(i) $`y`$ is an entire function of $`(x,E)`$ though, due to the branch point in the potential at $`x=0`$, $`x`$ must in general be considered to live on a suitable cover of the punctured complex plane;   
(ii) $`y`$ , $`y^{}=dy/dx`$ and $`y^{\prime \prime }=d^2y/dx^2`$ admit, for $`M>1/2`$, the asymptotic representations

$$yx^Me^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{M+1}}x^{M+1}},y^{}e^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{M+1}}x^{M+1}},y^{\prime \prime }x^Me^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{M+1}}x^{M+1}},$$
(2.3)   
as $`x`$ tends to infinity in the sector

$$|\mathrm{arg}x|<\frac{4\pi }{3M+3}.$$
(2.4)   
Furthermore, these asymptotics, or even just the asymptotic of $`y(x,E)`$ with $`x`$ remaining on the positive real axis, characterise $`y`$ uniquely.

For $`M1/2`$, the story is complicated by the appearance of extra terms in the asymptotic (2.3). The behaviour of the solution which decays as $`x+\mathrm{}`$ can be more generally found from the formula

$$y(x,E)P(x,E)^{1/3}\mathrm{exp}(_{x_0}^xP(t,E)^{1/3}𝑑t),$$
(2.5)   
with the constant $`x_0`$ being related to the normalisation of the solution. (This is the analogue of an approximate WKB solution of a Schrödinger equation.) Since to take $`M1/2`$ would bring other technical problems into the treatment to be given below, from now on, unless otherwise stated, we shall restrict ourselves to $`M>1/2`$. This range is the analogue of the ‘semiclassical domain’ of  (see  for a discussion in the context of differential equations).

Given $`y(x,E)`$, bases of solutions to the third-order equation can be constructed just as in the second-order case. For general values of $`k`$, define

$$y_k(x,E)=\omega ^ky(\omega ^kx,\omega ^{3Mk}E),$$
(2.6)   
with

$$\omega =\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2\pi i}{3M+3}\right).$$
(2.7)   
Then $`y_k`$ solves

$$y_k^{\prime \prime \prime }(x,E)+e^{2k\pi i}P(x,E)y_k(x,E)=0,$$
(2.8)   
and so when $`k`$ is an integer it provides a (possibly new) solution to the original problem (2.1). However, since we will shortly need to consider fractional values, we will leave $`k`$ arbitrary for now. It is convenient to define sectors $`𝒮_k`$ as

$$𝒮_k:\left|\mathrm{arg}x\frac{2k\pi }{3M+3}\right|<\frac{\pi }{3M+3}.$$
(2.9)   
On the cover of the punctured complex plane on which $`x`$ is defined, the sector $`𝒮_k`$ abuts the sectors $`𝒮_{k1}`$ and $`𝒮_{k+1}`$, and the sector (2.4) is $`𝒮_{3/2}𝒮_{1/2}𝒮_{1/2}𝒮_{3/2}`$. The pattern of dominance and subdominance of solutions is more involved than in the second-order case, since there are now three different behaviours for solutions at large $`|x|`$. In addition to a solution with leading behaviour $`x^M\mathrm{exp}(x^{M+1}/(M+1))`$ as $`|x|+\mathrm{}`$, there are also solutions which behave as $`x^M\mathrm{exp}(e^{\pm \pi i/3}x^{M+1}/(M+1))`$. (This is simply a consequence of the fact that the three third roots of $`1`$ are $`1`$, $`e^{\pi i/3}`$ and $`e^{\pi i/3}`$.) Depending on the sector, either one or two of these solutions tend to zero at large $`|x|`$. We call ‘subdominant’ the solution which tends to zero fastest in a given sector; then, up to a scalar multiple, $`y_k`$ is characterised as the unique solution to (2.8) subdominant inside $`𝒮_k`$.

The asymptotic (2.3) and the definition (2.6) together imply

$`y_k\omega ^{(M+1)k}x^Me^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{M+1}}\omega ^{(M+1)k}x^{M+1}},`$ $`y_k^{}e^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{M+1}}\omega ^{(M+1)k}x^{M+1}},`$   
$`y_k^{\prime \prime }\omega ^{(M+1)k}x^Me^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{M+1}}\omega ^{(M+1)k}x^{M+1}},`$ (2.10)   
for $`|x|\mathrm{}`$ with

$$x𝒮_{k3/2}𝒮_{k1/2}𝒮_{k+1/2}𝒮_{k+3/2}.$$
(2.11)   
Comparing $`y_k`$, $`y_{k+1}`$ and $`y_{k+2}`$ in the region $`𝒮_{k+1/2}𝒮_{k+3/2}`$, where the asymptotics of all three are given by (2.10), establishes their linear independence. The set $`\{y_k,y_{k+1},y_{k+2}\}`$ therefore forms a basis of solutions to (2.8) (and, for $`k`$ integer, to (2.1) ). Alternatively, we can examine

$$W_{k_1,k_2,k_3}=W[y_{k_1},y_{k_2},y_{k_3}],$$
(2.12)   
where the generalised Wronskian $`W[f,g,h]`$ is defined to be

$$\text{Det}\left[\begin{array}{ccc}f& f^{}& f^{\prime \prime }\\ g& g^{}& g^{\prime \prime }\\ h& h^{}& h^{\prime \prime }\end{array}\right].$$
(2.13)   
It is a standard result (see, for example,  ) that, for $`f`$, $`g`$ and $`h`$ solving (2.1), $`W[f,g,h]`$ is independent of $`x`$, and that $`f`$, $`g`$ and $`h`$ are linearly independent if and only if $`W[f,g,h]`$ is nonzero. For $`(k_1,k_2,k_3)=(1,0,1)`$, the asymptotic (2.10), used in $`𝒮_{1/2}𝒮_{1/2}`$, shows that

$$W_{1,0,1}=8i\mathrm{sin}(\frac{M}{3M+3}\pi )\mathrm{sin}(\frac{2M}{3M+3}\pi ).$$
(2.14)   
It is also the case that

$$W_{k_1+a,k_2+a,k_3+a}(E)=W_{k_1,k_2,k_3}(\omega ^{3Ma}E),$$
(2.15)   
so $`W_{k,k+1,k+2}`$ is nonzero for all $`k`$, thus confirming the independence of $`\{y_k,y_{k+1},y_{k+2}\}`$.

We now aim to generalise the analysis of  to this situation, guided in part by the treatment of $`A_2`$-related BA systems provided by . Since $`y_1,y_2,y_3`$ form a basis, we can write

$$y_0S^{(1)}(E)y_1+S^{(2)}(E)y_2y_3=0$$
(2.16)   
with

$$S^{(1)}(E)=\frac{W_{0,2,3}}{W_{1,2,3}},S^{(2)}(E)=\frac{W_{1,0,3}}{W_{1,2,3}}.$$
(2.17)   
The coefficient of $`y_3`$ in (2.16) is $`1`$ by (2.15); $`S^{(1)}`$ and $`S^{(2)}`$ are Stokes multipliers for (2.1), and are analytic functions of $`E`$. Notice the formal similarity between this equation and eq. (15) of .

Now suppose that $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$ differ by an integer. Then $`y_{k_1}`$ and $`y_{k_2}`$ both solve (2.8) (with $`e^{2k\pi i}=e^{2k_1\pi i}=e^{2k_2\pi i}`$), and it can be checked by direct substitution that the function

$$z_{k_1k_2}(x,E)=y_{k_1}y_{k_2}^{}y_{k_1}^{}y_{k_2}$$
(2.18)   
solves

$$z_{k_1k_2}^{\prime \prime \prime }(x,E)e^{2k\pi i}P(x,E)z_{k_1k_2}(x,E)=0.$$
(2.19)   
This is just the equation adjoint to (2.8); the observation that the Wronskian of two solutions of a third-order ordinary differential equation satisfies the adjoint equation dates back at least to Birkhoff  . Observe also that if $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$ are shifted by a half-integer, then a solution of the original equation (2.8) results:

$$z_{k_1+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}k_2+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}}^{\prime \prime \prime }(x,E)+e^{2k\pi i}P(x,E)z_{k_1+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}k_2+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}}(x,E)=0.$$
(2.20)   
For $`|k_1k_2|<3`$, the regions (2.11) for $`k=k_1`$ and $`k=k_2`$ have a nonempty overlap, and an asymptotic for $`z_{k_1k_2}`$ is easily obtained from (2.10). In particular, for $`k=1,2,3`$ we have

$$z_{k/2,k/2}(x,E)2i\mathrm{sin}(\pi k/3)x^Me^{2\mathrm{cos}(\pi k/3){\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{M+1}}x^{M+1}},x+\mathrm{}.$$
(2.21)   
For $`k=1`$, $`z_{1/2,1/2}`$ solves (2.1), and now from (2.21) we see that it shares (up to a proportionality factor) the asymptotic (2.3). By uniqueness, we deduce

$$z_{1/2,1/2}(x,E)=i\sqrt{3}y(x,E).$$
(2.22)   
Unfortunately, this argument is not so effective for the other cases. At $`k=2`$, the formula (2.21) shows only that $`z_{1,1}`$ is not subdominant on the real axis, and this information is not enough to pin the function down. For $`k=3`$, $`\mathrm{sin}(\pi k/3)=0`$ and all that can be deduced is that the leading asymptotic of $`z_{3/2,3/2}`$ is subleading to the term over which we have control.

The next step is to manipulate (2.16) in order to eliminate either $`S^{(1)}`$ or $`S^{(2)}`$. We have

$`y_1^{}y_0S^{(1)}(E)y_1^{}y_1+S^{(2)}(E)y_1^{}y_2y_1^{}y_3`$ $`=`$ $`0;`$ (2.23)   
$`y_1y_0^{}S^{(1)}(E)y_1y_1^{}+S^{(2)}(E)y_1y_2^{}y_1y_3^{}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (2.24)   
and, subtracting,

$$S^{(2)}(E)z_{12}=z_{01}+z_{13}.$$
(2.25)   
For the reasons just explained, functions $`z_{k_1k_2}`$ with $`|k_1k_2|=1`$ are the most easily handled, so we use the identity $`y_2z_{13}=y_1z_{23}+z_{12}y_3`$ to rewrite (2.25) as

$$S^{(2)}(E)y_2z_{12}=y_2z_{01}+z_{12}y_3+z_{23}y_1.$$
(2.26)   
Likewise,

$$S^{(1)}(E)y_1z_{12}=z_{12}y_0+y_1z_{23}+z_{01}y_2.$$
(2.27)   
Now the result (2.22) can be combined with shifts in $`E`$ to $`\omega ^{15M/4}E`$ and $`\omega ^{21M/4}E`$ respectively to rewrite both (2.26) and (2.27) as

$$T(E)y_{1/4}y_{1/4}=y_{1/4}y_{5/4}+y_{3/4}y_{3/4}+y_{5/4}y_{1/4},$$
(2.28)   
where

$$T(E)=S^{(1)}(\omega ^{15M/4}E)=S^{(2)}(\omega ^{21M/4}E).$$
(2.29)   
As a byproduct, this has established that the two Stokes multipliers $`S^{(1)}`$ and $`S^{(2)}`$ are related by an analytic continuation in $`E`$.

Finally, taking (2.28) at $`x=0`$ yields a functional relation involving $`E`$ alone. To absorb various phases, it is convenient to set

$$Q^+(E)=E^{\frac{1}{3M}}y(0,E),Q_k^+(E)=Q^+(\omega ^{3Mk}E).$$
(2.30)   
Then the relation is

$$TQ_{1/4}^+Q_{1/4}^+=Q_{1/4}^+Q_{5/4}^++Q_{3/4}^+Q_{3/4}^++Q_{5/4}^+Q_{1/4}^+.$$
(2.31)   
This is very similar to the equations related to the dilute $`A`$ model studied in . An equation involving $`y^{\prime \prime }(0,E)`$ can also be derived. First, differentiate (2.25) twice with respect to $`x`$:

$$S^{(2)}(E)z_{12}^{\prime \prime }=z_{01}^{\prime \prime }+z_{13}^{\prime \prime }.$$
(2.32)   
Using the fact that $`y_1`$, $`y_2`$ and $`y_3`$ all solve (2.1), we have $`y_2^{\prime \prime }z_{13}^{\prime \prime }=y_1^{\prime \prime }z_{23}^{\prime \prime }+z_{12}^{\prime \prime }y_3^{\prime \prime }`$, and so the previous steps can be repeated to find

$$T(E)y_{1/4}^{\prime \prime }y_{1/4}^{\prime \prime }=y_{1/4}^{\prime \prime }y_{5/4}^{\prime \prime }+y_{3/4}^{\prime \prime }y_{3/4}^{\prime \prime }+y_{5/4}^{\prime \prime }y_{1/4}^{\prime \prime }.$$
(2.33)   
Again set $`x=0`$, and define

$$Q^{}(E)=\frac{1}{2}E^{\frac{1}{3M}}y^{\prime \prime }(0,E),Q_k^{}(E)=Q^{}(\omega ^{3Mk}E)$$
(2.34)   
(the factor $`\frac{1}{2}`$ is included for later convenience). Then

$$TQ_{1/4}^{}Q_{1/4}^{}=Q_{1/4}^{}Q_{5/4}^{}+Q_{3/4}^{}Q_{3/4}^{}+Q_{5/4}^{}Q_{1/4}^{}.$$
(2.35)   
There is no simple relation involving $`y^{}(0,E)`$ alone, but from (2.18) and (2.22) one can deduce

$$i\sqrt{3}y^{}=y_{1/2}y_{1/2}^{\prime \prime }y_{1/2}^{\prime \prime }y_{1/2},$$
(2.36)   
which allows $`y^{}(0,E)`$ to be recovered once $`y(0,E)`$ and $`y^{\prime \prime }(0,E)`$ are known.

## 3 The non-linear integral equation

The functions $`Q^\pm (E)`$ are not single-valued, and to derive an integral equation it is more convenient to work with the functions $`y(0,E)`$ and $`y^{\prime \prime }(0,E)`$ directly. Set

$$D^+(E)=y(0,E),D^{}(E)=\frac{1}{2}y^{\prime \prime }(0,E)$$
(3.1)   
(so that $`D^\pm (E)=E^{\pm \frac{1}{3M}}Q^\pm (E)`$ and $`Q_k^\pm (E)=\omega ^{\pm k}E^{\frac{1}{3M}}D^\pm (\omega ^{3Mk}E)`$ ). These are entire functions of $`E`$ and can be interpreted as spectral determinants for the third-order equation (2.1), since their zeroes coincide with the values of $`E`$ for which the solution $`y`$, decaying at $`x+\mathrm{}`$ for all values of $`E`$, in addition either vanishes at $`x=0`$ (for the zeroes of $`D^+`$), or has a vanishing second derivative at $`x=0`$ (for the zeroes of $`D^{}`$). (See, for example, ref.  for a more detailed discussion of this point in the context of second-order equations.) For $`M>1/2`$, the functions $`D^\pm (E)`$ have large-$`|E|`$ asymptotics

$$\mathrm{ln}D^\pm (E)a_0(E)^\mu |E|\mathrm{},|\text{arg}(E)|<\pi $$
(3.2)   
where $`\mu =(M+1)/3M`$, $`a_0=\kappa (3M,3)`$, and

$$\kappa (a,b)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x\left((x^a+1)^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{b}}}x^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{a}{b}}}\right)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\frac{1}{a})\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\frac{1}{b})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\frac{1}{a}+\frac{1}{b})}\frac{\mathrm{sin}\frac{\pi }{b}}{\mathrm{sin}(\frac{\pi }{b}+\frac{\pi }{a})}.$$
(3.3)   
The growth of $`\mathrm{ln}D^\pm (E)`$ is no larger on the positive real $`E`$-axis than elsewhere, so the orders of $`D^+`$ and $`D^{}`$ as functions of $`E`$ are both equal to $`\mu `$, and are less than $`1`$ for $`M>1/2`$. Invoking the Hadamard factorisation theorem, we can write

$$D^\pm (E)=D^\pm (0)\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(1\frac{E}{E_k^\pm }\right).$$
(3.4)   
The precise values of the constants $`D^\pm (0)`$ are irrelevant for the treatment below, but some knowledge of the positions of the zeroes $`\{E_k^\pm \}`$ will be crucial. We conjecture that, for all $`M>0`$, all of the zeroes of $`D^\pm (E)`$ lie on the positive real $`E`$-axis. Some numerical evidence in favour of this claim will be presented below.

The generalised T-Q relations (2.31), (2.35) taken at either $`E\{\omega ^{3M/4}E_n^\pm \}`$ or $`E\{\omega ^{3M/4}E_n^\pm \}`$ imply

$$\frac{D^\pm (\omega ^{3M}E_n^\pm )}{D^\pm (\omega ^{3M/2}E_n^\pm )}=\omega ^1\frac{D^\pm (\omega ^{3M}E_n^\pm )}{D^\pm (\omega ^{3M/2}E_n^\pm )},$$
(3.5)   
an equation that can be written in a Bethe-ansatz form as

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{E_k^\pm \omega ^{3M}E_n^\pm }{E_k^\pm \omega ^{3M}E_n^\pm }=\omega ^1\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{E_k^\pm \omega ^{3M/2}E_n^\pm }{E_k^\pm \omega ^{3M/2}E_n^\pm }.$$
(3.6)   
This equation is at least not inconsistent with the conjectured reality of the $`E_n`$’s, since both sides then reduce to pure phases. There are certainly other, complex, solutions to (3.6), so the reality property should be seen as a way of selecting the particular solution relevant to our differential equation, analogous to the selection of the ground state in an integrable model.

A non-linear integral equation, similar to those described in , can now be obtained for the quantity

$$d^\pm (E)=\omega ^{\pm 1}\frac{D^\pm (\omega ^{3M}E)}{D^\pm (\omega ^{3M}E)}\frac{D^\pm (\omega ^{3M/2}E)}{D^\pm (\omega ^{3M/2}E)}.$$
(3.7)   
We shall follow a path that completely parallels the treatment given in . By (3.5), $`d^\pm (E)=1`$ at the points $`\{E_k^\pm \}`$. (The value $`1`$ might also occur at other points; we supplement our previous conjecture with the assumption that none of these points lie on the positive real axis.) The product representation (3.4) implies

$$\mathrm{ln}d^\pm (E)=\pm i\pi \frac{2}{3M+3}+\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}F(E/E_n)$$
(3.8)   
where

$$F(E)=\mathrm{ln}\frac{(1E\omega ^{3M})}{(1E\omega ^{3M})}\frac{(1E\omega ^{3M/2})}{(1E\omega ^{3M/2})}.$$
(3.9)   
The sum over the $`E_n`$ in (3.8) can be written as a contour integral

$$\mathrm{ln}d^\pm (E)=\pm i\pi \frac{2}{3M+3}+_C\frac{dE^{}}{2i\pi }F(E/E^{})_E^{}\mathrm{ln}(1+d^\pm (E^{}))$$
(3.10)   
with the contour $`C`$ running from $`+\mathrm{}`$ to $`0`$ above the real axis, winding around $`0`$ and returning to $`+\mathrm{}`$ below the real axis. (It is at this point that the conjectures about the locations of the $`E_n`$’s and of the other zeroes of $`d^\pm (E)+1`$ are used.) If the new variable $`\theta =\mu \mathrm{ln}E`$ is introduced, the function $`F`$ becomes

$$F(e^{3M\theta /(M+1)})=\mathrm{ln}\left(\omega ^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{3M}{2}}}\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{3}{2}\frac{1}{1+\xi }\theta +i\pi \frac{\xi }{1+\xi })}{\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{3}{2}\frac{1}{1+\xi }\theta i\pi \frac{\xi }{1+\xi })}\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{3}{2}\frac{1}{1+\xi }\theta +i\frac{\pi }{2}\frac{1}{1+\xi })}{\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{3}{2}\frac{1}{1+\xi }\theta i\frac{\pi }{2}\frac{1}{1+\xi })}\right),$$
(3.11)   
with $`\xi =1/M`$. Now define

$$f^\pm (\theta )=\mathrm{ln}d^\pm (e^{3M\theta /(M+1)}),$$
(3.12)   
use the property $`d^\pm (E)^{}=d^\pm (E^{})^1`$ and integrate by parts to recast (3.10) as

$`\mathrm{ln}f^\pm (\theta ){\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\theta ^{}R(\theta \theta ^{})\mathrm{ln}f^\pm (\theta ^{}i0)=\pm i\pi {\displaystyle \frac{2}{3M+3}}`$   
$`2i{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\theta ^{}R(\theta \theta ^{})\mathrm{}m\mathrm{ln}(1+f^\pm (\theta ^{}i0))`$ (3.13)   
with

$$R(\theta )=\frac{i}{2\pi }_\theta F(e^{3M\theta /(M+1)}).$$
(3.14)   
The term $`(1R)\mathrm{ln}f^\pm (\theta )`$ on the LHS of (3.13) is easily inverted using Fourier transforms. Using

$$i_\theta \mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(h\theta +i\pi \tau )}{\mathrm{sinh}(h\theta i\pi \tau )}=\frac{2h\mathrm{sin}(2\tau \pi )}{\mathrm{cosh}(2h\theta )\mathrm{cos}(2\tau \pi )}$$
(3.15)   
$$\frac{d\theta }{2\pi }e^{ik\theta }\frac{2h\mathrm{sin}(2\tau \pi )}{\mathrm{cosh}(2h\theta )\mathrm{cos}(2\tau \pi )}=\frac{\mathrm{sinh}((12\tau )\frac{\pi k}{2h})}{\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{\pi }{2}\frac{k}{h})},$$
(3.16)   
we have

$`\stackrel{~}{R}(k)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{\pi }{3}(1\xi )k)}{\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{\pi }{3}(1+\xi )k)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{\pi }{3}\xi k)}{\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{\pi }{3}(1+\xi )k)}}={\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{\pi k}{6})\mathrm{cosh}(\frac{\pi }{6}(12\xi )k)}{\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{\pi }{3}(1+\xi )k)}},`$   
$`1\stackrel{~}{R}(k)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{\pi }{3}\xi k)\mathrm{cosh}(\frac{\pi }{2}k)}{\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{\pi }{3}(1+\xi )k)\mathrm{cosh}(\frac{\pi }{6}k)}}.`$ (3.17)   
Transforming back to $`\theta `$ space and rewriting the imaginary part in terms of values above and below the real axis, the functions $`f^\pm (\theta )`$ solve

$`f^\pm (\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`\pm i\pi \alpha ib_0e^\theta +{\displaystyle _{𝒞_1}}\phi (\theta \theta ^{})\mathrm{ln}(1+e^{f^\pm (\theta ^{})})𝑑\theta ^{}`$ (3.18)   
$`{\displaystyle _{𝒞_2}}\phi (\theta \theta ^{})\mathrm{ln}(1+e^{f^\pm (\theta ^{})})𝑑\theta ^{}`$   
where $`\alpha =2/3`$, the contours $`𝒞_1`$ and $`𝒞_2`$ run from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`+\mathrm{}`$, just below and just above the real $`\theta `$-axis,

$$\phi (\theta )=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{e^{ik\theta }\mathrm{sinh}(k\frac{\pi }{3})\mathrm{cosh}(\frac{\pi }{6}k(12\xi ))}{\mathrm{cosh}(\frac{\pi }{2}k)\mathrm{sinh}(k\frac{\pi }{3}\xi )}\frac{dk}{2\pi },\xi =\frac{1}{M},$$
(3.19)   
and the constant $`b_0=2\mathrm{sin}(\pi \frac{M+1}{3M})a_0`$ has been fixed using the asymptotic behaviour (3.2). (The corresponding zero mode can be traced to the zero in $`1\stackrel{~}{R}`$ at $`k=i`$.) The parameter $`\alpha `$ in (3.18) is analogous to the chemical potential (or twist) term in the equations of .

A first consistency check is immediate: in the large $`\theta `$ limit of (3.18) the driving term $`b_0e^\theta `$ dominates, and so in this limit the functions $`\mathrm{exp}(f^\pm (\theta ))`$ are $`1`$ at the points $`\theta =\theta _n^\pm `$, or

$$E=E_n^\pm =e^{\theta _n/\mu }=((2n1\pm \frac{2}{3})\pi /b_0)^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{\mu }}},(n=1,2,\mathrm{}).$$
(3.20)   
The same limit can be treated directly using a WKB-like approach to the differential equation (2.1). Start from (2.5) with $`x>x_0`$ and fix $`x_0`$ to be at the inversion point $`P(x_0,E)=0`$ ($`x_0=E^{1/3M}`$). Now, using analytic continuation (see for example §47 in ), the dominant part in the region $`x<x_0`$ is

$$y(x,E)|P(x,E)|^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{3}}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}_x^{x_0}|P(x,E)|^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{3}}}𝑑x\right)\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}_x^{x_0}|P(x,E)|^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{3}}}𝑑x\frac{\pi }{3}\right)$$
(3.21)   
Thus to have $`y(0,E)=0`$, requires

$$\sqrt{3}_0^{x_0}(x^{3M}E_n^+)^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{3}}}=b_0(E_n^+)^\mu =(2n\frac{1}{3})\pi ,n=1,2,\mathrm{},$$
(3.22)   
where the formula

$$_0^1(1x^a)^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{b}}}=\frac{\mathrm{sin}(\frac{\pi }{b}+\frac{\pi }{a})}{\mathrm{sin}\frac{\pi }{b}}\kappa (a,b),$$
(3.23)   
was used. The prediction (3.22) agrees perfectly with (3.20). In figure 1 the positions of the lowest zeroes of $`D^+(E)`$ are plotted in the range $`0.1<3M<7`$, and compared with the WKB-like prediction. Evidence for the reality of the $`E_n`$ at $`3M=1`$ will be given in the next section; in the meantime, we note that the levels continue smoothly away from that point, and the eigenvalues appear to remain real in the range studied. (The figure can be compared with figures 1 and 2 of , which illustrate cases where the spectrum does not remain real in the full range displayed.)

The kernel $`\phi (\theta )`$ given in (3.19) coincides with $`i/2\pi `$ times the logarithmic derivative of the scalar factor in the Izergin-Korepin S-matrix for the $`a_2^{(2)}`$ model  (cf. eq. (3.21) of , though note that the normalisation of $`\xi `$ used by Smirnov in  differs from ours: $`\xi ^{[\mathrm{Smirnov}]}=\frac{2\pi }{3}\xi ^{[\mathrm{this}\mathrm{paper}]}`$.) This is an element of the advertised link between the differential equation (2.1) and the $`a_2^{(2)}`$ model, the parameters being related as $`M=1/\xi `$ (with $`\xi `$ related to the $`a_2^{(2)}`$ coupling $`\gamma `$ as $`\xi =\gamma /(2\pi \gamma )`$  ). When $`3M`$ is an integer the potential is analytic, and the associated scattering theory is diagonal; the same phenomenon was observed in the Schrödinger/sine-Gordon case in . The similarity between the relations (2.31), (2.35) and (3.6) and those arising in the dilute $`A`$ model  has already been mentioned. Since the $`a_2^{(2)}`$ model is conjectured to be the continuum limit of the dilute $`A`$ model (see for example ), the fact that elements of it emerge here is not a complete surprise. Nevertheless, it is an encouraging signal that we are on the right track. We will return to this point in §6.

## 4 The linear potential

A simple but non-trivial example occurs when $`M=1/3`$, and is the analogue of the ‘Airy case’ of the second-order problem, discussed in . This lies outside the $`M>1/2`$ zone treated so far, so we have to assume that the results obtained above continue to hold as the region of their initial derivation is left. The basic differential equation is

$$y^{\prime \prime \prime }(x,E)+xy(x,E)=Ey(x,E).$$
(4.1)   
Setting $`y(x,E)=𝒜(xE)`$, this becomes

$$𝒜^{\prime \prime \prime }(x)+x𝒜(x)=0.$$
(4.2)   
This equation is solvable via a complex-Fourier transform:

$$𝒜(x)=\sqrt{\frac{3}{2\pi }}_\mathrm{\Gamma }e^{ipx+\frac{1}{4}p^4}𝑑p,$$
(4.3)   
where the integration path $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is represented in figure 2. (A curious feature of this case is that the function $`T(E)`$ is a constant, equal to $`1`$.)

Even though the problem is not self-adjoint, numerical evidence suggests that all the zeroes of $`𝒜(x)`$, $`𝒜^{}(x)`$ and $`𝒜^{\prime \prime }(x)`$ lie on the negative real axis (see figure 3), and so the zeroes of $`y(0,E)𝒜(E)`$, and of $`y^{}(0,E)`$ and $`y^{\prime \prime }(0,E)`$, are positive and real. In the first columns of tables 1 and 2, the positions of the first ten zeroes of $`𝒜(x)`$ and $`𝒜^{\prime \prime }(x)`$ are displayed.

The approximate positions of the zeroes of $`𝒜(x)`$ can be found from the WKB formula of the last section. As a check, we rederive them here via a saddle-point treatment of (4.3). The exponent of the integrand for $`x=|x|<0`$ has stationary points at

$$p_0=i|x|^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{3}}},p_\pm =ie^{\pm i2\pi /3}|x|^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{3}}}.$$
(4.4)   
Deforming the contour $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ so that it touches the points $`p_\pm `$, we get

$$𝒜(|x|)𝒩(e^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{3}{4}}|x|^{4/3}e^{i\pi /3}+i{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\pi }{3}}}+e^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{3}{4}}|x|^{4/3}e^{i\pi /3}i{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\pi }{3}}}),$$
(4.5)   
where the phases $`\pm \pi /3`$ are the contributions from the choice of the steepest descent directions, transforming the quadratic terms in the expansion near the saddle points into a pure Gaussian integral

$$𝒩=\sqrt{\frac{3}{2\pi }}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}e^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{3}{2}}|x|^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{2}{3}}}t^2}𝑑t=|x|^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{3}}}.$$
(4.6)   
Thus for large negative $`x`$ we have

$$𝒜(|x|)2|x|^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{3}}}e^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{3}{8}}|x|^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{4}{3}}}}\mathrm{cos}(\frac{3}{8}\sqrt{3}|x|^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{4}{3}}}\frac{\pi }{3}).$$
(4.7)   
For $`x>0`$, the dominant saddle point is instead at $`p_0=i|x|^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{3}}}`$, and

$$𝒜(x)|x|^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{3}}}e^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{3}{4}}|x|^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{4}{3}}}}.$$
(4.8)   
(This agrees with the general asymptotic (2.5), since $`y(x,E)=𝒜(xE)`$.) The dominant behaviours of $`𝒜^{}(x)`$ and $`𝒜^{\prime \prime }(x)`$ for $`x`$ real and $`|x|`$ large are

$`𝒜^{}(|x|)2e^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{3}{8}}|x|^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{4}{3}}}}\mathrm{cos}(\frac{3}{8}\sqrt{3}|x|^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{4}{3}}})`$ , $`𝒜^{}(|x|)e^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{3}{4}}|x|^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{4}{3}}}},`$ (4.9)   
$`𝒜^{\prime \prime }(|x|)2|x|^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{3}}}e^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{3}{8}}|x|^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{4}{3}}}}\mathrm{cos}(\frac{3}{8}\sqrt{3}|x|^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{4}{3}}}+\frac{\pi }{3})`$ , $`𝒜^{\prime \prime }(|x|)|x|^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{3}}}e^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{3}{4}}|x|^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{4}{3}}}}.`$ (4.10)   
Continuing to differentiate, the general result for the approximate positions of the zeroes of the $`m^{\mathrm{th}}`$ derivative $`𝒜^{(m)}(x)`$ is

$$𝒜^{(m)}(x)=0:x=\left(\frac{4}{3\sqrt{3}}(2n\frac{2m+1}{3})\pi \right)^{3/4}(n=1,2,\mathrm{}).$$
(4.11)   
At $`m=0`$ (4.11) reduces to the $`M=1/3`$ WKB prediction (3.22). In tables 1 and 2 the results from formula (4.11) are compared with the ‘exact’ result from a numerical treatment of (4.3), and also against the results of the numerical solution of the nonlinear integral equation (3.18). Clearly the agreement is very good.

## 5 Duality and a more general chemical potential

In this section we shall investigate the effect of a duality transformation on (2.1), analogous to that studied in  for the Schrödinger equation (1.1). In the Schrödinger case duality maps wavefunctions for confining potentials ($`M>0`$) to wavefunctions for singular potentials ($`1<M<0`$), in such a way that the theories with $`M`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{M}=M/(M+1)`$ are dual, their respective spectral problems being essentially equivalent. It also changes the coefficient of the ‘angular momentum’ term $`l(l+1)/x^2`$ in (1.1) in a non-trivial way; the same phenomenon here will allow us to guess the corresponding term for the third-order problem (2.1).

To implement the duality transformation, we begin with a Langer  -type variable transformation

$$y(x)=e^zu(z),z=\mathrm{ln}x,$$
(5.1)   
after which (2.1) becomes

$$u^{\prime \prime \prime }(z)u^{}(z)+(e^{(3M+3)z}Ee^{3z})u(z)=0.$$
(5.2)   
The duality $`M\stackrel{~}{M}`$ is now effected by interchanging the rôles of the two exponentials. Substituting $`z\frac{z}{M+1}+\mathrm{ln}\frac{M+1}{E^{1/3}}`$ yields

$$u^{\prime \prime \prime }(z)\frac{1}{(M+1)^2}u^{}(z)+(e^{3z/(M+1)}\stackrel{~}{E}e^{3z})u(z)=0,$$
(5.3)   
where $`\stackrel{~}{E}=(M+1)^{3M}/E^{M+1}`$.

Now transforming back results in the equation

$$\stackrel{~}{y}^{\prime \prime \prime }+\frac{M(M+2)}{(M+1)^2}(\frac{1}{x^2}\frac{d}{dx}\frac{1}{x^3})\stackrel{~}{y}+(x^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{3M}{M+1}}}\stackrel{~}{E})\stackrel{~}{y}=0.$$
(5.4)   
As promised, the confining ‘potential’ $`x^{3M}`$ has been exchanged for a singular potential $`x^{3M/(M+1)}`$, and a new term, proportional to $`(x^2d/dxx^3)y`$, has been generated. This motivates us to enlarge the set of differential equations under consideration to

$$y^{\prime \prime \prime }G(\frac{1}{x^2}\frac{d}{dx}\frac{1}{x^3})y+(x^{3M}E)y=0$$
(5.5)   
with $`G`$ a new parameter, analogous to $`l(l+1)`$ for the Schrödinger equation. Duality maps (5.5) to

$$\stackrel{~}{y}^{\prime \prime \prime }\stackrel{~}{G}(\frac{1}{x^2}\frac{d}{dx}\frac{1}{x^3})\stackrel{~}{y}+(x^{3\stackrel{~}{M}}\stackrel{~}{E})\stackrel{~}{y}=0,$$
(5.6)   
where

$$\stackrel{~}{y}(x,\stackrel{~}{E},\stackrel{~}{G})=(M+1)^1E^{1/3}x^{\frac{M}{(M+1)}}y((M+1)E^{1/3}x^{1/(M+1)},E,G)$$
(5.7)   
and

$$\stackrel{~}{M}=\frac{M}{M+1},\stackrel{~}{E}=\frac{(M+1)^{3M}}{E^{M+1}},\stackrel{~}{G}=\frac{GM(M+2)}{(M+1)^2}.$$
(5.8)   
Duality therefore maps the 3-parameter family ($`\{M,E,G\}`$) of differential equations (5.5) onto itself. The analysis of §2 can now be repeated for these generalised problems. It is convenient to write $`G=g(g+2)`$ and to work mostly with $`g`$ instead of $`G`$. We first enlarge the scope of (2.6) by setting

$$y_k(x,E,g)=\omega ^ky(\omega ^kx,\omega ^{3Mk}E,g);$$
(5.9)   
then $`y_k`$ solves

$$y_k^{\prime \prime \prime }G(\frac{1}{x^2}\frac{d}{dx}\frac{1}{x^3})y_k+e^{2k\pi i}P(x,E)y_k=0.$$
(5.10)   
Next we define $`z_{k_1k_2}`$ as in (2.18). If $`e^{2k_1\pi i}=e^{2k_2\pi i}e^{2k\pi i}`$, then

$$z_{k_1k_2}^{\prime \prime \prime }G(\frac{1}{x^2}\frac{d}{dx}\frac{1}{x^3})z_{k_1k_2}e^{2k\pi i}P(x,E)z_{k_1k_2}=0,$$
(5.11)   
which is the equation adjoint to (5.10)<sup>*</sup><sup>*</sup>*Notice that the operator $`x^2d/dxx^3`$ is by itself anti-self-adjoint; this gives some insight as to why it is a sensible generalisation of the $`x^2`$ term in the Schrödinger equation.. We can recover the original problem by shifting $`k`$ by a half-integer, and arguing just as before we find that

$$z_{1/2,1/2}(x,E,g)=i\sqrt{3}y(x,E,g)$$
(5.12)   
and then

$$T(E,g)y_{1/4}y_{1/4}=y_{1/4}y_{5/4}+y_{3/4}y_{3/4}+y_{5/4}y_{1/4},$$
(5.13)   
where $`T(E,g)=S^{(1)}(\omega ^{15M/4}E,g)=S^{(2)}(\omega ^{21M/4}E,g)`$, and $`S^{(1)}`$ and $`S^{(2)}`$ are defined as in (2.16). A non-zero value of $`G=g(g+2)`$ causes (5.10) to be singular at the origin, so simply considering (5.13) at $`x=0`$ is not an option. Instead, we expand $`y(x,E,g)`$ as

$$y(x,E,g)=D^+(E,g)\chi _++D^0(E,g)\chi _0+D^{}(E,g)\chi _{},$$
(5.14)   
where $`\{\chi _+,\chi _0,\chi _{}\}`$ forms a basis of solutions defined via behaviour near the origin:

$$\chi _i(x,E,g)x^{\lambda _i}+O(x^{\lambda _i+3}),i=+,0,,$$
(5.15)   
with the $`\lambda _i`$’s the roots of the indicial equation $`(\lambda 1)(\lambda (\lambda 2)g(g+2))=0`$:

$$\lambda _+=g,\lambda _0=1,\lambda _{}=g+2.$$
(5.16)   
Explicitly, the functions $`D^+`$, $`D^0`$ and $`D^{}`$ are

$$D^+=\frac{W[y,\chi _0,\chi _{}]}{W[\chi _+,\chi _0,\chi _{}]},D^0=\frac{W[y,\chi _{},\chi _+]}{W[\chi _+,\chi _0,\chi _{}]},D^{}=\frac{W[y,\chi _+,\chi _0]}{W[\chi _+,\chi _0,\chi _{}]},$$
(5.17)   
with $`W[\chi _+,\chi _0,\chi _{}]=2(g+1)^3`$. At $`g=0`$ they reduce to $`y(0,E)`$, $`y^{}(0,E)`$ and $`y^{\prime \prime }(0,E)/2`$ respectively, in agreement with the notation of earlier sections.

Defining

$$Q^\pm (E,g)=E^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{g+1}{3M}}}D^\pm (E,g),Q_k^\pm =Q^\pm (\omega ^{3Mk}E,g),$$
(5.18)   
the generalised T-Q relations (2.31), (2.35) have exactly the same form as before, and (3.6) becomes

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{E_k^\pm \omega ^{3M}E_n^\pm }{E_k^\pm \omega ^{3M}E_n^\pm }=\omega ^{(g+1)}\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{E_k^\pm \omega ^{3M/2}E_n^\pm }{E_k^\pm \omega ^{3M/2}E_n^\pm }.$$
(5.19)   
The arguments of §3 can now be repeated essentially verbatim, to discover that, so long as $`G`$ is such that the conjectures of §3 about the zeroes of $`T`$ and $`D^\pm `$ remain true, the quantities $`D^+`$ and $`D^{}`$ for the more general differential equation (5.5) are again described by the nonlinear integral equation (3.18), but with chemical potential term now taking the value $`\alpha =\frac{2}{3}(g+1)`$.

At $`M=1`$, $`\omega ^{\pm 3M}=1`$, the LHS of (5.19) is $`1`$ and the $`A_2`$-related BA equation ‘collapses’ onto one more closely linked with $`A_1`$. This leads to a rather surprising equivalence between spectral problems for a Schrödinger equation with potential $`x^6+l(l+1)/x^2`$ and the third-order problem (5.5) at $`M=1`$. For these special points, the quantities in this paper are related to those of  as

$$D^\pm (E,g)|_{M=1}D^\pm (c^{3/2}E,l)|_{M=3}^{[\mathrm{ref}.\text{[4]}]},T(E,g)|_{M=1}=T_1(c^{3/2}E,l)|_{M=3}^{[\mathrm{ref}.\text{[4]}]},$$
(5.20)   
where $`l+\frac{1}{2}=\frac{2}{3}(g+1)`$, $`c=\frac{27}{4}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(7/6)}{\sqrt{\pi }}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(5/3)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1/3)}`$, and $`T_1`$ is one of the ‘fused’ $`T`$-operators discussed in §4 of .

## 6 A link with perturbed conformal field theory

We now return to the relation with the $`a_2^{(2)}`$ model, briefly mentioned at the end of §3. The analogy with results of  for the $`A_1`$-related models suggests that the quantity

$$c_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{6ib_0}{\pi ^2}\left(_{𝒞_1}e^\theta \mathrm{ln}(1+e^{f^\pm (\theta )})𝑑\theta _{𝒞_2}e^\theta \mathrm{ln}(1+e^{f^\pm (\theta )})𝑑\theta \right)$$
(6.1)   
should be interpreted as an effective central charge of an underlying conformal field theory. For general $`\alpha =\frac{2}{3}(g+1)`$, this would predict

$$c_{\mathrm{eff}}=1\frac{3}{M+1}\alpha ^2.$$
(6.2)   
Going further, it is natural to interpret (3.18) and (6.1) as the ultraviolet limit of the following ‘massive’ system:

$$f(\theta )=i\pi \alpha ir\mathrm{sinh}\theta +_{𝒞_1}\phi (\theta \theta ^{})\mathrm{ln}(1+e^{f(\theta ^{})})𝑑\theta ^{}_{𝒞_2}\phi (\theta \theta ^{})\mathrm{ln}(1+e^{f(\theta ^{})})𝑑\theta ^{};$$

$$c_{\mathrm{eff}}(r)=\frac{3ir}{\pi ^2}\left(_{𝒞_1}\mathrm{sinh}\theta \mathrm{ln}(1+e^{f(\theta )})d\theta _{𝒞_2}\mathrm{sinh}\theta \mathrm{ln}(1+e^{f(\theta )})d\theta \right).$$
(6.3)   
This should encode finite-size effects in the massive $`a_2^{(2)}`$ theory, with $`r=M_sR`$, $`M_s`$ the mass of the fundamental soliton and $`R`$ the circumference of the (infinite) cylinder on which the theory is living. (Notice that there is no need to distinguish $`f^+`$ from $`f^{}`$ any more, since the mapping $`\theta \theta `$ now has the effect of negating $`\alpha `$.) There is now a natural scale, which can be related to an operator $`\varphi `$ perturbing the ultraviolet conformal field theory. Standard considerations , based on the $`\theta \theta +i2\pi \frac{M+1}{3M}`$ periodicity of $`f(\theta )`$, suggest that so long as $`\alpha `$ is not an integer $`c_{\mathrm{eff}}(r)`$ will have an expansion in powers of $`r^{6M/(M+1)}`$ (together with an irregular ‘anti-bulk’ term, irrelevant to the current discussion). This implies for $`\varphi `$ either the conformal dimensions

$$\overline{h}_\varphi =h_\varphi =1\frac{3M}{2M+2}$$
(6.4)   
and an expansion of $`c_{\mathrm{eff}}(r)`$ in which only even powers of the coupling $`\lambda `$ to the operator $`\varphi `$ appear, or, alternatively, the conformal dimensions

$$\overline{h}_\varphi =h_\varphi =1\frac{3M}{M+1}$$
(6.5)   
and an expansion which sees both even and odd powers of $`\lambda `$.

When $`\alpha `$ is an integer, the standard considerations of  may have to be modified. Absorbing the term $`i\pi \alpha `$ into a shift in $`f(\theta )`$, (6.3) becomes exactly odd under a negation of $`\theta `$. This forces the shifted $`f(\theta )`$ to be zero at $`\theta =0`$, even in the far ultraviolet, and so long as the would-be plateau value is nonzero, it splits the plateau region into two pieces, each of half the previous length. As a result, the regular expansion of $`c_{\mathrm{eff}}(r)`$ is in powers of $`r^{3M/(M+1)}`$, and not $`r^{6M/(M+1)}`$. Formula (6.4) now describes the situation when both even and odd powers of $`\lambda `$ appear in the expansion of $`c_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, while for even powers only, the correct formula is $`\overline{h}_\varphi =h_\varphi =13M/(4M+4)`$. Note though that this plateau-splitting effect does not occur at $`\alpha =0`$, since for this case the plateau value of $`f`$ is anyway zero, and imposing $`f(0)=0`$ has no effect.

As explained in  (see also ), the $`a_2^{(2)}`$ model, when appropriately quantum-reduced, should correspond to the minimal models $`_{p,q}`$ (with $`p`$ and $`q`$ coprime integers and $`p<q`$) perturbed by either $`\varphi _{12}`$, $`\varphi _{21}`$ or  $`\varphi _{15}`$. With $`\varphi _{12}`$ the perturbing operator, the relation with the parameter $`\xi `$ appearing in the kernel (3.19) is 

$$\frac{p}{q}=\frac{2\xi }{(1+\xi )}.$$
(6.6)   
Since $`M=1/\xi `$, the ultraviolet effective central charge for a given value of $`\alpha `$, as predicted by (6.2), is

$$c_{\mathrm{eff}}=1\frac{3p}{2q}\alpha ^2.$$
(6.7)   
To recover $`\varphi _{21}`$ perturbations one simply has to swap $`p`$ and $`q`$ in (6.6) and (6.7, while to find $`\varphi _{15}`$, $`p/q`$ should be replaced by $`4p/q`$ .

For the sine-Gordon model, naturally associated with the $`\varphi _{13}`$ perturbing operator , it has been observed both analytically and numerically  that reduction is implemented at the level of finite-size effects and the non-linear integral equation via a particular choice of the chemical potential. The similarity between our equations and those in  suggests that the same should be true here. To decide which value of $`\alpha `$ will tune (6.3) onto the ground state of the relevant perturbed minimal model, we demand that the ultraviolet effective central charges match up; the predicted dimensions of the perturbing operators, and a comparison of results at nonzero values of $`r`$ with those obtained via the thermodynamic Bethe ansatz method, will then provide some nontrivial tests of the proposal.

The effective central charge of the ground state of the theory $`_{pq}`$ is $`c_{\mathrm{eff}}=16/pq`$. Thus to have any chance of matching the vacua of the $`\varphi _{12}`$-perturbed models, we must set $`\alpha =2/p`$. The required value of $`h_\varphi `$, namely $`h_{12}=\frac{3p}{4q}\frac{1}{2}`$, is then matched by (6.4). The value just chosen for $`\alpha `$ being a non-zero integer if and only if $`p=2`$, (6.4) will be the correct formula to use provided the regular parts of the ground state energies of the models $`_{pq}`$ perturbed by $`\varphi _{12}`$ expand in even powers of $`\lambda `$ for $`p3`$, and in even and odd powers for $`p=2`$. This ‘prediction’ holds for all of the examples that we checked. We then compared numerical results for $`(M,\alpha )=(4,1)`$, $`(\frac{5}{3},\frac{2}{3})`$, $`(\frac{3}{2},\frac{1}{2})`$, $`(\frac{4}{3},\frac{1}{3})`$ and $`(1,0)`$ against the tables of  for the $`A_2^{(2)}`$ (Yang-Lee), $`E_8`$, $`E_7`$, $`E_6`$ and $`D_4`$-related TBA equations, respectively, finding excellent agreement. Swapping $`p`$ and $`q`$ in (6.7), the choice $`\alpha =2/q`$ should capture the $`\varphi _{21}`$ cases. The conformal weight of $`h_{21}=\frac{3q}{4p}\frac{1}{2}`$ is matched by (6.4), provided the swap of $`p`$ and $`q`$ in (6.6) is remembered. This time $`\alpha `$ is never an integer, and the use of (6.4) is justified by the regular parts of the ground state energies of the $`\varphi _{21}`$ perturbations always being in even powers of the coupling $`\lambda `$. For $`(M,\alpha )=(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})`$, $`(\frac{2}{3},\frac{1}{3})`$ and $`(\frac{1}{5},\frac{2}{5})`$ the results from the $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$-related TBA equations  and the $`_{35}`$ model  were reproduced within our numerical accuracyBeware of a misprint in eq. (7) of : the (minus) sign before $`_{j=1}^2`$ should be reversed.. Finally, replacing $`p/q`$ by $`4p/q`$ in (6.2) ($`q>2p`$), at $`\alpha =1/p`$ the models $`_{pq}`$ perturbed by $`\varphi _{15}`$ are recovered. This time it is (6.5) which predicts the correct value for $`h_\varphi `$, as expected given that $`\varphi _{15}`$ perturbations expand in both even and odd powers of $`\lambda `$. TBA equations for a number of $`\varphi _{15}`$-perturbed models have been proposed in , but so far we have only compared (3.18) with the TBA for the $`\varphi _{15}`$ perturbation of the $`_{37}`$ model given in . A selection of our numerical results for all of the cases just mentioned is presented in table 3, together with thermodynamic Bethe ansatz data taken from refs. . To facilitate the comparision, we took $`r=M_1R`$ throughout, with $`M_1`$ the mass of the fundamental particle in the reduced scattering theory. For $`A_2^{(2)}`$ and $`E_8`$ this is the first breather in the unreduced theory, and $`M_1`$ is equal to $`2\mathrm{cos}(5\pi /12)M_s`$ and $`2\mathrm{cos}(3\pi /10)M_s`$ respectively. In all of the other models in the table, $`M_1`$ is equal to $`M_s`$. The results strongly support the claim that the system (6.3) encodes the ground state energies of $`\varphi _{12}`$, $`\varphi _{21}`$ and $`\varphi _{15}`$ perturbations of minimal models.

In previously-studied examples, equations similar in form to those for the ground state have been found to describe excited states (see for example ). We expect that the same will be possible here, but we will leave investigation of this point for future work. Finally, we remark that it would be interesting to derive a nonlinear integral equation for the $`a_2^{(2)}`$ model directly from finite lattice BA equations. We understand that progress is currently being made in this direction .

## 7 General $`A_2`$-related BA equations

In this section, we discuss the effect of adding a term proportional to $`x^3`$ to the differential equation (5.5). The equation becomes

$$y^{\prime \prime \prime }G(\frac{1}{x^2}\frac{d}{dx}\frac{1}{x^3})y+P(x,E,L)y=0,$$
(7.1)   
where

$$P(x,E,L)=x^{3M}E+\frac{L}{x^3}.$$
(7.2)   
Duality acts on $`M`$ and $`G`$ as before, and transforms $`L`$ as

$$L\stackrel{~}{L}=\frac{L}{(M+1)^3}.$$
(7.3)   
The relation (5.7), apart from the appearance of $`L`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ as arguments of $`y`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{y}`$ respectively, is unchanged. The earlier treatment can be generalised by defining

$$y_ky_k(x,E,g,L)=\omega ^ky(\omega ^kx,\omega ^{3Mk}E,g,\omega ^{3(M+1)k}L),$$
(7.4)   
so that

$$y_k^{\prime \prime \prime }G(\frac{1}{x^2}\frac{d}{dx}\frac{1}{x^3})y_k+e^{2k\pi i}P(x,E,L)y_k=0.$$
(7.5)   
If we also define $`z_{k_1k_2}`$ as in (2.18), then, for $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$ differing by an integer,

$$z_{k_1k_2}^{\prime \prime \prime }G(\frac{1}{x^2}\frac{d}{dx}\frac{1}{x^3})z_{k_1k_2}e^{2k\pi i}P(x,E,L)z_{k_1k_2}=0,$$
(7.6)   
(with $`e^{2k_1\pi i}=e^{2k_2\pi i}e^{2k\pi i}`$ ) which is the adjoint to (7.5). Again we can recover the original problem by shifting $`k`$ by a half-integer. As before, we find that $`z_{1/2,1/2}(x,E,g,L)=i\sqrt{3}y(x,E,g,L)`$ and (cf. (2.28))

$$T(E,g,L)y_{1/4}y_{1/4}=y_{1/4}y_{5/4}+y_{3/4}y_{3/4}+y_{5/4}y_{1/4}.$$
(7.7)   
The presence of a non-vanishing $`L`$ has however introduced an extra complication. To see this explicitly, shift $`k`$ by $`\pm 1/4`$ to get

$$T^\pm y_0y_{\pm 1/2}=y_0y_{\pm 3/2}+y_1y_{1/2}+y_1y_{1/2},$$
(7.8)   
with $`T^\pm =T(E\omega ^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{3M}{4}}},g,iL)`$. If this equation is rewritten in terms of the function $`y(x,E,g,L)`$, both signs of $`L`$ appear: for $`k`$ integer or half-integer we have

$$y_k=\omega ^ky(x\omega ^k,E\omega ^{3Mk},g,(1)^{2k}L).$$
(7.9)   
Notice that the same does not happen for the argument $`g`$ (or $`G`$), which is why this problem did not arise before. From an analytic point of view, $`y(x,E,g,L)`$ and $`y(x,E,g,L)`$ are just two distinct points of the same function, but in the derivation of the nonlinear integral equation it is only the analyticity in $`E`$ that is used. To proceed, it is best to consider $`L`$ to be held fixed once and for all, and to treat the pair of functions $`v_k=\omega ^ky(\omega ^kx,\omega ^{3Mk}E,g,L)`$ and $`\overline{v}_k=\omega ^ky(\omega ^kx,\omega ^{3Mk}E,g,L)`$ independently. Then (7.8) becomes

$$T^\pm v_0\overline{v}_{\pm 1/2}=v_0\overline{v}_{\pm 3/2}+v_1\overline{v}_{1/2}+v_1\overline{v}_{1/2}.$$
(7.10)   
This equation is very reminiscent of those given in  for the $`A_2`$-lattice model. There remains an $`x`$-dependence in (7.10) which can be eliminated, once again, by expanding

$$v=D^+(E,g,L)\chi _++D^0(E,g,L)\chi _0+D^{}(E,g,L)\chi _{},$$
(7.11)   
$$\overline{v}=\overline{D}^+(E,g,L)\overline{\chi }_++\overline{D}^0(E,g,L)\overline{\chi }_0+\overline{D}^{}(E,g,L)\overline{\chi }_{},$$
(7.12)   
where $`\{\chi _+,\chi _0,\chi _{}\}`$ and $`\{\overline{\chi }_+,\overline{\chi }_0,\overline{\chi }_{}\}`$ are alternative bases defined via the behaviour near the origin

$$\chi _i(x,E,g,L)x^{\lambda _i}+O(x^{\lambda _i+3}),i=+,0,,$$
(7.13)   
$$\overline{\chi }_i(x,E,g,L)x^{\overline{\lambda }_i}+O(x^{\overline{\lambda }_i+3}),i=+,0,,$$
(7.14)   
and the $`\lambda _i`$’s and $`\overline{\lambda }_i`$’ are respectively solutions of the indicial equations

$$(\lambda 1)(\lambda (\lambda 2)g(g+2))+L=0,(\overline{\lambda }1)(\overline{\lambda }(\overline{\lambda }2)g(g+2))L=0.$$
(7.15)   
If the labeling is chosen consistently with that of section §5, so that the $`\lambda `$’s and the $`\overline{\lambda }`$’s reduce to the quantities in (5.16) when $`L=0`$, then

$$T^\pm Q_0^\pm \overline{Q}_{\pm 1/2}^\pm =Q_0^\pm \overline{Q}_{\pm 3/2}^\pm +Q_1^\pm \overline{Q}_{1/2}^\pm +Q_1^\pm \overline{Q}_{1/2}^\pm ,$$
(7.16)   
with

$$Q^\pm (E,g,L)=E^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\lambda _\pm 1}{3M}}}D^\pm (E,g,L),Q_k^\pm =Q^\pm (\omega ^{3Mk}E,g,L),$$
(7.17)   
$$\overline{Q}^\pm (E,g,L)=E^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\overline{\lambda }_\pm 1}{3M}}}\overline{D}^\pm (E,g,L),\overline{Q}_k^\pm =\overline{Q}^\pm (\omega ^{3Mk}E,g,L).$$
(7.18)   
This leads to two coupled sets of BA equations

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{E_k^\pm \omega ^{3M}E_n^\pm }{E_k^\pm \omega ^{3M}E_n^\pm }}`$ $`=`$ $`\omega ^{2\lambda _\pm \overline{\lambda }_\pm 1}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{E}_k^\pm \omega ^{3M/2}E_n^\pm }{\overline{E}_k^\pm \omega ^{3M/2}E_n^\pm }},`$ (7.19)   
$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{E}_k^\pm \omega ^{3M}\overline{E}_n^\pm }{\overline{E}_k^\pm \omega ^{3M}\overline{E}_n^\pm }}`$ $`=`$ $`\omega ^{2\overline{\lambda }_\pm \lambda _\pm 1}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{E_k^\pm \omega ^{3M/2}\overline{E}_n^\pm }{E_k^\pm \omega ^{3M/2}\overline{E}_n^\pm }}.`$ (7.20)   
Generalising the analysis of §3, it should be possible to derive a nonlinear integral equation relevant to this more general case. We expect that this equation will coincide with the $`a_2^{(1)}`$-related case of the equations found in , in its massless limit, but we will leave a detailed investigation for future work.

## 8 Conclusions

We have continued to study the relationship between integrable quantum field theories and ordinary differential equations, and in the process have obtained a novel nonlinear integral equation which is able to describe the $`\varphi _{12}`$, $`\varphi _{21}`$ and $`\varphi _{15}`$ perturbations of minimal models within a unified framework. We have also found a natural generalisation of the duality symmetry enjoyed by the Schrödinger/massless sine Gordon system . A major theme has been that the $`A_2`$ structures hidden inside certain third-order ordinary differential equations, and also inside certain integrable quantum field theories and BA systems, are very closely related. It seems clear that the correct way to generalise to yet further models is to look to differential equations of even higher order. While this might appear to be a task of ever-increasing complexity, there are some reasons to suppose that a more unified picture will ultimately emerge. ADE structures have been observed in many different, but related, settings in the context of integrable models (see, for example,  and references therein). One might hope that the process of generalisation will reveal similar phenomena on the differential equations side of the correspondence, but more case-by-case analysis will certainly be required before this can be confirmed.

Acknowledgements –  We are grateful to John Coleman, Clare Dunning, Paul Fendley, Davide Fioravanti, Bernard Nienhuis and Francesco Ravanini for useful discussions. In addition, RT thanks Durham University, and PED thanks the YITP, Kyoto, for hospitality during the final stages of the writing of this paper. The work was supported in part by a TMR grant of the European Commission, reference ERBFMRXCT960012; the visit of PED to YITP was funded by a Daiwa-Adrian Prize. PED thanks the EPSRC for an Advanced Fellowship, and RT thanks the Universiteit van Amsterdam for a post-doctoral fellowship.

Notes added – 

(i) The ‘massless’ nonlinear integral equation derived in §3 has appeared previously, in connection with the Izergin-Korepin model, in .

(ii) A conjecture due to Kausch et al  states that the $`\varphi _{12}`$ perturbation of $`_{p,q}`$ and the $`\varphi _{15}`$ perturbation of $`_{p^{},q^{}}`$ have identical ground-state scaling functions if (and only if) $`p^{}=p/2`$, $`q^{}=2q`$. (This implies $`p=2\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}`$, since $`(p,q)`$ and $`(p^{},q^{})`$ must both be coprime; such pairs are called ‘type II’ in .) It is easily checked that this equality follows from the recipe for finding ground-state scaling functions given in §6 above: the values of $`M`$ and $`\alpha `$ that should be used in the two cases are identical, and so both are described by the same nonlinear integral equation. We take this as additional support both for our conjectures and for that of .

(iii) In a recent paper , Suzuki has independently remarked the relevance of higher-order ordinary differential equations to integrable models associated with the algebra $`A_n`$, though with a slightly different emphasis from that adopted above.

We would like to thank Ole Warnaar and the referee for bringing ref.  to our attention, and Gabor Takacs for telling us about the type II conjecture.