# Untitled Document

Singularity confinement and algebraic entropy:

the case of the discrete Painlevé equations

Y. Ohta

Department of Applied Mathematics

Faculty of Engineering, Hiroshima University

1-4-1 Kagamiyama, Higashi-Hiroshima 739-8527, Japan

K. M. Tamizhmani

Department of Mathematics

Pondicherry University

Kalapet, Pondicherry, 605014 India

B. Grammaticos

GMPIB, Université Paris VII

Tour 24-14, 5<sup>e</sup> étage

75251 Paris, France

A. Ramani

CPT, Ecole Polytechnique

CNRS, UMR 7644

91128 Palaiseau, France

Abstract We examine the validity of the results obtained with the singularity confinement integrability criterion in the case of discrete Painlevé equations. The method used is based on the requirement of non-exponential growth of the homogeneous degree of the iterate of the mapping. We show that when we start from an integrable autonomous mapping and deautonomise it using singularity confinement the degrees of growth of the nonautonomous mapping and of the autonomous one are identical. Thus this low-growth based approach is compatible with the integrability of the results obtained through singularity confinement. The origin of the singularity confinement property and its necessary character for integrability are also analysed.

The singularity confinement property has been proposed some years ago  as a discrete integrability criterion. The essence of the method is the observation that in integrable mappings a spontaneously appearing singularity does not propagate ad infinitum under the action of the mapping but disappears (“is confined”) after some iteration steps. Thus singularity confinement appeared as a necessary condition for discrete integrability. However the sufficiency of the criterion was not unambiguously established. The attitude (of the present authors at least) has always been that if the singularity confinement condition were strong enough then it would suffice for integrablity, in perfect analogy with the Painlevé-ARS  property for continuous systems. This sufficiency of the singularity confinement criterion was recently challenged by Hietarinta and Viallet  who produced explicit examples of mappings satisfying singularity confinement which are not integrable to the point of exhibiting chaotic behaviour. Their approach is based on the relation of discrete integrability and the complexity of the evolution introduced by Arnold and Veselov. According to Arnold  the complexity (in the case of mappings of the plane) is the number of intersection points of a fixed curve with the image of a second curve obtained under the mapping at hand. While the complexity grows exponentially with the iteration for generic mappings, it can be shown  to grow only polynomially for a large class of integrable mappings. As Veselov points out, “integrability has an essential correlation with the weak growth of certain characteristics”. Thus the authors of  proposed to directly test the degree of the successive iterates and introduced the notion of algebraic entropy. The method is appropriate for birational mappings. One starts by introducing homogeneous coordinates and studies the degree of the iterate. As Bellon and Viallet  remark, the growth of the degree is invariant under coordinate changes though the degree itself is not. A generic (non integrable) mapping leads to degrees that grow exponentially. The algebraic entropy is thus naturally defined as $`E=lim_n\mathrm{}\mathrm{log}(d_n)/n`$ where $`d_n`$ is the degree of the $`n`$-th iterate. Thus nonintegrable mappings have nonzero algebraic entropy. The conjecture in  is that integrability implies polynomial growth, leading to zero algebraic entropy.

The main application of the singularity confinement approach was the derivation and study of discrete Painlevé equations (d-$`P`$’s) . On the light of the results of Hietarinta and Viallet which have shown that the criterion used was not restrictive enough, one might be tempted to doubt the integrability of the mappings obtained (despite a considerable volume of integrability-confirming results). The aim of this paper is to show that these doubts are unjustified and to confirm the validity of the approach previously used, with the help of algebraic entropy techniques.

Let us first recall what has always been our approach to the derivation of d-$`P`$’s. We start from an autonomous system the integrability of which has been independently established. In the case of d-$`P`$’s, this system is the QRT mapping :

$$f^{(1)}(x_n)(x_{n+1}+x_{n1})f^{(2)}(x_n)+x_{n+1}x_{n1}f^{(3)}(x_n)=0$$
$`(1)`$   
When the $`f^{(i)}`$’s are quartic functions, satisfying specific constraints, the mapping (1) is integrable in terms of elliptic functions. Since the elliptic functions are the autonomous limits of the Painlevé transcendents, the mapping (1) is the appropriate starting point for the construction of the nonautonomous discrete systems which are the analogues of the Painlevé equations. The procedure we used, often referred to as ‘deautonomisation’, consists in finding the dependence of the coefficients of the quartic polynomials appearing in (1) with respect to the independent variable $`n`$, which is compatible with the singularity confinement property. Namely, the $`n`$-dependence is obtained by asking that the singularities are indeed confined. One rule that has always been used, albeit often tacitly, is that confinement must be implemented “the soonest possible”. What this rule really means is that the singularity pattern of the deautonomised mapping must be the same as the one of the autonomous mapping. Our claim is that a deautonomisation with a different singularity pattern (for instance a ‘later’ confinement) would lead to a non-integrable system. The reason why this deautonomisation procedure can be justified is the following. Since the autonomous starting point is integrable, it is expected that the growth of the degree of the iterates is polynomial. Now it turns out that the application of the singularity confinement deautonomisation corresponds to the requirement that the nonautonomous mappings lead to the same factorizations and subsequent simplifications and have precisely the same growth properties as the autonomous ones. These considerations will be made more transparent thanks to the examples we present in what follows.

Let us start with a simple case. We consider the mapping:

$$x_{n+1}+x_{n1}=\frac{ax_n+b}{x_n^2}$$
$`(2)`$   
where $`a`$ and $`b`$ are constants. In order to compute the degree of the iterates we introduce homogeneous coordinates by taking $`x_0`$=$`p`$, $`x_1`$=$`q/r`$, assuming that the degree of $`p`$ is zero, and compute the degree of homogeneity in $`q`$ and $`r`$ at every iteration. We could have of course introduced a different choice for $`x_0`$ but it turns out that the choice of a zero-degree $`x_0`$ considerably simplifies the calculations. We obtain thus the degrees: 0, 1, 2, 5, 8, 13, 18, 25, 32, 41, …, . Clearly the degree growth is polynomial. We have $`d_{2m}=2m^2`$ and $`d_{2m+1}=2m^2+2m+1`$. This is in perfect agreement with the fact that the mapping (2) is integrable (in terms of elliptic functions), being a member of the QRT family of integrable mappings. (A remark is necessary at this point. In order to obtain a closed-form expression for the degrees of the iterates, we start by computing a sufficient number of them. Once the expression of the degree has been heuristically established we compute the next few ones and check that they agree with the analytical expression predicted). We now turn to the deautonomisation of the mapping. The singularity confinement result is that $`a`$ and $`b`$ must satisfy the conditions $`a_{n+1}2a_n+a_{n1}=0`$, $`b_{n+1}=b_{n1}`$, i.e. $`a`$ is linear in $`n`$ while $`b`$ is a constant with an even/odd dependence. Assuming now that $`a`$ and $`b`$ are arbitrary functions of $`n`$ we compute the degrees of the iterates of (2). We obtain successively 0, 1, 2, 5, 10, 21, 42, 85,…. The growth is now exponential, the degrees behaving like $`d_{2m1}=(2^{2m}1)/3`$ and $`d_{2m}=2d_{2m1}`$, a clear indication that the mapping is not integrable in general. Already at the fourth iteration the degrees differ in the autonomous and nonautonomous cases. Our approach consists in requiring that the degree in the nonautonomous case be identical to the one obtained in the autonomous one. If we implement the requirement that $`d_4`$ be 8 instead of 10 we find two conditions $`a_{n+1}2a_n+a_{n1}=0`$, $`b_{n+1}=b_{n1}`$, i.e. precisely the ones obtained through singularity confinement. Moreover, once these two conditions are satisfied, the subsequent degrees of the nonautonomous case coincide with that of the autonomous one. Thus this mapping, leading to polynomial growth, should be integrable, and, in fact, it is. As we have shown in , where we presented its Lax pair, equation (2) with $`a(n)=\alpha n+\beta `$ and $`b`$ constant (the even-odd dependence can be gauged out by a parity-dependent rescaling of the variable $`x`$) is a discrete form of the Painlevé I equation. In the examples that follow, we shall show that in all cases the nonautonomous form of an integrable mapping obtained through singularity confinement leads to exactly the same degrees of the iterates as the autonomous one.

Our second example is a multiplicative mapping:

$$x_{n+1}x_{n1}=\frac{a_nx_n+b}{x_n^2}$$
$`(3)`$   
where one can put $`b=1`$ through an appropriate gauge. In the autonomous case we obtain, starting with $`x_0`$=$`p`$ and $`x_1`$=$`q/r`$, successively the degrees: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 21, 26, …, i.e. again a quadratic growth. In fact, if $`n`$ is of the form $`4m+k`$, ($`k`$=0,1,2,3) the degree is given by $`d_n=4m^2+(2m+1)k`$. The deautonomisation of (3) is straightforward. We compute the successive degrees and find: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 11, …, . At this stage we require that a factorization occur in order to bring the degree $`d_6`$ from 11 to 10. The condition for this is $`a_{n+2}a_{n2}=a_n^2`$ i.e. $`a`$ of the form $`a_{e,o}\lambda _{e,o}^n`$ with an even-odd dependence which can be easily gauged away. This condition is sufficient in order to bring the degrees of the successive iterates down to the values obtained in the autonomous case. Quite expectedly the condition on $`a`$ is precisely the one obtained by singularity confinement. The Lax pair of (3) can be easily obtained from our results in . We find that if we introduce the matrices: $`L_n=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& \frac{k}{x_n}\hfill & 0\\ 0& 0& x_{n1}& qx_{n1}\\ hx_n& 0& 1& q\\ 0& \frac{hk_{n1}}{x_{n1}}& 0& 0\end{array}\right)`$ and $`M_n=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& \frac{x_n}{k(x_n+1)}\hfill & 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& \frac{1}{x_n}& \frac{q}{x_n}\\ h& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)`$ we can obtain from the compatibility $`L_{n+1}M_n(h/q)=M_n(h)L_n`$ the equation $`x_{n+1}x_{n1}=k_nk_{n+1}(x_n+1)/x_n^2`$, where $`k_{n+1}=qk_{n1}`$, which is equivalent to (3) up to a gauge transformation.

The case of the mapping

$$x_{n+1}+x_{n1}=a_n+\frac{b_n}{x_n}$$
$`(4)`$   
has a more interesting deautonomisation. In this case we make a slightly different choice of homogeneous coordinates, which simplifies the results for the degrees of the iterates. We assume $`x_0=p/r`$, $`x_1`$=$`q/r`$ and compute the degree of homogeneity in $`p`$, $`q`$ and $`r`$. We find $`d_n`$=1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 11, 15, 20, 25, 31, 38, …, i.e. if $`n`$ is of the form 3$`m`$ we have $`d_n`$=$`3m^2m+1`$, for $`n`$=3$`m`$+1, $`d_n`$=$`3m^2+m+1`$, and for $`n`$=3$`m`$+2, $`d_n`$=$`3m^2+3m+2`$. In the generic nonautonomous case the corresponding degrees are 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, …,. The requirement that $`d_6`$=11 leads to the condition $`a_{n+1}=a_{n1}`$ and $`b_{n+2}b_{n+1}b_{n1}+b_{n2}`$=0. Thus $`b`$ is linear with a ternary symmetry while $`a`$ is a constant (with an even/odd dependence which can be gauged away). This fully nonautonomous form of (4) is a discrete form of Painlevé IV studied in  and  where we have given its Lax pair.

We now turn to what is known as the “standard” discrete Painlevé equations  and compare the results of singularity confinement to those of the algebraic entropy approach. We start with d-P<sub>I</sub> in the form:

$$x_{n+1}+x_n+x_{n1}=a_n+\frac{b_n}{x_n}$$
$`(5)`$   
The degrees of the iterates of the autonomous mapping are 0, 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, 17, 22, …, i.e. a quadratic growth with $`d_{3m+k}`$=$`3m^2+(2m+1)k`$, for $`k=`$0,1,2 while those of the generic nonautonomous one are 0, 1, 2, 3, 6, 11, …, . Requiring two extra factorisations at that level (so as to bring $`d_5`$ down to 9) we find the following conditions $`a_{n+1}=a_n`$, so $`a`$ must be a constant, and $`b_{n+2}b_{n+1}b_n+b_{n1}`$=0, i.e. $`b`$ is of the form $`b_n=\alpha n+\beta +\gamma (1)^n`$ which are exactly the result of singularity confinement. Implementing these conditions we find that the autonomous and nonautonomous mappings have the same (polynomial) growth . Both are integrable, the Lax pair of the nonautonomous one, namely d-P<sub>I</sub> having been given in .

For the discrete P<sub>II</sub> equation we have

$$x_{n+1}+x_{n1}=\frac{a_nx_n+b_n}{x_n^21}$$
$`(6)`$   
The degrees of the iterates in the autonomous case are $`d_n`$=0, 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 12, 16, 20, …, (i.e. $`d_{2m1}`$=$`m^2`$, $`d_{2m}`$=$`m^2+m`$) while in the generic nonautonomous case we find the first discrepancy for $`d_4`$ which is now 8. To bring it down to 6 we find two conditions, $`a_{n+1}2a_n+a_{n1}`$=0 and $`b_{n+1}=b_{n1}`$. This means that $`a`$ is linear in $`n`$ and $`b`$ is an even/odd constant, as predicted by singularity confinement. Once we implement these constraints, the degrees of the nonautonomous and autonomous cases coincide. The Lax pair of equation (6) in the nonautonomous form, i.e. d-P<sub>II</sub>, has been presented in .

The $`q`$-P<sub>III</sub> equation was obtained from the deautonomisation of the mapping:

$$x_{n+1}x_{n1}=\frac{(x_na_n)(x_nb_n)}{(1c_nx_n)(1x_n/c_n)}$$
$`(7)`$   
In the autonomous case we obtain the degrees $`d_n`$=0, 1, 2, 5, 8, 13, 18, …, just like for equation (2), while in the generic nonautonomous case we have 0, 1, 2, 5, 12,…, . For $`d_4`$ to be 8 instead of 12, one needs four factors to cancel out. The conditions are $`c_{n+1}=c_{n1}`$ and $`a_{n+1}b_{n1}=a_{n1}b_{n+1}=a_nb_n`$. Thus $`c`$ is a constant up to an even/odd dependence, while $`a`$ and $`b`$ are proportional to $`\lambda ^n`$ for some $`\lambda `$, with an extra even/odd dependence, just as predicted by singularity confinement in . The Lax pair for $`q`$-P<sub>III</sub> has been presented in .

For the remaining three discrete Painlevé equations the Lax pairs are not known yet. It is thus important to have one more check of their integrability provided by the algebraic entropy approach. We start with d-P<sub>IV</sub> in the form:

$$(x_{n+1}+x_n)(x_{n1}+x_n)=\frac{(x_n^2a^2)(x_n^2b^2)}{(x_n+z_n)^2c^2}$$
$`(8)`$   
where $`a`$, $`b`$ and $`c`$ are constants. If $`z_n`$ is constant we obtain for the degrees of the successive iterates $`d_n`$=0, 1, 3, 6, 11, 17, 24, …, . The general expression of the growth is $`d_n`$=6$`m^2`$ if $`n=3m`$, $`d_n`$=6$`m^2+4m+1`$ if $`n=3m+1`$ and $`d_n`$=6$`m^2+8m+3`$ if $`n=3m+2`$. This polynomial (quadratic) growth is expected since in the autonomous case this equation is integrable, its solution being given in terms of elliptic functions. For a generic $`z_n`$ we obtain the sequence $`d_n`$=0, 1, 3, 6, 13, …, . The condition for the extra factorizations to occur in the last case, bringing down the degree $`d_4`$ to 11, is for $`z`$ to be linear in $`n`$. We can check that the subsequent degrees coincide with those of the autonomous case.

For the $`q`$-P<sub>V</sub> we start from:

$$(x_{n+1}x_n1)(x_{n1}x_n1)=\frac{(x_n^2+ax_n+1)(x_n^2+bx_n+1)}{(1z_ncx_n)(1z_ndx_n)}$$
$`(9)`$   
where $`a`$, $`b`$, $`c`$ and $`d`$ are constants. If moreover $`z`$ is also a constant, we obtain exactly the same sequence of degrees $`d_n`$=0, 1, 3, 6, 11, 17, 24, …, as in the d-P<sub>IV</sub> case. Again, this polynomial (quadratic) growth is expected since this mapping is also integrable in terms of elliptic functions. For the generic nonautonomous case we again find the sequence $`d_n`$=0, 1, 3, 6, 13, …, . Once more we require a factorization bringing down $`d_4`$ to 11. It turns out that this entails a $`z`$ which is exponential in $`n`$, which then generates the same sequence of degrees as the autonomous case. In both the d-P<sub>IV</sub> and $`q`$-P<sub>V</sub> cases we find the $`n`$-dependence already obtained through singularity confinement. Since this results to a vanishing algebraic entropy we expect both equations to be integrable.

The final system we shall study is the one related to the discrete P<sub>VI</sub> equation:

$$\frac{(x_{n+1}x_nz_{n+1}z_n)(x_{n1}x_nz_{n1}z_n)}{(x_{n+1}x_n1)(x_{n1}x_n1)}=\frac{(x_n^2+az_nx_n+z_n^2)(x_n^2+bz_nx_n+z_n^2)}{(x_n^2+cx_n+1)(x_n^2+dx_n+1)}$$
$`(10)`$   
where $`a`$, $`b`$, $`c`$ and $`d`$ are constants. In fact the generic symmetric QRT mapping can be brought to the autonomous ($`z_n`$ constant) form of equation (10) through the appropriate homographic transformation. In the autonomous case, we obtain the degree sequence $`d_n`$=0, 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, …, i.e. $`d_n`$=$`n^2`$. Since mapping (10) is rather complicated we cannot investigate its full freedom. Still we were able to perform two interesting calculations. First, assume that in the rhs instead of the function $`z_n`$ a different function $`\zeta _n`$ appears. In this case the degrees grow like 0, 1, 5, …, and the condition to have $`d_2`$=4 instead of 5 is $`z_{n+1}z_{n1}z_n^2=\zeta _n^4`$. Assuming this is true, we compute the degree $`d_3`$ of the next iterate and find $`d_3`$=13 instead of 9. To bring down $`d_3`$ to the value 9 we need $`z_n^2=\zeta _n^2`$, which up to a redefinition of $`a`$ and $`b`$ means $`z_n=\zeta _n`$. This implies $`z_{n+1}z_{n1}=z_n^2`$, and $`z_n`$ is thus an exponential function of $`n`$, $`z_n`$=$`\lambda ^n`$ (which is in agreement with the results of ). Then a quartic factor drops out and $`d_3`$ is just 9. One can then check that the next degree is 16, just as in the autonomous case. Thus the $`q`$-P<sub>VI</sub> equation leads to the same growth as the generic symmetric QRT mapping and is thus expected to be integrable. As a matter of fact we were able to show that the generic asymmetric QRT mapping leads to the same growth $`d_n`$=$`n^2`$ as the symmetric one. This is not surprising, given the integrability of this mapping. What is interesting is that the growth of the generic symmetric and asymmetric QRT mappings are the same. Thus $`d_n`$=$`n^2`$ is the maximal growth one can obtain for the QRT mapping in the homogeneous variables we are using. As a matter of fact we have also checked that the asymmetric nonautonomous $`q`$-P<sub>VI</sub> equation, introduced in  led to exactly the same degree growth $`d_n`$=$`n^2`$.

Let us summarize our findings. In this paper, we have compared the method of singularity confinement and the approach based on the study of algebraic entropy when applied to the deautonomisation of integrable mappings. We have shown that in every case the confinement condition which ensured that the singularity pattern of the autonomous and non-autonomous cases are identical was precisely the one necessary in order to bring the growth down to the one obtained in the autonomous case. This validates the deautonomisation results obtained through singularity confinement at least in the domain of d-$`P`$’s. This suggests also a strategy for the study of integrable mappings. We believe that in the light of the present results, when one starts from an integrable autonomous mapping, the deautonomisation can be performed solely with the help of singularity confinement, a procedure considerably simpler than the calculation of the algebraic entropy.

Our present investigation also sheds light on the singularity confinement, and its necessary character as discrete integrability criterion. Let us go back to the example of mapping (2) with $`b=1`$. We start with $`x_0=p`$, $`x_1=q/r`$. Iterating further we find

$$x_2=\frac{r^2+aqrpq^2}{q^2},x_3=\frac{qP_4}{r(r^2+aqrpq^2)^2},x_4=\frac{(r^2+aqrpq^2)P_6}{P_4^2},x_5=\frac{P_4P_9}{rP_6^2}$$

where the $`P_k`$’s are homogeneous polynomials in $`q`$, $`r`$ of degree $`k`$. (Remember that $`p`$ is of zero homogeneous degree in our convention). The pattern now becomes clear. Whenever a new polynomial appears in the numerator of $`x_n`$ its square will appear in the denominator of $`x_{n+1}`$ and it will appear one last time as a factor of the numerator of $`x_{n+2}`$, after which it disappears due to factorisations. The singularities we are working with in the singularity confinement approach correspond to the zeros of any of these polynomials, which explains the pattern $`\{0,\mathrm{}^2,0\}`$. The singularity confinement is intimately related to this factorisation which plays a crucial role in the algebraic entropy approach. Let us suppose now that $`a`$ is a generic function of $`n`$. In this case we get the sequence:

$$x_2=\frac{r^2+a_1qrpq^2}{q^2},x_3=\frac{qQ_4}{r(r^2+a_1qrpq^2)^2},x_4=\frac{(r^2+a_1qrpq^2)Q_7}{qQ_4^2}$$

$$x_5=\frac{qQ_4Q_{12}}{r(r^2+a_1qrpq^2)Q_7^2}$$

where the $`Q_k`$’s are also homogeneous polynomials in $`q`$, $`r`$ of degree $`k`$. Now the simplifications that do occur are insufficient to curb the asymptotic growth. As a matter of fact, if we follow a particular factor we can check that it keeps appearing either in the numerator or the denominator (where its degree is alternatively 1 and 2). This corresponds to the unconfined singularity pattern $`\{0,\mathrm{}^2,0,\mathrm{},0,\mathrm{}^2,0,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}\}`$. Once more, the confinement condition $`a_{n+1}2a+a_{n1}=0`$ is the condition for $`q`$ to divide exactly $`Q_7`$, for both $`q`$ and $`r^2+a_1qrpq^2`$ to divide exactly $`Q_{12}`$, etc.. Our analysis clearly shows why singularity confinement is necessary for integrability while not being sufficient in general. Still in the case of integrable deautonomisation it does lead to the correct answer, which explains its success in the derivation of the discrete Painlevé equations.

Acknowledgements. The financial help of the cefipra, through the contract 1201-1, is gratefully acknowledged. The authors are grateful to J. Fitch who provided them with a new (beta) version of reduce without which the calculations presented here would have been impossible. B. Grammaticos acknowledges interesting discussions with J. Hietarinta.

References

 B. Grammaticos, A. Ramani and V. Papageorgiou, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67 (1991) 1825.

 M.J. Ablowitz, A. Ramani and H. Segur, Lett. Nuov. Cim. 23 (1978) 333.

 J. Hietarinta and C.-M. Viallet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998) 325.

 V.I. Arnold, Bol. Soc. Bras. Mat. 21 (1990) 1.

 A.P. Veselov, Comm. Math. Phys. 145 (1992) 181.

 M.P. Bellon and C.-M. Viallet, Algebraic Entropy, Comm. Math. Phys. to appear.

 A. Ramani, B. Grammaticos and J. Hietarinta, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67 (1991) 1829.

 G.R.W. Quispel, J.A.G. Roberts and C.J. Thompson, Physica D34 (1989) 183.

 A.S. Fokas, B. Grammaticos and A. Ramani, J. Math. An. and Appl. 180 (1993) 342.

 V.G. Papageorgiou, F.W. Nijhoff, B. Grammaticos and A. Ramani, Phys. Lett. A 164 (1992) 57.

 B. Grammaticos, A. Ramani, V. Papageorgiou, Phys. Lett. A 235 (1997) 475.

 B. Grammaticos, Y. Ohta, A. Ramani, H. Sakai, J. Phys. A 31 (1998) 3545.

 A.R. Its, A.V. Kitaev and A.S. Fokas, Usp. Mat. Nauk 45,6 (1990) 135.

 B. Grammaticos A. Ramani, J. Phys. A 31 (1998) 5787.

 N. Joshi, D. Bartonclay, R.G. Halburd, Lett. Math. Phys. 26 (1992) 123.

 B. Grammaticos, F.W. Nijhoff, V.G. Papageorgiou, A. Ramani and J. Satsuma, Phys. Lett. A185 (1994) 446.

 M. Jimbo and H. Sakai, Lett. Math. Phys. 38 (1996) 145.

 B. Grammaticos and A. Ramani, Phys. Lett. A 257 (1999) 288.