Y
Yang–Baxter Equations
J H H Perk and H Au-Yang, Oklahoma State
University, Stillwater, OK, USA
ª 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction
The term Yang–Baxter equations (YBEs) was coined
by Faddeev in the late 1970s to denote a principle of
integrability, that is, exact solvability, in a wide
variety of fields in physics and mathematics. Since
then it has become a common name for several
classes of local equivalence transformations in
statistical mechanics, quantum field theory, differ-
ential equations, knot theory, quantum groups, and
other disciplines. We shall cover the various versions
and their relationships, paying attention also to the
early historical development.
Electric Networks
The first such transformation came up as early as
1899 when the Brooklyn engineer Kennelly pub-
lished a short paper, entitled ‘‘The equivalence of
triangles and three-pointed stars in conducting net-
works.’’ This work gave the definite answer to such
questions as whether it is better to have the three
coils in a dynamo – or three resistors in a network –
arranged as a star or as a triangle, see Figure 1.
Using Kirchhoff’s laws, the two situations in Figure 1
can be shown to be equivalent provided
Z1 Z1 ¼ Z2 Z2 ¼ Z3 Z3
¼ Z1 Z2 þ Z2 Z3 þ Z3 Z1 ½1
¼ Z1 Z2 Z3 =ðZ1 þ Z2 þ Z3 Þ ½2
Here one has to take either [1] or [2] as second line
of the equation, depending on which direction the
transformation is to go. The star–triangle transfor-
mation thus defined is also known under other
names within the electric network theory literature
as wye–delta (Y  ), upsilon–delta (  ), or
tau–pi (T  ) transformation.
Spin Models
When Onsager wrote his monumental paper on the
Ising model published in 1944, he made a brief
remark on an obvious star–triangle transformation
relating the model on the honeycomb lattice with
the one on the triangular lattice. His details on this
were first presented in Wannier’s review article of
1945. However, the star–triangle transformation
played a much more crucial role in Onsager’s
reasoning, as it is also intimately connected with
his elliptic function uniformizing parametrization.
Furthermore, it implies the commutation of
transfer matrices and spin-chain Hamiltonians.
Only in his Battelle lecture of 1970 did Onsager
explain how he used this remarkable observation in
his derivation of the formula for the spontaneous
magnetization which he had announced as a
conference remark in 1948 and of which the first
complete derivation had been published by Yang in
1952 using a completely different method.
Many other applications and generalizations have
since appeared. Most generally, we can consider a
system whose state variables – also called spins – take
values from some suitable discrete or continuous sets.
The interactions between spins a and b are given in
terms of weight factors Wab and W ab , which are
complex numbers in general, see Figure 2. One
quantity of special interest is the partition function –
sum of the product of all weight factors over all
allowed spin values. The integrability of the model is
expressed by the existence of spectral variables –
rapidities p, q, r, . . . – that live on oriented lines, two
of which cross between a and b as indicated by the
dotted lines in Figure 2. Arrows from a to b are added
to keep track of the ordering of a and b in case the
weights are chiral (not symmetric).
In Onsager’s special choice of the Ising model the
spins take values a, b, c, . . . = 1 and the weight
factors are the usual real positive Boltzmann weights
depending on the product ab = 1, uniformizing
variable p  q, and elliptic modulus k. In the integra-
ble chiral Potts model the weights depend on a  b
mod N, with a, b = 1, . . . , N, whereas the rapidities p
and q are living in general on a higher-genus curve.
466 Yang–Baxter Equations

z1 factors. In general, there may also appear scalar factors

R(p, q, r) and R(p, q, r), which can often be eliminated
by a suitable renormalization of the weights. If a, b,
z2 z3 and c take values in the same set, we can sum over
= z3 z2 a = b = c, showing that R = R in that case.
z1 The Kennelly star–triangle equation [1], [2] can be
recovered as a special limit of a spin model where
the states are continuous variables.
Figure 1 Star–triangle equation for impedances.

Knot Theory and Braid Group

a b A seemingly totally different situation occurs in the

p p
b a
q q
Wab Wab
Figure 2 Spin model weights Wab (p, q) and W ab (p, q):
When the weights are asymmetric in the spins, there
are two sets of star–triangle equations which can be
expressed both pictorially (Figure 3) and algebraically:
X relations of Artin’s braid group. Let Ri, iþ1 be the
W cd ðp; qÞW db ðq; rÞWda ðp; rÞ
d strand in position i crosses over the one in position
¼ Rðp; q; rÞWba ðp; qÞWca ðq; rÞW cb ðp; rÞ
theory of knots, links, tangles, and braids. In 1926,
Reidemeister showed that only three types of moves
suffice to show the equivalence between two
different configurations, see Figure 4. Moves of
type I – removing simple loops – do not apply to
braids. Moves of type II, for which one strand crosses
twice over another strand, can be reformulated for
braids, namely that an overcrossing is the inverse of
an undercrossing. The Reidemeister move of type III
is a precursor of the more general Yang–Baxter
moves and can be represented also by the defining
operator representing the situation in which the
½3 i þ 1. Then a braid can be represented by a product
of Rj, jþ1 ’s and their inverses, provided

Rðp; q; rÞWab ðp; qÞWac ðq; rÞW bc ðp; rÞ Ri;iþ1 Riþ1;iþ2 Ri;iþ1 ¼ Riþ1;iþ2 Ri;iþ1 Riþ1;iþ2 ½5
X
¼ W dc ðp; qÞW bd ðq; rÞWad ðp; rÞ ½4 and
d
½Ri;iþ1 ; Rj;jþ1  ¼ 0; if ji  jj  2 ½6
Note that eqns [3] and [4] differ from each other by the and similar relations in which Ri, iþ1 and/or Riþ1, iþ2
transposition of both spin variables in all six weight are replaced by their inverses.

b p
Factorizable S-Matrices and Bethe Ansatz
b

p In the early 1960s, Lieb and Liniger solved the one-

dimensional Bose gas with delta-function interaction
c d c
= using the Bethe ansatz. Yang and McGuire then tried
q to generalize this result to systems with internal
a q a degrees of freedom and to fermions. This led to the

r r

= = =
a p a

c d c
=
q

b
q b
=

r r
Figure 3 Star–triangle equation. Figure 4 Reidemeister moves of types I, II, and III.
 Yang–Baxter Equations 467

λ
p
γ′ λ d c d c
γ′
α β α β
p
β α′ β p p p
α″ β ″ α′
γ″ γ″ μ a μ b a b
=
α β″ β′ α″ β′
q α q q q
γ q γ ω W w

r r Figure 6 Vertex model weight !  (p, q), mixed model weight
 dc dc
W jab (p, q) and IRF model weight wab (p, q).
Figure 5 Vertex model YBE.
XXX 00 00 0 0 00 0
! ðp; qÞ!0000 ðq; rÞ!00 ðp; rÞ
discovery of the condition for factorizable S-matrices 00  00  00
by McGuire in 1964, represented pictorially by XXX 0 0 00 00 0 00

Figure 5, where the world lines of the particles are ¼ !0000 ðp; qÞ! ðq; rÞ!00 ðp; rÞ ½8
00  00  00
given. Upon collisions the particles can only exchange
their rapidities p, q, r, so that there is no dispersion. This equation is represented graphically in Figure 5.
Also indicated are the internal degrees of freedom in From it one can also derive a sufficient condition for
Greek letters. In other words, the three-body S-matrix the commutation of transfer matrices and spin-chain
can be factorized in terms of two-body contributions Hamiltonians, generalizing the work of McCoy and
and the order of the collisions does not affect the Wu, who had earlier initiated the search by showing
final outcome. McGuire also realized that this that the general six-vertex model transfer matrix
condition is all one needs for the consistency of commutes with a Heisenberg spin-chain Hamilto-
factoring the n-body S-matrix in terms of two-body nian. To be more precise, Baxter found that if
S-matrices. The consistency condition is obviously !  
 =   for some choice of p and q, some spin-
related to the Reidemeister move of type III in chain Hamiltonians could be derived as logarithmic
Figure 4. derivatives of the transfer matrix.
Yang succeeded in solving the spin-1/2 fermionic
model using a nested Bethe ansatz, utilizing a Interaction-Round-a-Face Model
generalization of Artin’s braid relations [5] and [6],
Baxter introduced another language, namely that of the
 i;iþ1 ðp  qÞR
R  iþ1;iþ2 ðp  rÞR
 i;iþ1 ðq  rÞ IRF or ‘‘interaction-round-a-face’’ model, which he
introduced in connection with his solution of the hard-
¼R  i;iþ1 ðp  rÞR
 iþ1;iþ2 ðq  rÞR  iþ1;iþ2 ðp  qÞ ½7 hexagon model. This formulation is convenient when
He submitted his findings in two short papers in studying one-point functions using the corner-transfer-
1967. The R  operators in eqn [7] – a notation matrix method. Now the integrability condition can be
introduced later by the Leningrad school – depend represented graphically as in Figure 7 or algebraically as
X 0
on differences of two momenta or two relativistic ad
wcb a0 b dc0
0 ðp; qÞwdc0 ðq; rÞwb0 a ðp; rÞ
rapidities. Sutherland solved the general spin case d
using repeated nested Bethe ansätze, while Lieb and X 0 0 0
¼ wbc cd ab
d0 a ðp; qÞwb0 a ðq; rÞwcd0 ðp; rÞ ½9
Wu used Yang’s work to solve the one-dimensional
d0
Hubbard model.
The spins live on faces enclosed by rapidity lines and
Vertex Models
the weights wdcab (p, q) are assigned as in Figure 6.
Since Lieb’s solution of the ice model by a Bethe
ansatz, there have been many developments on
vertex models, in which the state variables live on a′ b p a′ b
line segments and weight factors ! are assigned to p
a vertex where four line segments with the four
states , , ,  on them meet, see Figure 6. c d c′ = c d′ c′

Baxter solved the eight-vertex model in 1971, using q

a method based on commuting transfer matrices, a q b′
b′ a
starting from a solution of what he then called the
generalized star–triangle equation, but what is now r r
commonly called the Yang–Baxter equation (YBE): Figure 7 IRF model YBE.
468 Yang–Baxter Equations

Baxter discovered a new principle based on eqns [8]

and [9], which he called Z-invariance, as it expresses a′ b p a′ b
γ′ γ′
an invariance of the partition function Z under moves
p α′ β
of rapidity lines. This also implies that typical one- β α″ β″ α′
point functions are independent of the values of the c d γ″ c′ = c γ″ d ′ c′
rapidities, while two-point functions can only depend α β ′′ α″ β′
q β′ α
on the values of the rapidities of rapidity lines crossing γ
b′ γ a q b′ a
between the two spins considered. Many recent results
on correlation functions in integrable models depend r r
on this observation of Baxter. Figure 8 General YBE.

IRF-Vertex Model
quantum inverse-scattering method (QISM), coining
In Figure 6, we have also defined mixed IRF-vertex the term quantum YBEs (QYBEs) for eqns [8]. If
 dc
model weights W jab (p, q). (We could put further special limiting values of p and q can be found, say as
state variables on the vertices, but then the natural h ! 0, such that !  
 =   þ O(
h), one can reduce
thing to do is to introduce new effective weights [8] to the classical Yang–Baxter equations (CYBEs) by
summing over the states at each vertex.) With the expanding up to the first nontrivial order in expansion
choice made a more general YBE can be represented variable h. These determine the integrability of certain
as in Figure 8, or by models of classical mechanics by the inverse-scattering
X X X X 00 00 a0 d method and the existence of Lax pairs.
W jcb0 ðp; qÞ
00  00  00 d
0 0 0 00 0 0
 W0000 jadcb0 ðq; rÞW00  jdc
b0 a ðp; rÞ Checkerboard generalizations
XXXX 0 0 0
¼ W0000 jbc
d0 a ðp; qÞ Star–triangle equations [3] and [4] imply that there are
00  00  00 d0 further generalizations of the YBEs, namely those for
00 00 0 0 00 0
  cd  ab
which the faces enclosed by the rapidity lines are
 W jb0 a ðq; rÞW 00 jcd0 ðp; rÞ ½10
alternatingly colored black and white in a checkerboard
pattern. We can then introduce either vertex model
Quantum Inverse-Scattering Method weights ! 
 (p, q) and ! (p, q), or IRF-vertex model

The Leningrad school of Faddeev incorporated the weights W jab (p, q) and W  jdc
 dc
ab (p, q), or IRF
dc dc
methods of Baxter and Yang in their so-called model weights wab (p, q) and wab (p, q), see Figure 9.

λ λ
α β α β
p p

μ μ

q q
ω ω

d λ c d λ c d c d c

α β α β
p p p p

a μ b a μ b a b a b

q q q q

W w w
W
Figure 9 Checkerboard versions of the weights.
 Yang–Baxter Equations 469

The black faces are those where the spins of the Checkerboard IRF Model
spin model with weights defined in Figure 2 live; the
The checkerboard IRF version of the YBE [8]
white faces are to be considered empty in Figures 2
becomes
and 3 (or, equivalently, they can be assumed to host
trivial spins that take on only a single value). X 0 0 0
ad ab dc
Clearly, the IRF-vertex model description contains wcb 0 ðp; qÞwdc0 ðq; rÞwb0 a ðp; rÞ

all the other versions. d

X 0 0 0
¼ Rðp; q; rÞ wbc cd ab
d0 a ðp; qÞwb0 a ðq; rÞwcd0 ðp; rÞ ½13
Checkerboard Vertex Model d0

First we consider the checkerboard vertex model X 0 0 0

ad ab dc
with weights ! 
 (p, q) and ! (p, q) as assigned in
Rðp; q; rÞ wcb 0 ðp; qÞwdc0 ðq; rÞwb0 a ðp; rÞ

Figure 9. The YBE [8] then generalizes to two sets of d

X
equations: wbc cd 0
ab 0 0
¼ d0 a ðp; qÞwb0 a ðq; rÞwcd0 ðp; rÞ ½14
X X X 00 00 0 0 00 0 d0
! ðp; qÞ!0000 ðq; rÞ!00 ðp; rÞ
00  00  00
XXX 0 0
again with scalar factors R and R added as in [3]
¼ Rðp; q; rÞ !0000 ðp; qÞ and [4]. These equations can now be represented
00  00  00 graphically as in Figure 11. Note that these
00 00 0 00 equations reduce to eqns [3] and [4] if the spins on
 ! ðq; rÞ!00 ðp; rÞ ½11
the white faces are allowed to take only one value,
which means that they can be ignored.
XXX 00 00 0 0 00 0
Rðp; q; rÞ ! ðp; qÞ!0000 ðq; rÞ!00 ðp; rÞ
Checkerboard IRF-Vertex Model
00  00  00
XXX 0 0 00 00 0 00 Finally, the most general case is represented by the
¼ !0000 ðp; qÞ ! ðq; rÞ!00 ðp; rÞ ½12
checkerboard IRF-vertex model, with weights
00  00  00
defined in Figure 9. For this case the YBEs are
where scalar factors R and R have been added as in given by
[3] and [4]. These equations are represented graphi-
cally by Figure 10. XXXX   ad 00 00 0
W jcb0 ðp; qÞ
00  00  00 d

0 0 0  00  0 0
 W0000 jdc
ab dc
0 ðq; rÞW  00  jb0 a ðp; rÞ

p
γ′ γ′ XXXX 0  0 0
p α′ β ¼ Rðp; q; rÞ W 00 00 jbc
d0 a ðp; qÞ
β α″ β″ α′ 00  00  00 d0
γ″ = γ″
α β″ α″ β′
q β′  00 00 0 0 00 0
α  W  jcd  ab
b0 a ðq; rÞ W 00 jcd0 ðp; rÞ ½15
γ q γ

r r
XXXX ad 00  00 0
Rðp; q; rÞ W  jcb 0 ðp; qÞ

00  00  00 d

γ′ p
γ′ ab  0 0  dc 0 00 0 0

p α′ β  W 00 00 jdc 0 ðq; rÞW 00  jb0 a ðp; rÞ

β α″ β″ α′
γ″ = XXXX
γ″ 0 0 0

α
¼ W0000 jbc
d0 a ðp; qÞ
β″ α″ β′
q β′ α 00  00  00 d0

γ q γ
  cd 00 00ab 0  0  00 0
 W jb0 a ðq; rÞW  00 jcd 0 ðp; rÞ ½16
r r
Figure 10 Checkerboard vertex model YBE. with its graphical representation in Figure 12.
470 Yang–Baxter Equations

a′ a′
λ
b p b
p2 λ
p
α β (p1,p2) α β
=
c d c′ = c d′ c′
p1 μ
q
μ
b′ a q b′ a q1 q2 (q1,q2)
r r Figure 13 Square weight as vertex weight.

a′ b p a′ b From any solution of [3] and [4] we can thus

p construct a solution of YBE [8]. This has been used
by Bazhanov and Stroganov to relate the integrable
c d c′ = c d′ c′
chiral Potts model with a cyclic representation of the
q six-vertex model.
b′ a q b′ a
Map to Checkerboard Vertex Model
r r
Figure 11 Checkerboard IRF model YBE. The checkerboard IRF-vertex model formulation
contains all other versions mentioned above as
special cases. However, collecting the state variables
in triples, we can immediately translate it to a vertex
a′ b p a′ γ′ b
γ′ model version, writing
p α′ β
β α″ β″ α′ ^^  dc ^^ 
!^^ ðp; qÞ ¼ W jab ðp; qÞ; !^^ ðp; qÞ ¼ W  jdc
ab ðp; qÞ
c d γ″ c′ = c γ″ d ′ c′
α α″
(
β″ β′
q β′ α ^ ¼ ðd; ; cÞ; ^ ¼ ðb; ; cÞ
if ½18
γ γ
b′ a q b′ a ^ ¼ ða; ; dÞ; ^ ¼ ða; ; bÞ
r r

^^ ^^
!^^ ðp; qÞ ¼ !^^ ðp; qÞ ¼ 0 otherwise ½19
a′
γ′
b p a′
γ′
b In eqn [19], we have set all vertex model weights
p α′ β zero that are inconsistent with IRF-vertex config-
β α″ β′′ α′ urations. Clearly, the translation of IRF models and
c d γ″ c′ = c γ′′ d ′ c′
spin models to vertex models can be done similarly.
α β″ α′′ β′
q β′ α
γ a q γ a Map to Spin Model
b′ b′

r r We can, furthermore, translate each vertex model

Figure 12 Checkerboard YBE. with weights assigned as in Figures 6 or 9 into a spin
model with weights as in Figure 2 by defining
suitable spins in the black faces, after checkerboard
Formal Equivalence of Languages coloring. Each spin is then defined to be the ordered
set of states on the line segments of the vertex
The Square Weight
model, a = (1 , 2 , . . . ), ordering the line segments
Combining four weights of a checkerboard model in counterclockwise starting at, say, 12 o’clock. We

a square, as is done with four spin model weights can then identify !  (p, q) = Wa, b (p, q), ! (p, q) =
in Figure 13, we find a regular vertex model weight W a, b (p, q). This is surely not very economical, as
with rapidities that are now pairs of the original many of the weights will be equal, but it helps show
ones. This gives that all different versions of the checkerboard YBE
are formally equivalent.
Hence, we shall only use the vertex model
W ðp1 ; q1 ÞW  ðp1 ; q2 ÞW  ðp2 ; q1 ÞW ðp2 ; q2 Þ
language in the following. It is fairly straightforward
¼ !
 ðp1 ; p2 ; q1 ; q2 Þ ½17 to convert to the other formulations.
 Yang–Baxter Equations 471

An sl(mjn) Example The Ř-Matrix

One fundamental example is a Q-state model for If we transpose the  indices i and j in eqn [22],
which the rapidities have 2Q þ 1 components, we can define a set of matrices Ři, iþ1 (p, q) with
p = (pQ , . . . , pQ ), q = (qQ , . . . , qQ ), etc., and the elements
states on the line segments are arranged in strings Y
of continuing conserved color. The vertex weights, Ři; iþ1 ðp; qÞ11...N
...N ¼ ! i ; iþ1
i ; iþ1 ðp; qÞ kk ½24
k6¼i; iþ1
for , , ,  ¼ 1, . . . , Q, are given by
Using these, the YBE [8] can be rewritten in matrix
pþ q form as
!
 ðp; qÞ ¼ !
0 ðp0 ; q0 Þ ½20
qþ p
Ři; iþ1 ðq; rÞŘiþ1; iþ2 ðp; rÞŘi; iþ1 ðp; qÞ
with ( 6¼ ) ¼ Řiþ1; iþ2 ðp; qÞŘi; iþ1 ðp; rÞŘiþ1; iþ2 ðq; rÞ ½25
!
0 ðp0 ; q0 Þ ¼ N sinh½ þ " ðp0  q0 Þ
and
!0  ðp0 ; q0 Þ ¼ N G sinhðp0  q0 Þ ½Ři; iþ1 ðp; qÞ; Řj; jþ1 ðr; sÞ ¼ 0; if ji  jj52 ½26
½21
!0 ðp0 ; q0 Þ ¼Ne ðp0 q0 Þsignð Þ
sinh In this formulation, it is clear that many solutions
! can be found ‘‘Baxterizing’’ Temperley–Lieb and
0 ðp0 ; q0 Þ ¼ 0; otherwise
Iwahori–Hecke algebras.
where N is an arbitrary overall normalization factor
and is a constant. Furthermore, " = 1 for
Classical YBEs
 = 1, . . . , Q, where m of them equal þ1 and n of
them equal 1. The G ’s are constants satisfying If we expand
G = 1=G  , which freedom is allowed because the
number of - crossings minus the number of - Rij ðpi ; pj Þ ¼ 1 þ hX ij ðpi ; pj Þ þ Oðh2 Þ ½27
crossings is fixed by the states on the boundary only, in [23], we get in second order in h the classical YBE
that is, the choice of , 0 , , 0 , ,  0 in YBE [8] and (CYBE) as the vanishing of a sum of three commu-
Figure 5. tators, that is,
The solution [20], [21] has many applications.
The case m = 0, n = 2 leads to the general six-vertex ½X ij ðpi ; pj Þ; X ik ðpi ; pk Þ þ ½X ij ðpi ; pj Þ; X jk ðpj ; pk Þ
model; the m = 0, n = n case produces the funda- þ ½X ik ðpi ; pk Þ; X jk ðpj ; pk Þ ¼ 0 ½28
mental intertwiner of affine quantum group Uq sl(n), b
whereas the case m = 2, n = 1 corresponds to the introduced by Belavin and Drinfel’d, where X ij is
supersymmetric one-dimensional t–J model. called the classical r-matrix.

Reflection YBEs
Operator Formulations Cherednik and Sklyanin found a condition deter-
The R-Matrix mining the solvability of systems with boundaries,
the reflection YBEs (RYBEs), see Figure 14. Upon
For a problem with N rapidity lines, carrying
rapidities p1 , . . . , pN , we can introduce a set of
matrices Rij (pi , pj ), for 14i < j4N, with elements
Y q– q–
Rij ðpi ; pj Þ11...N
...N ¼ !jiij ðpi ; pj Þ kk ½22
k6¼i; j p–

p–
In terms of these, the YBE [8] can be rewritten in
matrix form as =
p
Rjk ðpj ; pk ÞRik ðpi ; pk ÞRij ðpi ; pj Þ
½23 p
¼ Rij ðpi ; pj ÞRik ðpi ; pk ÞRjk ðpj ; pk Þ
q q
where 14i < j < k4N. Figure 14 Reflection YBE.
472 Yang–Baxter Equations

collisions with a left or right wall the rapidity

variable changes from p to p and back. In most
examples, in which the rapidities are difference p
variables such that R(p, q) = R(p  q), one also has p
p =   p, with  some constant. The corresponding
p
left boundary weights are K (p, p) satisfying
p
Ǩ1 ðq; qÞŘ12 ðp; qÞǨ1 ðp; pÞŘ12 ðq; pÞ
¼ Ř12 ðp; qÞǨ1 ðp; pÞŘ12 ðq; pÞǨ1 ðq; qÞ ½29 q q q q q q

with Ǩ1 (p, p) defined by a direct product as in [24] p

appending unit matrices for positions i52, and a p
similar equation must hold for the right boundary. p
Most work has been done for vertex models, while
p
Pearce and co-workers wrote several papers on the
IRF-model version.

Figure 16 Heuristic derivation of inversion relation.

Higher-Dimensional Generalizations
In 1980 Zamolodchikov introduced a three-
dimensional generalization of the YBE, the so-called
tetrahedron equations (TEs), and he found a special
solution. Baxter then succeeded in proving that
this solution satisfies all TEs. Baxter and Bazhanov
showed in 1992 that this solution can be seen as
a special case of the sl(1) chiral Potts model.
Several authors found further generalizations more
recently.
Inversion Relations
When !  
 (p, p) /   , that is, the weight decouples
when the two rapidities are equal, one can derive the
local inverse relation depicted in Figure 15, which is
a generalization of the Reidemeister move of type II
in Figure 4. It is easily shown that C(q, p) = C(p, q).
This local relation implies also a global inversion
relation which can be found in many ways. The
following heuristic way is the easiest: consider the
situation in Figure 16, with N closed p-rapidity lines
and M closed q-rapidity lines. For M and N large,
we may expect the partition function of Figure 16
to factor asymptotically in top- and bottom-half
contributions. If each line segment carries a state
variable that can assume Q values, then the total
partition function factors by repeated application of
the relation in Figure 15 into the contribution of
M þ N circles. Therefore,
Z ¼ QMþN Cðp; qÞMN  ZM; N ðp; qÞZN; M ðq; pÞ ½30
Taking the thermodynamic limit,
zðp; qÞ  lim ZM; N ðp; qÞ1=MN ½31
M; N!1
one finds
zðp; qÞzðq; pÞ ¼ Cðq; pÞ ½32
In many models, eqn [32], supplemented with some
suitable symmetry and analyticity conditions, can be
used to calculate the free energy per site.
See also: Affine Quantum Groups; Bethe Ansatz;
Classical r-matrices, Lie Bialgebras, and Poisson Lie
Groups; Eight Vertex and Hard Hexagon Models; Hopf
Algebras and q-Deformation Quantum Groups;
Integrability and Quantum Field Theory; Integrable
Discrete Systems; Integrable Systems: Overview; The
Jones Polynomial; Knot Invariants and Quantum Gravity;
Knot Theory and Physics; Sine-Gordon Equation;
Topological Knot Theory and Macroscopic Physics;
Two-Dimensional Ising Model; von Neumann Algebras:
Subfactor Theory.

q p = C(p,q) p q Further Reading

Au-Yang H and Perk JHH (1989) Onsager’s star-triangle
equation: master key to integrability. Advanced Studies in
Pure Mathematics 19: 57–94.
Baxter RJ (1982) Exactly Solved Models in Statistical Mechanics.
Figure 15 Local inversion relation. London: Academic Press.

Behrend RE, Pearce PA, and O’Brien DL (1996) Interaction-
round-a-face models with fixed boundary conditions: the ABF
fusion hierarchy. Journal of Statistical Physics 84: 1–48.
Gaudin M (1983) La Fonction d’Onde de Bethe. Paris: Masson.
Jimbo M (ed.) (1987) Yang–Baxter Equation in Integrable
Systems. Singapore: World Scientific.
Kennelly AE (1899) The equivalence of triangles and three-
pointed stars in conducting networks. Electrical World and
Engineer 34: 413–414.
Korepin VE, Bogoliubov NM, and Izergin AG (1993) Quantum
Inverse Scattering Method and Correlation Functions.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kulish PP and Sklyanin EK (1981) Quantum spectral transform
method. Recent developments. In: Hietarinta J and
Montonen C (eds.) Integrable Quantum Field Theories,
Lecture Notes in Physics, vol. 151, pp. 61–119. Berlin:
Springer.
Lieb EH and Wu FY (1972) Two-dimensional ferroelectric
models. In: Domb C and Green MS (eds.) Phase Transitions
and Critical Phenomena, vol. 1, pp. 331–490. London:
Academic Press.
Onsager L (1971) The Ising model in two dimensions. In: Mills
RE, Ascher E, and Jaffee RI (eds.) Critical Phenomena in
Yang–Baxter Equations 473
Alloys, Magnets and Superconductors, pp. xix–xxiv, 3–12.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Perk JHH (1989) Star-triangle equations, quantum Lax pairs, and
higher genus curves. Proceedings of Symposia in Pure
Mathematics 49(1): 341–354.
Perk JHH and Schultz CL (1981) New families of commuting
transfer matrices in q-state vertex models. Physics Letters A
84: 407–410.
Perk JHH and Wu FY (1986) Graphical approach to the
nonintersecting string model: star-triangle equation, inversion
relation, and exact solution. Physica A 138: 100–124.
Reidemeister K (1926a) Knoten und Gruppen. Abhandlungen aus
dem Mathematischen Seminar der Hamburgischen Universität
5: 7–23.
Reidemeister K (1926b) Elementare Begründung der Knotenthe-
orie. Abhandlungen aus dem Mathematischen Seminar der
Hamburgischen Universität 5: 24–32.
Yang CN (1967) Some exact results for the many-body problem
in one dimension with repulsive delta-function interaction.
Physical Review Letters 19: 1312–1314.
Yang CN (1968) S-matrix for the one-dimensional N-body
problem with repulsive or attractive -function interaction.
Physical Review 167: 1920–1923.