Abstract
We consider a matrix refactorization problem, i.e., a “Lax representation,” for the Yang–Baxter map that originated as the map of polarizations from the “pure” 2soliton solution of a matrix KP equation. Using the Lax matrix and its inverse, a related refactorization problem determines another map, which is not a solution of the Yang–Baxter equation, but satisfies a mixed version of the Yang–Baxter equation together with the Yang–Baxter map. Such maps have been called “entwining Yang–Baxter maps” in recent work. In fact, the map of polarizations obtained from a pure 2soliton solution of a matrix KP equation, and already for the matrix KdV reduction, is not in general a Yang–Baxter map, but it is described by one of the two maps or their inverses. We clarify why the weaker version of the Yang–Baxter equation holds, by exploring the pure 3soliton solution in the “tropical limit,” where the 3soliton interaction decomposes into 2soliton interactions. Here, this is elaborated for pure soliton solutions, generated via a binary Darboux transformation, of matrix generalizations of the twodimensional Toda lattice equation, where we meet the same entwining Yang–Baxter maps as in the KP case, indicating a kind of universality.
Introduction
The quantum Yang–Baxter equation is known to be a crucial structure underlying twodimensional integrable QFT models. A typical feature of the latter is the factorization of the scattering matrix into contributions from 2particle interactions (see [1] and references therein). This factorization is also typical for the scattering of solitons of classical nonlinear integrable field equations. Indeed, we tend to think of a multisoliton solution of some vector or matrix version of an integrable nonlinear partial differential of difference equation as being composed of 2soliton interactions. Matrix solitons carry “internal degrees of freedom,” called “polarization.” In some cases, like matrix KdV [2] or vector NLS [3,4,5], the map from incoming to outgoing matrix data, i.e., polarizations, has been found to satisfy the Yang–Baxter equation. But why should we expect the Yang–Baxter property? The latter is a statement about three particles, here solitons, and may be thought of as expressing independence of the different ways in which a 3particle interaction can be decomposed into 2particle interactions. First of all, how to decompose a 3soliton solution into 2soliton interactions? Because of the wave nature of solitons, there are no definite events at which the interaction takes place, and (with the exception of asymptotically incoming and outgoing solitons) there are no definite values of the dependent variable which could define a corresponding map. However, there is a certain limit, called “tropical limit,” that takes soliton waves to “point particles” and then indeed determines events at which an interaction occurs. This has been a decisive tool in our previous work [6,7,8,9,10,11] and this will be so also in this work, which continues an exploration started in [9], also see [10, 11]. It will indeed lead us to a deeper understanding of the question concerning the Yang–Baxter property raised above and to a revision of the previous picture.
Let K be a constant \(n \times m\) matrix of maximal rank.^{Footnote 1} In [9], we explored a matrix version of the potential KP equation, the \({\textit{pKP}}_K\) equation
from which the KP\(_K\) equation is obtained via \(u = 2 \, \phi _x\). With the restriction to a subclass of solutions, which we called “pure solitons” in [9], the 2soliton solution, generated by a binary Darboux transformation with trivial seed solution, determines a realization of the following Yang–Baxter map.
Let \(\varvec{S}\) be the set of rankone \(m \times n\) Kprojection matrices (\(X K X = X\)) and
be given by
where \(1_m\) denotes the \(m \times m\) identity matrix and
This is a parameterdependent Yang–Baxter map, which means that it satisfies the Yang–Baxter equation
on \(\varvec{S} \times \varvec{S} \times \varvec{S}\). The indices of \(\mathcal {R}_{\varvec{ij}}\) specify on which two of the three factors the map \(\mathcal {R}\) acts. Here, we have to assume that the constants \(p_i\), \(i=1,2,3\), and also \(q_i\), \(i=1,2,3\), are pairwise distinct and that the expressions for \(\alpha _{ij}\) make sense.
If \(q_i =p_i\), this is the Yang–Baxter map obtained from the 2soliton solution of the KdV\(_K\) equation
For the matrix KdV equation (where \(m=n\) and \(K=1_n\)), the Yang–Baxter map has first been derived in [2].^{Footnote 2}
In the particular case where \(n=1\) (and correspondingly for \(m=1\)), the above (generically highly nonlinear) Yang–Baxter map becomes linear:
Here, we used the fact that, for \(X \in \varvec{S}\), KX is now a scalar, so that the Kprojection property requires \(K X=1\). The Rmatrix, which emerges here, solves the Yang–Baxter equation on a threefold direct sum of an mdimensional vector space, which extends the set \(\varvec{S}\).
In the tropical limit of a pure Nsoliton solution of the KP\(_K\) equation, the dependent variable u has support on a piecewise linear structure in \(\mathbb {R}^3\) (with coordinates x, y, t), a configuration of pieces of planes, and the dependent variable takes a constant value on each plane segment. This piecewise linear structure is obtained as the boundary of “dominating phase regions.” In the KdV reduction, the support of the dependent variable in the tropical limit is a piecewise linear graph in twodimensional spacetime. For the KdV 2soliton solution, we have four dominating phase regions, numbered by 11, 12, 21 and 22.^{Footnote 3} Figure 1 shows an example.
Using the general 2soliton solution to compute the values of the dependent variable u along the boundary line segments of the tropical limit graph, after normalization to \(\hat{u}\) such that \(\mathrm{tr}(K \hat{u})=1\), the map \((\hat{u}_{11,21}, \hat{u}_{21,22}) \mapsto (\hat{u}_{12,22}, \hat{u}_{11,12})\) yields the above Yang–Baxter map (with the KdV reduction \(q_i =p_i\)). Here, for example, \(\hat{u}_{11,21}\) is the polarization along the boundary line between the dominating phase regions numbered by 11 and 21. For a rankone matrix, the above normalization condition is equivalent to the Kprojection property.
But what about a phase constellation different from the one shown in Fig. 1 ? Indeed, Fig. 2 displays alternatives. In the same way as for the phase constellation in Fig. 1, one finds that the first alternative in Fig. 2 leads to the inverse of the above KdV Yang–Baxter map. The remaining possibilities, however, determine maps that are not Yang–Baxter. Nevertheless, they are realized in matrix KdV 2soliton interactions (see Appendix A), regarding them as a process evolving in time t and by choosing the parameters appropriately. We learn that there are matrix KdV 2soliton solutions for which the map of polarizations in tdirection is not Yang–Baxter!^{Footnote 4} How to understand this, in view of our different expectation?
In all cases of phase constellations, shown in Fig. 2, the Yang–Baxter map \(\mathcal {R}\) is present, however. It is recovered by regarding the plot not as a process in tdirection, but in a different direction in spacetime.^{Footnote 5}
First of all, this means that we overlooked something in our analysis of the KP\(_K\) case in [9]. As in the KdV reduction, of course also the general pure 2soliton solution of KP\(_K\) contains constellations, for certain parameter values, where incoming and outgoing polarizations (with respect to a chosen direction) are related by a map that is not a Yang–Baxter map. Besides the above Yang–Baxter map, this map and the inverses of both maps are needed to describe the propagation of polarizations along the support of pure multisoliton solutions in the tropical limit.
We were actually led to the new insights by exploring a matrix version of the twodimensional Toda lattice equation (see, for example, [13, 14] for the scalar equation). This is the subject of Sect. 4. In particular, with the restriction to “pure solitons,” it turns out that the same Yang–Baxter map is here at work as in the KP\(_K\) case, indicating a kind of universality. This may not come as a surprise, however, since both equations are known to be related (also see Remark 4.1).
The tropical limit associates with a soliton solution a configuration of plane segments, together with values of the dependent variable on the segments.^{Footnote 6} It is found that, at intersections, these polarizations are related by one of two maps (and their inverses), of which only one is a Yang–Baxter map, but the two maps satisfy a mixed version of the Yang–Baxter equation (see (3.6) below). They are “entwining Yang–Baxter maps” in the sense of [16].
Section 2 presents a “Lax representation” for the above map \(\mathcal {R}\). This is a matrix refactorization problem. The basic argument^{Footnote 7} is the same as in [2] for the matrix KdV case (also see [18, 19]), but we prove more directly, as compared with [2], that the refactorization problem determines the map \(\mathcal {R}\).
In Sect. 3, we show that this refactorization problem, written in a different way, also determines the abovementioned mixed version of the Yang–Baxter equation. It implies further relations which in particular lead to solutions of the “WXZ system” in [20], called “Yang–Baxter system” in [21]. To our knowledge, such a system first appeared in [22].
In Sect. 4, we explore soliton solutions of the abovementioned matrix twodimensional Toda lattice equation. Section 4.1 presents a binary Darboux transformation for the matrix potential twodimensional Toda lattice equation. Its origin from a general result in bidifferential calculus is explained in Appendix C. We then concentrate on the case of vanishing seed solution. Section 4.2 further restricts to a subclass of soliton solutions, which we call “pure,” and we define the tropical limit of such solitons. In Sect. 4.3, we derive the Yang–Baxter map \(\mathcal {R}\) from the pure 2soliton solution. The relevance of the aforementioned additional nonYang–Baxter map is explained in Sects. 4.4 and 4.5, which treats the case of three pure solitons, and shows explicitly how the Yang–Baxter map and the nonYang–Baxter map (and their inverses) are at work and why they have to be “entwining.”
Finally, Sect. 5 contains some concluding remarks.
A Lax representation for the Yang–Baxter map
Let K be an \(n \times m\) matrix with maximal rank, and
where X is an \(m \times n\) matrix and \(\lambda \) a parameter. Then, we have
If X is a Kprojection matrix, which means \(XKX=X\), then
if \(\lambda \notin \{q_i,p_i\}\).
Theorem 2.1
Let \(p_1,p_2,q_1,q_2\) be pairwise distinct and \(X_i\), \(i=1,2\), rankone Kprojections, and hence, \(X_i \in \varvec{S}\). Then, the refactorization equations^{Footnote 8}
imply the map \(\mathcal {R}(1,2)\), defined in the introduction (see (1.1)).
A proof is given in Appendix B. Recalling a wellknown argument (see [17] and references cited there), exploiting associativity in different ways, we obtain
where we abbreviated \(\mathcal {R}_{\varvec{ij}}(i,j)\) to \(\mathcal {R}_{\varvec{ij}}\) and set, for example, \(\mathcal {R}(1,3)(Y_1,X_3) =: (Z_1,Y_3)\), and also
There are corresponding chains with \(A_i\) replaced by \(\tilde{A}_i\). If
determines a unique map \((X_1,X_2,X_3) \mapsto (Z_1, Z_2, Z_3)\), which means that^{Footnote 9}
we can conclude the statement of the following theorem. But it can also be verified directly, using computer algebra.
Theorem 2.2
Let \(X_i \in \varvec{S}\). Then, \(\mathcal {R}\), given by (1.1), is a Yang–Baxter map.
(2.2) is called a “Lax representation” for the map \(\mathcal {R}\).
Using (2.1), (1.1) can be expressed as
In particular, we have
Remark 2.3
We also have
which in particular means that \(\alpha _{12}\) is an invariant of the map \(\mathcal {R}\).
Further aspects of the Lax representation
According to Sect. 2,
is a Lax representation for the Yang–Baxter map \(\mathcal {R}\). More precisely, we have to supplement this equation by \(\tilde{A}_1(\lambda ,X_1) \, \tilde{A}_2(\lambda ,X_2) = \tilde{A}_2(\lambda ,X_2') \, \tilde{A}_1(\lambda ,X_1')\), if K is not an invertible square matrix. A corresponding extension is also necessary for the other versions of (3.1) considered below, but for simplicity we will suppress it.
1. A Lax representation for the inverse of \(\mathcal {R}\) is given by
As a consequence, we have
where
Comparison with (2.3) shows that this is obtained from the latter by exchanging the two indices 1 and 2. This means that \(\mathcal {R}\) is a reversible Yang–Baxter map,
2. Let us write
instead of (3.1). As in Sect. 2 and Appendix B, it can be shown that this equation uniquely determines the map
where
The denominators of the final expressions are both equal to \(\alpha _{12}\). This map is invariant under exchange of the two indices 1 and 2, and hence,
Although (3.5) resembles (1.1), in contrast to the latter it does not yield a Yang–Baxter map. This can be checked using computer algebra. As a consequence of associativity, we have
and also
where we used (3.1) and set, for example, \(\mathcal {T}^{1}(X_2,X_3) =: (Y'_2,Y'_3)\). One can argue that this implies \(Z_i'=Z_i\), \(i=1,2,3\), in which case we can conclude that
This can also be verified using computer algebra. Hence, writing the Lax representation (3.1) in the form (3.4), we are led to a “mixed Yang–Baxter equation” for the two maps \(\mathcal {R}\) and \(\mathcal {T}\).
3. The inverse \(\mathcal {T}^{1}\) of \(\mathcal {T}\) is given by \((X_1,X_2) \mapsto (X_1',X_2')\), where
A corresponding Lax representation is the version
of (3.1).
Remark 3.1
In the special case where \(n=1\), besides \(\mathcal {R}\) also \(\mathcal {T}\) becomes linear:
It is easily verified that the matrix T does not satisfy the Yang–Baxter equation.
Further consequences of the Lax representation
There are actually further consequences of the fact that (3.1), (3.2), (3.4) and (3.8) uniquely determine maps.

1.
The two ways to rewrite \(A_1(\lambda ,X_1) \, A_2(\lambda ,X_2) \, B_3(\lambda ,X_3)\) in the form \(B_3(\lambda ,Z_3) A_2(\lambda ,Z_2)\) \( A_1(\lambda ,Z_1)\), by using (3.1) and (3.4), allow us to deduce that
$$\begin{aligned} \mathcal {T}_{\varvec{23}}(2,3) \circ \mathcal {T}_{\varvec{13}}(1,3) \circ \mathcal {R}_{\varvec{12}}(1,2) = \mathcal {R}_{\varvec{12}}(1,2) \circ \mathcal {T}_{\varvec{13}}(1,3) \circ \mathcal {T}_{\varvec{23}}(2,3) . \end{aligned}$$(3.9) 
2.
Rewriting \(A_1(\lambda ,X_1) \, B_2(\lambda ,X_2) \, B_3(\lambda ,X_3)\) as \(B_3(\lambda ,Z_3) \, B_2(\lambda ,Z_2) \, A_1(\lambda ,Z_1)\) in the two possible ways, with certain \(Z_i\), using (3.2) and (3.4), leads to
$$\begin{aligned} \mathcal {R}^{1}_{\varvec{23}}(2,3) \circ \mathcal {T}_{\varvec{13}}(1,3) \circ \mathcal {T}_{\varvec{12}}(1,2) = \mathcal {T}_{\varvec{12}}(1,2) \circ \mathcal {T}_{\varvec{13}}(1,3) \circ \mathcal {R}^{1}_{\varvec{23}}(2,3). \qquad \quad \end{aligned}$$(3.10) 
3.
Moreover, transforming \(B_1(\lambda ,X_1) \, B_2(\lambda ,X_2) \, A_3(\lambda ,X_3)\) to \(A_3(\lambda ,Z_3) \, B_2(\lambda ,Z_2) A_1(\lambda ,Z_1)\), with certain \(Z_i\), using (3.2) and (3.8), we obtain
$$\begin{aligned} \mathcal {T}^{1}_{\varvec{23}}(2,3) \circ \mathcal {T}^{1}_{\varvec{13}}(1,3) \circ \mathcal {R}^{1}_{\varvec{12}}(1,2) = \mathcal {R}^{1}_{\varvec{12}}(1,2) \circ \mathcal {T}^{1}_{\varvec{13}}(1,3) \circ \mathcal {T}^{1}_{\varvec{23}}(2,3) . \qquad \quad \end{aligned}$$(3.11)But this is equivalent to (3.9).

4.
Finally, rewriting \(B_1(\lambda ,X_1) \, A_2(\lambda ,X_2) \, A_3(\lambda ,X_3)\) in the form \(A_3(\lambda ,Z_3) A_2(\lambda ,Z_2) \, B_1(\lambda ,Z_1)\), using (3.1) and (3.8), implies
$$\begin{aligned} \mathcal {R}_{\varvec{23}}(2,3) \circ \mathcal {T}^{1}_{\varvec{13}}(1,3) \circ \mathcal {T}^{1}_{\varvec{12}}(1,2) = \mathcal {T}^{1}_{\varvec{12}}(1,2) \circ \mathcal {T}(1,3)^{1}_{\varvec{13}} \circ \mathcal {R}_{\varvec{23}}(2,3) , \qquad \quad \end{aligned}$$(3.12)which, however, is equivalent to (3.10).
Remark 3.2
A system of equations like that given by the Yang–Baxter equation (1.3), supplemented by (3.9) or (3.12), appeared in [24] under the name “braided Yang–Baxter equations.” The same holds for the Yang–Baxter equation for \(\mathcal {R}^{1}\), supplemented by (3.10) or (3.11). Also, see [22]. Via (3.9) and (3.10), as well as via (3.11) and (3.12), we have examples of what has been called “WXZ system” in [20], later also named “Yang–Baxter system” [21]. This system apparently first appeared in [22]. Here, we obtained solutions of these systems. Equation (3.9) also appeared in [23], where a solution emerged in the context of the scalar discrete KP hierarchy. Since the solutions considered in the present work become trivial in the scalar case, the latter solution is of a different nature.
The p2DTL\(_K\) equation
In this section, we address the following matrix version of the potential twodimensional Toda lattice equation,
where \(\varphi \) is an \(m \times n\) matrix of (real or complex) functions and K a constant \(n \times m\) matrix of maximal rank. A subscript indicates a partial derivative with respect to the respective variable, here x or y. A superscript \(+\) or − means a shift or inverse shift, respectively, in a discrete variable, which we will denote by k. We refer to this equation as p2DTL\(_K\).
In the vector case \(n=1\), writing \(K=(k_1,\ldots ,k_m)\), (4.1) reads
By a transformation and redefinition of \(\varphi \), we can then achieve that \(K = (1,0,\ldots ,0)\), so that
which is the scalar potential 2DTL equation, extended by \(m1\) linear equations.
In terms of new independent variables
Equation (4.1) reads
If \(\varphi \) is independent of z, the last equation reduces to
We will refer to this equation as p1DTL\(_K\).
Remark 4.1
In terms of
in the scalar case (\(n=m=1\)), and after differentiation with respect to y, (4.1) with \(K=1\) leads to the twodimensional Toda lattice (2DTL) equation [13] (also see [14, 15, 25,26,27], for example)
A continuum limit of the 2DTL equation is the KPII equation [15]. If u is independent of z, the 2DTL Eq. (4.4) reduces to the onedimensional Toda lattice equation [28]
Correspondingly, we may regard (4.3) as a matrix version of the potential onedimensional Toda lattice equation.
Remark 4.2
Multiplying any solution of the scalar version of (4.1) by an arbitrary constant Kprojection matrix yields a solution of the matrix Eq. (4.1). In this way, a single scalar soliton solution determines single matrix soliton solutions of any rank up to the maximal.
A binary Darboux transformation for the p2DTL\(_K\) equation
The following binary Darboux transformation is a special case of a general result in bidifferential calculus, see Appendix C. Let \(N \in \mathbb {N}\). The integrability condition of the linear system
where \(\theta \) is an \(m \times N\) matrix, is the p2DTL\(_K\) equation for \(\varphi _0\). The same holds for the adjoint linear system
where \(\chi \) is an \(N \times n\) matrix. So, let \(\varphi _0\) be a given solution of (4.1). Let the Darboux potential \(\varOmega \) satisfy the consistent system of \(N \times N\) matrix equations
Where \(\varOmega \) is invertible,
is then a new solution of the p2DTL\(_K\) Eq. (4.1).
Remark 4.3
Equations (4.5)–(4.8) are invariant under the transformation
with any invertible constant \(N \times N\) matrices \(C_a\), \(a=1,2\). This observation is helpful in order to reduce the set of parameters, on which a generated solution depends.
Using (4.8) and the second of (4.7), we find
so that \(\det \varOmega \) plays a role similar to the (Hirota) \(\tau \)function of the (scalar) 2DTL equation.
Solutions for vanishing seed
The linear system (4.5) with \(\varphi _0=0\) reads
It possesses solutions of the form
Here, \(\theta _a\), \(a=1,\dots ,A\), are constant \(m \times N\) matrices, k denotes the discrete variable, \(P_a\), \(a=1,\ldots ,A\), are constant \(N \times N\) matrices, and
Correspondingly, the adjoint linear system (4.6) takes the form
which is solved by
where \(\chi _b\), \(b=1,\ldots ,B\), are constant \(N \times n\) matrices and \(Q_b\), \(b=1,\ldots ,B\), are constant \(N \times N\) matrices.
The equations for the Darboux potential \(\varOmega \) are reduced to
Writing
with a constant \(N \times N\) matrix \(\varOmega _0\), it follows that \(W_{ba}\) has to satisfy the Sylvester equation
If
and if \(p_{i,a} \ne q_{j,b}\) for all \(i,j=1,\ldots ,N\) and \(a=1,\ldots ,A\), \(b=1,\ldots ,B\), then the unique solution is known to be given by the Cauchylike \(N \times N\) matrices
Assuming that \(\varOmega _0\) is invertible, Remark 4.3 shows that we can set \(\varOmega _0 = 1_N\) without loss of generality. The remaining transformations, according to Remark 4.3, can be used to reduce the parameters in \(\theta \) or \(\chi \).
Pure solitons
We further restrict the class of p2DTL\(_K\) solutions specified in Sect. 4.1.1 by setting \(A=B=1\) and assume that the matrices \(P := P_1\) and \(Q := Q_1\) are diagonal (so that (4.13) holds). Solutions from this class which are regular and satisfy the spectrum condition
will be called “pure solitons.”
Let us write
where \(\xi _i\), \(i=1,\ldots ,N\), are constant mcomponent column vectors and \(\eta _i\), \(i=1,\ldots ,N\), are constant ncomponent row vectors. We shall assume that \(p_i>0\) and \(q_i>0\), \(i=1,\ldots ,N\), since otherwise the generated solution of (4.1) will be singular. The above spectrum condition means \(p_i \ne q_j\) for \(i,j=1,\ldots ,N\), and we have
Introducing
provisionally^{Footnote 10} assuming \(p>0\), we obtain
Let us introduce
Instead of using \((a_1,\ldots ,a_N)\) as a subscript, we simply write \(a_1 \ldots a_N\) in the following. For example, \(\vartheta _{a_1 \ldots a_N} = \vartheta _{(a_1,\ldots ,a_N)}\). From (4.8), we find that a pure soliton solution of the p2DTL\(_K\) equation can be expressed as
with
where \(\mathrm{adj}(\varOmega )\) denotes the adjugate of the matrix \(\varOmega \) and \(\varvec{2} := 2\ldots 2 = (2,\ldots ,2)\). The following result is proved in the same way as Proposition 3.1 in [9].
Proposition 4.4
\(\tau \) and F have expansions
with constants \(\mu _I\) and constant \(m \times n\) matrices \(M_I\). We have \(\mu _{\varvec{2}}=1\) and \(M_{\varvec{2}}=0\). \(\square \)
Besides conditions imposed on \(p_i\) and \(q_i\) such that all the \(\vartheta _I\) appearing in (4.14) are real, the regularity of a pure Nsoliton solution requires \(\mu _I \ge 0\) for all \(I \in \{1,2\}^N\), and \(\mu _J >0\) for at least one \(J \in \{1,2\}^N\). We will impose the slightly stronger condition \(\mu _I > 0\) for all \(I \in \{1,2\}^N\).
It follows that
where
Example 4.5
For \(N=1\), writing \(p_1=p\), \(q_1=q\), \(\xi _1=\xi \), \(\eta _1=\eta \) and \(\kappa = \eta K \xi \), we have the single soliton solution
which leads to
In terms of the variables \(t = x+y\) and \(z = xy\), it reads
We have to restrict the parameters such that \(p/q > 0\) and \(q \kappa >0\). The solution becomes independent of z if we choose \(q = p^{1}\), in which case the above \(\varphi \) reduces to a single soliton solution of the p1DTL\(_K\) Eq. (4.3), and we have
It is obvious from (4.8) and the sizes of its matrix constituents that, for \(N=1\), the binary Darboux transformation with zero seed can only yield a rankone solution.
Tropical limit of pure solitons
We define the tropical limit of a matrix soliton solution via the tropical limit of the scalar function \(\tau \) (cf. [6,7,8]). Let
In the region of \(\mathbb {R}^2 \times \mathbb {Z}\), where a phase \(\vartheta _I\) dominates all others, in the sense that \(\log (\mu _I \, e^{\vartheta _I}) > \log (\mu _J \, e^{\vartheta _J})\) for all participating \(J \ne I\), the tropical limit of the potential \(\varphi \) is given by (4.20).^{Footnote 11} These expressions do not depend on the variables x, y, k (respectively, z, t, k).
The boundary between the regions associated with the phases \(\vartheta _I\) and \(\vartheta _J\) is determined by the condition
Not all parts of such a boundary are “visible,” in general, since some of them may lie in a region where a third phase dominates the two phases. The tropical limit of a soliton solution, more precisely, of the variable u, has support on the visible parts of the boundaries between the regions associated with phases appearing in \(\tau \).
For \(I = (a_1,\ldots ,a_N)\), we set
The jth soliton (having parameters \(p_j\) and \(q_j\)) lives, in the tropical limit, on the set of twodimensional plane segments determined, via (4.21), by
for all \(I \in \{1,2\}^N\). More explicitly, the last equation reads
which requires
All these plane segments are parallel. In general, there are relative shifts between the segments, and they do not constitute together a single plane. This gives rise to the familiar (asymptotic) “phase shift” of solitons caused by their interaction. Figure 3 shows this for a 2soliton example, considered at constant time, so that the configuration of planes is projected to a graph in two dimensions. For \(j=1,\ldots ,N\), the regularity conditions (4.22) will be assumed in the following.
On a (visible) boundary segment, the value of u is given by
This follows from (4.19) by use of (4.20) and (4.21). Instead of the above expressions for the tropical values of u, we will rather consider
where
(4.23) has the form of a discrete derivative.
Using (4.9), (4.14), (4.17) and (4.18), we find
and thus,
As a consequence, we have the normalization
Remark 4.6
We note that
which shows that its value is the same everywhere (i.e., for all I) on the tropical support of the jth soliton.
Pure 2soliton solution and the Yang–Baxter map
For \(N=2\), we find \(\varphi ^+ = F/\tau \) with
where
and
The above expressions for \(\tau \) and F coincide with those derived in the KP\(_K\) case [9]. The only difference is in the expressions for the phases, but the latter do not enter the expressions for the polarizations.
Example 4.7
Let
Figure 3 shows the phase constellation and the tropical limit graph of the corresponding 2soliton solution of the vector p2DTL\(_K\) equation at \(t=0\).^{Footnote 12}
Let us now consider the graph in Fig. 3 as a scattering process evolving from bottom to top. Defining
we find
We observe that \(u_i\) and \(u_i'\) all have rank one. They are Kprojections, i.e.,
Furthermore, they satisfy
Equations (4.27) imply
provided that \(\{p_1,p_2\} \cap \{q_1,q_2\} = \emptyset \). Comparison with (2.3) shows that \((u_1,u_2) \mapsto (u_1',u_2')\) provides us with a realization of the Yang–Baxter map \(\mathcal {R}\).^{Footnote 13}
Remark 4.8
If \(n=1\), we are dealing with an mcomponent vector 2DTL equation. Then, \(\eta _i\) and \(K \xi _i\), \(i=1,\ldots ,N\), are scalars. In this case, the Yang–Baxter map is linear,
with R(i, j) defined in (1.5). It solves the Yang–Baxter equation \(R_{\varvec{12}}(1,2) \, R_{\varvec{13}}(1,3) R_{\varvec{23}}(2,3) = R_{\varvec{23}}(2,3) \, R_{\varvec{13}}(1,3) \, R_{\varvec{12}}(1,2)\) on a threefold direct sum. Also, see [9] for the case of the vector KP\(_K\) equation. Introducing
we have \(R(i,j) = S(i,j) \tilde{R}(i,j) S(i,j)^{1}\), and \(\tilde{R}(i,j)\) also satisfies the Yang–Baxter equation. We further note that \(RA(i,j) := A(i,j)^{1} R(i,j) A(i,j)\) with \(A(i,j)=\mathrm{diag}(a_{ij},b_{ij})\) solves the Yang–Baxter equation if the constants \(a_{ij},b_{ij}\) satisfy the relations \( a_{ik} b_{ij} b_{jk} = a_{ij} a_{jk} b_{ik}\) for pairwise distinct i, j, k. If we drop the normalization condition (4.25) in the computation of the Yang–Baxter map, the resulting Rmatrix turns out to be of the latter form. The same holds if we consider \(v = \varphi ^+  \varphi \) instead of \(\hat{u}\).
Yang–Baxter and nonYang–Baxter maps at work
In Sect. 4.3, we looked at the relation between the polarizations associated with the boundary segments of dominant phase regions of a pure 2soliton solution, selecting a “propagation direction.” But there is actually no preferred direction. It is therefore more adequate to regard (4.27) just as determining a relation between four polarizations, and there are several ways in which this determines a map from two “incoming” to two “outgoing” polarizations.
Example 4.9
We keep the choices for K, \(\xi _i\) and \(\eta _i\), made in Example 4.7. Then, \(\kappa _{ij} =1\) and \(\alpha _{12} = (q_2q_1)/(q_2p_1)\), so that the regularity conditions (4.22) read \(p_2,q_2 > 0\), \(p_1 (q_2q_1)/(q_2p_1) >0\) and \(p_1/q_1 >0\). Furthermore, without loss of generality, we can choose the parameters such that, for large enough negative value of k, soliton 1 appears in zdirection to the left of soliton 2.

1.
\(q_1< p_1< p_2 < q_2\) or \(q_1< p_2< q_2 < p_1\). In this case, the phase constellation is that shown in Fig. 3. Regarding it as a process in kdirection, the map of polarizations is the Yang–Baxter map \(\mathcal {R}\).

2.
\(p_1< q_1< q_2 < p_2\) or \(p_1< q_2< p_2 < q_1\). The phase constellation is that shown in the first plot of Fig. 4 (which is generated with \(p_1 = 1/4\), \(q_1 = 3/2\), \(q_2 = 2\) and \(p_2 = 3\)). The map of polarizations, in kdirection, leads us to the inverse of the Yang–Baxter map \(\mathcal {R}\), which is also a Yang–Baxter map.

3.
\(q_1< p_1< q_2 < p_2\) or \(q_1< q_2< p_2 < p_1\). The phase constellation is that shown in the second plot of Fig. 4 (which is generated with \(q_1 = 1/4\), \(p_1 = 3/2\), \(q_2 = 2\) and \(p_2 = 3\)). Instead of (4.26), here we define initial and final polarizations as
$$\begin{aligned} u_1 := \hat{u}_{12,22} , \quad u_2 := \hat{u}_{21,22} , \quad u_1' := \hat{u}_{11,21} , \quad u_2' := \hat{u}_{11,12} , \end{aligned}$$and obtain the map \(\mathcal {T}\), given by (3.5), which is not a Yang–Baxter map.

4.
\(p_1< q_1< p_2 < q_2\) or \(p_1< p_2< q_2 < q_1\). The phase constellation is that shown in the third plot of Fig. 4 (which is generated with \(p_1 = 1/4\), \(q_1 = 3/2\), \(p_2 = 2\) and \(q_2 = 3\)). In this case, the map of polarizations, from bottom to top, is the inverse of \(\mathcal {T}\).
For any one of the plots in Figs. 3 or 4, we obtain realizations of all the maps by choosing different directions.
The naive expectation that 2soliton scattering yields a Yang–Baxter map is therefore wrong. But we have to keep in mind that the Yang–Baxter property is a statement about three solitons. A 3soliton solution involves three 2particle interactions. In the tropical limit, this means that a composition of three of the above maps carries the polarizations along the tropical limit support. We will see in the next subsection that the Yang–Baxter equation is indeed only required to hold for a mixture of the maps, but not for each map separately.
Remark 4.10
As seen above, the constellation of dominant phase regions depends on the concrete values of the parameters. If, for a certain constellation, we select a direction and obtain a Yang–Baxter map, then the latter has the Yang–Baxter property for all choices of parameters. From the above, we conclude that the map, relating the (relative to our choice of direction) incoming and outgoing polarizations, is a Yang–Baxter map if and only if the phase region that lies between the two incoming solitons is that of \(\vartheta _{12}\) or \(\vartheta _{21}\).
Example 4.11
Imposing the reduction condition \(q_i = p_i^{1}\) on the solutions of the p2DTL\(_K\) equation determines solutions of the p1DTL\(_K\) Eq. (4.3). The corresponding Yang–Baxter map is obtained from (1.1) by applying this reduction condition. Let us choose again
The regularity condition (4.22) is then \((p_2p_1)/(p_21) > 0\).

1.
\(0< p_2<p_1 < 1\). The map of incoming to outgoing polarizations, in tdirection, is the reduced Yang–Baxter map. The tropical limit graph, for parameters \(p_1 = 1/2\) and \(p_2 = 1/10\), is shown in the first plot of Fig. 5.

2.
\(1<p_1<p_2\). In this case, the polarization map is the inverse of the (reduced) Yang–Baxter map. For \(p_1 = 2\) and \(p_2 = 10\), we obtain the second plot of Fig. 5.

3.
\(0< p_1< 1 < p_2\) and \(p_1<p_2^{1}\). In this case, the (reduced) map \(\mathcal {T}\) is at work. For \(p_1=1/2\) and \(p_2=10\), the third plot of Fig. 5 is obtained.

4.
\(0< p_2< 1 < p_1\) and \(p_1^{1}<p_2\). Here, \(\mathcal {T}^{1}\) applies. For \(p_1=2\) and \(p_2=1/10\), we obtain the fourth plot of Fig. 5.
Pure 3soliton solution
For \(N=3\), we find
where
and
Again, we set \(\kappa _{ij} = \eta _i K \xi _j\). Furthermore, we have
where
Note that \(\alpha _{ij} = \alpha _{ijj}\). The above expressions coincide with those obtained in the KP\(_K\) case [9]. The only difference is in the phases entering the exponentials. Here, we wrote F in a more compact form.
Example 4.12
We choose
Figure 6 displays the tropical limit graphs of the corresponding 3soliton solution at a large negative and a large positive value of t. The respective sequences of interactions correspond to the two sides of the Yang–Baxter equation. Since the polarizations do not depend on the variables z, t, k, we conclude that, starting with the same initial polarizations, in both cases we end up with the same polarizations. This implies that the maps acting along the tropical limit graph satisfy a mixed version of the Yang–Baxter equation.
The polarizations at a node of the tropical limit graph at \(t = t_0\) are completely determined if we know the soliton numbers associated with two “incoming lines,” e.g., soliton 1 with the left and soliton 2 with the right line, and the number of the enclosed phase region, for example 222. In this configuration, to the left of incoming soliton line 1 we have the phase with number 122, to the right of incoming soliton line 2 the phase with number 212, and the remaining one has necessarily number 112. Hence, there are incoming polarizations \(\hat{u}_{122,222},\hat{u}_{212,222}\) and outgoing polarizations \(\hat{u}_{112,212},\hat{u}_{112,122}\) of solitons 1 and 2. These can be computed from the above 3soliton solution, and it can be verified that they are related by one of the maps considered in Sect. 4.4. This also holds for all possible other nodes.
In the following, we consider the situation shown in the left plot in Fig. 6, regarding it as a process from bottom to top. Accordingly, we set
where a subscript \(\mathrm{m1}\) indicates that the line segment appears in the middle of the first plot in Fig. 6. For the right plot in Fig. 6, we only have to replace the polarizations of middle segments by
Now, we can check that either the Yang–Baxter map \(\mathcal {R}\), the map \(\mathcal {T}\), or one of their inverses acts at each crossing of the tropical limit graph. Proceeding from bottom to top in the left plot of Fig. 6, the first crossing involves only solitons 1 and 2, so we can ignore the last digit of the numbers of the involved phases. The situation is that of the 2soliton interaction sketched in the first drawing in Fig. 7. Accordingly, \(\mathcal {T}\), given by (3.5), should map \((u_{1,\mathrm{in}}, u_{2,\mathrm{in}})\) to \((u_{1,\mathrm{m1}},u_{2,\mathrm{m1}})\). Indeed, this can be verified using the above data.
The next crossing, where solitons 1 and 3 interact, is sketched as a 2soliton interaction in the second drawing in Fig. 7. In this situation, the Yang–Baxter map \(\mathcal {R}\) should yield \((u_{1,\mathrm{m1}},u_{3,\mathrm{in}}) \mapsto (u_{1,\mathrm{out}},u_{3,\mathrm{m1}})\). Indeed, we find
(which can be deduced from (D.1)). Similarly,
Finally, at the last crossing solitons 2 and 3 interact. The situation is sketched in the last drawing in Fig. 7. Accordingly, we expect the map \(\mathcal {T}^{1}\) to be at work and this can indeed be verified.
The 2soliton subinteractions appearing in the right plot of Fig. 6 are sketched in Fig. 8. For the lowest, corresponding to the first drawing in Fig. 8, we can verify (see Appendix D) that the polarizations are related by the map \(\mathcal {T}^{1}\), given by (3.7). The second drawing in Fig. 8 corresponds to an application of the Yang–Baxter map \(\mathcal {R}\) and the third to an application of \(\mathcal {T}\).
At least for the parameter range, for which the tropical limit graphs at large negative and positive time t have the structure shown in Fig. 6, we can now conclude that (3.6) holds. This is so because the polarizations associated with line segments of the tropical limit graph do not depend on the variables z, t, k. Since the two situations shown in Fig. 6 belong to the same solution of the 2DTL\(_K\) equation, the result of the application of the two sides of (3.6) is the same. We know that (3.6) indeed holds for all parameter values (provided that \(p_i,q_i\) are all different).
In the following examples, we present tropical limit graphs for pure 3soliton solutions, which show a structure different from that in Fig. 6.
Example 4.13
We choose K and \(\eta _i,\xi _i\), \(i=1,2,3\), as in Example 4.12, and set
Corresponding tropical limit graphs at constant values of t are shown in Fig. 9, from which we read off
which is (3.12).
Example 4.14
Again, we choose K and \(\eta _i,\xi _i\), \(i=1,2,3\), as in Example 4.12, but now
Corresponding tropical limit graphs are shown in Fig. 10, from which we read off
which is the Yang–Baxter Eq. (1.3).
Conclusions
We presented a “Lax representation” for the Yang–Baxter map \(\mathcal {R}\) obtained in [9] from the pure 2soliton solution of the (Kmodified) matrix KP equation. For the matrix KdV reduction, such a Lax representation had been found earlier in [2], also see [18]. Using also the inverse of the Lax matrix A, we were led to entwining Yang–Baxter maps, in the sense of [16]. Besides the Yang–Baxter map, this involves another map, which is not Yang–Baxter, but both maps satisfy a “mixed Yang–Baxter equation.”
We demonstrated that this structure is indeed realized in 3soliton interactions. Here, we concentrated on an analysis of matrix generalizations of the twodimensional Toda lattice equation, of which solitons can be generated via a binary Darboux transformation. For the subclass of “pure solitons,” which only exhibit elastic scattering (i.e., no merging or splitting of solitons), we elaborated the tropical limit of the general 2 and 3soliton solution. It turned out that exactly the same Yang–Baxter map as in the KP\(_K\) case is a work. The crucial new insight is that the flow of polarizations for three solitons is not, in general, described by the Yang–Baxter map alone, but by entwining Yang–Baxter maps. This also holds for KP\(_K\) and even for KdV\(_K\) (with \(K=1_n\), for example), also see Appendix A. This result crucially relies on our tropical limit analysis of solitons.
More precisely, in the preceding section we found that (1.3), (3.6) and also (3.12) are realized by pure 2DTL\(_K\) solitons. We do not know whether this is also so for the remaining mixed Yang–Baxter equations in Sect. 3.
Since the soliton with number i is specified via the parameters \(p_i,q_i\), and the polarization \(u_i\), we can associate the matrices \(A_i(\lambda ,u_i)\) and \(B_i(\lambda ,u_i)\) with it (as well as \(\tilde{A}_i(\lambda ,u_i)\) and \(\tilde{B}_i(\lambda ,u_i)\)). Comparing the threefold products of these Lax matrices, which imply a mixed Yang–Baxter equation, with the tropical limit plots for pure 3solitons, one observes the following rule. Whether \(A_i\) or \(B_i\) is at work depends on the constellation of phases to the left and to the right of the line. For example, if the first soliton has phase 1ab to the left and 2cd to the right (\(a,b,c,d \in \{1,2\}\)), we have to choose \(A_1\), whereas with 2ab to the left and 1cd to the right, it has to be \(B_1\). The 3soliton interaction shown in the first plot in Fig. 6 corresponds to
(hiding away the parameters). The Lax matrices, which are subject to the refactorization Eq. (2.2), generate a Zamolodchikov–Faddeev algebra. In Smatrix theory of an integrable QFT, these matrices play a role as creation and annihilation operators (see, for example, Section 4.2 in [1], and references cited there).
We also found that the two maps \(\mathcal {R}\), \(\mathcal {T}\), and their inverses, provide us with solutions of the “WXZ system” [20], called Yang–Baxter system in [21].
We further note that the Yang–Baxter map obtained for the matrix nonlinear Schrödinger (NLS) equation in [3,4,5] has the same form as the Yang–Baxter map \(\mathcal {R}\) for matrix KP and matrix twodimensional Toda lattice.
Like KP\(_K\), also the 2DTL\(_K\) equation possesses many soliton solutions beyond pure solitons, see Sect. 4.1. A corresponding analysis, following [10], goes beyond Yang–Baxter and will be postponed to future work.
Notes
In this work, we only consider matrices over the real or complex numbers.
The factor \(\alpha _{12}\) is missing in the latter work, but it is necessary for the Yang–Baxter property.
The parameters \(p_k,q_k\) belong to the kth soliton. The first digit of the phase number ab refers to soliton 1 and the second to soliton 2. Since we write \(p_k=:p_{k,1}\) and \(q_k =: p_{k,2}\), we have \(a,b \in \{1,2\}\).
As a process in tdirection, the first plot in Fig. 2 corresponds to an application of the inverse of the Yang–Baxter map \(\mathcal {R}\).
It is actually more generally based on the relation between neighboring simplex equations, see [17] and references cited there.
These are local 1simplex equations, see [17], for example.
Also, see Proposition 3.1 in [16].
Finally, we only have to make sure that the expressions for \(\vartheta _I\) (see below), appearing in a generated solution of the p2DTL\(_K\) equation, are real.
Here, and in all other plots in this work, we have chosen the parameters in such a way that, as the vertical coordinate tends to \(\infty \), the solitons are naturally ordered in horizontal direction.
References
Bombardelli, D.: \(S\)matrices and integrability. J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 49, 323003 (2016)
Goncharenko, V., Veselov, A.: Yang–Baxter maps and matrix solitons, in New Trends in Integrability and Partial Solvability. In: Shabat, A., et al. (eds.) NATO Science Series II: Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry, vol. 132, pp. 191–197. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2004)
Ablowitz, M., Prinari, B., Trubatch, A.: Soliton interactions in the vector NLS equation. Inv. Problems 20, 1217–1237 (2004)
Tsuchida, T.: \(N\)soliton collision in the Manakov model. Progr. Theor. Phys. 111, 151–182 (2004)
Tsuchida, T.: Integrable discretization of the vector/matrix nonlinear Schrödinger equation and the associated Yang–Baxter map, arXiv:1505.07924 (2004)
Dimakis, A., MüllerHoissen, F.: KP line solitons and Tamari lattices. J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 44, 025203 (2011)
Dimakis, A., MüllerHoissen, F.: KP solitons, higher Bruhat and Tamari orders, in Associahedra, Tamari Lattices and Related Structures. In: MüllerHoissen, F., Pallo, J., Stasheff, J. (eds.) Progress in Mathematics, vol. 299, pp. 391–423. BirkhäuserBasel, Switzerland (2012)
Dimakis, A., MüllerHoissen, F.: KdV soliton interactions: a tropical view. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 482, 012010 (2014)
Dimakis, A., MüllerHoissen, F.: Matrix KP: tropical limit and Yang–Baxter maps. Lett. Math. Phys. 109, 799–827 (2019)
Dimakis, A., MüllerHoissen, F.: Matrix KP: tropical limit, Yang–Baxter and pentagon maps. Theor. Math. Phys. 196, 1164–1173 (2018)
Dimakis, A., MüllerHoissen, F., Chen, X.: Matrix Boussinesq solitons and their tropical limit. Physica Scripta 94, 035206 (2019)
Goncharenko, V.: Multisoliton solutions of the matrix KdV equation. Theor. Math. Phys. 126, 81–91 (2001)
Mikhailov, A.: Integrability of a twodimensional generalization of the Toda chain. JETP Lett. 30, 414–418 (1979)
Takasaki, K.: Toda hierarchies and their applications. J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 51, 203001 (2018)
Biondini, G., Wang, D.: On the soliton solutions of the twodimensional Toda lattice. J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 43, 434007 (2010)
Kouloukas, T., Papageorgiou, V.: Entwining Yang–Baxter maps and integrable lattices. Banach Center Publ. 93, 163–175 (2011)
Dimakis, A., MüllerHoissen, F.: Simplex and polygon equations. SIGMA 11, 042 (2015)
Suris, Y., Veselov, A.: Lax matrices for Yang–Baxter maps. J. Nonl. Math. Phys. 10, 223–230 (2003)
Reshetikhin, N., Veselov, A.: Poisson Lie groups and Hamiltonian theory of the Yang–Baxter maps, arXiv:math/0512328 (2005)
Hlavatý, L., Snobl, L.: Solution of the Yang–Baxter system for quantum doubles. Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 14, 3029–3058 (1999)
Brzeziński, T., Nichita, F.: Yang–Baxter systems and entwining structures. Commun. Alg. 33, 1083–1093 (2005)
Vladimirov, A.: A method for obtaining quantum doubles from the Yang–Baxter \(R\)matrices. Mod. Phys. Lett. A 8, 1315–1322 (1993)
Kakei, S., Nimmo, J.J.C., Willox, R.: Yang–Baxter maps and the discrete KP hierarchy. Glasgow Math. J. 51A, 107–119 (2009)
Hlavatý, L.: Quantized braid groups. J. Math. Phys. 35, 2560–2569 (1994)
Hirota, R., Ito, M., Kako, F.: Twodimensional Toda lattice equations. Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 94, 42–58 (1988)
Ueno, K., Takasaki, K.: Toda lattice hierarchy, in group representations and systems of differential equations. In: Okamoto, K. (ed.) Advanced Studies in Pure Mathematics, vol. 4, pp. 1–95. Amsterdam, NorthHolland (1984)
Hirota, R.: The Direct Method in Soliton Theory. In: Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics, vol. 155. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2004)
Toda, M.: Theory of Nonlinear Lattices. Springer, Berlin (1989)
Isojima, S., Willox, R., Satsuma, J.: Spiderweb solutions of the coupled KP equation. J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 36, 9533–9552 (2003)
Maruno, K., Biondini, G.: Resonance and web structure in discrete soliton systems: the twodimensional Toda lattice and its fully discrete and ultradiscrete analogues. J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 37, 11819–11839 (2004)
Biondini, G., Chakravarty, S.: Soliton solutions of the Kadomtsev–Petviashvili II equation. J. Math. Phys. 47, 033514 (2006)
Chakravarty, S., Kodama, Y.: Classification of the linesoliton solutions of KPII. J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 41, 275209 (2008)
Dimakis, A., MüllerHoissen, F.: Binary Darboux transformations in bidifferential calculus and integrable reductions of vacuum Einstein equations. SIGMA 9, 009 (2013)
Chvartatskyi, O., Dimakis, A., MüllerHoissen, F.: Selfconsistent sources for integrable equations via deformations of binary Darboux transformations. Lett. Math. Phys. 106, 1139–1179 (2016)
Acknowledgements
Open access funding provided by Projekt DEAL.
Funding
Not applicable
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
Code availability
Not applicable
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix A: 2soliton solutions of the KdV\(_K\) equation
The 2soliton solution of (1.4) is obtained from the formulas in Sect. 4.3 by replacing the expressions for \(\vartheta _{ab}\) by
where now
To determine the asymptotics of soliton 1 in the 2soliton solution, we set
with constants \(\varLambda _1^{(\pm )}\), and take the limit as \(t \rightarrow \pm \infty \). Then, we choose \(\varLambda _1^{(\pm )}\) in such a way that phase shifts are compensated.^{Footnote 14} Correspondingly for soliton 2, in this way we obtain the following.

1.
Let \(p_2< p_1 < 0\). Then, \(u_{11,21}\) (\(u_{21,22}\)) and \(u_{12,22}\) (\(u_{11,12}\)) are the polarizations of soliton 1 (soliton 2) as \(t \rightarrow \infty \), respectively, \(t \rightarrow \infty \). This is the phase constellation shown in Fig. 1. We find the following relations with polarizations defined via the tropical limit,
$$\begin{aligned}&\hat{u}_{11,21} = \lim _{t \rightarrow \infty } u\Big _{x\mapsto p_1^2 t + \varLambda _1^{()}} , \quad \hat{u}_{12,22} = \lim _{t \rightarrow +\infty } u\Big _{x\mapsto p_1^2 t + \varLambda _1^{(+)}} , \\&\hat{u}_{21,22} = \lim _{t \rightarrow \infty } u\Big _{x\mapsto p_2^2 t + \varLambda _2^{()}} , \quad \hat{u}_{11,12} = \lim _{t \rightarrow +\infty } u\Big _{x\mapsto p_2^2 t + \varLambda _2^{(+)}} , \end{aligned}$$where \(\varLambda _1^{()} =  \log (\alpha _{12} \kappa _{11})/(2p_1)\), \(\varLambda _1^{(+)} =  \log (\kappa _{11})/(2p_1)\), \(\varLambda _2^{()} =  \log (\kappa _{22})/(2p_2)\), \(\varLambda _2^{(+)} =  \log (\alpha _{12} \kappa _{22})/(2p_1)\).

2.
Let \(0< p_1 < p_2\). Then, \(u_{12,22}\) (\(u_{11,12}\)) and \(u_{11,21}\) (\(u_{21,22}\)) are the polarizations of soliton 1 (soliton 2) as \(t \rightarrow \infty \), respectively, \(t \rightarrow \infty \). This is the phase constellation shown in the first plot of Fig. 2.

3.
Let \(p_2< 0 < p_1\), \(p_1<p_2\). Then, \(u_{11,21}\) (\(u_{11,12}\)) and \(u_{12,22}\) (\(u_{21,22}\)) are the polarizations of soliton 1 (soliton 2) as \(t \rightarrow \infty \), respectively, \(t \rightarrow \infty \). This is the phase constellation shown in the second plot of Fig. 2.

4.
Let \(p_1< 0 < p_2\), \(p_1<p_2\). Then, \(u_{12,22}\) (\(u_{21,22}\)) and \(u_{11,21}\) (\(u_{11,12}\)) are the polarizations of soliton 1 (soliton 2) as \(t \rightarrow \infty \), respectively, \(t \rightarrow \infty \). This is the phase constellation displayed in the third plot of Fig. 2.
In all these cases, we have \(p_1<p_2\), so that, for large enough negative values of t, soliton 1 appears to the left of soliton 2 in xdirection. The concrete tropical limit graphs in Figs. 1 and 2 are obtained with
and the following data, respectively:

1.
\(p_1 =1/2\), \(p_2 = 3/2\).

2.
\(p_1 =1/2\), \(p_2 = 3/2\).

3.
\(p_1 =1/2\), \(p_2 = 3/2\).

4.
\(p_1 =1/2\), \(p_2 = 3/2\).
Appendix B: Proof of Theorem 2.1
Let K be an \(n \times m\) matrix with maximal rank.
Lemma B.1
Let K have maximal rank and \(X_i\), \(i=1,2\), be rankone Kprojections. Let \(\alpha ,\beta \) be constants such that
Then,
Proof
Since \(X_i\) is a Kprojection, \(X_i K\) and \(K X_i\) are ordinary projection (i.e., idempotent) matrices. If K has maximal rank, they have rank one iff \(X_i\) has rank one. Hence, there is a column vector \(\xi _i\) and a row vector \(\eta _i\) such that \(X_i K = \xi _i \eta _i\) and \(\eta _i \xi _i =1\) and correspondingly for \(K X_i\). It follows that
Since K is assumed to have maximal rank, this implies
Using further the Kprojection property of \(X_i\), our assertion can be directly verified. \(\square \)
Proposition B.2
Let K have maximal rank, \(p_1,p_2,q_1,q_2\) be pairwise distinct, and \(X_i \in \varvec{S}\), \(i=1,2\). The system (2.2) determines a map \(\varvec{S} \times \varvec{S} \rightarrow \varvec{S} \times \varvec{S}\) via \((X_1,X_2) \mapsto (X_1',X_2')\), which is given by (1.1).
Proof
We multiply (2.2) by \((\lambda q_1)(\lambda q_2)\) and expand in powers of \(\lambda \). Since K is assumed to have maximal rank, from the coefficient linear in \(\lambda \) we obtain
which can be used to replace \(X_2'\) in the \(\lambda \)independent part of the expression we started with,
Since \(X_1'\) is a Kprojection, this becomes
so that
If \(X_i\), \(i=1,2\), have rank one, the inverse of the matrix multiplying \(X_1'\) is given in the preceding lemma. We have to apply it to the righthand side of the last expression. First, we compute
using the Kprojection property of \(X_i\), \(i=1,2\), and (B.1). Here, we have
with \(\alpha _{12}\) defined in (1.2). A straightforward computation now leads to
which is the first of Eq. (1.1). The second equation is obtained in the same way, and we can verify that \(X_i' \in \varvec{S}\), \(i=1,2\). \(\square \)
Remark B.3
In [2], it has been noted that in the case associated with the matrix KdV Eq. (2.2) determines, more generally, a Yang–Baxter map if the set \(\varvec{S}\) is extended to the set of all Kprojections, i.e., without restriction to rank one. In the more general situation considered in the present work, we observe that (B.2), which has been derived without restriction of the rank, can be rewritten as
(cf. [5] for the NLS case). If the matrix multiplying \(X'_1\) is invertible, it follows that the latter is a Kprojection. A corresponding argument shows that also \(X'_2\) is a Kprojection. A convenient formula for the inverse of the matrix multiplying \(X'_1\) (and correspondingly for \(X'_2\)), like that given in Lemma B.1 for the rankone case, is not available, however. At least in the special case where \(X_1\) and \(X_2\) both have rank r and satisfy
which implies that the scalar \(\mu \) is given by \(r^{1} \mathrm{tr}(X_i K X_j K)\), one can show that
Since (B.3) holds for any two rankone Kprojections, we recover (2.3).
Appendix C: Derivation of the binary Darboux transformation for the p2DTL\(_K\) equation
We recall a binary Darboux transformation result of bidifferential calculus [33, 34].
Theorem C.1
Let \((\varOmega ,\mathrm{d}, \bar{\mathrm{d}})\) be a bidifferential calculus and \(\varDelta , \varGamma , \varvec{\lambda }, \varvec{\kappa }\) solutions of
and \(\phi _0\) a solution of
where \(\mathrm{d}K = 0 = \bar{\mathrm{d}}K\). Let \(\theta \) and \(\chi \) be solutions of the linear system
and the adjoint linear system
Let \(\varOmega \) solve the compatible linear system
Where \(\varOmega \) is invertible,
is a new solution of (C.1). \(\square \)
In the above theorem, we have to assume that all objects are such that the corresponding products are defined and that \(\mathrm{d}\) and \(\bar{\mathrm{d}}\) can be applied. Next, we define a bidifferential calculus via
on the algebra \(\mathcal {A}= \mathcal {A}_0[\mathbb {S},\mathbb {S}^{1}]\), where \(\mathcal {A}_0\) is the algebra of smooth functions of two variables, x and y, and also dependent on a discrete variable on which the shift operator \(\mathbb {S}\) acts. \(\zeta _1, \zeta _2\) constitute a basis of a twodimensional vector space V, from which we form the Grassmann algebra \(\varLambda (V)\). \(\mathrm{d}\) and \(\bar{\mathrm{d}}\) extend to \(\varOmega = \mathcal {A}\otimes \varLambda (V)\) in a canonical way and to matrices with entries in \(\varOmega \). Setting
Eq. (C.1) is equivalent to the p2DTL\(_K\) Eq. (4.1). Choosing a solution \(\phi _0 = \varphi _0 \, \mathbb {S}^{1}\) and setting
the linear system (C.2) and the adjoint linear system (C.3) lead to (4.5) and (4.6), respectively. Furthermore, via \(\varOmega \mapsto \varOmega \mathbb {S}\), (C.4) implies (4.7). According to the theorem, (C.5) yields a new solution of the p2DTL\(_K\) Eq. (4.1).
Appendix D: Computational details for Section 4.5
Using the 3soliton solution in Sect. 4.5, and the notation introduced there, we find that
where \(\bullet \) stands for \(\mathrm{in},\mathrm{out},\mathrm{m1}\) or \(\mathrm{m2}\),
and
Here, we used (2.1) and introduced the rankone Kprojections
For example, we find
and
from which some statements in Sect. 4.5 are quickly deduced.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Dimakis, A., MüllerHoissen, F. Tropical limit of matrix solitons and entwining Yang–Baxter maps. Lett Math Phys 110, 3015–3051 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11005020013229
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11005020013229
Keywords
 Soliton
 Tropical limit
 Yang–Baxter equation
 Yang–Baxter map
 Toda lattice
 Darboux transformation
Mathematics Subject Classification
 35C08
 37K40
 16T25