Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 135 references

Stable supersolids and boselets in spin-orbit-coupled Bose-Einstein condensates with three-body interactions

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Repulsive three-body interactions can render both the plane-wave and stripe-wave phases of a one-dimensional spin-orbit-coupled Bose-Einstein condensate dynamically stable, turning the former into boselets and the latter into a supersolid.

desk verdict Promising and genuinely new stabilization mechanism, but the stable-supersolid claim rests on a stripe-phase BdG ansatz the paper never validates; worth refereeing with major revisions. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.03505 v1 pith:RJHU5VCW submitted 2025-06-04 cond-mat.quant-gas nlin.PSquant-ph

Rajamanickam Ravisankar , Sanu Kumar Gangwar , Henrique Fabrelli , Yongping Zhang , Paulsamy Muruganandam , Pankaj Kumar Mishra , Emmanuel Kengne , Gao Xianlong
show 1 more author
Boris A. Malomed
This is my paper
classification cond-mat.quant-gasnlin.PSquant-ph
keywords spin-orbit-coupledBose-Einsteincondensatesupersolidboseletthree-bodyinteractionsmodulationalinstabilityBogoliubov-de-Gennesanalysisstripephaseroguewaves
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that adding repulsive three-body interactions (quintic nonlinearities) to a one-dimensional spin-orbit-coupled Bose-Einstein condensate with attractive two-body interactions removes the modulational instabilities that otherwise destroy its extended phases. With the instabilities gone, the plane-wave phase becomes a stable self-bound 'boselet' and the stripe-wave phase becomes a stable supersolid, with a lattice-like phonon-roton excitation spectrum. The argument works through a Bogoliubov-de-Gennes stability analysis of the coupled Gross-Pitaevskii equations, classifying instabilities as baseband, passband, mixedband, and zero-wavenumber types. The authors propose a 39K experiment with Feshbach-tuned interactions as a route to observing the predicted stable phases.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the linearized Bogoliubov-de-Gennes (BdG) analysis of the coupled Gross-Pitaevskii equations for the two pseudospin components. Perturbing a uniform background with wavenumber $k$ gives a $4\times 4$ BdG matrix whose eigenfrequencies are $\omega_\pm^2 = (\Lambda \pm i\sqrt{4\Delta - \Lambda^2})/2$, with $\Lambda$ and $\Delta$ built from the spin-orbit coupling $k_L$, Rabi coupling $\Omega$, two-body strengths $g, g_{\uparrow\downarrow}$, and three-body strengths $\chi, \chi_{\uparrow\downarrow}$ through the combinations $X = g + \chi + \chi_{\uparrow\downarrow}$ and $Y = g_{\uparrow\downarrow} + 2\chi_{\uparrow\downarrow}$. The instability gain is $\mathrm{Im}(\omega_\pm)$, and the paper classifies the spectrum by where in $k$ the gain appears. Repulsive three-body terms enter through $X$ and $Y$ and, at the balanced point $X+Y=0$, remove all gain bands, leaving a phonon mode for the plane wave and a roton minimum with zero imaginary part for the stripe wave.

What would settle it

Simulate the full coupled Gross-Pitaevskii equations starting from the exact stripe ground state at $g = g_{\uparrow\downarrow} = -2$, $\chi = \chi_{\uparrow\downarrow} = 1$, $k_L = 4$, $\Omega = 1$: if any Fourier mode's amplitude grows in time or the density modulation decays, the claimed stable supersolid is absent. Alternatively, probe the excitation spectrum of a Feshbach-tuned 39K condensate at that parameter point by two-photon Bragg spectroscopy and look for a roton minimum with purely real frequencies.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that the combination of attractive two-body interactions (cubic terms) and repulsive three-body interactions (quintic terms) in the mean-field energy yields parameter regimes where both the plane-wave and stripe-wave phases of a binary spin-orbit-coupled condensate are dynamically stable. For balanced interactions, $X+Y=0$ with $g=g_{\uparrow\downarrow}=-2$ and $\chi=\chi_{\uparrow\downarrow}=1$, the plane-wave phase supports stable phonon modes and breather-like boselets, while the stripe phase supports a roton-phonon mode with vanishing imaginary part of the excitation frequency, i.e., a stable supersolid. The central discovery is that three-body repulsion converts each known instability channel\u2014baseband, passband, mixedband, and zero-wavenumber-gain\u2014into either a stable phonon mode or a suppressed band, so that both phases can be observed in a single experimental platform.

Load-bearing premise

The analytical stability calculation treats the stripe-wave phase as a uniform background with $n_\uparrow = n_\downarrow = 1/2$, even though the stripe wave is periodically modulated, so the predicted stability hinges on that modulation being small enough not to change the Bogoliubov spectrum.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At balanced interactions $X+Y=0$, both the plane-wave and stripe-wave phases are predicted to remain dynamically stable without a trapping potential, so a supersolid can be created in a spin-orbit-coupled BEC rather than only in dipolar gases.
  • The plane-wave phase, previously doomed to form rogue waves and soliton trains under attractive interactions, becomes a stable boselet that can serve as a robust matter-wave packet.
  • The stripe-wave supersolid exhibits a gapless phonon mode and a lattice-like roton minimum with no imaginary frequency, giving a clear spectral fingerprint for experiments using Bragg spectroscopy.
  • The stability windows identified for the parameters $g=g_{\uparrow\downarrow}=-2$ and $\chi=\chi_{\uparrow\downarrow}\approx 1$, with $\Omega$ and $k_L$ tunable, translate to concrete experimental settings in 39K with Feshbach-resonance tuning.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the BdG stability criterion is written in terms of the two combinations $X$ and $Y$, any microscopic mechanism that shifts these combinations\u2014for example, a Feshbach resonance changing $g_{\uparrow\downarrow}$, or an optical lattice renormalizing the effective mass\u2014could reproduce the same stabilization without explicit three-body physics.
  • The theory suggests a sharp experimental test: at the balanced point, the absence of a zero-wavenumber gain band implies that seeding the condensate with a long-wavelength density perturbation should not grow, while a roton minimum should still be observable, distinguishing the prediction from a simple loss-induced stabilization.
  • The same BdG framework, with quintic terms, could be extended to two-dimensional spin-orbit-coupled BECs, and the classification of MI types provides a ready map of where stable supersolids might appear in that setting.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript investigates the stability of plane-wave and stripe-wave phases in one-dimensional spin-orbit-coupled binary Bose-Einstein condensates with attractive two-body and repulsive three-body interactions. Using linearized Bogoliubov-de-Gennes (BdG) analysis, the authors derive dispersion relations for uniform backgrounds, classify several modulational-instability (MI) types (baseband, passband, mixedband, and zero-wavenumber-gain), and argue that repulsive three-body interactions suppress these instabilities, producing stable plane-wave 'boselets' and a stable stripe-phase supersolid. The analytical results are supplemented by numerical BdG diagonalization and by direct Gross-Pitaevskii time evolution at selected parameter points, and an experimental realization in 39K is proposed.

Significance. If the central claim is valid, the work identifies a concrete mechanism—repulsive three-body interactions—for stabilizing supersolid stripe phases in spin-orbit-coupled BECs, a regime that is otherwise dynamically unstable. The analytical BdG derivation for uniform states is explicit and internally consistent, and the classification of MI types is a useful contribution. The experimental proposal with estimated parameters adds concreteness. However, the supersolid claim currently rests on an unquantified uniform-background approximation for the periodically modulated stripe phase, so the significance of the main result is conditional on filling that gap. The numerical tools needed to close the gap appear to be already in place, which makes the manuscript promising but not yet definitive.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. III A, Eqs. (5)-(9); Fig. 2(b,c)] The analytical BdG dispersion in Eqs. (8)-(9) is derived from the ansatz psi_sigma = e^{-i mu t}(sqrt(n_sigma) + delta psi_sigma) with constant n_up = n_down = 1/2. This ansatz describes the plane-wave phase, not the periodically modulated stripe phase. Nevertheless, in Sec. III C and Fig. 2(b) the same dispersion is used to classify the stability of the stripe-wave phase and to delineate the 'SSS' (stable supersolid) region, including the balanced point X+Y=0. The manuscript neither reports the amplitude of the stripe density modulation at the stability points nor provides a Bloch/Floquet analysis of the periodic ground state. The numerical BdG diagonalization described in Sec. III B is in principle capable of handling the true stripe ground state, but no numerical excitation spectrum is shown for the stable supersolid point in Fig. 2(c), and no numerical-analytical comparison is presented for the stripe phase at X+Y=0. The agreement for the unstable stripe spectra in Figs. 1(c,d) is encouraging but does not by itself validate the stability boundary in Fig. 2(b). Because the central claim of a stable supersolid depends on this stability assignment, the argument is incomplete. Please supply either (i) numerical BdG spectra for the actual stripe ground state at representative points inside the SSS region, compared with Eq. (8), or (ii) a quantitative estimate of the stripe amplitude justifying the uniform approximation over that region.
  2. [Sec. III C, Fig. 2(h)] The stable supersolid claim is supported by a single real-time evolution example at one parameter point. The 'SSS' region in Fig. 2(b) spans a wide range of (k_L, Omega); the analytical boundary between the stable-boselet and stable-supersolid regions is derived from the uniform approximation and therefore inherits the same uncertainty. At minimum, the authors should show that the density modulation at the displayed point is small enough for the uniform approximation to hold, or provide stability data (e.g., long-time survival or numerical BdG eigenvalues) for several points across the SSS region. Without such data, the phase diagram overstates the regime of validity of the central claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. II, Eq. (2)] The three-body interaction term is garbled: '3chi_updown |psi_up|^2 |psi_down|^2 (psi_up|^2|+psi_down|^2)' should be something like '3chi_updown |psi_up|^2 |psi_down|^2 (|psi_up|^2+|psi_down|^2)'. This makes the model ambiguous and should be corrected.
  2. [Sec. II] The text says 'The tapping potential is V(r)' but it should read 'trapping potential'.
  3. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption says 'Panels (g-l) illustrate...' but only panels (g), (h), and (i) are present; the caption should be corrected.
  4. [Sec. III C] The statement that the system is 'validated by the consideration of the Feynman energy' is vague; a quantitative comparison or a specific reference to the relevant panel would make the validation explicit.
  5. [Sec. V] The claim that |Re(D)| >> |Im(D)| 'places the system near the resonance' is physically counterintuitive; one would usually associate a nearby three-body resonance with a large imaginary part of the scattering hypervolume. Please clarify or correct this statement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the BdG stability conditions are derived analytically from the model equations, and the claimed stable regimes are read off from the dispersion, not fitted or imported from self-citations.

full rationale

The central claims are obtained by linearizing the coupled Gross-Pitaevskii equations and solving the resulting BdG eigenvalue problem. Equation (5) and the dispersion (8)-(9) are derived from the perturbation ansatz around the uniform state, and the MI/stability classification follows from Im(omega) computed from those formulas. In particular, the stable boselet and supersolid regimes at chi = chi_updown = 1 and g = g_updown = -2 are the points where the effective interaction combination X + Y of Eq. (10) vanishes; the statement that Im(omega) = 0 there is an algebraic consequence of the dispersion, not a parameter fitted to simulation output. The numerical BdG diagonalization and real-time GPE evolution serve as independent checks of the analytic spectrum, not as the source of the stability condition. The empirical phase-boundary function R = a - (b+a)c/(c+k_L) is a descriptive fit to the analytically computed phase diagram and is not used to derive the paper's principal predictions. Self-citations appear (Refs. [36], [63], [82], [83], [110], [121]) but only for background, sign conventions, numerical methods, or prior characterizations of MI and rogue waves; none is load-bearing for the new stability results, and the BdG perturbation ansatz itself is attributed to external references [26,111]. A genuine modeling limitation is that the SW/stripe phase is analyzed with a uniform-density BdG ansatz (n_up = n_down = 1/2), whereas the true stripe ground state is periodically modulated; this is a validity and verifiability concern, not a circular reduction of the prediction to its input. No step in the derivation chain equates the conclusion to an input by definition or by fitting.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The paper uses existing concepts (boselets, supersolids, MI types) and adapts them to a specific model. The main assumption burden lies in the uniform-background BdG treatment of the stripe phase and the neglect of three-body losses.

free parameters (1)
  • Empirical boundary constants a, b, c = a=1.6, b=2.7, c=0.35
    Used to define the MBMI-to-PBMI transition curve R in the (kL, Omega) plane; these are fit to the numerically computed phase diagram.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The quasi-1D reduction via strong transverse trapping is valid.
    The model integrates out transverse degrees of freedom assuming omega_perp >> omega_x; standard for cigar-shaped BECs.
  • domain assumption Three-body interactions are represented by local quintic terms with real coupling constants, neglecting the imaginary part (three-body losses).
    The paper acknowledges losses [87] but assumes |Re(D)| >> |Im(D)| for the experimental proposal; this is not proven.
  • ad hoc to paper The stripe-wave phase can be analyzed with a uniform-density background (n_up = n_down = 1/2) in the BdG equations.
    Sec. III A writes the perturbed state as a uniform plane wave, which does not capture the periodic modulation of the stripe phase; this is the key approximation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stable supersolids and boselets in spin-orbit-coupled Bose-Einstein condensates with three-body interactions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RJHU5VCW

@misc{pith2026250603505,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stable supersolids and boselets in spin-orbit-coupled Bose-Einstein condensates with three-body interactions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RJHU5VCW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.03505}
}
read the original abstract

We explore the stability of supersolid striped waves, plane-wave boselets, and other extended states in one-dimensional spin-orbit-coupled Bose-Einstein condensates with repulsive three-body interactions (R3BIs), modeled by quintic terms in the framework of the corresponding Gross-Pitaevskii equations. In the absence of R3BIs, the extended states are susceptible to the modulational instability (MI) induced by the cubic attractive nonlinearity. Using the linearized Bogoliubov-de-Gennes equations, we identify multiple new types of MI, including baseband, passband, mixedband, and zero-wavenumber-gain ones, which give rise to deterministic rogue waves and complex nonlinear wave patterns. Our analysis reveals that R3BIs eliminate baseband and zero-wavenumber-gain MIs, forming, instead, phonon modes that enable stable boselets. Additionally, mixedband and passband MIs are suppressed, which results in a lattice-like phonon-roton mode that supports a stable supersolid phase. These stable supersolids can be realized using currently available ultracold experimental setup.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.03505 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Panel (a) shows characteristics of MI gain ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Panels (a-c) illustrate the nature of MI in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The top row: Static density structure factors for the BBMI, PBMI, MBMI, and stable supersolid as depicted in Figs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The variation in the loss of the MI magnitude ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The variation in the MI magnitude ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

135 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Miesner, D

    H.-J. Miesner, D. M. Stamper-Kurn, J. Stenger, S. In- ouye, A. P. Chikkatur, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 2228 (1999)

    1999

  2. [2]

    Salasnich, A

    L. Salasnich, A. Parola, and L. Reatto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 080405 (2003)

    2003

  3. [3]

    Kasamatsu and M

    K. Kasamatsu and M. Tsubota, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 100402 (2004)

    2004

  4. [4]

    Kevrekidis and D

    P. Kevrekidis and D. Frantzeskakis, Mod. Phys. Lett. B 18, 173 (2004)

    2004

  5. [5]

    Kasamatsu and M

    K. Kasamatsu and M. Tsubota, Phys. Rev. A74, 013617 (2006)

    2006

  6. [6]

    Y.-J. Lin, K. Jiménez-García, and I. B. Spielman, Na- ture (London)471, 83 (2011)

    2011

  7. [7]

    G. I. Martone, Y. Li, and S. Stringari, Phys. Rev. A 90, 041604 (2014)

    2014

  8. [8]

    Y. Li, G. I. Martone, L. P. Pitaevskii, and S. Stringari, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 235302 (2013)

    2013

Show all 135 references
  1. [9]

    Liao, Phys

    R. Liao, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 140403 (2018)

    2018

  2. [10]

    K. T. Geier, G. I. Martone, P. Hauke, and S. Stringari, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 115301 (2021)

    2021

  3. [11]

    J.-R. Li, J. Lee, W. Huang, S. Burchesky, B. Shteynas, F. Ç. Top, A. O. Jamison, and W. Ketterle, Nature (London)543, 91 (2017)

    2017

  4. [12]

    Putra, F

    A. Putra, F. Salces-Cárcoba, Y. Yue, S. Sugawa, and I. B. Spielman, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 053605 (2020)

    2020

  5. [13]

    K. T. Geier, G. I. Martone, P. Hauke, W. Ketterle, and S. Stringari, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 156001 (2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    E. P. Gross, Phys. Rev.106, 161 (1957)

    1957

  7. [15]

    Thouless, Ann

    D. Thouless, Ann. Phys. (N. Y.)52, 403 (1969)

    1969

  8. [16]

    Andreev and I

    A. Andreev and I. Lifshitz, Sov. Phys. JETP29, 1107 (1969), originally published in Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 56, 2057 (1969)

    1969

  9. [17]

    A. J. Leggett, Phys. Rev. Lett.25, 1543 (1970)

    1970

  10. [18]

    KffiZHNITS and Y

    D. KffiZHNITS and Y. A. Nepomnyashchii, Sov. Phys. JETP32(1971), originally published in Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 59, 2203 (1970)

    1971

  11. [19]

    Kim and M

    E. Kim and M. H.-W. Chan, Nature (London)427, 225 (2004)

    2004

  12. [20]

    Balibar, Nature (London)464, 176 (2010)

    S. Balibar, Nature (London)464, 176 (2010)

    2010

  13. [21]

    Boninsegni and N

    M. Boninsegni and N. V. Prokof’ev, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 759 (2012)

    2012

  14. [22]

    Natale, R

    G. Natale, R. M. W. van Bijnen, A. Patscheider, D. Pet- ter, M.J.Mark, L.Chomaz, andF.Ferlaino,Phys.Rev. Lett.123, 050402 (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    Bogoliubov, J

    N. Bogoliubov, J. Phys11, 23 (1947)

    1947

  16. [24]

    D. S. Jin, J. R. Ensher, M. R. Matthews, C. E. Wieman, and E. A. Cornell, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 420 (1996)

    1996

  17. [25]

    Mewes, M

    M.-O. Mewes, M. R. Andrews, N. J. van Druten, D. M. Kurn, D. S. Durfee, C. G. Townsend, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 988 (1996)

    1996

  18. [26]

    E. V. Goldstein and P. Meystre, Phys. Rev. A55, 2935 (1997)

    1997

  19. [27]

    C. Wang, C. Gao, C.-M. Jian, and H. Zhai, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 160403 (2010)

    2010

  20. [28]

    Wu and Z

    R. Wu and Z. Liang, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 180401 (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    Zhang, L

    Y. Zhang, L. Mao, and C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 035302 (2012)

    2012

  22. [30]

    J. H. Nguyen, D. Luo, and R. G. Hulet, Science356, 422 (2017)

    2017

  23. [31]

    P. J. Everitt, M. A. Sooriyabandara, M. Guasoni, P. B. Wigley, C. H. Wei, G. D. McDonald, K. S. Hardman, P. Manju, J. D. Close, C. C. N. Kuhn, S. S. Szigeti, Y. S. Kivshar, and N. P. Robins, Phys. Rev. A96, 041601 (2017)

    2017

  24. [32]

    Sun, J.-H

    W.-R. Sun, J.-H. Li, L. Liu, and P. Kevrekidis, Physica D458, 134009 (2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    I. A. Bhat, T. Mithun, B. A. Malomed, and K. Porsezian, Phys. Rev. A92, 063606 (2015)

    2015

  26. [34]

    Bhuvaneswari, K

    S. Bhuvaneswari, K. Nithyanandan, P. Muruganandam, and K. Porsezian, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys.49, 245301 (2016)

    2016

  27. [35]

    Mithun and K

    T. Mithun and K. Kasamatsu, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys.52, 045301 (2019)

    2019

  28. [36]

    Ravisankar, H

    R. Ravisankar, H. Fabrelli, A. Gammal, P. Muruganan- dam, and P. K. Mishra, Phys. Rev. A104, 053315 (2021)

    2021

  29. [39]

    Denschlag, J

    J. Denschlag, J. E. Simsarian, D. L. Feder, C. W. Clark, L. A. Collins, J. Cubizolles, L. Deng, E. W. Hagley, K. Helmerson, W. P. Reinhardt, S. L. Rolston, B. I. Schneider, and W. D. Phillips, Science287, 97 (2000)

    2000

  30. [40]

    V. V. Konotop and M. Salerno, Phys. Rev. A65, 021602 (2002)

    2002

  31. [41]

    L. D. Carr and J. Brand, Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 040401 (2004)

    2004

  32. [42]

    Rojas-Rojas, R

    S. Rojas-Rojas, R. A. Vicencio, M. I. Molina, and F. K. Abdullaev, Phys. Rev. A84, 033621 (2011)

    2011

  33. [43]

    Cidrim, L

    A. Cidrim, L. Salasnich, and T. Macrì, New J. Phys. 23, 023022 (2021)

    2021

  34. [44]

    V. E. Zakharov and L. A. Ostrovsky, Physica D238, 540 (2009)

    2009

  35. [45]

    Hasegawa, Opt

    A. Hasegawa, Opt. Lett.9, 288 (1984)

    1984

  36. [46]

    K. Tai, A. Hasegawa, and A. Tomita, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 135 (1986)

    1986

  37. [47]

    M. Yu, C. J. McKinstrie, and G. P. Agrawal, Phys. Rev. E52, 1072 (1995)

    1995

  38. [48]

    Trillo and S

    S. Trillo and S. Wabnitz, Opt. Lett.16, 986 (1991)

    1991

  39. [49]

    D. V. Petrov, L. Torner, J. Martorell, R. Vilaseca, J. P. Torres, and C. Cojocaru, Opt. Lett.23, 1444 (1998)

    1998

  40. [50]

    Pitois and G

    S. Pitois and G. Millot, Opt. commun.226, 415 (2003)

    2003

  41. [51]

    Meier, G

    J. Meier, G. I. Stegeman, D. N. Christodoulides, Y. Sil- berberg, R. Morandotti, H. Yang, G. Salamo, M. Sorel, and J. S. Aitchison, Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 163902 (2004)

    2004

  42. [52]

    Krolikowski, O

    W. Krolikowski, O. Bang, N. I. Nikolov, D. Neshev, J. Wyller, J. J. Rasmussen, and D. Edmundson, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B6, S288 (2004). 12

    2004

  43. [53]

    Hansson, D

    T. Hansson, D. Modotto, and S. Wabnitz, Phys. Rev. A88, 023819 (2013)

    2013

  44. [54]

    Y. V. Kartashov and D. V. Skryabin, Optica3, 1228 (2016)

    2016

  45. [55]

    Peccianti, C

    M. Peccianti, C. Conti, G. Assanto, A. De Luca, and C. Umeton, Nature (London)432, 733 (2004)

    2004

  46. [56]

    T. B. Benjamin and J. E. Feir, J. Fluid Mech.27, 417 (1967)

    1967

  47. [57]

    J. W. McLean, J. Fluid Mech.114, 315 (1982)

    1982

  48. [58]

    Deconinck and K

    B. Deconinck and K. Oliveras, J. Fluid mech.675, 141 (2011)

    2011

  49. [59]

    Marquie, J

    P. Marquie, J. M. Bilbault, and M. Remoissenet, Phys. Rev. E49, 828 (1994)

    1994

  50. [60]

    Kengne, W.-M

    E. Kengne, W.-M. Liu, L. Q. English, and B. A. Mal- omed, Phys. Rep.982, 1 (2022)

    2022

  51. [61]

    Y. S. Kivshar and M. Peyrard, Phys. Rev. A46, 3198 (1992)

    1992

  52. [62]

    Baronio, M

    F. Baronio, M. Conforti, A. Degasperis, S. Lombardo, M. Onorato, and S. Wabnitz, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 034101 (2014)

    2014

  53. [63]

    Liu, W.-R

    L. Liu, W.-R. Sun, and B. A. Malomed, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 093801 (2023)

    2023

  54. [64]

    K. E. Strecker, G. B. Partridge, A. G. Truscott, and R. G. Hulet, Nature (London)417, 150 (2002)

    2002

  55. [65]

    Khaykovich, F

    L. Khaykovich, F. Schreck, G. Ferrari, T. Bourdel, J. Cubizolles, L. D. Carr, Y. Castin, and C. Salomon, Science296, 1290 (2002)

    2002

  56. [66]

    S. L. Cornish, S. T. Thompson, and C. E. Wieman, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 170401 (2006)

    2006

  57. [67]

    Burger, K

    S. Burger, K. Bongs, S. Dettmer, W. Ertmer, K. Seng- stock, A. Sanpera, G. V. Shlyapnikov, and M. Lewen- stein, Phys. Rev. Lett.83, 5198 (1999)

    1999

  58. [68]

    Inouye, M

    S. Inouye, M. Andrews, J. Stenger, H.-J. Miesner, D. M. Stamper-Kurn, andW.Ketterle,Nature(London)392, 151 (1998)

    1998

  59. [69]

    Theis, G

    M. Theis, G. Thalhammer, K. Winkler, M. Hellwig, G. Ruff, R. Grimm, and J. H. Denschlag, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 123001 (2004)

    2004

  60. [70]

    C. Chin, R. Grimm, P. Julienne, and E. Tiesinga, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 1225 (2010)

    2010

  61. [71]

    A.E.Kraych, D.Agafontsev, S.Randoux, andP.Suret, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 093902 (2019)

    2019

  62. [72]

    Achilleos, D

    V. Achilleos, D. J. Frantzeskakis, P. G. Kevrekidis, and D. E. Pelinovsky, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 264101 (2013)

    2013

  63. [73]

    D. S. Petrov and G. E. Astrakharchik, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 100401 (2016)

    2016

  64. [74]

    G. E. Astrakharchik and B. A. Malomed, Phys. Rev. A 98, 013631 (2018)

    2018

  65. [75]

    Cabrera, L

    C. Cabrera, L. Tanzi, J. Sanz, B. Naylor, P. Thomas, P. Cheiney, and L. Tarruell, Science359, 301 (2018)

    2018

  66. [76]

    Cheiney, C

    P. Cheiney, C. R. Cabrera, J. Sanz, B. Naylor, L. Tanzi, and L. Tarruell, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 135301 (2018)

    2018

  67. [77]

    Semeghini, G

    G. Semeghini, G. Ferioli, L. Masi, C. Mazzinghi, L. Wol- swijk, F. Minardi, M. Modugno, G. Modugno, M. In- guscio, and M. Fattori, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 235301 (2018)

    2018

  68. [78]

    Hammond, L

    A. Hammond, L. Lavoine, and T. Bourdel, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 083401 (2022)

    2022

  69. [79]

    Mithun, A

    T. Mithun, A. Maluckov, K. Kasamatsu, B. A. Mal- omed, and A. Khare, Symmetry12, 174 (2020)

    2020

  70. [80]

    J. Wang, H. Hu, and X.-J. Liu, New J. Phys.22, 103044 (2020)

    2020

  71. [81]

    Wang, X.-J

    J. Wang, X.-J. Liu, and H. Hu, Chin. Phys. B30, 010306 (2021)

    2021

  72. [82]

    Gangwar, R

    S. Gangwar, R. Ravisankar, P. Muruganandam, and P. K. Mishra, Phys. Rev. A106, 063315 (2022)

    2022

  73. [83]

    Gangwar, R

    S. Gangwar, R. Ravisankar, S. I. Mistakidis, P. Muru- ganandam, andP.K.Mishra,Phys.Rev.A109,013321 (2024)

    2024

  74. [84]

    Rep.347, 373 (2001)

    E.Nielsen, D.V.Fedorov, A.S.Jensen, andE.Garrido, Phys. Rep.347, 373 (2001)

    2001

  75. [85]

    Gross, Z

    N. Gross, Z. Shotan, S. Kokkelmans, and L. Khaykovich, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 163202 (2009)

    2009

  76. [86]

    Gross, Z

    N. Gross, Z. Shotan, S. Kokkelmans, and L. Khaykovich, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 103203 (2010)

    2010

  77. [87]

    D. M. Stamper-Kurn, M. R. Andrews, A. P. Chikkatur, S. Inouye, H.-J. Miesner, J. Stenger, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 2027 (1998)

    1998

  78. [88]

    Gammal, T

    A. Gammal, T. Frederico, L. Tomio, and P. Chomaz, Phys. Rev. A61, 051602 (2000)

    2000

  79. [89]

    Bulgac, Phys

    A. Bulgac, Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 050402 (2002)

    2002

  80. [90]

    Tan, Phys

    S. Tan, Phys. Rev. A78, 013636 (2008)

    2008

  81. [91]

    D. S. Petrov, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 103201 (2014)

    2014

  82. [92]

    J. Pan, S. Yi, and T. Shi, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 043018 (2022)

    2022

  83. [93]

    Hu, Z.-Q

    H. Hu, Z.-Q. Yu, J. Wang, and X.-J. Liu, Phys. Rev. A104, 043301 (2021)

    2021

  84. [94]

    F. K. Abdullaev and M. Salerno, Phys. Rev. A72, 033617 (2005)

    2005

  85. [95]

    J. Li, B. A. Malomed, W. Li, X. Chen, and E. Y. Sher- man, Commun. Nonlin. Sci. Numer. Simul.82, 105045 (2020)

    2020

  86. [96]

    Shamriz, Z

    E. Shamriz, Z. Chen, and B. A. Malomed, Commun. Nonlin. Sci. Numer. Simul.91, 105412 (2020)

    2020

  87. [97]

    Baronio, S

    F. Baronio, S. Chen, P. Grelu, S. Wabnitz, and M. Con- forti, Phys. Rev. A91, 033804 (2015)

    2015

  88. [98]

    Nozieres, J

    P. Nozieres, J. Low Temp. Phys.137, 45 (2004)

    2004

  89. [99]

    Mukherjee, A

    B. Mukherjee, A. Shaffer, P. B. Patel, Z. Yan, C. C. Wilson, V. Crépel, R. J. Fletcher, and M. Zwierlein, Nature (London)601, 58 (2022)

    2022

  90. [100]

    Žutić, J

    I. Žutić, J. Fabian, and S. D. Sarma, Rev. Mod. Phys. 76, 323 (2004)

    2004

  91. [101]

    M. Z. Hasan and C. L. Kane, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 3045 (2010)

    2010

  92. [102]

    Xiao, M.-C

    D. Xiao, M.-C. Chang, and Q. Niu, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1959 (2010)

    2010

  93. [103]

    Bloch, J

    I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and S. Nascimbene, Nat. Phys. 8, 267 (2012)

    2012

  94. [104]

    V. P. Amin and M. D. Stiles, Phys. Rev. B94, 104420 (2016)

    2016

  95. [105]

    J.Cui, P.Li, J.Zhou, W.-Y.He, X.Huang, J.Yi, J.Fan, Z. Ji, X. Jing, F. Qu, G.-C. Zhi, Y. Changli, L. Li, S. Kazu, L. Junwei, T.-L. Kam, L. Junhao, L. Zheng, and L. Guangtong, Nat. Commun.10, 2044 (2019)

    2019

  96. [106]

    Muryshev, G

    A. Muryshev, G. V. Shlyapnikov, W. Ertmer, K. Seng- stock, and M. Lewenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 110401 (2002)

    2002

  97. [107]

    Y. Kato, D. Yamamoto, and I. Danshita, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 055301 (2014)

    2014

  98. [108]

    Danshita, D

    I. Danshita, D. Yamamoto, and Y. Kato, Phys. Rev. A 91, 013630 (2015)

    2015

  99. [109]

    Muruganandam and S

    P. Muruganandam and S. K. Adhikari, Comput. Phys. Commun.180, 1888 (2009)

    2009

  100. [110]

    Ravisankar, D

    R. Ravisankar, D. Vudragović, P. Muruganandam, A. Balaž, and S. K. Adhikari, Comput. Phys. Com- mun.259, 107657 (2021)

    2021

  101. [111]

    Abad and A

    M. Abad and A. Recati, Eur. Phys. J. D67, 1 (2013). 13

    2013

  102. [112]

    Yang,Nonlinear waves in integrable and noninte- grable systems(SIAM, 2010)

    J. Yang,Nonlinear waves in integrable and noninte- grable systems(SIAM, 2010)

    2010

  103. [113]

    Canuto, M

    C. Canuto, M. Y. Hussaini, A. Quarteroni, and T. A. Zang,Spectral methods: evolution to complex geometries and applications to fluid dynamics(Springer Science & Business Media, 2007)

    2007

  104. [114]

    Anderson, Z

    E. Anderson, Z. Bai, C. Bischof, L. S. Blackford, J. Demmel, J. Dongarra, J. D. Croz, A. Greenbaum, S. Hammarling, A. McKenney, and D. Sorensen,LA- PACK Users'Guide(SIAM, 1999)

    1999

  105. [115]

    Y.V.Bludov, V.V.Konotop, andN.Akhmediev,Phys. Rev. A80, 033610 (2009)

    2009

  106. [116]

    Tan, X.-D

    Y. Tan, X.-D. Bai, and T. Li, Phys. Rev. E106, 014208 (2022)

    2022

  107. [117]

    Siovitz, S

    I. Siovitz, S. Lannig, Y. Deller, H. Strobel, M. K. Oberthaler, and T. Gasenzer, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 183402 (2023)

    2023

  108. [118]

    Tanzi, E

    L. Tanzi, E. Lucioni, F. Famà, J. Catani, A. Fioretti, C. Gabbanini, R. N. Bisset, L. Santos, and G. Mod- ugno, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 130405 (2019)

    2019

  109. [119]

    Chomaz, R

    L. Chomaz, R. M. van Bijnen, D. Petter, G. Faraoni, S.Baier, J.H.Becher, M.J.Mark, F.Waechtler, L.San- tos, and F. Ferlaino, Nat. phys.14, 442 (2018)

    2018

  110. [120]

    Z.-Y. Sun, X. Yu, and Y.-J. Feng, Phys. Rev. E108, 054211 (2023)

    2023

  111. [121]

    Ravisankar, K

    R. Ravisankar, K. Rajaswathi, R. Radha, P. Muru- ganandam, and X. Gao, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 195, 116287 (2025)

    2025

  112. [122]

    Saccani, S

    S. Saccani, S. Moroni, and M. Boninsegni, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 175301 (2012)

    2012

  113. [123]

    Recati and S

    A. Recati and S. Stringari, Nat. Rev. Phys.5, 735 (2023)

    2023

  114. [124]

    Bland, E

    T. Bland, E. Poli, L. A. P. n. Ardila, L. Santos, F. Fer- laino, and R. N. Bisset, Phys. Rev. A106, 053322 (2022)

    2022

  115. [125]

    Pitaevskii and S

    L. Pitaevskii and S. Stringari,Bose-Einstein conden- sation and superfluidity, Vol. 164 (Oxford University Press, 2016)

    2016

  116. [126]

    Sachdeva, M

    R. Sachdeva, M. N. Tengstrand, and S. M. Reimann, Phys. Rev. A102, 043304 (2020)

    2020

  117. [127]

    P.-S. He, R. Liao, and W.-M. Liu, Phys. Rev. A86, 043632 (2012)

    2012

  118. [128]

    Liao, Z.-G

    R. Liao, Z.-G. Huang, X.-M. Lin, and W.-M. Liu, Phys. Rev. A87, 043605 (2013)

    2013

  119. [129]

    Ravisankar, T

    R. Ravisankar, T. Sriraman, L. Salasnich, and P. Mu- ruganandam, J. Phys. B At. Mol. Opt. Phys.53, 195301 (2020)

    2020

  120. [130]

    Lepoutre, L

    S. Lepoutre, L. Fouché, A. Boissé, G. Berthet, G. Sa- lomon, A. Aspect, and T. Bourdel, Phys. Rev. A94, 053626 (2016)

    2016

  121. [131]

    B. D. Esry, C. H. Greene, and J. P. Burke, Phys. Rev. Lett.83, 1751 (1999)

    1999

  122. [132]

    Stenger, S

    J. Stenger, S. Inouye, A. P. Chikkatur, D. M. Stamper- Kurn, D. E. Pritchard, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 4569 (1999)

    1999

  123. [133]

    D. M. Stamper-Kurn, A. P. Chikkatur, A. Görlitz, S. In- ouye, S.Gupta, D.E.Pritchard, andW.Ketterle,Phys. Rev. Lett.83, 2876 (1999)

    1999

  124. [134]

    Steinhauer, R

    J. Steinhauer, R. Ozeri, N. Katz, and N. Davidson, Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 120407 (2002)

    2002

  125. [135]

    M. W. Zwierlein, A. Schirotzek, C. H. Schunck, and W. Ketterle, Science311, 492 (2006)

    2006

  126. [136]

    Engels, Phys

    M.A.Khamehchi, Y.Zhang, C.Hamner, T.Busch, and P. Engels, Phys. Rev. A90, 063624 (2014)

    2014

  127. [137]

    S.-C. Ji, L. Zhang, X.-T. Xu, Z. Wu, Y. Deng, S. Chen, and J.-W. Pan, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 105301 (2015)

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.