Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 72 references

Rogue waves collision under incident momentum modulation in two-component Bose-Einstein condensates

T0 review · 3 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 Launching two colliding rogue-wave packets with a small opposite momentum makes them fuse into a second-order rogue wave in a two-component BEC.

desk verdict New numerical result: small launch momentum can restore second-order rogue wave generation in two-component BECs when interspecies coupling is weak; the paper is competent but needs a quantitative RW criterion and more numerical detail. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08420 v1 pith:FTF5GS6Q submitted 2025-06-10 cond-mat.quant-gas nlin.CDquant-ph

Zhihao Zhang , Tiantian Li , Xiao-Dong Bai , Yunbo Zhang , Denglong Wang This is my paper
classification cond-mat.quant-gasnlin.CDquant-ph
keywords roguewavestwo-componentBose-EinsteincondensateGross-Pitaevskiiequationincidentmomentumsecond-ordermodulationinstabilitymachinelearningcollisiondynamics
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

The paper asks whether a small momentum kick can force two colliding first-order rogue waves in a two-component Bose-Einstein condensate to merge into a second-order rogue wave. Solving the coupled one-dimensional Gross-Pitaevskii equations for two Gaussian wave packets launched toward each other with opposite momenta, it finds the answer is yes in precisely the regime that previously failed: when the interspecies attraction is weaker than the intraspecies attraction. It maps the region of interaction-strength and momentum values that support second-order rogue waves and trains a small neural network to predict the initial packet offset that maximizes the collision peak. If correct, incident momentum becomes a simple, experimentally accessible control knob for the order of rogue waves in multicomponent condensates.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the two-component one-dimensional Gross-Pitaevskii equation in dimensionless form, with Gaussian initial wave packets separated by an offset $\delta$ and carrying opposite phase gradients $e^{-ikz}$ and $e^{ikz}$. The named object is the exact hierarchy criterion for rogue waves in the nonlinear Schrodinger equation: an $N$-th order rogue wave at maximum amplitude has $2N$ spatial zeros and peak amplitude $2N+1$ times the background, so in density a true second-order rogue wave is a $25\times$ background peak with four surrounding troughs. The paper uses this criterion operationally (a sufficiently high peak with four troughs) to classify simulation outcomes, scans the $(g_{12},k)$ plane at fixed $g_{11}=g_{22}=-6$ and width $\sigma=10\sqrt{2}$, adjusts $\delta$ to maximize the collision peak, and uses a neural-network surrogate to map the resulting region and the optimal offsets.

What would settle it

Run the flagship collision ($g_{11}=g_{22}=-6$, $g_{12}=-3.5$, $k=0.1$, $\delta=7.9$) on a finer numerical grid and fit the peak profile to the exact second-order rogue-wave solution; if the peak-to-background density ratio does not approach 25 and the count of surrounding troughs changes with the plotting threshold, the classification as a second-order rogue wave is falsified. The same test applies at the claimed boundaries of the $(g_{12},k)$ region, where the paper itself reports only first-order patterns with two troughs.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a second-order rogue wave can be generated by the collision of two first-order rogue waves in a two-component BEC only when the packets carry a moderate opposite incident momentum, in the case of weaker interspecies interactions compared to intraspecific interactions. For fixed intraspecies attractions $g_{11}=g_{22}=-6$ and an interspecies attraction $g_{12}=-3.5$, no offset produces a second-order wave at $k=0$; at $k=0.1$ with offset $\delta=7.9$ the peak density reaches $22.5$ times the initial wave height with four surrounding troughs, and the profile fits the analytic second-order rogue-wave solution. At fixed $k=0.075$, the second-order region includes $g_{12}=-4.5$ (peak density $24.2$ times background) but excludes $g_{12}=-3$ and $g_{12}=-6$; in the full $(g_{12},k)$ plane the second-order region is central and closed, excluding both too-weak and too-strong interspecies attractions as well as too-large momenta. A deep neural network trained on 70 collision cases predicts the optimal offset $\delta(g_{12},k)$ with mean relative test error $0.0007$, and reports monotonic correlations among the three parameters in and beyond the region.

Load-bearing premise

The entire result rests on how a 'second-order rogue wave' is recognized: the paper counts a peak as second-order when it is sufficiently high and has four troughs around it, without setting an exact threshold, and the flagship peak is 22.5 times the background rather than the exact value of 25 times.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For $g_{11}=g_{22}=-6$ and $g_{12}=-3.5$, incident momenta in the range $k\in[0.075,0.15]$ turn a collision that never yields a second-order rogue wave at $k=0$ into one that does, with optimal offset $\delta\approx 7.9$ near $k=0.1$.
  • The second-order region in the $(g_{12},k)$ plane is closed and central: small interspecies attractions cannot produce the wave at any momentum, while sufficiently strong attractions and sufficiently large momenta also fall outside the region.
  • At fixed $k=0.075$, the parameter point $g_{12}=-4.5$ lies inside the region and produces a $24.2\times$ peak with four troughs, whereas $g_{12}=-3$ and $g_{12}=-6$, though near the boundary, produce only high first-order peaks with two troughs.
  • The trained surrogate predicts the optimal offset from $(g_{12},k)$ with mean relative error $0.0007$, and the qualitative correlations (increasing $|g_{12}|$ lowers the allowed $k$ at fixed $\delta$; increasing either $|g_{12}|$ or $k$ raises the optimal $\delta$) persist outside the second-order region.
  • The parameter boundaries are interpreted as modulation-instability thresholds, with the incident momentum acting as an additional perturbation; the paper frames this as numerical groundwork for a future analytic relation between the instability spectrum and the rogue-wave hierarchy.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An extension the paper does not pursue is to replace the binary four-trough classification with a continuous overlap measure against the exact second-order rogue-wave solution; the 70 collected cases would support such a regression and could sharpen the true boundary of the region.
  • The reported monotonic correlations suggest a single geometric control variable: the effective separation of the two packets at collision time. If that is right, the same three-parameter compensation should appear whenever the collision is tuned to maximal peak amplitude, including outside the second-order region and in other multicomponent settings.
  • If the momentum-kick mechanism is generic, imprinting opposite phase gradients on Gaussian packets should also promote higher-order rogue-wave generation in three-component condensates or in asymmetric two-component systems, with the same two failure modes: too little separation for the packets to evolve and too much momentum for their maxima to coincide.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the collision of two first-order rogue-wave-like structures in a one-dimensional two-component Bose-Einstein condensate, initialized as Gaussian wave packets with opposite incident momentum. By numerically solving the coupled Gross-Pitaevskii equations, the authors claim that a small incident momentum k promotes the generation of second-order rogue waves when the interspecies attraction is weaker than the intraspecies attraction (|g12| < |g11|), and they map the region in the (g12, k) plane where this occurs. A deep neural network is then used to predict the optimal initial offset delta for given (g12, k), and qualitative correlations among the three parameters are extracted. The paper also includes a discussion of modulation instability as a possible underlying mechanism and an appendix with an additional parameter set.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper identifies a simple and experimentally accessible control—launching the two components with opposite incident momentum—that can promote second-order rogue waves in a regime where collisions without momentum fail. The claim is a direct numerical observation and is not circular: the momentum effect is demonstrated independently of the earlier baseline results in Refs. [53,64]. The proposed 87Rb parameters give the result experimental relevance. However, the significance is currently limited by the qualitative definition of a second-order rogue wave, the lack of quantitative fit errors and numerical convergence data, and the under-specified machine-learning procedure. With those additions, the paper would provide a falsifiable prediction for generating and controlling high-order rogue waves.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III A and Sec. III (definition)] The operational definition of a second-order RW is qualitative ('sufficiently high' peak with four surrounding troughs), and the flagship case quoted in Sec. III A reaches only 22.5 times the initial wave height, which is below the 25-times-background benchmark for an exact second-order RW cited from Ref. [58]. Because the Gaussian packets spread during evolution, 'initial wave height' is not the local background at the collision time, so this number does not directly test the 25x criterion. Please define the local background, report the peak-to-background ratio at the instant of maximum amplitude, and provide a quantitative fit error for the comparisons in Figs. 2(e), 4(e), and 7(d,f). Since the same criterion defines the boundary in Fig. 3 and the training data for the DNN in Sec. III C, the current threshold makes the central claim and the region plot unfalsifiable as written.
  2. [Sec. II (numerical method) and Sec. III B/Fig. 3] No numerical details are provided: the solver, time-stepping scheme, spatial discretization, grid resolution, domain size, and conservation checks are absent. The region boundary in Fig. 3 is determined by counting local minima at the peak moment, but without a grid-convergence study and without a quantitative height threshold it is unclear how stable that boundary is. Please report the numerical scheme and parameters, and show that the boundaries and the claimed k range (0.075 to 0.15 for g12 = -3.5) are insensitive to resolution and domain size.
  3. [Sec. III C, Eq. (7)] The machine-learning result is under-specified: the DNN architecture, activation functions, training procedure, optimization, regularization, and the precise data-generation protocol are not described. A mean relative error of 0.0007 on the test set is reported without error bars or an independent validation, so the claimed correlations in Fig. 5 are not auditable. Please provide the architecture and training details and, ideally, test the fitted delta on direct GP simulations outside the training set.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eqs. (5)-(6)] The normalization constants C1 and C2 are not given explicitly; please state their values in terms of sigma and the normalization condition (3).
  2. [Sec. III A] The phrase '22.5 times the initial wave height' is ambiguous because the background of the Gaussian wave packet changes as it spreads; please express all peak heights relative to a clearly defined local background at the peak time.
  3. [Fig. 5] The three views in Fig. 5 are described only by a color bar; please label the axes and contours in each panel so that the qualitative correlations are readable independently.
  4. [Appendix, Fig. 7 caption] The caption states that panels (d) and (f) show fitting plots, but panel (e) also appears to contain a comparison; please check the caption and figure correspondence.
  5. [General] There are typographical artifacts in the header and abstract (e.g., 'i n two-component'); a careful proofread is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the momentum effect is a direct GP-simulation result; machine learning and self-citations are descriptive or independently reproduced.

full rationale

The central claim is obtained by direct numerical integration of the coupled Gross-Pitaevskii equations with Gaussian initial conditions and opposite incident momentum. No fitted parameter is later renamed as a prediction; the second-order rogue-wave criterion (four troughs and a sufficiently high peak, with visual comparison to the exact solution of Ref. [58]) is applied as an external classifier, not defined in terms of incident momentum, so the k-dependence reported in Sec. III is an independent simulation outcome. The deep neural network in Sec. III C is a regression on simulation data with a held-out test error of 0.0007; it interpolates delta from (g12, k) but does not constrain the GP evolution, and the qualitative correlations are descriptive of the simulated region rather than being imposed inputs. The self-citations [53] and [64] introduce the collision concept and the role of offset, but the authors state that they reproduced the results of [53] and found their limitation, and the momentum-promotion effect is demonstrated without relying on the validity of those citations. The only substantive caveat is the unquantified 'sufficiently high' threshold: the flagship peak is 22.5 times the initial wave height, while the exact second-order RW benchmark is 25 times the local background. That ambiguity affects falsifiability and classification sharpness, but it does not make the derivation equivalent to its inputs, so it is a correctness risk rather than circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities or forces. Its central claim rests on a set of domain assumptions about the GP model, the 1D reduction, and the numerical solver, plus an operational definition of second-order RWs that is not strictly calibrated to the exact solution.

free parameters (1)
  • delta (initial offset) = 7.9 for g12=-3.5, k=0.1; varies across the region
    Chosen per (g12,k) to maximize the collision peak; the DNN fits delta as a function of (g12,k). This is a hand-tuned control parameter, not a fundamental constant.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The coupled 1D Gross-Pitaevskii equation accurately models the two-component BEC dynamics under the stated parameters.
    Invoked in Sec. II; no derivation of its validity for these interaction strengths.
  • domain assumption The radial Gaussian ansatz for the transverse wave function and the reduction to 1D are valid.
    Sec. II, based on Refs [55-57]; standard but not exact.
  • domain assumption The numerical solver produces converged solutions for the GP equation.
    No numerical scheme, grid size, time step, or convergence tests are reported (Sec. II/III).
  • standard math The analytic second-order RW solution of Akhmediev et al. is the correct benchmark for comparison.
    Used for fitting in Figs. 2(e), 4(e), 7(d,f); the fit is visual, no quantitative error.
  • ad hoc to paper A second-order RW is identified by four troughs and a sufficiently high peak.
    Defined in Sec. III; the peak height threshold is not fixed (22.5 vs 25 times background), so the classification is partly subjective.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Rogue waves collision under incident momentum modulation in two-component Bose-Einstein condensates." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FTF5GS6Q

@misc{pith2026250608420,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Rogue waves collision under incident momentum modulation in two-component Bose-Einstein condensates},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FTF5GS6Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08420}
}
read the original abstract

The collision dynamics of two first-order rogue waves (RWs) with opposite incident momentum in two-component Bose-Einstein condensates (BECs) is studied by solving the two-component one-dimensional Gross-Pitaevskii (GP) equation. It is demonstrated that the introduction of appropriate incident momentum successfully promotes the generation of second-order RWs in the case of relatively weaker interspecies interactions compared to intraspecific interactions. The range of incident momentum that can facilitate the generation of second-order RWs under different interspecies interaction strengths is determined, and machine learning is employed to find and analyze relationships among the interspecies interaction, the incident momentum, and the offset that can lead to the generation of second-order RWs. It shows that any two parameters above exhibit a positive or negative correlation when the third parameter is fixed. These findings provide additional possibilities for generating and controlling high-order RWs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.08420 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: BEC evolution dynamics over time when [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: RWs collision with parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: The parameter plane of the collision dynamics of two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: RWs collisions mediated by two-component BEC intera [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Three views of the parameters of the second-order RWs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Details of the evolution of each component of the coll [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: RWs collision for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages

  1. [53]

    Y. O. Barmenkov, P. Muniz-C´ anovas, V. Aboites, J.-L. Cruz, and M. V. Andr´ es, Results in Physics 55, 107170 (2023)

    work page 2023

  2. [58]

    Tan, X.-D

    Y. Tan, X.-D. Bai, and T. Li, Phys. Rev. E 106, 014208 (2022)

    work page 2022

  3. [1]

    This modulation maintains the requisite distance between the two wave packets throughout the evolution, ultimately leading to the emergence of a second-order R W. In Gaussian initial conditions, intraspecies interac- tions result in the generation of first-order R W, while intraspecies and interspecies interactions together result in second-order R W. This...

    work page

  4. [2]

    Regal and D

    C. Regal and D. Jin, Advances In Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 54, 1-79 (2007)

    work page 2007

  5. [3]

    In order to iden- tify the optimal δ for the entire second-order R Ws region, we employ a deep learning neural network (DNN)

    The application of machine learning to research on R W has yielded promising results [25, 59–63], and it is well suited to solve our problem above. In order to iden- tify the optimal δ for the entire second-order R Ws region, we employ a deep learning neural network (DNN). The inputs to the network are the parameters g12 andk, and the output is δ. A total...

    work page

  6. [4]

    C. J. Pethick and H. Smith, Bose-Einstein Condensation in Dilute Gases (Cambridge University Press, 2008)

    work page 2008

  7. [5]

    The contour lines reveal that when the value of δ remains constant, the value of k decreases with an increase in | g12 |, as shown in Fig. 5(a). Con- versely, when k remains constant, δ increases with an increase in | g12 |, as shown in Fig. 5(b). Furthermore, when g12 remains constant, δ increases with an increase in k, as shown in Fig. 5(c). It is worth...

    work page

  8. [6]

    The first row [(a)-(d)] of Fig. 6 shows the spatiotemporal evolution of the total particle number density n(z,t ), the second row [(e)-(h)] and the third row [(i)-(l)] respectively show the temporal and spatial evolution of each component |ψ1(z,t )|2 and |ψ2(z,t )|2, the fourth row [(m) - (p)] shows the detailed structure of the maximum amplitude moment of...

    work page

Show all 72 references
  1. [7]

    E. A. Cornell and C. E. Wieman, Rev. Mod. Phys. 74, 875-893 (2002)

    2002

  2. [8]

    Ketterle, Rev

    W. Ketterle, Rev. Mod. Phys. 74, 1131-1151 (2002)

    2002

  3. [9]

    P. S. Vinayagam, R. Radha, and K. Porsezian, Phys. Rev. E 88, 042906 (2013)

    2013

  4. [10]

    C. Chin, R. Grimm, P. Julienne, and E. Tiesinga, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1225-1286 (2010)

    2010

  5. [11]

    K¨ ohler, K

    T. K¨ ohler, K. G´ oral, and P. S. Julienne, Rev. Mod. Phys. 78, 1311-1361 (2006)

    2006

  6. [12]

    Theis, G

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

    2004

  7. [13]

    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, and W. P. Reinhardt, Science 287, 97-101 (2000)

    2000

  8. [14]

    Burger, L

    S. Burger, L. Carr, P. ¨Ohberg, K. Sengstock, and A. Sanpera, Phys. Rev. A 65, 043611 (2002)

    2002

  9. [15]

    Fritsch, M

    A. Fritsch, M. Lu, G. Reid, A. Pi˜ neiro, and I. Spielman, Phys. Rev. A 101, 053629 (2020)

    2020

  10. [16]

    Kengne, B

    E. Kengne, B. A. Malomed, and W. Liu, Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulat ion

  11. [17]

    Loomba, H

    S. Loomba, H. Kaur, R. Gupta, C. N. Kumar, and T. S. Raju, Phys. Rev. E 89, 052915 (2014)

    2014

  12. [18]

    J. He, E. Charalampidis, P. Kevrekidis, and D. Frantzeskakis, Physics Letters A 378, 577-583 (2014)

    2014

  13. [19]

    Kundu, S

    N. Kundu, S. Ghosh, and U. Roy, Physics Letters A 449, 128335 (2022)

    2022

  14. [20]

    Romero-Ros, G

    A. Romero-Ros, G. C. Katsimiga, S. I. Mistakidis, S. Mossman, G. Biondini, P. Schmelcher, P. Engels, and P. G. Kevrekidis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 033402 (2024)

    2024

  15. [21]

    Y. V. Bludov, V. V. Konotop, and N. Akhmediev, Phys. Rev. A 80, 033610 (2009)

    2009

  16. [22]

    J. Ieda, T. Miyakawa, and M. Wadati, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 194102 (2004)

    2004

  17. [23]

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

    2004

  18. [24]

    K. E. Strecker, G. B. Partridge, A. G. Truscott, and R. G. Hulet, New Journal of Physics 5, 73 (2003)

    2003

  19. [25]

    Zobay, S

    O. Zobay, S. P¨ otting, P. Meystre, and E. M. Wright, 9 FIG. 7: R Ws collision for g11 = g22 = −10 and σ = 10 √

  20. [26]

    The parameters in the first column are g12 = −10, k = 0 and δ = 7.2

    The first row [(a)-(c)] shows the spatiotemporal evolutio n of the total particle number density n(z,t ), the second row [(d)-(f)] shows the detailed structure of t he maximum amplitude moment of the first row. The parameters in the first column are g12 = −10, k = 0 and δ = 7.2. ...

    1999

  21. [27]

    Manikandan, P

    K. Manikandan, P. Muruganandam, M. Senthilvelan, and M. Lakshmanan, Phys. Rev. E 90, 062905 (2014)

    2014

  22. [28]

    W. B. Cardoso, A. T. Avelar and D. Bazeia, Physics Letters A 374, 2640-2645 (2010)

    2010

  23. [29]

    T. P. Nederkoorn and H. C. Seyffert, Ocean engineering 251, 110955 (2022)

    2022

  24. [30]

    Hfner, J

    D. Hfner, J. Gemmrich, and M. Jochum, Sci Rep 11, 10084 (2021)

    2021

  25. [31]

    J. Wang, H. Qin, W. Zhang, H. Zhang, and L. Mu, Ocean engineering 297, 117167 (2024)

    2024

  26. [32]

    Teutsch and R

    I. Teutsch and R. Weisse, Journal of Physical Oceanography 53, 269-286 (2023)

    2023

  27. [33]

    Toffoli, A

    A. Toffoli, A. Alberello, H. Clarke, F. Nelli, A. Bene- tazzo, F. Bergamasco, B. N. Ntamba, M. Vichi, and M. Onorato, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 154101 (2024)

    2024

  28. [34]

    D. H. Peregrine, J. Aust. Math. Soc. Ser. B Appl. Math. 25, 16-43 (1983)

    1983

  29. [35]

    B. Yang, J. Yang, Physica D 419, 132850 (2021)

    2021

  30. [36]

    B. Yang, J. Yang, Applied Mathematics Letters 148, 108871 (2024)

    2024

  31. [37]

    H. Lin, L. Ling, Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science 34, 043126 (2024)

    2024

  32. [38]

    B. Yang, J. Yang, Studies in Applied Mathematics 151, 60-115 (2023)

    2023

  33. [39]

    Y. Ohta, B. Feng, Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena 439, 133400 (2022)

    2022

  34. [40]

    Baronio, M

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

    2014

  35. [41]

    Y. Lou, Y. Zhang, R. Ye, and M. Li, Wave Motion 106, 102795 (2021)

    2021

  36. [42]

    Baronio, S

    F. Baronio, S. Chen, P. Grelu, S. Wabnitz, and M. Con- forti, Phys. Rev. A 91, 033804 (2015)

    2015

  37. [43]

    Zhao and L

    L.-C. Zhao and L. Ling, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 33, 850 (2016)

    2016

  38. [44]

    Kharif and E

    C. Kharif and E. Pelinovsky, European Journal of Mechanics - B/Fluids 22, 603 (2003)

    2003

  39. [45]

    Ling, L.-C

    L. Ling, L.-C. Zhao, Z.-Y. Yang, and B. Guo, Phys. Rev. E 96, 022211 (2017)

    2017

  40. [46]

    M. J. Ablowitz and J. T. Cole, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 104101 (2021)

    2021

  41. [47]

    P. Gao, L. Duan, L.-C. Zhao, Z.-Y. Yang, and W.-L. Yang, Chaos 29, 083112 (2019)

    2019

  42. [48]

    Chabchoub, N

    A. Chabchoub, N. Hoffmann, and N. Akhmediev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 204502 (2011)

    2011

  43. [49]

    Chabchoub, N

    A. Chabchoub, N. Hoffmann, M. Onorato, and N. Akhmediev, Phys. Rev. X 2, 011015 (2012)

    2012

  44. [50]

    Tikan, F

    A. Tikan, F. Bonnefoy, G. Roberti, G. El, A. Tovbis, G. Ducrozet, A. Caza-ubiel, G. Prabhudesai, G. Michel, F. Copie, E. Falcon, S. Randoux, and P. Suret, Phys. Rev. Fluids 7, 054401 (2022)

    2022

  45. [51]

    Frisquet, A

    B. Frisquet, A. Chabchoub, J. Fatome, C. Finot, B. Ki- bler, and G. Millot, Phys. Rev. A 89, 023821 (2014)

    2014

  46. [52]

    A. N. Black, S. Choudhary, E. S. Arroyo- Rivera, H. Woodworth, and R. W. Boyd, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 133902 (2022)

    2022

  47. [54]

    Bailung, S

    H. Bailung, S. Sharma, and Y. Nakamura, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 255005 (2011)

    2011

  48. [55]

    Y.-X. Ren, J. Lamstein, C. Zhang, C. 10 Conti, D. N. Christodoulides, and Z. Chen, Photon. Res. 11, 1838–1846 (2023)

    2023

  49. [56]

    Hoffmann, E

    C. Hoffmann, E. Charalampidis, D. Frantzeskakis, and P. Kevrekidis, Physics Letters A 382, 3064 (2018)

    2018

  50. [57]

    E. G. Charalampidis, J. Cuevas-Maraver, D. J. Frantzeskakis and P. G. Kevrekidis Rom. Rep. Phys. 70, 504 (2018)

    2018

  51. [59]

    Y. Hu, Y. Fei, X.-L. Chen, and Y. Zhang, Front. Phys. 17, 61505 (2022)

    2022

  52. [60]

    Salasnich, A

    L. Salasnich, A. Parola, and L. Reatto, Phys. Rev. A 65, 043614 (2002)

    2002

  53. [61]

    V. M. P´ erez-Garc ´ ıa, H. Michinel, J. I. Cirac, M. Lewenstein, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 5320–5323, (1996)

    1996

  54. [62]

    D. S. Jin, J. R. Ensher, M. R. Matthews, C. E. Wieman, and E. A. Cornell, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 420–423, (1996)

    1996

  55. [63]

    Akhmediev, A

    N. Akhmediev, A. Ankiewicz, and J. M. Soto-Crespo, Phys. Rev. E 80, 026601 (2009)

    2009

  56. [64]

    Bai and D

    X.-D. Bai and D. Zhang, Phys. Rev. E 106, 025305 (2022)

    2022

  57. [65]

    Y. Mo, L. Ling, and D. Zeng, Physics Letters A 421, 127739 (2022)

    2022

  58. [66]

    Sun, S.-F

    S.-F. Sun, S.-F. Tian, and B. Li, Results in Physics 57, 107386 (2024)

    2024

  59. [67]

    L. Zou, X. Luo, D. Zeng, L. Ling, and L.-C. Zhao, Phys. Rev. E 105, 054202 (2022)

    2022

  60. [68]

    J. Sun, H. Dong, M. Liu, and Y. Fang, Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science 34, 073134

  61. [69]

    He, X.-D

    F. He, X.-D. Bai, T. Li, and J.-C. Zhao, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals: X 13, 100120 (2024)

    2024

  62. [70]

    Li and F.-Q

    S.-C. Li and F.-Q. Dou, Europhysics Letters 111, 30005 (2015)

    2015

  63. [71]

    Antikainen, M

    A. Antikainen, M. Erkintalo1, J. M. Dudley and G. Genty, Nonlinearity 25, R73 (2012)

    2012

  64. [72]

    L.-C. Zhao, L. Ling, Z.-Y. Yang, and W.-L. Yang, Nonlinear Dyn 88, 2957 (2017)

    2017

Pith tools

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