Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 40 references

Spin current reshapes 2D magnetic lumps into 1D solitons

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · glm-5.2

2026-07-09 13:31 UTC pith:PNPJ6SGM

load-bearing objection Solid exact-solution result for N=1; universality claim for higher-order lumps is under-proven the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.07345 v1 pith:PNPJ6SGM submitted 2026-07-08 nlin.PS nlin.SI

Spin-current-controlled anisotropic deformation of magnetic lump solitons

Xiao-Qi Cui , Xin-Wei Jin , Shiyi Wang , Xiao-Yong Wen , Zhan-Ying Yang This is my paper
classification nlin.PS nlin.SI PACS 75.78.Fg75.78.-n
keywords magnetic lump solitonspin currentanisotropic deformationdimensional crossoverDarboux transformationintegrable spin systemlocalization geometryhigher-order lump
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper shows that a spin-current parameter, rather than merely pushing a localized magnetic excitation sideways, directly enters the mathematical expression for the spatial localization of a two-dimensional magnetic lump soliton. The localization coordinate takes the form ρ² = x² + (c+ν₁)²e_y², where ν₁ is the spin-current strength and c is a background parameter. Because ν₁ multiplies only the y-direction term, spin current acts as an anisotropic geometric control: it stretches the lump along one axis while leaving the other unchanged. As ν₁ approaches the critical value −c, confinement along y diverges and the lump continuously deforms into a quasi-one-dimensional soliton-like state. The authors construct these solutions exactly via a Darboux transformation on a rotating spin background, demonstrate the same deformation for higher-order (multi-core) lump structures, and argue that the mechanism is universal across the entire hierarchy of localized excitations in this integrable spin model.

Core claim

The central discovery is that the effective spin-current parameter ν₁ enters the lump's localization coordinate as a multiplicative factor on the transverse spatial variable, producing anisotropic deformation governed by the ratio η = 1/|1+ν₁|, and driving a continuous dimensional crossover from a two-dimensional lump to a one-dimensional soliton at ν₁ = −c. This geometric control law holds identically for fundamental and higher-order lump solutions, making it a universal structural modulation mechanism rather than a property of any single solution.

What carries the argument

The localization coordinate ρ² = x² + (c+ν₁)²e_y² is the load-bearing object. The anisotropy ratio η = W_x/W_y = 1/|1+ν₁| quantifies the deformation. The Darboux transformation on the nonisospectral Lax pair (λ_t − λλ_y = 0) generates the exact lump solutions. The rotating spin background S₀ = (a cos Θ, −a sin Θ, b) with Θ = kx + my + (bm+c+ν₁)kt provides the seed.

Load-bearing premise

The model is an integrable mathematical system whose spin-current term ν₁S_x is introduced as a formal convective contribution. Whether this term corresponds to a spin-transfer torque that can be physically realized in a specific magnetic material, and whether the dimensional crossover mechanism would survive the damping, anisotropy, and thermal noise present in real systems, is not established.

What would settle it

If perturbations that break integrability (e.g., Gilbert damping, crystalline anisotropy) destroy the clean dependence of the localization coordinate on ν₁, or if the lump-to-soliton transition becomes a discontinuous instability rather than a smooth crossover, the claimed geometric control mechanism would not hold in physically realizable settings.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the mechanism survives in non-integrable or damped systems, spin current could serve as a continuous knob for switching the effective dimensionality of localized magnetic excitations, with applications in reconfigurable spintronic devices.
  • The universality across hierarchical lump orders suggests that spin current controls the localization geometry at a level deeper than individual solution structure, potentially applying to any rational localized excitation in this class of spin models.
  • The lump-to-soliton transition at ν₁ = −c provides an analytically exact example of dimensional crossover driven by a transport parameter, which could inform searches for analogous transitions in other integrable systems with current-like terms.
  • The recent experimental observation of lump solitons in nonlinear optics means the predicted anisotropic deformation could, in principle, be tested in a physical system where a current-like parameter is tunable.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The anisotropy ratio η = 1/|1+ν₁| diverges at ν₁ = −1 (for c = 1), which is a singular limit of the coordinate transformation rather than a smooth physical transition. Whether this singularity is physically meaningful or an artifact of the integrable model's structure is not addressed but is testable: perturbing away from integrability and tracking whether the divergence rounds off or persists wou
  • The mechanism depends on ν₁ entering the localization coordinate through the combination (c+ν₁). This suggests that the spin current and the background parameter c are not independent in their geometric effect—tuning c shifts the critical spin-current value. If c is itself controllable (e.g., through an external field setting the rotating background), then the system has two coupled knobs for the
  • The paper's claim of universality is established for the second-order lump (aggregated and separated states). Whether the same modulation law survives for arbitrarily high-order lumps, or whether higher-order solutions develop additional deformation channels that compete with the primary anisotropic stretching, remains an open question that the Darboux framework could in principle answer.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies a (2+1)-dimensional nonlinear spin system with an effective spin-current transport term ν₁. Using a generalized Darboux transformation (DT) on a rotating spin background, the authors construct exact magnetic lump solutions and show that ν₁ enters the localization coordinate ρ² = x² + (c+ν₁)²e_y², thereby controlling the anisotropic deformation of the lump profile. As ν₁ → −c, the y-localization diverges and the lump transitions to a quasi-1D soliton-like state. The paper extends this analysis to higher-order (N=2) lumps and claims the deformation mechanism is universal across all hierarchical orders.

Significance. The paper provides an analytically tractable and explicit demonstration of spin-current-controlled geometric deformation of 2D magnetic lumps, including a continuous dimensional crossover to a quasi-1D state. The exact solutions are derived within a well-documented generalized DT framework (Appendix A), and the key deformation mechanism for N=1 follows directly from the closed-form expression in Eq. (4)–(5). The parameter-free relationship η = 1/|c+ν₁| is a clean, falsifiable prediction. The topic is timely given the recent experimental observation of lump solitons [33].

major comments (2)
  1. §4, abstract: The universality claim — that ν₁ controls localization geometry identically across all hierarchical lump orders (N ≥ 1) — is asserted from the DT structure but only verified analytically for N=1 (Eq. 5) and visually for N=2 (Fig. 5). For N=1, the factorization ρ² = x² + (c+ν₁)²e_y² is explicit. For N≥2, no analytical expression for the solution or its localization coordinate is provided. The DT construction propagates ν₁ through α = bm + c + ν₁ in the eigenfunctions (Eq. 3), but higher-order lumps involve products of polynomial factors from successive iterations, and it is not guaranteed that the (c+ν₁) dependence factors cleanly out of the resulting multi-polynomial structure in the same way. The claim that this holds for the entire 'family of localized spin excitations' (i.e., all N) is an extrapolation without proof. Either provide an analytical argument (even if inducti
  2. §5: No linear stability analysis of the lump solutions is presented, and stability under perturbations (damping, anisotropy, thermal noise) is acknowledged as an open problem. While the authors are transparent about this limitation, the dimensional crossover at ν₁ = −c is a singular limit (ρ² loses y-dependence entirely), and the behavior near this limit may be structurally unstable. At minimum, the paper should discuss whether the quasi-1D limiting state is expected to persist under small symmetry-breaking perturbations, or whether it is an artifact of integrability. This does not require a full numerical stability study for revision, but a substantive discussion is needed.
minor comments (6)
  1. Eq. (5): The definition e_y = y − 1/(c+ν₁) introduces a ν₁-dependent shift of the lump center, but this shift is conflated with the broadening effect in the figures. The caption of Fig. 3 mentions 'simultaneous translation and anisotropic expansion,' but the shifted coordinate e_y removes the translation. This should be clarified so the reader understands which panels use e_y and which use y.
  2. §3.2: The anisotropy ratio η = W_x/W_y = 1/|1+ν₁| is stated for c=1 but the general form η = 1/|c+ν₁| is not written explicitly. Since c is a free parameter, the general expression should be stated, or the restriction to c=1 should be noted earlier.
  3. Fig. 3 caption: The 'yellow circle' mentioned in the caption is not clearly visible in the described panels and its meaning is not explained in the main text.
  4. §2: The physical interpretation of the scalar potential u(x,y,t) and its self-consistent determination via u_x = −S·(S_x × S_y) could benefit from a brief physical motivation. As noted by the reader, whether ν₁S_x corresponds to a physically realizable spin-transfer torque in a specific material is not addressed; a brief comment on this would strengthen the paper's claimed relevance to magnetic systems.
  5. References [36, 37] are by the present authors and appear to use the same or closely related model. The novelty of the present work relative to these should be briefly stated.
  6. Appendix A, Eq. (13): The notation is dense and some symbols (e.g., the distinction between S[κ] and the transformed fields) could be clarified for readers unfamiliar with the generalized DT framework.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful and constructive report. Both major comments are well-taken. We address them in turn below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §4, abstract: The universality claim — that ν₁ controls localization geometry identically across all hierarchical lump orders (N ≥ 1) — is asserted from the DT structure but only verified analytically for N=1 (Eq. 5) and visually for N=2 (Fig. 5). For N≥2, no analytical expression for the solution or its localization coordinate is provided. The DT construction propagates ν₁ through α = bm + c + ν₁ in the eigenfunctions (Eq. 3), but higher-order lumps involve products of polynomial factors from successive iterations, and it is not guaranteed that the (c+ν₁) dependence factors cleanly out of the resulting multi-polynomial structure in the same way. The claim that this holds for the entire 'family of localized spin excitations' (i.e., all N) is an extrapolation without proof. Either provide an analytical argument (even if inductive) or soften the claim.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the universality claim is analytically established only for N=1 and demonstrated numerically for N=2, and that a rigorous proof for arbitrary N has not been provided. We accept this criticism and will revise accordingly. Specifically, we will take the following two steps in the revised manuscript: (1) We will add an analytical argument, based on the DT structure, that explains why the (c+ν₁) dependence is expected to propagate to all orders. The key observation is that all eigenfunctions in Eq. (3) share the same parameter combination α = bm + c + ν₁, which enters through both the exponential phase factor A = [αe_y − λx + δ(ε)]β/(2λα) and the temporal frequency of the rotating background. In the rational localization limit (λ → 0, ε → 0), the spatial localization of each DT-iterated eigenfunction is governed by the same coordinate variables x and e_y = y − 1/(c+ν₁), because the Taylor-expanded eigenfunctions inherit their spatial dependence from the same seed structure. Since each successive DT iteration (Eq. 12) acts on eigenfunctions built from the same coordinate basis, the resulting polynomial numerator and denominator of the N-th order solution are polynomials in x and e_y with coefficients that depend on (c+ν₁) only through the overall scale factor Y = (c+ν₁)e_y. Consequently, the localization coordinate ρ²_N = x² + (c+ν₁)² e_y² governs the spatial extent for all N, while the polynomial structure only modifies the internal multi-lobe pattern. We will present this argument as an inductive reasoning based on the DT recursion, while being explicit that a fully rigorous proof for arbitrary N would require computing the general N-th order solution in closed form, which is beyond the scope of this paper. (2) We will soften the language in the revision: partial

  2. Referee: §5: No linear stability analysis of the lump solutions is presented, and stability under perturbations (damping, anisotropy, thermal noise) is acknowledged as an open problem. While the authors are transparent about this limitation, the dimensional crossover at ν₁ = −c is a singular limit (ρ² loses y-dependence entirely), and the behavior near this limit may be structurally unstable. At minimum, the paper should discuss whether the quasi-1D limiting state is expected to persist under small symmetry-breaking perturbations, or whether it is an artifact of integrability. This does not require a full numerical stability study for revision, but a substantive discussion is needed.

    Authors: We agree that a substantive discussion of stability, particularly near the singular limit ν₁ → −c, is necessary and currently absent from the manuscript. We will add a dedicated discussion paragraph in Section 5 addressing the following points: (a) The quasi-1D limiting state at ν₁ = −c is a singular limit of the integrable model: the localization coordinate loses y-dependence entirely, meaning the solution becomes non-localized in y. This state is unlikely to persist as an exact solution under generic symmetry-breaking perturbations (e.g., damping, anisotropy, or thermal noise), because the integrability that protects it is broken. (b) However, for ν₁ near but not equal to −c, the lump retains genuine two-dimensional localization with a large but finite aspect ratio η = 1/|c+ν₁|. In this regime, the solution is a regular, smooth, doubly-localized state, and its structural stability under weak perturbations is more plausible — though this remains to be verified numerically. (c) We will note that in related integrable systems (e.g., KP-I lumps), lump solutions are known to be linearly stable within the integrable framework but can become unstable under non-integrable perturbations, and we expect analogous behavior here. (d) We will explicitly state that a full linear stability analysis and numerical evolution under perturbed dynamics are important open problems that we plan to address in future work. We believe this discussion honestly addresses the referee's concern without overclaiming the robustness of the singular limiting state. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; the central result follows from an explicitly derived exact solution, not from a fitted or self-defined input.

full rationale

The paper's central claim — that ν₁ enters the localization coordinate ρ² = x² + (c+ν₁)²e_y² and controls anisotropic deformation — is a direct algebraic consequence of the exact lump solution (Eq. 4), which is derived by applying the first-order Darboux transformation (Eq. 8) to the rotating background. The parameter ν₁ enters the eigenfunctions (Eq. 3) through α = bm + c + ν₁, and its appearance in ρ² is a result of the DT algebra, not a definition or fit. The anisotropy ratio η = 1/|1+ν₁| (Section 3.2) follows directly from the coordinate structure of the explicit solution. The model (Eq. 1) and its Lax pair (Eq. 2) are attributed primarily to [34] (Myrzakulov et al., 2015), an external reference. Self-citations [36, 37] (sharing authors with the present paper) appear in the model citation list but are not load-bearing: the Lax pair, DT framework, and compatibility condition are all traceable to [34] and standard DT references [18, 38–40]. The universality claim across higher-order lumps (Section 4) is supported only by N=1 analytical and N=2 visual evidence, which is a completeness/correctness concern (the skeptic's attack is valid), but it is not a circularity issue — no higher-order result is defined in terms of the quantity it claims to predict. No step in the derivation chain reduces to its own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 1 invented entities

The model has 4+ free parameters (ν₁, c, k/m/a/b, e_j/d_j) that are set by hand rather than fitted to data. The axioms are standard for the integrable systems community but the physical identification of ν₁ as a spin current is a domain assumption without independent derivation. The scalar potential u is an invented entity within the model framework.

free parameters (4)
  • ν₁
    Dimensionless spin-current-like convective coefficient along x-direction. Not fitted to data but treated as a tunable control parameter.
  • c = 1 (in main analysis)
    Background parameter from the seed solution u₀ = c. Set to c=1 for the main analysis.
  • k, m, a, b = k=1, m=0, a=1, b=0 (in main analysis)
    Seed solution parameters for the rotating spin background. Fixed to specific values to obtain the fundamental lump.
  • e_j, d_j
    Free parameters in the Taylor expansion δ(ε) controlling higher-order lump configurations (aggregated vs separated states).
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption The (2+1)D spin system (Eq. 1) is integrable via the nonisospectral Lax pair (Eq. 2) with λ_t − λλ_y = 0.
    Invoked in §2 to establish the Darboux transformation framework. The compatibility condition reproduces Eq. (1).
  • domain assumption The spin-current term ν₁S_x represents an effective spin-current transport contribution.
    Stated in §2. The physical derivation of this term from spin-transfer torque physics is not provided; it is introduced as a model assumption.
  • standard math The rotating spin background S₀ = (a cos Θ, −a sin Θ, b) with Θ = kx + my + (bm+c+ν₁)kt is a valid seed solution.
    Used in §2 to generate eigenfunctions. This is a standard helical seed for DT constructions.
  • standard math The generalized (r, N−r)-fold Darboux transformation (Theorem 1) produces exact solutions of Eq. (1).
    The iterative DT framework in Appendix A is a standard mathematical tool for integrable systems.
invented entities (1)
  • Scalar potential u(x,y,t) self-consistently determined by u_x = −S·(S_x × S_y) no independent evidence
    purpose: Reflects local twisting and geometric chirality of the 2D spin texture
    Introduced as part of the model (Eq. 1). No independent physical derivation or experimental signature is provided beyond the mathematical framework.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-glm · 17765 in / 2717 out tokens · 400481 ms · 2026-07-09T13:31:54.254064+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We investigate a (2+1)-dimensional nonlinear spin system containing an effective spin-current transport term. Based on its integrable structure, exact magnetic lump solutions are constructed on a rotating spin background, including both fundamental and higher-order configurations generated via the Darboux transformation. The obtained excitations are doubly localized in spatial directions, while their temporal evolution is characterized by intrinsic spin precession rather than translational motion of the localized envelope. It is shown that the effective spin-current contribution enters the localization coordinate and acts as a geometric control parameter for the spatial structure of the solutions. In particular, spin current induces anisotropic deformation of the localized profile, leading to a continuous transition toward a quasi-one-dimensional soliton-like state under specific parameter regimes. More importantly, this deformation mechanism is found to be universal across different hierarchical lump structures, including both fundamental and higher-order solutions, indicating that spin current governs a unified structural modulation law for the entire family of localized spin excitations. These results provide an analytically tractable example of spin-current-controlled anisotropic deformation and dimensional crossover in nonlinear spin systems, and further reveal a universal mechanism for geometric control of localized spin textures beyond individual solution types.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.07345 by Shiyi Wang, Xiao-Qi Cui, Xiao-Yong Wen, Xin-Wei Jin, Zhan-Ying Yang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (Color online) Spatial spin texture of the fundamental magnetic lump at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. (Color online) Dynamical evolution and spin-precession behavior of the magnetic lump state at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. (Color online) Spin-current-controlled structural modulation of the magnetic lump state for different values [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (Color online) Line-localized limiting state at the critical point [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (Color online) Universality of spin-current-induced modulation in higher-order magnetic lump structures. They [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Zhang, S., Li, Z. (2004). Roles of nonequilibrium conduction electrons on magnetization dynamics. Physical Review Letters, 93, 127204

    work page 2004

  2. [2]

    C., Stiles, M

    Ralph, D. C., Stiles, M. D. (2008). Spin transfer torques. Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials, 320, 1190-1216

    work page 2008

  3. [3]

    Berger, L. (1996). Emission of spin waves by a magnetic multilayer traversed by a current. Physical Review B, 54, 9353-9358

    work page 1996

  4. [4]

    Slonczewski, J. C. (1996). Current-driven excitation of magnetic multilayers. Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials, 159, L1-L7

    work page 1996

  5. [5]

    Tatara, G., Kohno, H. (2004). Theory of current-driven domain wall motion. Physical Review Letters, 92, 086601

    work page 2004

  6. [6]

    Sampaio, J., Cros, V., Rohart, S., Thiaville, A., Fert, A. (2013). Nucleation, stability and current-induced motion of isolated magnetic skyrmions in nanostructures. Nature Nanotechnology, 8, 839-844

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    W., Yang, Z

    Jin, X. W., Yang, Z. Y., Liao, Z. M., Jing, G., Yang, W. L. (2024). Unveiling stable one-dimensional magnetic solitons in magnetic bilayers. Physical Review B, 109(1), 014414

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    W., Yang, Z

    Jin, X. W., Yang, Z. Y., Liu, Y., Jing, G. (2024). Pulse-driven depinning of magnetic gap modes in ferromagnetic films. Physical Review B, 109(13), 134416

    work page 2024

  9. [9]

    W., Liu, Y., Yang, Z

    Jin, X. W., Liu, Y., Yang, Z. Y., Liao, Z. M., Jing, G., Yang, W. L. (2024). Hidden chiral mode self-generated from intrinsic magnetic heterogeneity. Physical Review B, 110(18), 184424

    work page 2024

  10. [10]

    Thiaville, A., Nakatani, Y., Miltat, J., Suzuki, Y. (2005). Micromagnetic understanding of current-driven domain wall motion in patterned nanowires. Europhysics Letters, 69, 990-996

    work page 2005

  11. [11]

    Beach, G. S. D., Nistor, C., Knutson, C., Tsoi, M., Erskine, J. L. (2005). Dynamics of field-driven domain-wall propagation in ferromagnetic nanowires. Nature Materials, 4, 741-744

    work page 2005

  12. [12]

    M., Jungwirth, T., Sinova, J., Thiaville, A., et al

    Manchon, A., ˇZelezn´ y, J., Miron, I. M., Jungwirth, T., Sinova, J., Thiaville, A., et al. (2019). Current-induced spin-orbit torques in ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic systems. Reviews of Modern Physics, 91, 035004

    work page 2019

  13. [13]

    M., Ivanov, B

    Kosevich, A. M., Ivanov, B. A., Kovalev, A. S. (1990). Magnetic solitons. Physics Reports, 194, 117-238. 15

    work page 1990

  14. [14]

    V., Hamdi, M., Ivanov, B

    Ovcharov, R. V., Hamdi, M., Ivanov, B. A., ˚Akerman, J., Khymyn, R. S. (2024). Antiferromagnetic droplet soliton driven by spin current. Applied Physics Letters, 124, 172406

    work page 2024

  15. [15]

    Satsuma, J., Ablowitz, M. J. (1978). Two-dimensional lumps in nonlinear dispersive systems. Journal of Mathemat- ical Physics, 20, 1496-1503

    work page 1978

  16. [16]

    W., Ahmed, N., Baber, M

    Ceesay, B., Yasin, M. W., Ahmed, N., Baber, M. Z., Bittaye, E. (2025). Revealing homoclinic breather waves, periodic lump waves and other wave forms of an integrable reduced spin Hirota-Maxwell-Bloch system. Scientific Reports, 15, 19880

    work page 2025

  17. [17]

    W., Shen, S

    Jin, X. W., Shen, S. J., Yang, Z. Y., Lin, J. (2022). Magnetic lump motion in saturated ferromagnetic films. Physical Review E, 105(1), 014205

    work page 2022

  18. [18]

    Q., Wen, X

    Cui, X. Q., Wen, X. Y., Li, Z. D. (2024). Magnetization reversal phenomenon of higher-order lump and mixed interaction structures on periodic background in the (2 + 1)-dimensional Heisenberg ferromagnet spin equation. Chaos, Solitons Fractals, 182, 114770

    work page 2024

  19. [19]

    B., Petviashvili, V

    Kadomtsev, B. B., Petviashvili, V. I. (1970). On the stability of solitary waves in weakly dispersing media. Soviet Physics Doklady, 15, 539-541

    work page 1970

  20. [20]

    J., Segur, H

    Ablowitz, M. J., Segur, H. (1981). Solitons and the Inverse Scattering Transform. SIAM Studies in Applied Mathe- matics

    work page 1981

  21. [21]

    Ohta, Y., Yang, J. (2012). General high-order rogue waves and their dynamics in the KP equation. Nonlinearity, 25, 1-26

    work page 2012

  22. [22]

    Ma, W. X. (2015). Lump solutions to the Kadomtsev-Petviashvili equation. Physics Letters A, 379, 1975-1978

    work page 2015

  23. [23]

    Y., Ma, W

    Yang, J. Y., Ma, W. X. (2016). Lump solutions to the BKP equation by symbolic computation. International Journal of Modern Physics B, 30, 1640028

    work page 2016

  24. [24]

    X., Zhou, Y

    Ma, W. X., Zhou, Y. (2018). Lump solutions to nonlinear partial differential equations via Hirota bilinear forms. Journal of Differential Equations, 264, 2633-2659

    work page 2018

  25. [25]

    Lester, C., Gelash, A., Zakharov, D., Zakharov, V. (2021). Lump chains in the KP-I equation. Studies in Applied Mathematics, 147, 1425-1442

    work page 2021

  26. [26]

    Shakeel, M., Liu, X., Al-Yaari, A. (2024). Interaction of lump, periodic, bright and kink soliton solutions of the (1+1)- dimensional Boussinesq equation using Hirota-bilinear approach. Journal of Nonlinear Mathematical Physics, 31, 77

    work page 2024

  27. [27]

    J., Cheng, X

    Wu, J., Cai, Y. J., Cheng, X. P. (2024). Lump-type solutions, mixed solutions and rogue waves for a (3 + 1)- dimensional variable-coefficients Burgers equation. Symmetry, 16, 779

    work page 2024

  28. [28]

    Q., Wen, X

    Cui, X. Q., Wen, X. Y., Zhang, B. J. (2023). Modulational instability and location controllable lump solutions with mixed interaction phenomena for the (2 + 1)-dimensional Myrzakulov-Lakshmanan-IV Equation. Journal of Nonlinear Mathematical Physics, 30(2), 600-627

    work page 2023

  29. [29]

    Q., Wen, X

    Cui, X. Q., Wen, X. Y., Lin, Z. (2023). Soliton solutions, lump solutions, mixed interactional solutions and their dynamical analysis of the (2 + 1)-dimensional Calogero-Degasperis system. Pramana, 98(1), 1

    work page 2023

  30. [30]

    E., Shabat, A

    Zakharov, V. E., Shabat, A. B. (1974). Exact theory of two-dimensional self-focusing and one-dimensional self- modulation of waves in nonlinear media. Soviet Physics JETP, 34, 62-69

    work page 1974

  31. [31]

    Singh, S., Manikandan, K., Sakkaravarthi, K. (2025). Evolutionary higher-order lump-rogue waves in an integrable (3 + 1)-dimensional complex Kadomtsev-Petviashvili model: Insights on the dynamical patterns through explicit solutions. Chaos, Solitons Fractals, 194, 116169

    work page 2025

  32. [32]

    J., Musslimani, Z

    Ablowitz, M. J., Musslimani, Z. H. (2017). Integrable nonlocal nonlinear equations. Studies in Applied Mathematics, 139, 7-59. 16

    work page 2017

  33. [33]

    Dieli, L., Pierangeli, D., Baronio, F., Trillo, S., Conti, C. (2026). Observation of lump solitons. Physical Review Letters, 136(5), 053804

    work page 2026

  34. [34]

    Myrzakulov, R., Mamyrbekova, G., Nugmanova, G., Lakshmanan, M. (2015). Integrable (2 + 1)-dimensional spin models with self-consistent potentials. Symmetry, 7(3), 1352-1375

    work page 2015

  35. [35]

    H., Deng, M., Zhao, W

    Zhang, Z. H., Deng, M., Zhao, W. Z., Wu, K. (2006). On the (2+1)-dimensional integrable inhomogeneous Heisenberg ferromagnet equation. Journal of the Physical Society of Japan, 75(10), 104002-104002

    work page 2006

  36. [36]

    Q., Duan, L., Jin, X

    Cui, X. Q., Duan, L., Jin, X. W., Wen, X. Y., Yang, Z. Y. (2025). Spontaneous switching dynamics of magnetic soliton structures in two-dimensional spin systems. Chaos, Solitons Fractals, 201, 117235

    work page 2025

  37. [37]

    Q., Jin, X

    Cui, X. Q., Jin, X. W., Wang, S., Wen, X. Y., Yang, Z. Y. (2026). Localized helical spin texture in ferromagnetic thin films. Nuclear Physics B, 117521

    work page 2026

  38. [38]

    W., Lin, J

    Jin, X. W., Lin, J. (2020). Rogue wave, interaction solutions to the KMM system. Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials, 502, 166590

    work page 2020

  39. [39]

    M., Li, Y

    Lin, J., Ren, B., Li, H. M., Li, Y. S. (2008). Soliton solutions for two nonlinear partial differential equations using a Darboux transformation of the Lax pairs. Physical Review E-Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics, 77(3), 036605

    work page 2008

  40. [40]

    U., Li, Z

    Rahman, R. U., Li, Z. D., He, J. S. (2025). Magnetic wave dynamics in ferromagnetic thin films: Interactions of solitons and positons in Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert equation. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 479, 134719. 17

    work page 2025