Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 43 references

This paper claims that a finite-rate Kibble–Zurek quench of a holographic superfluid ring with a weak link leaves the ring in final equilibrium states obeying the standard sinusoidal current–phase relation Jx = Jmax sin γ, with the critical

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 · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 19:53 UTC pith:XSYQQV7A

load-bearing objection Plausible incremental holographic numerics: KZM quench plus weak link gives a sinusoidal CPR and exponential Jmax scalings; worth refereeing, but the paper needs to nail down gauge fixing, quench rate, and error statistics. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.16804 v1 pith:XSYQQV7A submitted 2026-07-18 hep-th

Kibble-Zurek Mechanism and Current-Phase Relation in a Holographic Josephson Junction

Zhi-Hong Li , Huai-Fan Li , Hai-Qing Zhang This is my paper
classification hep-th
keywords holographic superconductorJosephson junctionKibble-Zurek mechanismcurrent-phase relationsuperfluid ringwinding numbercritical current scalingnon-equilibrium dynamics
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.

The paper tries to establish that a holographic superfluid ring with a weak link, driven through its superconducting transition by a linear temperature quench, relaxes into states that obey the textbook Josephson law: the supercurrent across the link equals Jmax sin γ. Because the ring is compact, the same sinusoid repeats as the phase winds around the ring, appearing for winding numbers 0, ±1, and ±2. The work also fixes how the critical current depends on the junction: Jmax decays exponentially with the link width L and the final temperature T_f, grows exponentially with the link depth ε, and is barely affected by the wall steepness σ. A sympathetic reader would care because these scaling laws are concrete predictions for non-equilibrium behavior of strongly coupled superconducting rings that can be tested in condensed-matter analogues.

Core claim

After a Kibble–Zurek quench, the final equilibrium configurations of the holographic superfluid ring carry integer phase windings W = 0, ±1, ±2, frozen in by critical slowing down. In every such state the boundary current Jx and the phase difference γ read across the weak link fall on the single sinusoid Jx = Jmax sin γ (Eq. 15). The amplitude is set by the junction geometry and the final temperature: Jmax decays as exp(−0.40 L) with link width (Eq. 17), grows as exp(8.548 ε) with link depth (Eq. 20), decays as exp(−8.549 T_f) with final temperature (Eq. 22), and is essentially unchanged when the wall steepness σ is varied (Eq. 18). The periodicity of the sinusoid over multiple windings foll

What carries the argument

The central object is the spatially modulated boundary charge density (Eq. 13), which carves a weak link into the ring with width L, steepness σ, and depth ε. A linear temperature quench drives the ring through the transition; Kibble–Zurek critical slowing freezes phase gradients and selects integer winding numbers. The phase difference γ across the weak link is read directly from the unwrapped final phase profile, and the supercurrent Jx is read from the subleading coefficient of the spatial gauge field at the holographic boundary. The workhorse identity is the one-parameter fit Jx = Jmax sin γ, with exponential scaling laws connecting Jmax to L, ε, and T_f.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the phase difference γ extracted by unwrapping the final phase profile across the weak link is the genuine gauge-invariant Josephson phase, and that the final states have fully relaxed; if the apparent 2π jumps are branch-cut artifacts or the relaxation is incomplete, the sinusoidal fits describe transient noise rather than true equilibrium Josephson behavior.

What would settle it

Solve the same junction geometry in a time-independent equilibrium setup with no quench, compute the current–phase relation using a gauge-invariant definition of γ, and compare with the quenched curves; if they disagree, the quench sinusoid reflects incomplete relaxation. Alternatively, rerun the quench with doubled grid resolution in both z and x, a longer hold at T_f, and multiple noise realizations, and check that γ and Jmax are stable.

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

If this is right

  • A quenched superfluid ring with a weak link is a Josephson device whose current–phase characteristic is sinusoidal even when the state was produced by a non-equilibrium, spontaneously winding process.
  • The exponential decay of Jmax with link width and its exponential growth with depth provide two independent knobs for tuning the critical current over orders of magnitude.
  • The near-independence from wall steepness means junction transparency is controlled mainly by the minimum charge density and the link length, not by the sharpness of the interface.
  • Because W = 0, ±1, ±2 states all lie on the same sinusoid, the winding acts as an additional phase offset, so the ring-plus-link behaves like a superconducting loop interrupted by a single Josephson element.
  • The exponential suppression of Jmax with final temperature quantifies thermal degradation of the order parameter in a strong-coupling regime, extending earlier equilibrium holographic-junction predictions to finite-rate quenches.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial: The measured γ relies on unwrapping the phase profile; a gauge-invariant definition of the Josephson phase (for instance, the line integral of the superfluid velocity across the link) would independently confirm that the sinusoid is not an artifact of branch-cut handling.
  • Editorial: The exponential laws suggest a transferable prediction for ultracold-atom ring experiments with a repulsive barrier: the critical current should follow exp(−L/ξ_eff) and exp(−T_f/T*) over a parameter window, giving a table-top test of the holographic scalings.
  • Editorial: If the T_f dependence reflects condensate degradation near T_c, the exponent in Jmax(T_f) should be tied to the mean-field order-parameter scaling of the same model; comparing Jmax with ⟨O⟩(T_f) computed in the same backgrounds would confirm the mechanism.

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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a holographic model of a Josephson junction on a one-dimensional superfluid ring. A spatially modulated boundary charge density creates a weak link, and the system is driven through the superconducting transition by a Kibble-Zurek quench in the probe limit of Einstein-Maxwell-scalar theory. From the final equilibrium states with different winding numbers, the authors extract a current-phase relation and report the standard sinusoidal form J_x = J_max sin γ, with J_max decaying exponentially in the junction width L and the final temperature T_f, growing exponentially in the junction depth ε, and being essentially independent of the steepness σ. The paper emphasizes that the non-equilibrium quench populates the winding sectors and that the extracted critical-current scalings are experimentally testable predictions.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper would show that a KZ-style quench can populate winding states of a holographic superfluid ring whose equilibrium current-phase relation remains the canonical sinusoid, and that the critical current is tunable by junction geometry and effective temperature. The numerical setup is standard and carefully presented, with explicit evolution equations, boundary conditions, a constraint check, and a spectral discretization; the authors also provide concrete fitting formulas (17), (20), (22) and compare with earlier static holographic junction studies. However, two load-bearing issues currently prevent acceptance: the phase difference γ is not shown to be gauge invariant, and the exponential scaling laws are based on unquantified fits with no statistical or convergence evidence. If these are resolved, the paper would be a useful contribution to the holographic Josephson junction literature, but at present the quantitative claims are not established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II C, Eq. (15)] The quantity read off as γ is not gauge invariant as defined. The supercurrent is carried by the covariant derivative D_μ = ∂_μ − i A_μ (Eq. (2)), so for a junction along x the physical Josephson phase is Δθ − ∫_{link} A_x dx, not the raw phase jump Δθ. In the axial gauge A_z = 0 there remains a residual gauge freedom λ(t,x) under which θ → θ+λ and A_x → A_x + ∂_x λ, so the value Δθ changes arbitrarily. The statement in Sec. II C that 'we retain the phase θ, therefore we can read off γ directly' does not establish gauge invariance. Unless the authors show that ∫_{link} A_x = 0 in their gauge, or compute the Wilson line, the sinusoidal fits in Eq. (15) and the scaling laws (17), (20), (22) could be artifacts of the gauge choice.
  2. [Secs. III A, III C, III D; Eqs. (17), (20), (22)] The exponential laws are two-parameter fits to five points each, with no error bars, residual plots, ensemble statistics, or convergence checks. The initial noise is stochastic, and the paper gives no information on how many realizations per parameter set were used; a single run per (L, ε, T_f) cannot establish the claimed exponential forms. As an example, Eq. (21a) gives J_max = 0.95 at T_f = 0.6 T_c, while Eq. (22) predicts ≈ 0.80; this deviation is not discussed. Please provide averaged values with uncertainties, residual analysis, and at least one higher-resolution check of the radial/Fourier grid and time step.
  3. [Sec. II B, Eq. (12)] The 'temperature' in the quench is not the physical temperature of the dual CFT. The metric (3) has z_h = 1 and f(z) = 1 − z^3, fixing T = 3/(4π); the quench is actually in the boundary charge density ρ(t,x). Moreover, the relation ρ(t) = ρ_c/(1−t/τ_Q)^2 is the inverse of what ρ ∝ T^2 would give if T(t) = T_c(1−t/τ_Q). Thus T_f in Sec. III D is an effective parameter (related to T/√ρ), not the black-hole temperature. The authors should define T_f precisely in terms of the fields or avoid interpreting Eq. (22) as a 'thermal degradation' prediction.
  4. [Sec. III, Figs. 2 and 5] The data used to fit sin γ are concentrated on the increasing branches near γ = 0 and γ = ±2πn; the text itself states that points rarely appear on the decreasing branch. In this regime sin γ ≈ γ, so the observed J_x(γ) is also consistent with a linear current-phase relation over the sampled range. The 'exceptions' near γ = ±π (Fig. 4(a), Fig. 5(a,b)) are too few to discriminate. To support the central claim of a sinusoidal CPR, the authors should show fits with data spanning at least one full period for each parameter set, and compare against linear or weakly skewed alternatives.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II C and Sec. III A] The symbol L is used both for the ring circumference (Sec. II C: 'fix the ring circumference as L = 50') and for the junction width (Eq. (13), Sec. III A). This is confusing, especially in Fig. 1 where the caption gives L = 10 for the junction while the x-axis extends to 50. Use distinct symbols, e.g., C for circumference and L for junction width.
  2. [Sec. II B] The quench rate τ_Q is never assigned a numerical value. Please state τ_Q and the initial time at which T_i = 1.4 T_c is imposed, and comment on why the reported results are insensitive to the quench protocol (or how τ_Q is chosen to lie in the KZ regime).
  3. [Sec. II C] The phase-unwrapping procedure is not described. The text says the phase is confined to [−π, π] and that branch cuts are artifacts, but the precise algorithm used to obtain the unwrapped θ(x) and the value of γ in Fig. 1 should be given so the extraction is reproducible.
  4. [Fig. 3] It is unclear whether the points for σ = 0.5, 1.5, 2.5 are fitted jointly or separately; the caption says 'the black curve is the best fitted line of the datasets' but only one amplitude is quoted in Eq. (18). Clarify the fitting procedure and whether the three datasets are statistically consistent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the CPR and Jmax scalings are empirical fits to independent holographic simulation data; the gauge-fixed phase caveat is a correctness risk, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain: action (1) → EOMs (4)–(7) → boundary expansion (11) with J_x = b_x → winding definition (14) → phase jump γ read from the unwrapped θ profile → sinusoidal fit (15) → critical-current fits (17), (20), (22). At no point is the target result inserted as an input. The sinusoidal law is not imposed by the equations; the paper says the raw data points "can be fitted to the celebrated sinusoidal relation" and then presents J_x = J_max sin γ as a fit. Likewise, the J_max scalings are obtained by fitting simulated amplitudes: "Each data point corresponds to a specific L value and is fitted by an exponential decaying scaling," and analogous statements are made for ϵ and T_f. Calling these fits "predictions" in the abstract is rhetorical, not circular: they are not used to predict a held-out subset from a fitted parameter. The only author-overlapping citation used for comparison, [15], is not load-bearing; Eq. (22) is already obtained from the present fit, and the citation merely says the formula is "consistent with previous holographic studies." The genuine caveat is that γ is defined as the raw vertical phase jump without subtracting the ∫A_x dx term that enters the gauge-invariant phase difference. That is a physical/numerical correctness risk that could affect whether the fitted sinusoid is the true Josephson relation, but it is not a circularity: the paper never defines γ in terms of J_x or defines J_max so that the fitted sine is true by construction. No step reduces to its own input, so the circularity score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

9 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central model uses standard holographic superconductor machinery: probe-limit Abelian-Higgs in AdS4, standard quantization, BF-stable scalar mass, and KZM quench. The genuinely paper-specific inputs are the noise amplitude h=10^-3, the spatially modulated charge-density profile with scanned L,σ,ε, the unreported quench rate τ_Q, and the amplitude/decay constants obtained by exponential fitting. No new particles, forces, dimensions, or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (9)
  • Noise amplitude h = 10^-3
    White-noise seed amplitude added to bulk fields to break symmetry; chosen small, not derived.
  • Quench rate τ_Q = not reported
    Linear quench T(t)/Tc=1-t/τ_Q enters Eq. (12) and Eq. (13), but no numerical value or scan is given anywhere in the paper.
  • Critical charge density ρ_c = ≈4.06
    Numerically determined onset of condensation for the homogeneous static holographic superconductor; used to normalize the quench profile.
  • Ring circumference = L=50
    Periodic x-domain size fixed at L=50; not scanned, despite the same symbol L being reused for the junction width.
  • Junction geometry parameters = L∈{2,3,4,5,6}, σ∈{0.5,1.5,2.5}, ε∈{0.7,0.75,0.8,0.85,0.9}
    Width, steepness, and depth of the charge-density modulation in Eq. (13); chosen by hand to scan the weak-link transparency.
  • Fit amplitude and decay rate for Jmax(L) = 0.955, -0.40
    Two-parameter exponential fit to 5 numerical points (Eq. 17), presented as Jmax≈0.955 exp(-0.40L).
  • Fit amplitude and growth rate for Jmax(ε) = 3.263×10^-4, 8.548
    Exponential fit to 5 numerical points (Eq. 20), presented as Jmax≈3.263×10^-4 exp(8.548ε).
  • Fit amplitude and decay rate for Jmax(Tf) = 135.8, -8.549
    Exponential fit to 5 numerical points (Eq. 22), presented as Jmax≈135.8 exp(-8.549Tf).
  • Sinusoidal CPR amplitudes = 0.43,0.28,0.18,0.13,0.09; 0.13,0.20,0.30,0.47,0.71; 0.95,0.66,0.43,0.28,0.13
    Amplitudes in the fits Eqs. (16), (19), (21); each is a per-parameter-set fitted value with no error estimate.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption AdS/CFT correspondence and the probe limit
    The entire holographic mapping is invoked in Sec. II A; the Einstein-Maxwell-scalar action (Eq. 1) is solved without backreaction of matter on the metric.
  • domain assumption Standard quantization with vanishing source Ψ0=0
    Sec. II B: the source term is set to zero so that condensation is spontaneous symmetry breaking.
  • standard math Breitenlohner-Freedman bound permits m^2=-2
    Sec. II B: standard stability condition in AdS4; this choice gives conformal dimensions ∆−=1 and ∆+=2.
  • domain assumption Kibble-Zurek mechanism applies to this holographic quench
    Sec. I and Sec. II C: the system is assumed to exhibit critical slowing down and universal defect formation during the linear temperature quench.
  • ad hoc to paper White-noise thermal seeding with amplitude h=10^-3
    Sec. II B: Gaussian white noise is introduced into the bulk fields to initialize the symmetry-breaking fluctuations; the strength is chosen, not derived.
  • domain assumption Free energy density F ∝ |∇θ|^2
    Sec. III A: the explanation for why data cluster near γ=0 relies on a Ginzburg-Landau free-energy argument.
  • domain assumption Compact x-direction with homogeneity along y
    Sec. II A: the boundary is a one-dimensional ring; periodicity in x with length L=50 and translation invariance in y define the physical regime.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 13338 in / 17121 out tokens · 168316 ms · 2026-08-01T19:53:09.597920+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present a comprehensive study of the current-phase relation of the Josephson junction in a holographic superfluid ring, realized from the stochastic and non-equilibrium dynamics according to the Kibble-Zurek mechanism. By employing a spatially modulated charge density to engineer a weak link, the current-phase relation is investigated in a range of geometric and thermodynamic parameters. The seminal sinusoidal relation between the current and the phase emerges periodically due to the compact shape of the geometry. We also identify the relations between the critical current and the geometric parameters of the junction: the width, steepness and depth. Furthermore, we demonstrate that the critical current exhibits a characteristic exponential decaying against the final temperature, reflecting the thermal degradation of the order parameter in a strong-coupling regime. Our results establish a robust framework for holographic Josephson devices, offering experimentally testable predictions for the non-equilibrium dynamics of high-$T_c$ superconductors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.16804 by Hai-Qing Zhang, Huai-Fan Li, Zhi-hong Li.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_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

43 extracted references · 31 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Possible new effects in superconductive tunnelling,

    B. D. Josephson, “Possible new effects in superconductive tunnelling,” Phys. Lett.1, 251 (1962)

    1962

  2. [2]

    K. K. Likharev,Superconducting weak links, Rev. Mod. Phys.51, 101 (1979)

    1979

  3. [3]

    A. A. Golubov, M. Yu. Kupriyanov, and E. Il’ichev,The current-phase relation in Josephson junctions, Rev. Mod. Phys. 76, 411 (2004)

    2004

  4. [4]

    A. G. Sun, D. A. Gajewski, M. B. Maple, and R. C. Dynes,Observation of Josephson pair tunneling between YBa 2Cu3O7−x and Pb: Evidence for odd symmetry pairing, Phys. Rev. Lett.72, 2267 (1994)

    1994

  5. [5]

    A. I. Buzdin,Proximity effects in superconductor-ferromagnet heterostructures, Rev. Mod. Phys.77, 935 (2005)

    2005

  6. [6]

    The Large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,

    J. M. Maldacena, “The Large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,” Int. J. Theor. Phys.38, 1113 (1999) [Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.2, 231 (1998)] [hep-th/9711200]. 14

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  7. [7]

    Anti-de Sitter space and holography,

    E. Witten, “Anti-de Sitter space and holography,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.2(1998), 253-291 [arXiv:hep-th/9802150 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  8. [8]

    Gauge theory correlators from noncritical string theory,

    S. S. Gubser, I. R. Klebanov and A. M. Polyakov, “Gauge theory correlators from noncritical string theory,” Phys. Lett. B428(1998), 105-114 [arXiv:hep-th/9802109 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  9. [9]

    Building a Holographic Superconductor,

    S. A. Hartnoll, C. P. Herzog and G. T. Horowitz, “Building a Holographic Superconductor,” Phys. Rev. Lett.101(2008), 031601 [arXiv:0803.3295 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  10. [10]

    A Holographic Josephson Junction,

    G. T. Horowitz, J. E. Santos and B. Way, “A Holographic Josephson Junction,” Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 221601 (2011) [arXiv:1101.3326 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  11. [11]

    Holographic Josephson Junction in 3+1 dimensions,

    Y. Q. Wang, Y. X. Liu and Z. H. Zhao, “Holographic Josephson Junction in 3+1 dimensions,” [arXiv:1104.4303 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  12. [12]

    Holographic p-wave Josephson junction,

    Y. Q. Wang, Y. X. Liu and Z. H. Zhao, “Holographic p-wave Josephson junction,” [arXiv:1109.4426 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  13. [13]

    Josephson Junctions and AdS/CFT Networks,

    E. Kiritsis and V. Niarchos, “Josephson Junctions and AdS/CFT Networks,” JHEP07, 112 (2011) [erratum: JHEP10, 095 (2011)] [arXiv:1105.6100 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  14. [14]

    Holographic Josephson Junctions and Berry holonomy from D-branes,

    S. K. Domokos, C. Hoyos and J. Sonnenschein, “Holographic Josephson Junctions and Berry holonomy from D-branes,” JHEP10, 073 (2012) [arXiv:1207.2182 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  15. [15]

    Holographic SIS Josephson Junction,

    Y. Q. Wang, Y. X. Liu, R. G. Cai, S. Takeuchi and H. Q. Zhang, “Holographic SIS Josephson Junction,” JHEP09, 058 (2012) [arXiv:1205.4406 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  16. [16]

    Wang and S

    Y.-Q. Wang and S. Liu,Holographic s- and p-wave Josephson junction with backreaction, JHEP11(2016) 127

    2016

  17. [17]

    Non-relativistic Josephson Junction from Holography,

    H. F. Li, L. Li, Y. Q. Wang and H. Q. Zhang, “Non-relativistic Josephson Junction from Holography,” JHEP12, 099 (2014) [arXiv:1410.5578 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  18. [18]

    A holographic model of SQUID,

    R. G. Cai, Y. Q. Wang and H. Q. Zhang, “A holographic model of SQUID,” JHEP01, 039 (2014) doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2014)039 [arXiv:1308.5088 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  19. [19]

    Holographic model of hybrid and coexisting s-wave and p-wave Josephson junction,

    S. Liu and Y. Q. Wang, “Holographic model of hybrid and coexisting s-wave and p-wave Josephson junction,” Eur. Phys. J. C75, no.10, 493 (2015) [arXiv:1504.06918 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  20. [20]

    Topology of Cosmic Domains and Strings,

    T. W. B. Kibble, “Topology of Cosmic Domains and Strings,” J. Phys. A9, 1387 (1976)

    1976

  21. [21]

    Some Implications of a Cosmological Phase Transition,

    T. W. B. Kibble, “Some Implications of a Cosmological Phase Transition,” Phys. Rept.67, 183 (1980)

    1980

  22. [22]

    Cosmological Experiments in Superfluid Helium?,

    W. H. Zurek, “Cosmological Experiments in Superfluid Helium?,” Nature317, 505 (1985)

    1985

  23. [23]

    Cosmology in the Laboratory: Defect Dynamics in Liquid Crystals,

    I. Chuang, B. Yurke, R. Durrer and N. Turok, “Cosmology in the Laboratory: Defect Dynamics in Liquid Crystals,” Science251, 1336-1342 (1991)

    1991

  24. [24]

    Big bang simulation in superfluid He-3-b: Vortex nucleation in neutron irradiated superflow,

    V. M. H. Ruutu, V. B. Eltsov, A. J. Gill, T. W. B. Kibble, M. Krusius, Y. G. Makhlin, B. Placais, G. E. Volovik and W. Xu, “Big bang simulation in superfluid He-3-b: Vortex nucleation in neutron irradiated superflow,” Nature382, 334 (1996) [arXiv:cond-mat/9512117 [cond-mat]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  25. [25]

    Observation of Spontaneous Flux Generation in a Multi-Josephson-Junction Loop,

    R. Carmi, E. Polturak and G. Koren, “Observation of Spontaneous Flux Generation in a Multi-Josephson-Junction Loop,” Phys. Rev. Lett.84, 4966-4969 (2000)

    2000

  26. [26]

    Universal far-from-equilibrium Dynamics of a Holographic Superconductor,

    J. Sonner, A. del Campo and W. H. Zurek, “Universal far-from-equilibrium Dynamics of a Holographic Superconductor,” Nature Commun.6, 7406 (2015) [arXiv:1406.2329 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  27. [27]

    Defect Formation beyond Kibble-Zurek Mechanism and Holography,

    P. M. Chesler, A. M. Garcia-Garcia and H. Liu, “Defect Formation beyond Kibble-Zurek Mechanism and Holography,” Phys. Rev. X5, no. 2, 021015 (2015) [arXiv:1407.1862 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  28. [28]

    Topological defects as relics of spontaneous symmetry breaking from black hole physics,

    H. B. Zeng, C. Y. Xia and H. Q. Zhang, “Topological defects as relics of spontaneous symmetry breaking from black hole physics,” JHEP03(2021), 136 [arXiv:1912.08332 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  29. [29]

    Formation and critical dynamics of topological defects in Lifshitz holography,

    Z. H. Li, C. Y. Xia, H. B. Zeng and H. Q. Zhang, “Formation and critical dynamics of topological defects in Lifshitz holography,” JHEP04(2020), 147 [arXiv:1912.10450 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  30. [30]

    Winding up a finite size holographic superconducting ring beyond Kibble-Zurek mechanism,

    C. Y. Xia and H. B. Zeng, “Winding up a finite size holographic superconducting ring beyond Kibble-Zurek mechanism,” Phys. Rev. D102(2020) no.12, 126005 [arXiv:2009.00435 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  31. [31]

    Kibble Zurek mechanism in rapidly quenched phase transition dynamics,

    C. Y. Xia and H. B. Zeng, “Kibble Zurek mechanism in rapidly quenched phase transition dynamics,” [arXiv:2110.07969 [cond-mat.stat-mech]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  32. [32]

    Universal statistics of vortices in a newborn holographic superconductor: beyond the Kibble-Zurek mechanism,

    A. del Campo, F. J. G´ omez-Ruiz, Z. H. Li, C. Y. Xia, H. B. Zeng and H. Q. Zhang, “Universal statistics of vortices in a newborn holographic superconductor: beyond the Kibble-Zurek mechanism,” JHEP06(2021), 061 [arXiv:2101.02171 [cond-mat.stat-mech]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  33. [33]

    Topological Defects Formation with Momentum Dissipation,

    Z. H. Li, H. B. Zeng and H. Q. Zhang, “Topological Defects Formation with Momentum Dissipation,” JHEP04(2021), 295 [arXiv:2101.08405 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  34. [34]

    Holographic topological defects and local gauge symmetry: clusters of strongly coupled equal-sign vortices,

    Z. H. Li, C. Y. Xia, H. B. Zeng and H. Q. Zhang, “Holographic topological defects and local gauge symmetry: clusters of strongly coupled equal-sign vortices,” JHEP10(2021), 124 [arXiv:2103.01485 [hep-th]]. 15

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  35. [35]

    Periodicities in a multiply connected geometry from quenched dynamics,

    Z. H. Li and H. Q. Zhang, “Periodicities in a multiply connected geometry from quenched dynamics,” Phys. Rev. Res.4, no.2, 023201 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevResearch.4.023201 [arXiv:2111.05568 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  36. [36]

    Holographic topological defects in a ring: role of diverse boundary conditions,

    Z. H. Li, H. Q. Shi and H. Q. Zhang, “Holographic topological defects in a ring: role of diverse boundary conditions,” JHEP05, 056 (2022) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2022)056 [arXiv:2111.15230 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  37. [37]

    Locality of spontaneous symmetry breaking and universal spac- ing distribution of topological defects formed across a phase transition,

    A. del Campo, F. J. G´ omez-Ruiz and H. Q. Zhang, “Locality of spontaneous symmetry breaking and universal spac- ing distribution of topological defects formed across a phase transition,” Phys. Rev. B106, no.14, L140101 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.106.L140101 [arXiv:2202.11731 [cond-mat.stat-mech]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  38. [38]

    From black hole to one-dimensional chain: Parity symmetry breaking and kink formation,

    Z. H. Li, H. Q. Shi and H. Q. Zhang, “From black hole to one-dimensional chain: Parity symmetry breaking and kink formation,” Phys. Rev. D108, no.10, 106015 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.106015 [arXiv:2207.10995 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  39. [39]

    Z. H. li and H. F. Li, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.67, no.11, 110412 (2024) doi:10.1007/s11433-024-2434-1 [arXiv:2406.07988 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    Numerical solution of gravitational dynamics in asymptotically anti-de Sitter spacetimes,

    P. M. Chesler and L. G. Yaffe, “Numerical solution of gravitational dynamics in asymptotically anti-de Sitter spacetimes,” JHEP1407(2014) 086 [arXiv:1309.1439 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  41. [41]

    Winding up superfluid in a torus via Bose Einstein condensation,

    A. Das, J. Sabbatini and W. H. Zurek, “Winding up superfluid in a torus via Bose Einstein condensation,” Sci. Rep.2, 352 (2011) [arXiv:1102.5474 [cond-mat.other]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  42. [42]

    Current-Phase Relation of a Bose-Einstein Condensate Flowing Through a Weak Link,

    F. Piazza, L. A. Collins and A. Smerzi, “Current-Phase Relation of a Bose-Einstein Condensate Flowing Through a Weak Link,” Phys. Rev. A81, 033613 (2010), [arXiv:0912.3209 [cond-mat.quant-gas]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  43. [43]

    Introduction to superconductivity,

    M. Tinkham, “Introduction to superconductivity,” Courier Corporation, (2004)

    2004