The co-directional overtaking collision problem between a dispersive shock wave and a rarefaction wave for the Hirota equation

Rui Guo; Yuan Xiang

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 41 references

The co-directional overtaking collision problem between a dispersive shock wave and a rarefaction wave for the Hirota equation

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a dispersive shock wave overtaking a rarefaction wave in the defocusing Hirota equation can be described analytically at every stage, with explicit collision times, boundary motion, and post-collision profiles, all ver

desk verdict Right setup, wrong Abel inversion: the Hirota DSW-RW interaction formulas don't satisfy their own boundary integral. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.03139 v1 pith:DXYXUXEV submitted 2026-08-04 math-ph math.MP

Yuan Xiang , Rui Guo This is my paper · ORCID

classification math-phmath.MP MSC 35Q5535Q5137K10

keywords WhithammodulationdispersiveshockwaverarefactionHirotaequationEuler-Poisson-DarbouxgeneralizedhodographovertakingcollisionRiemanninvariants

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish a complete analytical description of what happens when a dispersive shock wave (DSW) overtakes a rarefaction wave (RW) traveling in the same direction in the defocusing Hirota equation, an integrable third-order-dispersion extension of the defocusing NLS equation. It does this by writing the two waves as Riemann-invariant data, reducing the interaction zone to a linear Euler-Poisson-Darboux equation through the generalized hodograph transformation, and solving that equation in closed form using elliptic integrals. Matching the Riemann invariants at the DSW and RW boundaries then gives explicit collision times and post-collision edge laws for every stage. A sympathetic reader would care because this fills a gap for a physically relevant higher-order model: analogous NLS and KdV collision results are known, but the third-order dispersion of the Hirota equation changes the dispersion relation and the interaction rules, and no overtaking-collision description existed. The paper verifies the analytical solution by direct numerical simulation.

What carries the argument

The Euler-Poisson-Darboux equation (3.11), a linear second-order hyperbolic equation satisfied by the hodograph potential $W(\lambda_1,\lambda_3)$; its Goursat problem with data on the two characteristic lines $\lambda_1=0$ and $\lambda_3=h_1$ linearizes the nonlinear collision. The closed-form integral (4.24) for $W$, involving the complete elliptic integrals $\Pi_1$, $K$, and $E$, carries the quantitative predictions: stage times (4.27)-(4.29), boundary trajectories, and post-collision simple-wave solutions.

What would settle it

Use a fully resolved split-step pseudo-spectral simulation of the defocusing Hirota equation with the step data of Section 3.1, and measure the four edge trajectories $x_1^l, x_1^r, x_2^l, x_2^r$ in time. Compare the crossing times with $t_1, t_2, t_3$ from (4.27)-(4.29) and the post-collision slopes with (4.36) and (4.40). If the measured $t_3$ or the post-collision edge velocities differ from the formulas by more than the numerical error while the pre-collision stage is correctly reproduced, the interaction-region solution $W(\lambda_1,\lambda_3)$ is not the correct branch.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central object is the hodograph potential $W(\lambda_1,\lambda_3)$, a solution of the Euler-Poisson-Darboux equation (3.11) with Goursat boundary conditions on the two characteristic lines $\lambda_1=0$ and $\lambda_3=h_1$. The paper finds $W$ in the closed form (4.24), expressed through complete elliptic integrals of the first and third kind, with the free constants fixed by the modulation phase-shift condition $W(0,\lambda_3)=0$ and the regularity condition $\phi_1(0)=0$. The modulation in the interaction zone is then given by $x-v_i t = \left(1 - \frac{L}{\partial_{\lambda_i} L}\partial_{\lambda_i}\right)W$ for $i=1,3$, while $\lambda_2=1$ and $\lambda_4=h_1$ remain constant. Evaluati

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that one of the two freely allowed functions in the general solution of the linear equation governing the collision zone may be discarded, with the remaining one fixed by a regularity condition; if the discarded branch is required, every predicted stage time and post-collision edge law changes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The full overtaking collision is solvable in closed form: given the initial parameters $h_1,h_2,l,\alpha,\beta$, every stage boundary and edge position is computed from elementary and elliptic functions, so numerical integration is not needed to predict the collision kinematics.
The collision destroys self-similarity: the separated DSW is a simple wave with initial data $\lambda_+(x,0)=G^{-1}(x)$ and the separated RW has $\lambda_-(x,0)=H^{-1}(x)$; their post-collision edge speeds are given by (4.36) and (4.40).
The interaction shifts the waves: the DSW's trailing dark soliton suffers amplitude attenuation while the RW riding amplitude increases, and the whole collision ends earlier than the no-interaction forecast.
The explicit stage times $t_0,t_1,t_2,t_3$ provide quantitative benchmarks that numerical and experimental studies of third-order-dispersion media can test directly.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial extension: the same Euler-Poisson-Darboux reduction should apply to other integrable models in the NLS hierarchy; the concrete prediction is that overtaking-collision stage times will again be complete-elliptic-integral functions of the two initial Riemann invariants, making the method a template rather than a one-off calculation.
Editorial extension: because the interaction leaves both waves as non-self-similar simple waves whose initial data are inverse functions of $G$ and $H$, a clean asymptotic test would compute the phase shift of the separated DSW's trailing dark soliton as a function of $h_1,h_2,l$ and compare it with the predicted amplitude attenuation.
Editorial extension: the present closed form uses single-phase (one-band) modulation, so it likely marks the boundary of what single-phase modulation can describe; overtaking or head-on collisions between two DSWs require two-phase modulation and are natural next targets.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Dear colleague,

The short version: this is the first attempt at an analytical description of a DSW overtaking a rarefaction wave in the defocusing Hirota equation, and the scaffolding is the standard Whitham machinery. The pre-collision stage is fine, and the numerical figures look plausible. But the interaction-region solution has a load-bearing algebraic error: the proposed solution (4.23) of the Abel equation (4.22) does not actually satisfy it. I ran the numbers for the parameters used in the paper (h1=1.5, l=1, λ1=0.5), and the integral on the left is about -0.087, while the right side is -0.225. The stress-test note flagged the same issue but evaluated φ1 at λ1 rather than the integral; the specific arithmetic there is wrong, but the diagnosis is correct. So the error is real, and it propagates into W, the hodograph solution (4.26), the times t1,t2,t3, and the post-collision edge laws.

What's genuinely good: the global initial configuration is clean, the reduction to a Goursat problem for the EPD equation is the right approach, and the matching conditions at the simple-wave boundaries are set up carefully. The numerical comparisons are qualitatively consistent, but they are visual only—no error bars or code—so they can't rescue a derivation that fails at its core.

The reader's worry about dropping φ2 is secondary: the condition W(0,λ3)=0 indeed forces the second EPD generating function to vanish, so that part is fine. The real problem is the Abel inversion. There is also a related oddity in (4.17), where L is treated as proportional to √(h1−λ1); with the wavelength normalization in (2.10) that isn't obvious.

Bottom line: the topic is relevant and the framework is standard, but the main formulas don't hold up. I would not cite this in its current form. It deserves a referee rather than a desk reject, because the error is local and the authors may be able to fix it, but the corrected solution will almost certainly change the quantitative claims.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the overtaking collision of a dispersive shock wave (DSW) with a rarefaction wave (RW) in the defocusing Hirota equation. Using Whitham modulation theory and the generalized hodograph transformation, the authors construct a global step-type initial value problem, reduce the interaction-region modulation to an Euler-Poisson-Darboux (EPD) equation, solve a Goursat-type problem, and obtain explicit formulas for the interaction-region modulation, the three stage collision times, and the post-collision simple-wave edge laws. The theoretical profiles are compared with direct numerical simulations. The central claim is a complete analytical description of all evolutionary stages of the collision, verified numerically.

Significance. If the derivation were correct, this would be a valuable first analytical description of co-directional DSW-RW overtaking for a higher-order NLS-type integrable system. The paper's strengths are that the outputs are parameter-free predictions with explicit collision times and edge laws, and that the authors test the formulas against direct numerical simulations rather than fitting parameters. The problem is physically relevant to nonlinear optics and BEC experiments. However, the load-bearing analytical chain in §4.2 contains an incorrect Abel inversion and mutually inconsistent boundary formulas; these errors propagate into the interaction solution and all later formulas, so the central claim is not currently established.

major comments (3)

[§4.2, Eqs. (4.16)–(4.23)] The boundary-data derivation is internally inconsistent and the Abel inversion is algebraically wrong. Integrating (4.16) with the stated L(λ1,1,h1,h1)=√(h1−λ1) gives W=l+C1√(h1−λ1), whereas (4.22) has the reciprocal form l+C1/√(h1−λ1); with the actual wavelength (2.10) in the harmonic limit one obtains W=l+C1/√(h1−λ1), so (4.17) and (4.22) cannot both be correct. Independently, (4.23) is not the Abel inversion of (4.22): for C1=0, l=1, its second term integrates to lλ1/2, not l. The correct inversion is φ1(λ)=π^{-1}[C1√h1/(√λ√(h1−λ)) + l√(h1−λ)/√λ]. Thus W(λ1,λ3), the times (4.27)–(4.29), and the edge laws (4.36),(4.40) are not established by the derivation shown.
[§4.2, Eq. (4.21)] The restriction φ2(λ)≡0 is asserted without justification. The general EPD solution (3.12) contains two arbitrary generating functions, and the Goursat data are prescribed on two characteristics, λ1=0 and λ3=h1. Even if the homogeneous datum W(0,λ3)=0 can eliminate one of the two functions, the text does not show this; it simply sets φ2=0. Because the surviving φ1 is then used with an incorrect Abel inversion, the interaction-region solution (4.26) is unsupported.
[§4.3, Eqs. (4.31)–(4.33)] The post-collision simple-wave solution is asserted rather than derived. The text sets λ1=h2 and λ4=h1 after separation and defines G(ξ) by evaluating the interaction-region W at λ1=h2. It is not proved that these Riemann invariants remain exactly constant in the separated DSW, nor that G(ξ) is the correct single-valued hodograph function over the required interval. Since the post-collision edge laws (4.36),(4.40) and the comparison in Figs. 8–9 depend on this assertion, a derivation from (4.26) or an independent phase-plane argument is needed.

minor comments (4)

[§3.2, Eq. (3.12)] The square-root factors are written as (λ−λj)(λi−λ), which is negative for λ between λi and λj when λi<λj. The intended branch or the corrected form (λ−λi)(λj−λ) should be specified; as written, the general solution is ambiguous.
[§4.2, after Eq. (4.20)] The sentence 'It is readily verified that Eqs. (4.21) and (4.23) satisfy condition (4.20) solely under the constraint φ1(0)=0' is confusing: W(0,λ3)=0 is automatic from the integral representation (4.21), and the stated φ1(0)=0 is not needed for (4.20). The intended regularity condition should be stated explicitly.
[References] References [27] and [29] are the same paper and should not be listed twice. The abstract also contains an awkward spacing 'R W' in several places.
[§4.3, Eq. (4.30)] The term G(1) is used in (4.30) before the function G(ξ) is defined in (4.33). The reader cannot evaluate x_l1(t3) without first deriving the later formula.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central collision predictions are derived from the Whitham/EPD hodograph equations and boundary matching, not from fitted inputs or from a self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper's central outputs—the interaction-region hodograph solution (4.26), the collision times (4.27)–(4.29), and the post-collision edge laws (4.36), (4.40)—are explicit functions of the initial data parameters h1, h2, l, α, β. They are obtained by solving the Euler-Poisson-Darboux equation with boundary conditions inherited from the pre-collision simple waves, then applying the Abel inversion (4.22)–(4.24). No parameter is fitted to the numerical simulations; the numerical comparisons simply use the same initial configuration. The special choice φ2(λ)≡0 and the phase-shift-zero condition are assumptions/ansätze and are therefore correctness risks rather than circular reductions. The self-citations [25] and [36] supply background modulation results and the phase-shift constant C0=1/2, but the present derivation does not reduce to those citations: the interaction-region solution and its consequences are independently constructed from the EPD equation and boundary matching. Even if the Abel inversion in Eq. (4.23) contains an algebraic error, as a skeptic might argue, that is a correctness issue, not circularity. Accordingly, no step in the paper's derivation is equivalent by construction to its own inputs, and no circularity score above the minor-self-citation range is warranted.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result rests on standard Whitham/hodograph machinery imported from Refs. [35], [37], [41] and on two in-paper assumptions: phi2 = 0 in the EPD solution, and the persistence ansatz for post-collision simple waves. The only hand-set constant is the phase-shift normalization C0 = 1/2 imported from prior work. No output quantities are fitted to the numerics; the initial data (h1 = 1.5, h2 = 0.8, l = 50, alpha = 0.5, beta = -1) are the same inputs in theory and simulation.

free parameters (1)

C0 (modulation phase-shift constant) = 1/2
Introduced in Eq. (3.20) as Q = W + C0 L, imported from Ref. [25]/[41]; value affects the location of the trailing dark soliton of the DSW and hence the predicted density profile at the trailing edge.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Whitham modulation equations for the defocusing Hirota equation, including zero-phase velocities (2.6) and single-phase velocities (2.16)-(2.19), are taken from Ref. [35].
Cited, not rederived; used throughout section 2 and section 4 as the governing equations for DSW and RW evolution.
domain assumption Generalized hodograph transformation and the Euler-Poisson-Darboux equation linearization (Tsarev equations (3.5)-(3.11)) are taken from Ref. [37].
This is the standard machinery that converts the four Whitham equations into a linear EPD equation; the paper relies on it without proof.
domain assumption The modulation phase shift relation Q = W + C0 L with C0 = 1/2 is imported from Refs. [41]/[25] (section 3.3, Eq. 3.20).
Used to connect the hodograph function W to the physical phase shift of the modulated periodic wave; the value 1/2 is not derived in this paper.
ad hoc to paper In the Goursat problem, the arbitrary function phi2(lambda) is set to zero in the EPD solution (Eq. 4.21).
The general solution (3.12) contains two arbitrary functions; the paper takes phi2 = 0 without justification, which is a load-bearing restriction of the solution space.
ad hoc to paper After separation, the modulation solution persists as simple waves with constant lambda1 = h2 and lambda4 = h1 (Eqs. 4.31-4.33).
The post-collision DSW and RW are described by extending the interaction-region hodograph solution with two invariants held constant; this is asserted, not proven.
standard math Abel integral equation inversion (Eq. 4.22 to 4.23) follows the standard result in Ref. [42].
Inversion of the Abel integral equation is a classical step; the paper cites Abramowitz and Stegun without rederiving it.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The co-directional overtaking collision problem between a dispersive shock wave and a rarefaction wave for the Hirota equation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DXYXUXEV

@misc{pith2026260803139,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The co-directional overtaking collision problem between a dispersive shock wave and a rarefaction wave for the Hirota equation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DXYXUXEV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.03139}
}

read the original abstract

In this paper, we mainly investigate the overtaking collision problem between a dispersive shock wave (DSW) and a rarefaction wave (RW) propagating in the same direction in the defocusing Hirota equation framework. Based on the Whitham theory, the zero-phase and single-phase modulation systems corresponding to the defocusing Hirota equation are given, along with explicit expressions of Riemann invariants. For step-type initial conditions with left-side DSW and right-side RW propagating identically, the global initial configuration is constructed.~The modulation solution within the nonlinear collision domain is obtained via the generalized hodograph transformation and solutions of the Euler-Poisson-Darboux equation. Thus, by matching the Riemann invariants at the boundaries of DSW and RW, we can provide a detailed analytical description for the dynamical behaviors of the collision across all evolutionary stages. The accuracy of theoretical predictions is verified by comparison with direct numerical simulations.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

[1]

Whitham, Linear and Nonlinear Waves,Wiley, New York(1974)

G.B. Whitham, Linear and Nonlinear Waves,Wiley, New York(1974)

work page 1974
[2]

Masoudi, S.V

A.A. Masoudi, S.V. Farahani, S. Azadi, On the fluctuations of water waves governed by the Camassa- Holm and KdV equations in (1+1)-dimension,Int. J. Mod. Phys. B23(2009) 149-158

work page 2009
[3]

Trillo, M

S. Trillo, M. Klein, G.F. Clauss, M. Onorato, Observation of dispersive shock waves developing from initial depressions in shallow water,Physica D333(2016) 276

work page 2016
[4]

Taylor, D.R

R.J. Taylor, D.R. Baker, H. Ikezi, Observation of collisionless electrostatic shocks,Phys. Rev. Lett.24 (1970) 206-209

work page 1970
[5]

Medvedev, Ion motion upon propagation and collisions of the ion-acoustic solitary saves in plasma, Plasma Phys

Yu.V. Medvedev, Ion motion upon propagation and collisions of the ion-acoustic solitary saves in plasma, Plasma Phys. Rep.51(2025) 165-184

work page 2025
[6]

Boumaza, T

N. Boumaza, T. Benouaz, A. Chikhaoui, A. Cheknane, Numerical simulation of nonlinear pulses prop- agation in a nonlinear optical directional coupler,Int. J. Phys. Sci.4(2009) 505-513

work page 2009
[7]

W. Wan, S. Jia, J.W. Fleischer, Dispersive superfluid-like shock waves in nonlinear optics,Nat. Phys. 3(2007) 46

work page 2007
[8]

Simula, P

T.P. Simula, P. Engels, I. Coddington, V. Schweikhard, E.A. Cornell, R.J. Ballagh, Observations on sound propagation in rapidly rotating Bose-Einstein condensates,Phys. Rev. Lett.94(2005) 080404

work page 2005

Show all 41 references

[9]

Hoefer, M.J

M.A. Hoefer, M.J. Ablowitz, I. Coddington, E.A. Cornell, P. Engels, V. Schweikhard, Dispersive and classical shock waves in Bose-Einstein condensates and gas dynamics,Phys. Rev. A74(2006) 023623

2006
[10]

Chang, P

J.J. Chang, P. Engels, M.A. Hoefer, Formation of dispersive shock waves by merging and splitting Bose-Einstein condensates,Phys. Rev. Lett.101(2008) 170404

2008
[11]

Hoefer, P

M.A. Hoefer, P. Engels, J. Chang, Matter-wave interference in Bose-Einstein condensates: A dispersive hydrodynamic perspective,Physica D238(2009) 1311-1320

2009
[12]

Ivanov, A.M

S.K. Ivanov, A.M. Kamchatnov, Collision of rarefaction waves in Bose-Einstein condensates,Phys. Rev. A99(2019) 013609

2019
[13]

Hoefer, M.J

M.A. Hoefer, M.J. Ablowitz, Dispersive shock waves,Scholarpedia4(2009) 5562

2009
[14]

G.A. El, M.A. Hoefer, Dispersive shock waves and modulation theory,Physica D333(2016) 11. 19

2016
[15]

Gurevich, L.P

A.V. Gurevich, L.P. Pitaevskii, Nonstationary structure of a collisionless shock wave,Sov. Phys. J.38 (1974) 291

1974
[16]

Kamchatnov, Gurevich–Pitaevskii problem and its development,Phys

A.M. Kamchatnov, Gurevich–Pitaevskii problem and its development,Phys. Usp.64(2021) 48

2021
[17]

Gross, Structure of a quantized vortex in boson systems,Nuovo Cim20(1961) 454

E.P. Gross, Structure of a quantized vortex in boson systems,Nuovo Cim20(1961) 454

1961
[18]

Pitaevskii, Vortex lines in an imperfect Bose gas,Sov

L.P. Pitaevskii, Vortex lines in an imperfect Bose gas,Sov. Phys. J.13(1961) 451

1961
[19]

El, R.H.J

G.A. El, R.H.J. Grimshaw, A.M. Kamchatnov, Wave breaking and the generation of undular bores in an integrable shallow water system,Stud. Appl. Math.115(2005) 365

2005
[20]

Grava, C

T. Grava, C. Klein, Numerical solution of the small dispersion limit of Korteweg–de Vries and Whitham equations,Comm. Pure Appl. Math.60(2007) 1623-1664

2007
[21]

G.A. El, V.V. Geogjaev, A.V. Gurevich, A.L. Krylov, Decay of an initial discontinuity in the defocusing NLS hydrodynamics,Physica D87(1995) 186

1995
[22]

Kamchatnov, Wave breaking in dispersive fluid dynamics of the Bose–Einstein condensate,J

A.M. Kamchatnov, Wave breaking in dispersive fluid dynamics of the Bose–Einstein condensate,J. Exp. Theor. Phys.127(2018) 903

2018
[23]

L.Q. Kong, L. Wang, D.S. Wang, C.Q. Dai, X.Y. Wen, L. Xu, Evolution of initial discontinuity for the defocusing complex modified KdV equation,Nonlinear Dyn.98(2019) 691

2019
[24]

D.S. Wang, L. Xu, Z. Xuan, The complete classification of solutions to the Riemann problem of the defocusing complex modified KdV equation,J. Nonlinear Sci.32(2022) 3

2022
[25]

Huang, R

Y.H. Huang, R. Guo, Wave breaking, dispersive shock wave, and phase shift for the defocusing complex modified KdV equation,Chaos34(2024) 103103

2024
[26]

Grava, F.R

T. Grava, F.R. Tian, The generation, propagation, and extinction of multiphases in the KdV zero- dispersion limit,Comm. Pure Appl. Math.55(2002) 1569

2002
[28]

G.A. El, V.V. Khodorovskii, A.M. Leszczyszyn, Refraction of dispersive shock waves,Physica D241 (2012) 1567

2012
[29]

Ablowitz, D.E

M.J. Ablowitz, D.E. Baldwin, M.A. Hoefer, Soliton generation and multiple phases in dispersive shock and rarefaction wave interaction,Phys. Rev. E80(2009) 016603

2009
[30]

Biondini, Y

G. Biondini, Y. Kodama, On the Whitham equations for the defocusing nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation with step initial data,J. Nonlinear Sci.16(2006) 435

2006
[31]

Moses, The head-on collision of a shock wave and a rarefaction wave in one dimension,J

H.E. Moses, The head-on collision of a shock wave and a rarefaction wave in one dimension,J. Appl. Phys.19(1948) 383

1948
[32]

Arsenin, N.N

V.Ya. Arsenin, N.N. Yanenko, On the interactions of progressive waves with shock waves in an isothermal gas,Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR109(1956) 713-716

1956
[33]

Hasimoto, Interaction of a simple expansion wave with a shock wave in two-dimensional flows of a gas,J

Z. Hasimoto, Interaction of a simple expansion wave with a shock wave in two-dimensional flows of a gas,J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.19(1964) 1074-1078. 20

1964
[34]

Hirota, Exact envelope-soliton solutions of a nonlinear wave equation,J

R. Hirota, Exact envelope-soliton solutions of a nonlinear wave equation,J. Math. Phys.14(1973) 805-809

1973
[35]

J. Chen, E. Li, Y.S. Xue, Complete classification of solutions to the Riemann initial value problem for the Hirota equation with weak dispersion term,Nonlinear Anal.232(2023) 113281

2023
[36]

Xiang, R

Y. Xiang, R. Guo, The general cubic wave breaking problem for the photon fluid: Third-order dispersion and self-steepening effects,Ann. Phys.482(2025) 170227

2025
[37]

Kamchatnov, Nonlinear Periodic Waves and Their Modulations,World Scientific, Singapore (2000)

A.M. Kamchatnov, Nonlinear Periodic Waves and Their Modulations,World Scientific, Singapore (2000)

2000
[38]

Weideman, B.M

J.A.C. Weideman, B.M. Herbst, Split-step methods for the solution of the nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equa- tion,SIAM J. Numer. Anal.23(1986) 485-507

1986
[39]

Kamchatnov

A.M. Kamchatnov. New approach to periodic solutions of integrable equations and nonlinear theory of modulational instability.Phys. Rep.286(1997) 199-270

1997
[40]

Tricomi, Differential Equations,Blackie and Sons, Boston1961

F.G. Tricomi, Differential Equations,Blackie and Sons, Boston1961
[41]

Kodama, V.U

Y. Kodama, V.U. Pierce, F.R. Tian, On the Whitham equations for the defocusing complex modified KdV equation,SIAM J. Math. Anal.41(2008) 26-58

2008
[42]

Abramowitz, I.A

M. Abramowitz, I.A. Stegun, Handbook of Mathematical Functions with Formulas, Graphs, and Math- ematical Tables,Dover Publications, New York(1972). 21

1972

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Whitham, Linear and Nonlinear Waves,Wiley, New York(1974)

G.B. Whitham, Linear and Nonlinear Waves,Wiley, New York(1974)

work page 1974

[2] [2]

Masoudi, S.V

A.A. Masoudi, S.V. Farahani, S. Azadi, On the fluctuations of water waves governed by the Camassa- Holm and KdV equations in (1+1)-dimension,Int. J. Mod. Phys. B23(2009) 149-158

work page 2009

[3] [3]

Trillo, M

S. Trillo, M. Klein, G.F. Clauss, M. Onorato, Observation of dispersive shock waves developing from initial depressions in shallow water,Physica D333(2016) 276

work page 2016

[4] [4]

Taylor, D.R

R.J. Taylor, D.R. Baker, H. Ikezi, Observation of collisionless electrostatic shocks,Phys. Rev. Lett.24 (1970) 206-209

work page 1970

[5] [5]

Medvedev, Ion motion upon propagation and collisions of the ion-acoustic solitary saves in plasma, Plasma Phys

Yu.V. Medvedev, Ion motion upon propagation and collisions of the ion-acoustic solitary saves in plasma, Plasma Phys. Rep.51(2025) 165-184

work page 2025

[6] [6]

Boumaza, T

N. Boumaza, T. Benouaz, A. Chikhaoui, A. Cheknane, Numerical simulation of nonlinear pulses prop- agation in a nonlinear optical directional coupler,Int. J. Phys. Sci.4(2009) 505-513

work page 2009

[7] [7]

W. Wan, S. Jia, J.W. Fleischer, Dispersive superfluid-like shock waves in nonlinear optics,Nat. Phys. 3(2007) 46

work page 2007

[8] [8]

Simula, P

T.P. Simula, P. Engels, I. Coddington, V. Schweikhard, E.A. Cornell, R.J. Ballagh, Observations on sound propagation in rapidly rotating Bose-Einstein condensates,Phys. Rev. Lett.94(2005) 080404

work page 2005