Quantum Lifts of Noninteger Power Law Field Theories

Hengyuan Guo; Jarah Evslin; Stefano Bolognesi

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 26 references

Quantum Lifts of Noninteger Power Law Field Theories

T0 review · 4 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 A shifted normal-ordering scale β tames the divergent Stokes excitation of the σ=4 Pöschl-Teller kink, leaving an O(g^{3/4}) amplitude.

desk verdict The β-shifted normal-ordering lift is a real idea with a clean vacuum-sector check, but the O(g^{3/4}) Stokes amplitude rests on an unproven vertex replacement and an internally inconsistent convergence claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.06282 v1 pith:6KHELHMP submitted 2026-08-06 hep-th

Jarah Evslin , Hengyuan Guo , Stefano Bolognesi This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-th PACS 11.10.-z03.70.+k11.27.+d

keywords quantumliftsnonintegerpower-lawpotentialsnormalorderingPöschl-TellerkinksStokesscatteringshapemodesHermiteexpansionfractional-powercoupling

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

Field theories with noninteger power-law potentials, such as $|\phi|^{5/2}$, are usually considered to exist only as effective models because derivatives of the potential diverge and $n$-point functions appear ill-defined. The paper proposes a family of quantum lifts: expand the potential in Hermite polynomials and normal order using a Wick contraction shifted by a parameter $\beta$, which is equivalent to changing the mass scale of normal ordering. For $\alpha>2$ and $\beta$ at least of order $\hbar$, the vacuum state admits a convergent perturbative expansion in ordinary Fock states. Applied to the $\sigma=4$ Pöschl-Teller kink, whose least-bound shape mode extends into the vacuum and apparently makes its excitation amplitude diverge, the $\beta$ shift cuts off the divergence and leaves a finite Stokes scattering amplitude of order $O(g^{3/4})$, enhanced by a fractional power of the inverse coupling compared with the usual $O(g)$. If correct, this gives a working perturbative quantum treatment for a class of theories previously deemed unphysical.

What carries the argument

The central object is $\beta$-normal ordering: a modified Wick contraction in which a contracted pair $\phi(x)\phi(x)$ is replaced by $\beta/2$ instead of the standard divergent value, equivalently a shift in the mass scale at which normal ordering is performed. The potential $\lambda|\phi|^\alpha$ is expanded in Hermite polynomials with coefficients $c_{2n,\alpha}$ that decay exponentially, and the series is normal-ordered with this $\beta$ contraction; convergence of the perturbative vacuum correction then requires $\alpha>2$ and $|\beta|\ge\hbar$. Away from the vacuum, where the field expectation is large, the paper uses a displaced Hermite expansion about the kink profile $f(x)$, followed by another application of $\beta$-normal ordering; the distance at which this expansion stops smoothing the potential sets the cutoff length scale $x\sim-(\hbar/m)\ln(g\sqrt{\hbar})$, and this cutoff converts the divergent integral $\int dx\,e^{m|x|/4\hbar}$ into a contribution of order $g^{-1/4}$, giving the $O(g^{3/4})$ Stokes amplitude.

What would settle it

Evaluate the Stokes vertex $V_{k_1k_2S_3}$ for the $\sigma=4$ model with an independent regulator, for example a lattice with spacing $a$ or a momentum cutoff $\Lambda$, and take the continuum limit: if the amplitude does not scale as $O(g^{3/4})$ with the stated $\beta$ dependence, or if the limit depends on the regulator, the displaced Hermite-expansion prescription fails. Alternatively, compute the Hermite-expanded integrand numerically at fixed $\beta$ and check that the partial sums converge as the number of Hermite terms grows; divergence would refute the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the obstruction to quantizing noninteger power-law potentials is not fundamental: a quantum lift exists once the potential is expanded in Hermite polynomials and the Wick contraction is shifted by a finite parameter $\beta$, equivalently normal ordering at a shifted mass scale. In the $\sigma=4$ Pöschl-Teller model, whose potential near its minima is $|\phi|^{5/2}$, the third derivative of the potential diverges in the vacuum, and the kink's third shape mode is so loosely bound that its Stokes excitation amplitude appears infinite. The authors argue that with $\beta$ of order the meson mass or larger, the divergence is cut off at a distance set by $x\sim-(\hbar/m)\ln(g\sqrt{\hbar})$, and the amplitude becomes finite yet is not of order $O(g)$ but of order $O(g^{3/4})$, a $\beta$-dependent fractional power of the coupling. The same mechanism renders meson multiplication finite at $O(g^{1/2})$. The picture that emerges is that the perturbative expansion in powers of the coupling is replaced by an expansion in noninteger powers whose exponents depend on how far the relevant mode reaches into the vacuum.

Load-bearing premise

The $O(g^{3/4})$ result rests on the assertion that, at points where the field expectation is large, one may Hermite-expand $|\phi|^\alpha$ about the kink profile and then apply $\beta$-normal ordering to the fluctuation field, using that prescription to cut off the divergence at the stated distance; this displaced-expansion prescription is stated rather than derived.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Noninteger power-law potentials with $\alpha>2$ are not inherently unquantizable: they admit perturbative quantum lifts labeled by $\beta$, with a Fock-space vacuum expansion that converges for $\beta\ge\hbar$.
The $\sigma=4$ Pöschl-Teller model's least-bound shape mode has a finite Stokes excitation amplitude of order $O(g^{3/4})$, not the divergent value suggested by the bare third derivative, nor the $O(g)$ of the lower models.
Meson multiplication in the $\sigma=4$ model is also finite, of order $O(g^{1/2})$, so three-point processes are computable despite the nonanalytic potential.
The same $\beta$-deformation prescription extends to $\sigma=3$ meson multiplication and, more generally, to kinks in other models with noninteger power-law potentials such as Rosen-Morse potentials.
The usual expansion in integer powers of the coupling is replaced by an expansion in noninteger, $\beta$-dependent powers for processes that sample the nonanalytic regime far from the kink.

Reading between the lines

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

If the construction is correct, the same Hermite-plus-$\beta$-normal-ordering lift should tame derivative divergences in other nonanalytic models, such as compacton or signum-Gordon theories, where the vacuum sector and soliton sectors could be treated on the same footing.
The $\beta$-dependence of physical amplitudes means the lift is a family of theories, not a unique one; fixing $\beta$ would require a physical input, such as matching a measured excitation rate or a mass shift, suggesting the fractional-power scaling could serve as a probe of the normal-ordering scale.
The predicted hierarchy—more loosely bound modes receive lower-order Stokes amplitudes—could be checked by lattice simulations of the $\sigma=4$ Pöschl-Teller model without relying on the $\beta$ prescription, since the $O(g^{3/4})$ scaling is a concrete target.
A natural next step the paper does not take is to compute the one-loop correction to the kink mass in the $\sigma=4$ model under $\beta$-normal ordering and check whether the $\beta$ dependence cancels in physical ratios of rates.

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

Jarah, Hengyuan, and Stefano have written a paper that is better and worse than the abstract suggests. The new construction is the β-shifted normal-ordering lift: expand |φ|^α in Hermite polynomials, then normal-order with a shifted contraction, which is equivalent to Coleman's mass-scale shift. The vacuum-sector calculation is explicit and works: for α>2 and β≥ℏ, the first-order correction to the Fock vacuum is normalizable and the series converges. That is a genuine, reproducible result, and the paper honestly notes that for polynomial potentials the deformation is just a mass shift.

The application to the σ=4 Pöschl-Teller model is also new. The third shape mode is loosely bound, and its Stokes excitation amplitude in the undeformed theory indeed diverges because the classical V^{(3)}(f(x)) grows faster than the mode decays. Prior work only handled σ≤3, so identifying this divergence is a useful step.

Now the soft spots. The central quantitative claim, the O(g^{3/4}) amplitude in Section 5.3, is not derived from the β-normal-ordered Hamiltonian. The paper takes the classical V^{(3)} of the undeformed potential, integrates it against the continuum and shape modes, and then cuts the integral off at the distance where f(x)-f(∞) ~ √β. But the cubic vertex of the quantum lift is the coefficient of :χ^3: in the expansion of the β-normal-ordered Hamiltonian about f(x), and nobody computes that. It might have a finite tail different from the assumed exponential; if so, the g^{3/4} scaling would change. The cutoff distance itself is an order-of-magnitude estimate, not a result.

There is also an internal inconsistency. Section 5.3 says the Hermite expansion 'no longer converges' when the field is much larger than √β, but Eq. (2.11) and Appendix A show the Hermite series converges pointwise for all x. What the authors presumably mean is that the monomial (normal-ordered) expansion diverges as an operator on large-field states. That's a real distinction, but they don't say it, and the displaced expansion is an extra prescription, not a consequence of the lift.

None of this kills the vacuum-sector construction, which stands on its own. The p-integral convergence in Eq. (3.21) is asserted rather than shown, but it looks convergent. The paper deserves a serious referee: an expert should push for a calculation of the exact cubic vertex from the β-normal-ordered Hamiltonian, or a numerical check of the coherent-state matrix elements, before the O(g^{3/4}) claim is accepted. I wouldn't cite the scaling result yet, but I'd cite the lift construction as a proposal worth testing.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper defines a family of quantum lifts for scalar field theories with noninteger power-law potentials |phi|^alpha. The lift expands the classical potential in Hermite polynomials and normal-orders at a mass scale shifted by a parameter beta. The authors claim that for alpha > 2 and beta >= hbar the vacuum can be perturbatively expanded in Fock states, and they apply the construction to the sigma = 4 Poschl-Teller model with alpha = 5/2. They argue that the beta-shifted normal ordering cuts off the divergence in the vertex factor for exciting the least bound shape mode of the kink, producing a Stokes scattering amplitude of order O(g^{3/4}) rather than O(g).

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper provides a concrete, explicit construction of quantum lifts for noninteger power-law potentials and a resolution of a specific divergence that has been used to argue that sigma > 2 Poschl-Teller models are unphysical. The vacuum-sector computation in Section 3.2 is a useful check, and the identification of the exponential growth of V^{(3)}(f(x)) versus the exponential falloff of the shape mode is a clear diagnosis of the divergence. The paper is honest about the beta-dependence and about the fact that the lift is scheme-dependent. However, the advertised quantitative payoff, the O(g^{3/4}) Stokes amplitude, is not derived from the beta-normal-ordered Hamiltonian; it is obtained by patching the classical V^{(3)} with a hand-assigned cutoff. The scheme-dependence is therefore not merely a matter of interpretation but currently affects the central quantitative claim.

major comments (4)

[Section 5.3, Eqs. (5.10)-(5.15)] The O(g^{3/4}) Stokes amplitude is computed by substituting the classical third derivative V^{(3)}(f(x)) of the undeformed |phi|^{5/2} potential into Eq. (5.10), and then removing the divergence by the cutoff in Eqs. (5.12)-(5.13). But the quantum lift defined in Eqs. (3.12)-(3.13) determines the cubic vertex as the coefficient obtained by expanding the beta-normal-ordered Hamiltonian about f(x)+chi, equivalently the third derivative of the beta-smoothed expectation value. No calculation in the manuscript shows that this quantum vertex has the exponential tail e^{m|x|/2hbar} and the hard cutoff assumed in Eq. (5.15). If the exact vertex has a different asymptotic behavior, the power 3/4 changes, so the central quantitative claim is not actually derived from the stated quantum lift.
[Section 5.3, first paragraph; Eq. (2.11) and Appendix A] The opening premise of Section 5.3 states that the Hermite expansion 'no longer converges' when the expectation value of phi is much greater than sqrt(beta). This is internally inconsistent with Eq. (2.11), which is stated to converge pointwise for all x, and with Appendix A, which proves the coefficient formula by an integration by parts valid for all x. The displaced Hermite expansion about f(x) is therefore an additional prescription, not a consequence of the lift. The authors need either to reconcile this with Eq. (2.11) or to present the displaced expansion as a separate axiom and justify its use.
[Section 3.2, Eq. (3.21)] The vacuum-sector argument rests on the claim that the p-integrals in Eq. (3.21) are convergent and that the norm of Delta|0>_1 vanishes for large N when beta ~ hbar and alpha > 2. This convergence is merely asserted. A proof or at least a careful demonstration of the UV/IR behavior of the integral and of the large-N asymptotic of the norm is needed, because this is the only evidence that the Fock-space perturbative expansion is valid in the vacuum sector.
[Section 1.1 and Section 5.3, Eqs. (5.13)-(5.16)] The final scaling O(g^{3/4}) depends on the choice beta ~ hbar through the cutoff position x ~ -(hbar/m) ln(g sqrt(hbar)). Since beta is a free parameter of the construction, this is not a parameter-free prediction, and the paper should state clearly whether beta is fixed by a physical condition or remains a scheme choice. If beta is much larger than hbar, the exponent in the resulting amplitude would change, so the paper should quantify this dependence explicitly.

minor comments (5)

[Eq. (3.16)] The equation reads 0<0|0>_0 = 0, but the free vacuum is normalized to 1; this should be 0<0|0>_0 = 1.
[Appendix A] The sentence 'on first uses the substitution y=x^2' contains a grammatical error; it should read 'one first uses the substitution y = x^2.'
[Section 5.2] The phrase 'decrease at large |x| at last as quickly as' should read 'decrease at large |x| at least as quickly as.'
[Reference [16]] The arXiv identifier in reference [16] is printed as 'hePTh' and should be 'hep-th'.
[Abstract and Section 5.3] The abstract says a deformation beta of order the meson mass or larger is sufficient, while the body works with beta ~ hbar; the relation between the meson mass m, hbar, and beta should be clarified, since Eq. (5.13) uses hbar explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the beta-lift construction and the Stokes-amplitude estimate do not reduce to their own inputs; the Section 5.3 cutoff is an asserted, internally inconsistent prescription, but that is a correctness gap rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

The construction is self-contained. The beta deformation is defined explicitly by a shifted Wick contraction (Eqs. 3.8-3.9), and the interaction Hamiltonian is written as a beta-normal-ordered Hermite expansion (Eqs. 3.12-3.13). The requirement |beta| >= hbar for vacuum-sector convergence is derived in Eq. 3.21 rather than imposed. The Stokes-scattering problem is identified independently: Eq. 5.11 gives the divergent classical third derivative V^(3)(f), and Eq. 5.14 gives the exponential tails of the modes, so the divergent matrix element of Eq. 5.15 is not taken from the beta construction. The advertised O(g^{3/4}) amplitude then follows by choosing beta ~ hbar and cutting off the integral at the scale where f(x) - f(infinity) ~ sqrt(beta) (Eqs. 5.12-5.16). This is scheme-dependent because beta is a free parameter of the lift, but the result is not a fit to the predicted quantity and it does not reduce to an input by construction. One caveat should be weighed separately: Section 5.3 states that for phi >> sqrt(beta) 'the Hermite expansion above no longer converges,' which conflicts with the pointwise convergence asserted in Eq. 2.11 and Appendix A; moreover, the exact cubic vertex of the beta-normal-ordered Hamiltonian is never computed, so the cutoff of Eq. 5.12 is asserted rather than derived. These are missing-support / correctness risks, not circularity, and therefore do not raise the circularity score.

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

The central construction rests on the Hermite expansion, the β-shifted normal ordering prescription, and a local displaced expansion in the kink sector. The latter is the most fragile input and is merely asserted. No new particles, forces, dimensions, or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (1)

β (normal-ordering scale shift or Wick-contraction shift) = chosen by hand; body requires |β| ≥ ℏ, application takes β ∼ ℏ, abstract says order of the meson mass
Introduced in Sections 1 and 3 to define the quantum lift. The resulting Stokes amplitude and the fractional power of the coupling depend on β, so it is a free parameter of the construction.

assumptions (6)

standard math Hermite polynomials form a complete basis and the expansion coefficients c_{2n,α} in Eq. (2.11) converge pointwise for all real x.
Used in Appendix A and Section 2 to expand |φ|^α; relies on standard orthogonality and completeness of Hermite polynomials.
standard math Canonical commutation relations and Fock space construction in 1+1 dimensions define the free-field Hilbert space.
Implicit in Sections 2 and 3 when defining annihilation and creation operators and normal ordering.
domain assumption Normal ordering at a shifted mass scale, encoded by the β-contraction, defines a valid quantum operator and maintains the correct classical limit when β→0 as ℏ→0.
Core construction in Section 3.1; not proven from more basic principles.
domain assumption The action of the normal-ordered interaction Hamiltonian on Fock states with energy of order ℏω converges in the truncation order N.
Stated in Section 3.1 without proof; supports the claim that the vacuum has a Fock-space expansion.
ad hoc to paper In the kink sector, the potential can be Hermite-expanded about the classical profile f(x) and β-normal ordered locally at each point x.
Section 5.3 introduces this prescription in one sentence; the paper's main quantitative result depends on it.
domain assumption The p-integrals in Eq. (3.21) are convergent.
Used to argue the first-order vacuum correction is finite; convergence is asserted, not demonstrated.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Lifts of Noninteger Power Law Field Theories." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6KHELHMP

@misc{pith2026260806282,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Lifts of Noninteger Power Law Field Theories},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6KHELHMP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.06282}
}

abstract

Field theories whose potentials have noninteger power laws $\alpha$ have found many applications, but are often claimed to have no lift to quantum field theory except as effective models. We define quantum lifts by expanding the classical potential in Hermite polynomials and then normal ordering at a mass scale shifted by a parameter $\beta$. We find that when $\alpha>2$, for sufficiently large $\beta$, the vacuum state can be perturbatively expanded in usual Fock states. We apply this to the following problem. The $\sigma=4$ P\"oschl-Teller model has a $\phi^{5/2}$ potential. As the third derivative of the potential diverges in each vacuum, one expects the three point interactions to diverge in the vacuum. The model's kink has three shape modes and the least bound mode extends so far into the vacuum that its probability of being excited by radiation apparently diverges. We show that a deformation $\beta$ of order the meson mass or larger is sufficient to tame this divergence, although it nonetheless results in an excitation probability which is enhanced by a $\beta$-dependent fractional power of the inverse coupling.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.06282 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

[1]

Quantum Expansion of Soliton Solutions,

N. H. Christ and T. D. Lee, “Quantum Expansion of Soliton Solutions,” Phys. Rev. D 12(1975), 1606 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.12.1606

doi:10.1103/physrevd.12.1606 1975
[2]

Field-theoretic models with V-shaped poten- tials,

H. Arodz, P. Klimas and T. Tyranowski, “Field-theoretic models with V-shaped poten- tials,” Acta Phys. Polon. B36(2005), 3861-3876 [arXiv:hep-th/0510204 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2005
[3]

Monodromy in the CMB: Gravity Waves and String Inflation,

E. Silverstein and A. Westphal, “Monodromy in the CMB: Gravity Waves and String Inflation,” Phys. Rev. D78(2008), 106003 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.106003 [arXiv:0803.3085 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2008
[4]

Chaotic Inflation with a Fractional Power-Law Potential in Strongly Coupled Gauge Theories

K. Harigaya, M. Ibe, K. Schmitz and T. T. Yanagida, “Chaotic Inflation with a Frac- tional Power-Law Potential in Strongly Coupled Gauge Theories,” Phys. Lett. B720 (2013), 125-129 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2013.01.058 [arXiv:1211.6241 [hep-ph]]

work page Pith review arXiv 2013
[5]

Preheating with Fractional Powers

H. Bazrafshan Moghaddam and R. Brandenberger, “Preheating with Fractional Pow- ers,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A31(2016) no.39, 1650217 doi:10.1142/S0217732316502175 [arXiv:1502.06135 [hep-th]]

work page Pith review arXiv 2016
[6]

Dynamical Fractional Chaotic Inflation -- Dynamical Generation of a Fractional Power-Law Potential for Chaotic Inflation

K. Harigaya, M. Ibe, K. Schmitz and T. T. Yanagida, “Dynamical fractional chaotic inflation,” Phys. Rev. D90(2014) no.12, 123524 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.90.123524 [arXiv:1407.3084 [hep-ph]]

work page Pith review arXiv 2014
[7]

Primordial Black Holes in Scalar Field Inflation Cou- pled to the Gauss–Bonnet Term with Fractional Power-law Potentials,

A. Ashrafzadeh and K. Karami, “Primordial Black Holes in Scalar Field Inflation Cou- pled to the Gauss–Bonnet Term with Fractional Power-law Potentials,” Astrophys. J. 965(2024) no.1, 11 doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad293f [arXiv:2309.16356 [astro-ph.CO]]

arXiv 2024
[8]

Topological compactons,

H. Arodz, “Topological compactons,” Acta Phys. Polon. B33(2002), 1241-1252 [arXiv:nlin/0201001 [nlin.PS]]. 16

arXiv 2002

Show all 26 references

[9]

Confining kinks.ζ-regularized one-loop kink mass shifts in exotic field theories,

L. Inzunza, J. M. Guilarte and P. Pais, “Confining kinks.ζ-regularized one-loop kink mass shifts in exotic field theories,” [arXiv:2506.20440 [hep-th]]

arXiv
[10]

Scattering of kinks in Frankensteinian po- tentials: Kinks as bubbles of exotic mass and phase transitions in oscillon production,

L. Rafaj, O. N. Karp ´ ıˇ sek and F. Blaschke, “Scattering of kinks in Frankensteinian po- tentials: Kinks as bubbles of exotic mass and phase transitions in oscillon production,” [arXiv:2603.04101 [hep-th]]

arXiv
[11]

Performance forecasts for the primordial gravita- tional wave detection pipelines for AliCPT-1,

S. Ghosh, Y. Liu, L. Zhang, S. Li, J. Zhang, J. Wang, J. Dou, J. Chen, J. De- labrouille and M. Remazeilles,et al.“Performance forecasts for the primordial gravita- tional wave detection pipelines for AliCPT-1,” JCAP10(2022), 063 doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2022/10/063 [arXiv:2205....

2022 arXiv
[12]

Classification invariante des termes de la matrice S,

A. Houriet and A. Kind, “Classification invariante des termes de la matrice S,” Helv. Phys. Acta22(1949) no.III, 319-330 doi:10.5169/SEALS-112007

1949 doi
[13]

Parent Potentials for an Infinite Class of Reflectionless Kinks,

S. E. Trullinger and R. J. Flesch, “Parent Potentials for an Infinite Class of Reflectionless Kinks,” J. Math. Phys.28(1987), 1683-1690 doi:10.1063/1.527476

1987 doi
[14]

General Scalar Bidimensional Models Including Kinks

L. J. Boya and J. Casahorran, “General Scalar Bidimensional Models Including Kinks” Annals Phys.196(1989), 361 doi:10.1016/0003-4916(89)90182-6

1989 doi
[15]

The Quantum Sine-Gordon Equation as the Massive Thirring Model,

S. R. Coleman, “The Quantum Sine-Gordon Equation as the Massive Thirring Model,” Phys. Rev. D11(1975), 2088 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.11.2088

1975 doi
[16]

On a family of (1+1)-dimensional scalar field theory models: kinks, stability, one-loop mass shifts,

A. Alonso-Izquierdo and J. Mateos Guilarte, “On a family of (1+1)-dimensional scalar field theory models: kinks, stability, one-loop mass shifts,” Annals Phys.327, 2251-2274 (2012) doi:10.1016/j.aop.2012.04.014 [arXiv:1205.3069 [hePTh]]

2012 arXiv
[17]

(Anti-)Stokes scattering on kinks,

J. Evslin and H. Liu, “(Anti-)Stokes scattering on kinks,” J. High Energy Phys.03 (2023), 095 doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2023)095

2023 doi
[18]

(De-)Exciting the Third Poschl-Teller Kink,

H. Guo, J. Evslin and S. Bolognesi, “(De-)Exciting the Third Poschl-Teller Kink,” to appear in JHEP, [arXiv:2603.12590 [hep-th]]
[19]

The energy momentum spectrum and vacuum expecta- tion values in quantum field theory, ii,

J. Glimm and A. Jaffe, “The energy momentum spectrum and vacuum expecta- tion values in quantum field theory, ii,” Commun. Math. Phys.22(1971), 1-22 doi:10.1007/BF01651580

1971 doi
[20]

Kinks and bounces from zero modes,

J. Casahorran and S. Nam, “Kinks and bounces from zero modes,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A6(1991), 5467-5480 doi:10.1142/S0217751X91002574 17

1991 doi
[21]

Rosen-Morse potential and gravitating kinks,

H. Wang, Y. Zhong and Z. Wang, “Rosen-Morse potential and gravitating kinks,” Phys. Lett. B858(2024), 139071 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2024.139071 [arXiv:2409.14761 [hep- th]]

2024
[22]

The Skyrme model in the BPS limit,

C. Adam, C. Naya, J. Sanchez-Guillen, R. Vazquez and A. Wereszczynski, “The Skyrme model in the BPS limit,” [arXiv:1511.05160 [hep-th]]

arXiv
[23]

Vortex mass in the three- dimensionalO(2) scalar theory,

G. Delfino, W. Selke and A. Squarcini, “Vortex mass in the three- dimensionalO(2) scalar theory,” Phys. Rev. Lett.122(2019) no.5, 050602 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.050602 [arXiv:1808.09276 [cond-mat.stat-mech]]

2019 arXiv
[24]

Nonlinear rigid-body quantization of Skyrmions,

S. B. Gudnason, “Nonlinear rigid-body quantization of Skyrmions,” Phys. Rev. D109 (2024) no.12, 125001 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.125001 [arXiv:2311.11667 [hep-th]]

2024 arXiv
[25]

Large solitons flattened by small quantum corrections,

E. Kim, E. Nugaev and Y. Shnir, “Large solitons flattened by small quantum corrections,” Phys. Lett. B856(2024), 138881 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2024.138881 [arXiv:2405.09262 [hep-ph]]

2024
[26]

Examples for BPS Solitons Destabilized by Quantum Effects,

W. J. Meyer and H. Weigel, “Examples for BPS Solitons Destabilized by Quantum Effects,” Symmetry17(2025) no.8, 1229 doi:10.3390/sym17081229 [arXiv:2506.05006 [hep-th]]. 18

2025 arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Quantum Expansion of Soliton Solutions,

N. H. Christ and T. D. Lee, “Quantum Expansion of Soliton Solutions,” Phys. Rev. D 12(1975), 1606 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.12.1606

doi:10.1103/physrevd.12.1606 1975

[2] [2]

Field-theoretic models with V-shaped poten- tials,

H. Arodz, P. Klimas and T. Tyranowski, “Field-theoretic models with V-shaped poten- tials,” Acta Phys. Polon. B36(2005), 3861-3876 [arXiv:hep-th/0510204 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2005

[3] [3]

Monodromy in the CMB: Gravity Waves and String Inflation,

E. Silverstein and A. Westphal, “Monodromy in the CMB: Gravity Waves and String Inflation,” Phys. Rev. D78(2008), 106003 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.106003 [arXiv:0803.3085 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2008

[4] [4]

Chaotic Inflation with a Fractional Power-Law Potential in Strongly Coupled Gauge Theories

K. Harigaya, M. Ibe, K. Schmitz and T. T. Yanagida, “Chaotic Inflation with a Frac- tional Power-Law Potential in Strongly Coupled Gauge Theories,” Phys. Lett. B720 (2013), 125-129 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2013.01.058 [arXiv:1211.6241 [hep-ph]]

work page Pith review arXiv 2013

[5] [5]

Preheating with Fractional Powers

H. Bazrafshan Moghaddam and R. Brandenberger, “Preheating with Fractional Pow- ers,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A31(2016) no.39, 1650217 doi:10.1142/S0217732316502175 [arXiv:1502.06135 [hep-th]]

work page Pith review arXiv 2016

[6] [6]

Dynamical Fractional Chaotic Inflation -- Dynamical Generation of a Fractional Power-Law Potential for Chaotic Inflation

K. Harigaya, M. Ibe, K. Schmitz and T. T. Yanagida, “Dynamical fractional chaotic inflation,” Phys. Rev. D90(2014) no.12, 123524 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.90.123524 [arXiv:1407.3084 [hep-ph]]

work page Pith review arXiv 2014

[7] [7]

Primordial Black Holes in Scalar Field Inflation Cou- pled to the Gauss–Bonnet Term with Fractional Power-law Potentials,

A. Ashrafzadeh and K. Karami, “Primordial Black Holes in Scalar Field Inflation Cou- pled to the Gauss–Bonnet Term with Fractional Power-law Potentials,” Astrophys. J. 965(2024) no.1, 11 doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad293f [arXiv:2309.16356 [astro-ph.CO]]

arXiv 2024

[8] [8]

Topological compactons,

H. Arodz, “Topological compactons,” Acta Phys. Polon. B33(2002), 1241-1252 [arXiv:nlin/0201001 [nlin.PS]]. 16

arXiv 2002