Quiescent and traveling solitons in the fractional parametrically driven damped nonlinear Schr\"{o}dinger equation

Boris A. Malomed; David Laroze; Dongdong Wang; Pengfei Li; Rujiang Li

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 53 references

Quiescent and traveling solitons in the fractional parametrically driven damped nonlinear Schr\"{o}dinger equation

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In a fractional driven-damped Schrödinger equation, only one standing soliton branch is stable, and motion can stabilize the other.

desk verdict The fractional PDDNLSE model and its qualitative soliton picture are worth knowing about, but Table I's α=2 entries contradict the exact stability condition for small γ, so the quantitative stability maps are not trustworthy until fixed. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.17446 v1 pith:JEE5FXTS submitted 2026-07-20 nlin.PS

Dongdong Wang , Rujiang Li , David Laroze , Boris A. Malomed , Pengfei Li This is my paper

classification nlin.PS MSC 35Q5535R1137K40

keywords fractionalnonlinearSchrödingerequationRieszderivativeLévyindexparametricdrivedissipativesolitonstravelinglinearstabilitylasercavity

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 studies a one-dimensional Schrödinger model in which ordinary diffraction is replaced by a fractional Riesz derivative, while cubic self-focusing is balanced by a parametric drive and linear loss. It claims that this equation supports two families of standing solitons: a large-amplitude branch that is stable only for a finite window of driving strength, and a small-amplitude branch that is always unstable when at rest. In the lossless version, moving solitons exist below a maximum velocity, and the unstable resting branch becomes stable at high speeds. The paper argues that the fractional order, the Lévy index, strongly controls both the existence conditions and the stability thresholds, effectively expanding the variety of nonlinear modes available in fractional media.

What carries the argument

The central object is Eq. (1), the fractional parametrically driven damped nonlinear Schrödinger equation: iψ_t − iV ψ_ξ + (iγ+ω)ψ − (−∂²_ξ)^(α/2)ψ + 2|ψ|²ψ = hψ*. The Riesz fractional derivative of order α, with 1<α≤2, replaces the usual Laplacian and introduces nonlocal diffraction. Because the parametric drive and the fractional derivative break Galilean invariance, traveling solitons must be sought in a co-moving frame. Stability is decided by linearizing around a soliton and solving the eigenvalue problem of Eq. (22): if any eigenvalue has positive real part, the soliton is unstable. In the non-fractional limit α=2, exact soliton solutions and an exact stability bound are known, and tho

What would settle it

Compare the numerically computed stability threshold h_c at α=2 with the exact formula sqrt(1+γ²). For γ=0 and γ=0.1 the paper's Table I lists h_c=0.06 and 0.12, whereas the exact values are 1 and about 1.005; this large discrepancy is directly checkable and would settle whether the numerical stability criterion is trustworthy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the fractional parametrically driven damped nonlinear Schrödinger equation admits quiescent solitons of two species, ψ+ and ψ−, which exist above the parametric-gain threshold h=γ. According to the authors' numerical analysis, ψ− is always unstable, while ψ+ is stable for h between γ and a critical value h_c(α,γ) that shrinks as the Lévy index α decreases and vanishes before α reaches 1. In the conservative limit γ=0, the same equation supports traveling solitons with velocities below a maximum; ψ+ solitons are stable in intermediate velocity bands, whereas ψ− solitons, unstable when stationary, become stable at high velocities. The fractional diffraction operator i

Load-bearing premise

The paper's stability thresholds rest on a numerical eigenvalue calculation, solved by Fourier collocation with 512 modes, that must correctly separate stable from unstable solitons; in the weakly damped, non-fractional limit that calculation disagrees with the exact analytical result, so the reported thresholds may not be reliable.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A laser cavity with emulated fractional group-velocity dispersion should produce standing solitons that are robust only for a finite pumping interval, with that interval closing as the Lévy index approaches 1.
Traveling solitons exist despite the breaking of Galilean invariance, but only below a maximum velocity that decreases with smaller fractional order.
Motion itself can act as a stabilizer: the otherwise unstable small-amplitude branch becomes stable at high velocities.
Collisions between high-velocity stable solitons of the small-amplitude branch are quasi-elastic, while large-amplitude soliton collisions display attraction caused by nonlocal fractional coupling.
Lowering the fractional order shrinks the stability windows in both driving strength and velocity, offering a control knob for soliton existence.

Reading between the lines

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

The reported α-dependence of h_c may be overstated if the numerical stability criterion is unreliable in the weakly damped limit; a testable next step is to recompute the thresholds with an independent eigensolver.
Because exact results are known at α=2, one can directly validate the numerical tables by comparing h_c with sqrt(1+γ²); the paper's Table I appears inconsistent with that benchmark at small γ.
The pattern that the unstable branch becomes stable only when moving suggests a general mechanism in driven-damped systems: translation can push growth rates across the imaginary axis, which may also apply to bound states of driven solitons.
In an experimental cavity, the predicted velocity-dependent stability could be probed by launching pulses with controlled relative velocities and observing whether fast small-amplitude pulses survive collisions while slow ones diffract.

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,

This paper introduces the fractional version of the parametrically driven damped nonlinear Schrödinger equation and maps out its quiescent and traveling solitons. The model is new and physically motivated—fractional GVD in laser cavities is an active experimental direction—and the analytic background-stability analysis (Eqs. 12–15) and the norm bound h≥γ are correct and clearly presented. The qualitative picture—ψ+ stable in a window, ψ− always unstable at rest, ψ− stabilized at high velocity, α shrinking the windows—is plausible and, at α=2 and larger γ, the stability thresholds in Table I match the known exact condition h_c = sqrt(1+γ^2). The collision studies are a nice extra.

The problem is the quantitative core. Table I is supposed to give the critical h_c above which ψ+ loses stability. For α=2, the exact condition is h_c = sqrt(1+γ^2), which the paper itself quotes as Eq. (7). Yet Table I lists h_c = 0.06 at γ=0 and 0.12 at γ=0.1, where the exact values are 1.00 and 1.005. The entries do converge to the exact curve only for γ≥0.4. This is not a minor rounding issue; it is off by an order of magnitude in the weak-loss regime. The likely cause is the eigenvalue solver: with 512 Fourier modes and no reported convergence checks or tolerances, eigenvalues near the imaginary axis in the conservative limit acquire spurious positive real parts, so stable solitons are flagged unstable. The same pipeline produces Tables II and III for traveling solitons at γ=0, where the issue is even more acute.

So the paper's advertised contribution—the α- and γ-dependence of the stability thresholds and the velocity windows—is unsupported as it stands. The qualitative structure may survive re-analysis, and the large-γ part of Table I is consistent, but the tables need to be recomputed with a properly validated solver and checked against the α=2 exact results across the full γ range. The authors should also report discretization and tolerance studies, and probably make the code available.

This is a serious paper from a credible group, and I'd send it to peer review—a good referee will catch this and the authors can fix it. But I wouldn't cite the numerical maps in their current form.

Best,

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies solitons of the one-dimensional fractional parametrically driven damped nonlinear Schrödinger equation (Eq. (1)). For quiescent solitons it derives the zero-background stability condition h ≤ sqrt(1+γ²) (Eq. (14)), the norm condition h ≥ γ (Eq. (20)), and numerically constructs two soliton families, ψ+ and ψ−, reporting the stability threshold h_c of ψ+ in Table I. For the lossless case γ=0 it computes traveling solitons and reports stable velocity intervals in Tables II and III. The paper also presents collision simulations. The central quantitative claims are the α-dependence of h_c and of the velocity windows.

Significance. The analytical parts—background dispersion relations and the norm condition—are correct and provide useful constraints for this model. The paper is the first systematic study of the effect of fractional diffraction in the parametrically driven damped NLS setting, and the qualitative picture (ψ+ stable at rest, ψ− stabilized at high velocity) is plausible. However, the numerical stability results are not validated against the exact α=2 limit and are demonstrably wrong there; since Tables I–III are produced by the same eigenvalue criterion, the quantitative content of the paper is currently unsupported. With a corrected and benchmarked stability solver, the work could become a valuable contribution.

major comments (3)

[§III, Eq. (7) and Table I] Table I contradicts the paper's own exact α=2 result. For γ=0.1, α=2.0, Table I reports h_c=0.12, whereas Eq. (7) gives h_c=√(1+γ²)=1.005. For γ=0, Table I gives h_c=0.06, while the exact statement in §II says ψ+ is stable for h<1. The discrepancy indicates that the eigenvalue solver (Eq. (22), 512-mode Fourier collocation) misclassifies near-marginal solitons as unstable at small γ, likely because eigenvalues lie close to the imaginary axis and no tolerances or convergence checks are reported. Since Table I is the central quantitative result for the α-dependence of the stability threshold, this is a load-bearing error.
[§IV, Tables II–III] The traveling-soliton stability windows in Tables II and III are computed with the same eigenvalue criterion, and specifically in the conservative limit γ=0 where the solver has just been shown to fail (Table I at γ=0 gives h_c=0.06 instead of 1 for α=2). No benchmark against the known α=2 traveling-soliton results of Ref. [42] is provided, and no grid-resolution or tolerance study is reported. The velocity intervals are therefore unreliable as quantitative predictions, and the advertised α-dependence of the stability windows is unsupported.
[§III, numerical method] The manuscript does not report any convergence analysis, dependence on the number of Fourier modes, or eigenvalue acceptance thresholds for the stability criterion. Given the demonstrated failure at the exactly solvable α=2 limit, the α<2 entries in Table I and Tables II–III cannot be trusted without such validation. At minimum, the authors should rerun the stability calculations with an improved eigensolver and demonstrate that the exact α=2 thresholds are reproduced to a stated accuracy.

minor comments (4)

[Abstract] Grammatical error: 'Collision between moving solitons are considered too' should be 'Collisions between moving solitons are considered too'.
[§V, caption of Fig. 7] Typo: 'collision' is misspelled as 'ollision' in panel (a) description.
[§I, references] The introduction cites many relevant works, but the transition from conservative fractional NLS to the driven-damped model would benefit from a brief explicit statement of how the parametric drive is realized experimentally in the fractional cavity context.
[§III, Fig. 1 caption] The phrase 'down branches' should be 'lower branches'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the stability thresholds are numerical outputs of the stated model, not fitted quantities.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are the α-dependent existence/stability thresholds for quiescent and traveling solitons. These are obtained by solving Eqs. (17)-(18) with Newton-CG and by solving the linearized eigenvalue problem (22)-(26) [(28)-(31) for V≠0]; they are not fitted to the quantities they are said to predict. h_c in Table I and velocity windows in Tables II-III are direct outputs of that eigenvalue solver, with no parameter estimated from the target intervals. The exact α=2 results (Eqs. (4)-(7)) are quoted from Barashenkov et al. [36] and derived in the paper, not from the authors' own prior work. Self-citations (Refs. [3,4,16,17], etc.) are background/motivation only and do not carry the load-bearing stability argument. There is, however, an internal verification issue: Table I's α=2 entries at small γ conflict with Eq. (7) (e.g., γ=0.1 gives 0.12 instead of √(1+γ²)≈1.005). That is a numerical-reliability/correctness concern, not a circularity, because the benchmark is external and the discrepancy is not produced by defining the prediction in terms of the input.

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

No fitting to data: h, γ, α, V are scanned control parameters and ω=−1 is fixed by rescaling. The numerical scheme choices (512 Fourier modes, domain size, Newton tolerances) are unstated, which matters because Table I contradicts the exact α=2 condition and the discrepancy is not attributable to a fitted parameter. The model rests on the fractional-diffraction ansatz and on the reliability of the numerical stability classifier.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The Riesz fractional derivative (−∂²/∂x²)^(α/2), with 1<α≤2, is a valid model for fractional diffraction/dispersion in optical cavities.
Central to Eq. (1); experimental legitimacy rests on the emulation schemes cited in Refs. [21–23].
domain assumption Lévy indices α≤1 are excluded because they lead to collapse.
Section II: 'values α≤1 are irrelevant, as they give rise to the collapse of the wave function [3,4]'; adopted from cited reviews without independent derivation.
domain assumption Uniformly translating solitary waves exist in the lossless model and can be found as t-independent solutions of the comoving-frame equation (27).
Section IV; the boosted ansatz ψ(x−Vt,t) with static profile is assumed despite the absence of Galilean invariance.
standard math The conserved momentum of the fractional model has the standard NLS form P=(i/2)∫(ψ*_ξψ−ψ_ξψ*)dξ and satisfies dP/dt=−2γP.
Section IV; follows from translation invariance and self-adjointness of the Riesz multiplier, but the derivation is not given.
domain assumption Newton-CG and Fourier-collocation discretizations converge to genuine solutions of Eqs. (17)-(18) and eigenelements of (22).
Sections III–IV; standard methods [52,53] but no convergence or tolerance data; the Table I vs. Eq. (7) mismatch indicates the assumption is violated in the weak-loss regime.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quiescent and traveling solitons in the fractional parametrically driven damped nonlinear Schr\"{o}dinger equation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JEE5FXTS

@misc{pith2026260717446,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quiescent and traveling solitons in the fractional parametrically driven damped nonlinear Schr\"odinger equation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JEE5FXTS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.17446}
}

read the original abstract

We systematically investigate the existence, stability, and dynamics of optical solitons in the framework of the one-dimensional nonlinear Schr\"{o}dinger equation with the Riesz-fractional diffraction operator, cubic self-focusing, and linear loss, balanced by a linear parametric drive. The model, which can be realized in a laser cavity, produces standing and moving solitons, the latter ones existing below a critical velocity. One of the soliton species is stable in a wide range of parameters, while others are unstable. The fractional diffraction significantly alters the existence conditions and stability thresholds of the solitons. Collision between moving solitons are considered too. The results essentially expand the variety of nonlinear modes in media with fractional diffraction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.17446 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Profiles of solitons versus the drive’s strength param [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. The evolution of the originally quiescent ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. The existence and stability diagrams for traveling solitons in the lossless system ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. The variation of profiles of the traveling solitons, following the variation of velocity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. The collision and pursuit interaction scenarios for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

[42]

I. V. Barashenkov, E. V. Zemlyanaya, and M. B¨ ar, Traveling solitons in the parametrically driven nonlin- ear Schr¨ odinger equation, Phys. Rev. E64(1), 016603 (2001)

2001
[1]

Laskin,Fractional Quantum Mechanics(World Scien- tific, Singapore, 2018)

N. Laskin,Fractional Quantum Mechanics(World Scien- tific, Singapore, 2018)

2018
[2]

P. G. Kevrekidis and J. Cuevas-Maraver, eds.Fractional Dispersive Models and Applications(Springer, 2024)

2024
[3]

B. A. Malomed, Optical solitons and vortices in fractional media: a mini-review of recent results, Photonics8(9), 353 (2021)

2021
[4]

B. A. Malomed, Basic fractional nonlinear-wave models and solitons, Chaos34, 022102 (2024)

2024
[5]

Mihalache, Localized structures in optical media and Bose-Einstein condensates: an overview of recent theo- retical and experimental results, Rom

D. Mihalache, Localized structures in optical media and Bose-Einstein condensates: an overview of recent theo- retical and experimental results, Rom. Rep. Phys.76(2), 402 (2024)

2024
[6]

Cai and C

M. Cai and C. P. Li, On Riesz derivative, Fract. Calc. Appl. Anal.22, 287–301 (2019)

2019
[7]

B. B. Mandelbrot,The Fractal Geometry of Nature(W. H. Freeman, New York, 1982)

1982

Show all 53 references

[8]

M. N. Chen, S. H. Zeng, D. Q. Lu, W. Hu, and Q. Guo, Optical solitons, self-focusing, and wave collapse in a space-fractional Schr¨ odinger equation with a Kerr-type nonlinearity, Phys. Rev. E98(2), 022211 (2018)

2018
[9]

X. K. Yao and X. M. Liu, Off-site and on-site vortex solitons in space-fractional photonic lattices,Opt. Lett. 43(23), 5749–5752 (2018)

2018
[10]

L. W. Zeng and J. H. Zeng, One-dimensional solitons in fractional Schr¨ odinger equation with a spatially periodi- cal modulated nonlinearity: nonlinear lattice, Opt. Lett. 44(11), 2661–2664 (2018)

2018
[11]

L. W. Dong, C. M. Huang, and W. Qi, Nonlocal solitons in fractional dimensions, Opt. Lett.44(20), 4917–4920 (2019)

2019
[12]

C. M. Huang and L. W. Dong, Dissipative surface solitons in a nonlinear fractional Schr¨ odinger equation, Opt. Lett. 44(22), 5438–5441 (2019)

2019
[13]

L. Li, H. G. Li, W. Ruan, F.-C. Leng. and X.-B. Luo, Gap solitons in parity-time-symmetric lattices with fractional- order diffraction, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B37(2), 488–494 (2020)

2020
[14]

Molina, The fractional discrete nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation, Phys

M. Molina, The fractional discrete nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation, Phys. Lett. A384(8), 126180 (2020)

2020
[15]

X. Zhu, F. W. Yang, S. L. Cao, J. Xie, and Y. He, Multipole gap solitons in fractional Schr¨ odinger equation with parity-time-symmetric optical lattices, Opt. Express 28(2), 1631–1639 (2020)

2020
[16]

P. F. Li, B. A. Malomed, and D. Mihalache, Symmetry breaking of spatial Kerr solitons in fractional dimension, Chaos, Solitons Fractals132, 109602 (2020)

2020
[17]

P. F. Li, R. J. Li, and C. Q. Dai. Existence, symme- try breaking bifurcation and stability of two-dimensional optical solitons supported by fractional diffraction, Opt. Express29(3), 3193–3210 (2021)

2021
[18]

Mej ´ ıa-Cort´ es and M

C. Mej ´ ıa-Cort´ es and M. I. Molina, Fractional discrete vortex solitons, Opt. Lett.46(10), 2256–2259 (2021)

2021
[19]

J. F. Wang, Y. Jin, X. G. Gong, L. Yang, J. Chen, and P. Xue, Generation of random soliton-like beams in a nonlinear fractional Schr¨ odinger equation, Opt. Express 30(5), 8199–8211 (2022)

2022
[20]

D. Wang, X. He, R. Li, D. Mihalache, B. A, Malomed, and P. Li, Transformation of topological optical states via spiral modulation in fractional-diffraction systems, Phys. Rev. A112(3), 033514 (2025)

2025
[21]

S. L. Liu, Y. W. Zhang, B. A. Malomed, and E. Karimi, Experimental realisations of the fractional Schr¨ odinger equation in the temporal domain, Nature. Commun. 14(1), 222 (2023)

2023
[22]

Longhi, Fractional Schr¨ odinger equation in optics, Opt

S. Longhi, Fractional Schr¨ odinger equation in optics, Opt. Lett.40, 1117–1120 (2015)

2015
[23]

S. Liu, Y. Zhang, S. Virally, E. Karimi, B. A. Mal- omed, and D. V. Seletskiy, Experimental emulator of pulse dynamics in fractional nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equa- tion, Laser & Phot. Reviews2025, 2401714 (2025)

2025
[24]

V. T. Hoang, J. Widjaja, Y. L. Qiang, A. F. J. Runge, and C. M. de Sterke, Observation of fractional evolution in nonlinear optics, arXiv:2410.23671

arXiv
[25]

Akhmediev and A

N. Akhmediev and A. Ankiewicz, eds.,Dissipative Soli- tons(Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2005)

2005
[26]

M. F. Ferreira, ed.,Dissipative Optical Solitons, Vol. 238 (Springer, Cham, 2022)

2022
[27]

N. A. Olsson, Lightwave systems with optical amplifiers, J. Lightwave Tech.7, 1071-1082 (1989)

1989
[28]

H. P. Yuen, Reduction of quantum fluctuation and sup- pression of the Gordon-Haus effect with phase-sensitive linear amplifiers, Opt. Lett.17, 73-75 (1992)

1992
[29]

J. N. Kutz, W. L. Kath, R. D. Li, and P. Kumar, Long- distance pulse propagation in nonlinear optical fibers by using periodically spaced parametric amplifiers, Opt. Lett.18(10), 802–804 (1993)

1993
[30]

Mecozzi, W

A. Mecozzi, W. L. Kath, P. Kumar, and C. G. Goedde, Long-term storage of a soliton bit stream by use of 11 phase-sensitive amplification, Opt. Lett.19(24), 2050– 2052 (1994)
[31]

Longhi, Ultrashort-pulse generation in degenerate op- tical parametric oscillators, Opt

S. Longhi, Ultrashort-pulse generation in degenerate op- tical parametric oscillators, Opt. Lett.20(7), 695–697 (1995)

1995
[32]

Longhi, Stable multipulse states in a nonlinear dis- persive cavity with parametric gain, Phys

S. Longhi, Stable multipulse states in a nonlinear dis- persive cavity with parametric gain, Phys. Rev. E53(5), 5520 (1996)

1996
[33]

Zhang and J

W. Zhang and J. Vinals, Secondary instabilities and spa- tiotemporal chaos in parametric surface waves, Phys. Rev. Lett.74(5), 690 (1995)

1995
[34]

Wang and R

X. Wang and R. Wei, Oscillatory patterns composed of the parametrically excited surface-wave solitons, Phys. Rev. E57(2), 2405 (1998)

1998
[35]

Elphick and E

C. Elphick and E. Meron, Localized structures in surface waves, Phys. Rev. A40(6), 3226 (1989)

1989
[36]

I. V. Barashenkov, M. M. Bogdan, and V. I. Korobov, Stability diagram of the phase-locked solitons in the para- metrically driven, damped nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equa- tion, Europhys. Lett.15(2), 113 (1991)

1991
[37]

M. G. Clerc, S. Coulibaly, and D. Laroze, Localized states beyond the asymptotic parametrically driven amplitude equation. Phys. Rev. E77, 056209 (2008)

2008
[38]

M. G. Clerc, S. Coulibaly, and D. Laroze, Interaction law of 2D localized precession states, Europhys. Lett.90, 38005 (2010)

2010
[39]

I. V. Barashenkov and E. V. Zemlyanaya, Stable complexes of parametrically driven, damped nonlinear Schr¨ odinger solitons, Phys. Rev. Lett.83(13), 2568 (1999)

1999
[40]

N. V. Alexeeva, I. V. Barashenkov, and D. E. Pelinovsky, Dynamics of the parametrically driven NLS solitons be- yond the onset of the oscillatory instability, Nonlinearity 12(1), 103 (1999)

1999
[41]

I. V. Barashenkov, S. R. Woodford, and E. V. Zemlyanaya, Parametrically driven dark solitons, Phys. Rev. Lett.90(5), 054103 (2003)

2003
[43]

E. V. Zemlyanaya and I. V. Barashenkov, Traveling soli- tons in the damped-driven nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equa- tion, SIAM J. Appl. Math.64(3), 800–818 (2004)

2004
[44]

I. V. Barashenkov and E. V. Zemlyanaya, Traveling soli- tons in the externally driven nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equa- tion, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.44(46), 465211 (2011)

2011
[45]

A. O. Le´ on, M. G. Clerc, and S. Coulibaly, Traveling pulse on a periodic background in parametrically driven systems, Phys. Rev. E91(5), 050901 (2015)

2015
[46]

I. V. Barashenkov and E. V. Zemlyanaya, Soliton com- plexity in the damped-driven nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation: Stationary to periodic to quasiperiodic com- plexes, Phys. Rev. E83(5), 056610 (2011)

2011
[47]

I. V. Barashenkov, S. R. Woodford, and E. V. Zemlyanaya, Interactions of parametrically driven dark solitons. I. N´ eel–N´ eel and Bloch–Bloch interactions, Phys. Rev. E75(2), 026604 (2007)

2007
[48]

I. V. Barashenkov and S. R. Woodford, Interactions of parametrically driven dark solitons. II. N´ eel–Bloch inter- actions, Phys. Rev. E75(2), 026605 (2007)

2007
[49]

I. V. Barashenkov, S. Cross and B. A. Malomed,. Mul- tistable pulselike solutions in a parametrically driven Ginzburg-Landau equation, Phys. Rev. E68, 056605 (2003)

2003
[50]

Hietarinta, A search for integrable two-dimensional Hamiltonian systems with polynomial potential, Phys

J. Hietarinta, A search for integrable two-dimensional Hamiltonian systems with polynomial potential, Phys. Lett. A96(6), 273–278 (1983)

1983
[51]

Stalin, R

S. Stalin, R. Ramakrishnan, M. Senthilvelan, and M. Lakshmanan, Nondegenerate Solitons in Manakov Sys- tem, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 043901 (2019)

2019
[52]

Yang, Newton-conjugate-gradient methods for solitary wave computations, J

J. Yang, Newton-conjugate-gradient methods for solitary wave computations, J. Comput. Phys.228(18), 7007– 7024 (2009)

2009
[53]

Yang,Nonlinear Waves in Integrable and Noninte- grable Systems(Society for Industrial and Applied Math- ematics, 2010)

J. Yang,Nonlinear Waves in Integrable and Noninte- grable Systems(Society for Industrial and Applied Math- ematics, 2010)

2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [42]

I. V. Barashenkov, E. V. Zemlyanaya, and M. B¨ ar, Traveling solitons in the parametrically driven nonlin- ear Schr¨ odinger equation, Phys. Rev. E64(1), 016603 (2001)

2001

[2] [1]

Laskin,Fractional Quantum Mechanics(World Scien- tific, Singapore, 2018)

N. Laskin,Fractional Quantum Mechanics(World Scien- tific, Singapore, 2018)

2018

[3] [2]

P. G. Kevrekidis and J. Cuevas-Maraver, eds.Fractional Dispersive Models and Applications(Springer, 2024)

2024

[4] [3]

B. A. Malomed, Optical solitons and vortices in fractional media: a mini-review of recent results, Photonics8(9), 353 (2021)

2021

[5] [4]

B. A. Malomed, Basic fractional nonlinear-wave models and solitons, Chaos34, 022102 (2024)

2024

[6] [5]

Mihalache, Localized structures in optical media and Bose-Einstein condensates: an overview of recent theo- retical and experimental results, Rom

D. Mihalache, Localized structures in optical media and Bose-Einstein condensates: an overview of recent theo- retical and experimental results, Rom. Rep. Phys.76(2), 402 (2024)

2024

[7] [6]

Cai and C

M. Cai and C. P. Li, On Riesz derivative, Fract. Calc. Appl. Anal.22, 287–301 (2019)

2019

[8] [7]

B. B. Mandelbrot,The Fractal Geometry of Nature(W. H. Freeman, New York, 1982)

1982