Short range intervortex forces

Martin Speight; Thomas Winyard

REVIEW 1 major objections 7 minor 16 references

Short range intervortex forces

T0 review · 1 major / 7 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 This paper derives an explicit short-range formula for the interaction energy of $n$ coincident abelian Higgs vortices, showing that a vortex pair's energy varies as the fourth power of half-separation, with coefficients computed from…

desk verdict The R^4 pair-force scaling is rigorous and elegant, but the quantitative coefficient formula rests on an unproved variational identification that the authors verify at only two couplings. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.10438 v1 pith:WBB7FMGZ submitted 2025-07-14 hep-th cond-mat.supr-con

Martin Speight , Thomas Winyard This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-thcond-mat.supr-con MSC 81T1335Q51

keywords abelianHiggsvorticesGinzburg-LandaumodelinteractionenergyJacobioperatorshort-rangeforcesspectralmethodstopologicalsolitonstype-1.5superconductivity

topics Yang-Mills Mass Gap

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

In the abelian Higgs (Ginzburg-Landau) model, vortices exert forces on each other, but until now only the long-range part of those forces was quantitatively understood. This paper aims to establish the short-range counterpart: when $n$ vortices nearly coincide, the interaction energy is a quadratic form in the coefficients of the polynomial whose roots are the vortex positions, with coefficients fixed by spectral data of the Jacobi operator of the cocentred $n$-vortex. The immediate payoff is that a vortex pair separated by distance $2R$ has interaction energy $(c_2/2)R^4$ at short range, quartic rather than quadratic in $R$. The coefficients are computed for $n=2,3$ over couplings $0.1\le\lambda\le2.5$ and matched against full field theory simulations at $\lambda=0.5$ and $\lambda=2$, giving quantitative short-range potentials that were previously missing.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Jacobi operator $J$ of the cocentred $n$-vortex, the Hessian of the Ginzburg-Landau energy at that solution. Rotational equivariance splits $J$ into ODE operators $J_k^+$ on subspaces $C_k^+$ labelled by integer $k$; the paper needs the splitting modes, the $2n$ eigenmodes whose eigenvalues $\Lambda_k$ pass through $0$ at critical coupling $\lambda=1$ (one for each $k=1,\dots,n$ plus a degenerate partner). For each mode, $b_k$ is the leading coefficient in the small-radius expansion of the Higgs-field perturbation, and $f_0$ is the leading coefficient of the unperturbed $n$-vortex profile. The load-bearing identification, posited in Section 5, is that the Hessian of the constrained interaction energy $E_{\mathrm{int}}$ at the coincident point equals the restriction of the unconstrained energy Hessian to the space $V(\lambda)$ of splitting modes; this converts the spectral pair $(\Lambda_k,b_k)$ into the interaction coefficient $c_k$. The polynomial coefficients $a_k$ provide the natural coordinates on the centred $n$-vortex configuration space, and make the $R^4$ law transparent because $a_2=R^2$ for a pair.

What would settle it

Compute $E_{\mathrm{int}}$ for two vortices at very small half-separations $R$ (for example $0.02$ to $0.3$) using high-resolution constrained minimisation, and fit $E_{\mathrm{int}}(R)-E_2+2E_1$ to a power law; if the leading exponent is not $4$ within discretisation error, or if the fitted coefficient disagrees with $(f_0/b_2)^2\Lambda_2$ beyond numerical tolerance, the Section 5 identification is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For $a=(a_2,\dots,a_n)$ the complex coefficients of the centred monic polynomial $p(z)=z^n+a_2z^{n-2}+\cdots+a_n$ whose roots are the $n$ vortex positions, the paper's short-range formula is $E_{\mathrm{int}}^{(0)}(a)=E_n-nE_1+\frac{f_0^2}{2}\sum_{k=2}^n \frac{\Lambda_k}{b_k^2}|a_k|^2$, where $E_n$ is the cocentred $n$-vortex energy, $f_0$ is the leading coefficient of the vortex profile near the origin, and $(\Lambda_k,b_k)$ are spectral data of the Jacobi operator: $\Lambda_k$ is the eigenvalue of the splitting mode in the $k$-th rotational symmetry class and $b_k$ is the leading coefficient of its $L^2$-normalised eigenmode. A $U(1)$ rotation symmetry forces the Hessian to be diagonal, eliminating linear terms and cross terms; each coefficient $c_k=(f_0/b_k)^2\Lambda_k$ is separately computable from a linear ODE problem. The paper computes these coefficients numerically for $n=2,3$ and $\lambda\in[0.1,2.5]$, and verifies the resulting potentials against constrained energy minimisation in the full field theory at $\lambda=0.5$ and $\lambda=2$, finding close agreement from coincidence out to separations where the potential crosses the well-known long-range formula. For two vortices, $a_2=R^2$, so $E_{\mathrm{int}}(R)=E_2-2E_1+\frac{c_2}{2}R^4$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Hessian of the constrained interaction energy at the coincident-vortex point equals the second variation of the unconstrained Ginzburg-Landau energy along the near-zero splitting modes of the Jacobi operator, an identification the paper posits and tests numerically but does not derive from the constrained variational problem.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For two vortices at half-separation $R$, the short-range interaction energy is $E_2-2E_1+(c_2/2)R^4$, so the leading force is quartic, not quadratic, in separation.
Short-range interactions are not a sum of pairwise terms for $n\ge3$: three collinear vortices at spacing $R$ give quartic dependence, while an equilateral triangle of side $R$ gives sextic dependence.
The coefficients $c_k(\lambda)$ are tabulated for $0.1\le\lambda\le2.5$, and the short-range formula overlaps the long-range point-source formula near $R\approx3$, allowing the two approximations to be spliced into a global explicit potential.
Computing the short-range interaction energy reduces from constrained energy minimisation in the full field theory to solving linear ODE eigenvalue problems for the cocentred $n$-vortex.
In multicomponent Ginzburg-Landau models, the same spectral criterion (a negative $c_2$ together with a magnetic long-range length scale) flags type-1.5 superconductivity, and a negative core-splitting mode of the one-vortex Jacobi operator flags vortex core splitting.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: if the Section 5 identification holds generally, then any soliton model with a critical coupling where splitting modes become zero modes should show a quartic (or higher even) leading interaction law, making the $R^4$ behaviour a generic degeneracy phenomenon rather than a peculiarity of abelian Higgs vortices.
Editorial inference: because $c_k(\lambda)$ passes through zero at $\lambda=1$, the short-range potential is extremely flat near coincidence near critical coupling, so in the crossover region the next Taylor order may dominate; measuring that order would test whether the splitting-mode subspace captures the full Hessian.
Editorial inference: the same spectral construction could be applied to $n=4$; the one-parameter-per-mode structure gives an independent cross-check, since a two-vortex measurement fixes $c_2$ and a collinear three-vortex measurement fixes $c_3$ without extra fitting parameters.
Editorial inference: the static potentials computed here provide a baseline for interpreting recent results on interaction forces between vortices whose shape modes are excited, where fluctuation-induced attractive forces appear even at critical coupling.

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

I'll get straight to it: the paper earns its headline. The observation that the centred n-vortex configuration space has U(1) symmetry acting on the polynomial coefficients a_k with weight k, and that the coincident point is a critical point of E_int, forces the pair interaction to be quartic in R rather than quadratic. That argument is rigorous and does not depend on the spectral machinery. The paper is also genuinely useful: it gives the first quantitative short-range theory in the abelian Higgs model, and the coefficient data are deposited with the DOI, so the numbers are checkable. The shooting method for the Jacobi operator looks well posed, and the translation-mode consistency check |Lambda_1| < 10^{-5} is a good sign.

The soft spot is exactly where the stress-test placed it: equation (5.11) identifies the Hessian of the constrained infimum with the restriction of the unconstrained Hessian to the near-zero eigenspace V(lambda). That is a real assumption, not a theorem. For any feasible curve realizing the prescribed zeros, E_int(a(t)) <= E(Phi_t), so the true Hessian is at most the restricted Hessian; the coefficients could in principle be smaller in magnitude. The authors flag this, and they test it in section 6 at lambda=0.5 and lambda=2 for n=2,3, finding good agreement. That is reasonable support. But the n=3 collinear curve at lambda=2, which is exactly the most unstable short-range case, has no data for R<1 because of a lattice artifact. So for the case where the assumption would be most severely tested, the paper cannot test it. I would not call that fatal — the agreement elsewhere is encouraging — but the authors should either prove the saturation condition or extend the numerics before I'd call the coefficients definitive.

The paper is a serious piece of work: careful symmetry arguments, explicit ODE reduction, independent verification against full field theory with no fitted parameters. The citation pattern is fine; the new result is clearly distinguished from prior work on nonpairwise interactions and long-range forces. It deserves a full peer review. I would suggest the referee ask for convergence data for the spectral and lattice computations, more lambda values for the identification check, and ideally some discussion of when the variational inequality is saturated. But this is a strong candidate for acceptance, not a desk reject.

Referee Report

1 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper derives a short-range expansion for the interaction energy of n nearly coincident vortices in the abelian Higgs (Ginzburg-Landau) model. Using U(1) invariance of the centred configuration space, the authors show in Section 2 that the Hessian of the interaction energy at the cocentred n-vortex must be diagonal in the elementary symmetric polynomial coefficients a_k, yielding E_int(a) = E_n - nE_1 + (1/2) Σ c_k |a_k|^2 + O(|a|^3). The main proposal, developed in Sections 3-5, is to compute the coefficients c_k from the spectrum of the Jacobi operator of the n-vortex: for each k = 2,...,n, c_k = (f_0/b_k)^2 Λ_k, where Λ_k is the eigenvalue of the relevant splitting mode and b_k is its leading coefficient at the origin. This gives formula (5.11), and in particular for n=2 the interaction energy varies as the fourth power of the half-separation R, E_int(R) = E_2 - 2E_1 + (c_2/2) R^4. The coefficients are computed numerically for n=2,3 for couplings 0.1 ≤ λ ≤ 2.5 and compared with direct constrained field-theory simulations at λ = 0.5 and λ = 2, with good visual agreement at small to moderate separations.

Significance. If the central formula is correct, the paper provides a valuable quantitative tool for vortex interactions, reducing a difficult constrained field-theory problem to a sequence of linear ODE spectral problems. The rigorous part of the argument — that by U(1) invariance and criticality the leading short-range interaction is quadratic in the polynomial coefficients, giving R^4 for a vortex pair — is clean and independent of the spectral machinery. The paper also contributes a reproducible shooting scheme with a translation-mode consistency check (|Λ_1| < 10^{-5}), tabulated spectral coefficients, and open data. The potential extension to multicomponent Ginzburg-Landau models for type-1.5 superconductivity and core splitting is an interesting outlook. The main weakness is that the quantitative coefficients rely on an unproved identification between the Hessian of the constrained infimum and the restriction of the unconstrained Hessian, which is only partially tested numerically.

major comments (1)

[Section 5, Eqs. (5.4)-(5.11)] The coefficient formula (5.11) rests on the unproved identification, stated as 'it is natural to posit' in Section 5, that the Hessian of the constrained infimum E_int at the cocentred point coincides with the restriction to V(λ) of the Hessian of the full Ginzburg-Landau energy. The preceding derivation only computes the second derivative of the unconstrained energy along the eigenmode curve (5.1), and the matching to the E_int curve uses that this eigenmode realizes the polynomial deformation (5.8) to first order. For a constrained optimization problem, however, the Hessian of the reduced (infimum) function is generically a Schur complement of the full Hessian, not simply its restriction to the constraint-transverse directions; the equality requires a separate argument (for example, an envelope-theorem calculation showing that Lagrange multipliers vanish at the cocentred solution, or an explicit cancellation of cross-terms between V(λ) and the level-set directions of the divisor map). The paper acknowledges this is a posit and tests it numerically in Section 6, but only for n=2,3 at λ=0.5 and λ=2. For the n=3 collinear case at λ=2, the data with R<1 are removed because of a lattice artifact (Section 6, discussion of Figure 4), so the most short-range regime for the most unstable mode is not tested at all. The authors should either prove the identification or substantially extend the numerical verification, including convergence studies, error bars, and an attempt to access the missing short-range collinear data (e.g., with a different discretization or constraint implementation). Without this, the quantitative coefficients in (5.11) are not established beyond the specific tested cases.

minor comments (7)

[Section 2, Eq. (2.8)] The matrix H is used both for the Hermitian quadratic-form matrix and for the Higgs field elsewhere; consider renaming one of them to avoid confusion.
[Section 4, Eq. (4.16)] The sign convention in the small-r expansion of α3, with a minus sign before the e4 term, should be checked against the smoothness conditions (4.13)-(4.14) to ensure no typographical error.
[Section 4, after Eq. (4.21)] The backward shooting map S2 is defined on R^3; it would be helpful to state explicitly why the decaying boundary conditions at r2 leave exactly three free parameters (b1,b2,b3), given that the system is first-order in seven variables.
[Section 6, Table 1] The column headers 'cn=2 2', 'cn=3 2', and 'cn=3 2' are garbled; use notation such as c_2^{(2)}, c_2^{(3)}, c_3^{(3)} to distinguish the coefficients for n=2 and n=3.
[Section 6] Minor typos: 'coeffcients' should be 'coefficients', and 'colinear' should be 'collinear' in the discussion of the vortex line.
[Section 7] The phrase 'Eint vanishes indentically' contains a typo; it should read 'identically'.
[Section 5, Eq. (5.5)] The notation 'the zeros of ϕt(z)' should be typeset with the subscript on ϕ_t to match the surrounding text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the short-range coefficients are computed from independent spectral data and checked against full field-theory simulations.

full rationale

The paper's central formula (5.11) is not fed by the quantity it predicts. The coefficients c_k = (f0/b_k)^2 Lambda_k come from a shooting solution of the Jacobi eigenvalue ODE (4.17) using only the cocentred n-vortex profile; no constrained-minimization value of E_int enters that computation. The field-theory comparisons in Section 6 use an independent constrained gradient-descent algorithm and the independent long-range asymptotics of reference [13]; they are checks, not inputs. The only non-derived equality is the Section 5 supposition, quoted as 'it is natural to posit that the Hessian of E_int at 0 coincides with the restriction to V(lambda) of the Hessian of the Ginzburg-Landau energy functional.' This is an explicit, testable assumption rather than a definition: E_int is not defined as that restriction, and the paper tests the supposition numerically. Likewise, the R^4 result (6.1) follows from writing the two-vortex moduli-space coordinate as a_2 = R^2 and noting a = 0 is a critical point of E_int; it is a consequence of the smooth expansion (2.11), not an input to it. The self-citations ([13], [15], [16]) supply the long-range comparison formula, the numerical minimization method, and the coefficient dataset respectively; none of them determines the predicted c_k values. The missing short-range data for the collinear three-vortex lambda = 2 curve, removed as a lattice artifact, weakens one comparison but does not make the derivation circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No physics parameter is fitted to the field-theory data in this paper. The coefficients c_k are outputs of an independent spectral computation (shooting solution of the ODE eigenvalue problem), and the field-theory comparison uses no fitted constants. The adjustable numbers in the pipelines (shooting radii r0 and r2, matching point r1 = (r0+r2)/2, decay radius r2, lattice spacing h1 = h2 = 0.05, timestep delta_t = h1 h2, lattice size 1001x1001) are discretization choices stated in the text, not free parameters of the physical result. The substantive assumptions are listed in the axioms; the key one is the posited Hessian identification in section 5. No new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The interaction energy E_int is smooth (at least C^2) on the centered configuration space M_0^n.
Stated in section 2: 'We assume that E_int(a2,...,an) is smooth (or at least twice differentiable)'. Used for the Taylor expansion (2.8) and the critical-point/Hessian argument that produces the R^4 scaling.
ad hoc to paper The Hessian of the constrained infimum E_int at the cocentered point coincides with the restriction of the Hessian of the full Ginzburg-Landau energy to the near-zero eigenspace V(lambda) of the Jacobi operator.
Posited in section 5 ('it is natural to posit...'), tested numerically in section 6 for n=2,3 at lambda=0.5 and lambda=2, but not proven. This is the bridge converting spectral data (Lambda_k, b_k) into the interaction coefficients c_k in (5.10), so the central formula (5.11) rests on it.
domain assumption The rotationally symmetric n-vortex solution (2.2) exists and is the unique critical point of its topological class for lambda != 1, up to gauge and translation.
Used throughout sections 2-4 to define the background cocentered n-vortex and its Jacobi operator; the paper notes uniqueness for lambda != 1 is 'thought' to hold up to gauge and translation (section 2).
domain assumption The gauge-orthogonal zero eigensections of J at critical coupling form the tangent space to the vortex moduli space, and this deformation persists for lambda != 1 as the 2n-dimensional space V(lambda).
Invoked in section 5 to justify identifying the tangent space of the centered moduli space at 0 with V(lambda); the k=1 mode is numerically confirmed to be the translation zero mode (section 4), consistent with the dimension count 2n.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Short range intervortex forces." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WBB7FMGZ

@misc{pith2026250710438,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Short range intervortex forces},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WBB7FMGZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.10438}
}

abstract

An explicit formula for the interaction energy of $n$ vortices in the abelian Higgs (or Ginzburg-Landau) model is derived, valid in the regime where all vortices are close to one another. An immediate consequence of this formula is that the interaction energy of a vortex pair with separation $d$ varies as $d^4$, not $d^2$. The formula contains $n-1$ real coefficients which are fixed by certain spectral data of the Jacobi operator of the cocentred $n$-vortex. The coefficients are computed numerically for $n=2$ and $n=3$ for couplings $0.1\leq \lambda\leq 2.5$. The resulting short range interaction potentials are compared with the results of full field theory simulations for $\lambda=0.5$ and $\lambda=2$, with excellent agreement at small to moderate vortex separation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.10438 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Plots of the eigenvalues of J (left column) and the coefficients of the short range approximation for the n-vortex interaction energy (right column) for n = 2, 3. 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Plot of numerical interaction energies (points) for two vortices of separation 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Plot of numerical interaction energies (points) for three vortices in an equilateral [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Plot of numerical interaction energies (points) for three vortices in an equispaced [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

16 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

[1]

Collective coordinate models for 2-vortex shape mode dynamics

A. Alonso Izquierdo, N. Manton, J. Mateos Guilarte and A. Wereszczynski, “Collective coordinate models for 2-vortex shape mode dynamics”, Physical Review D110 (2024), 085006

work page 2024
[2]

Dissecting normal modes of vibration on vortices in Ginzburg-Landau superconductors

A. Alonso-Izquierdo and D. Migu´ elez-Caballero, “Dissecting normal modes of vibration on vortices in Ginzburg-Landau superconductors”, Physical Review D110 (2024), 125026

work page 2024
[3]

Spectral structure of fluc- tuations around n-vortices in the abelian-higgs model

A. Alonso-Izquierdo, D. Migu´ elez-Caballero and J. Queiruga, “Spectral structure of fluc- tuations around n-vortices in the abelian-higgs model”, (2025)

work page 2025
[4]

Ring solitons and soliton sacks in imbalanced fermionic systems

M. Barkman, A. Samoilenka, T. Winyard and E. Babaev, “Ring solitons and soliton sacks in imbalanced fermionic systems”, Physical Review Research2 (2020), 043282

work page 2020
[5]

Semi-meissner state and nonpairwise intervortex interactions in type-1.5 superconductors

J. Carlstr¨ om, J. Garaud and E. Babaev, “Semi-meissner state and nonpairwise intervortex interactions in type-1.5 superconductors”, Phys. Rev. B84 (2011), 134515

work page 2011
[6]

Type-1.5 superconductivity in multiband sys- tems: Effects of interband couplings

J. Carlstr¨ om, E. Babaev and M. Speight, “Type-1.5 superconductivity in multiband sys- tems: Effects of interband couplings”, Physical Review B83 (2011)

work page 2011
[7]

Chiral skyrmions in three-band superconductors

J. Garaud, J. Carlstr¨ om, E. Babaev and M. Speight, “Chiral skyrmions in three-band superconductors”, Physical Review B87 (2013)

work page 2013
[8]

Bound states and instabilities of vortices

M. Goodband and M. Hindmarsh, “Bound states and instabilities of vortices”, Physical Review D 52 (1995), 4621–4632

work page 1995

Show all 16 references

[9]

Scattering of vortices with excited normal modes

S. Krusch, M. Rees and T. Winyard, “Scattering of vortices with excited normal modes”, Physical Review D110 (2024), 056050

2024
[10]

Asymptotic interactions of critically coupled vortices

N. S. Manton and J. M. Speight, “Asymptotic interactions of critically coupled vortices”, Commun. Math. Phys.236 (2003), 535–555

2003
[11]

The geometry of the space of BPS vortex-antivortex pairs

N. M. Rom˜ ao and J. M. Speight, “The geometry of the space of BPS vortex-antivortex pairs”, Commun. Math. Phys.379 (2020), 723–772

2020
[12]

Non-london electrodynamics in a multiband london model: Anisotropy-induced nonlocalities and multiple magnetic field penetration lengths

M. Silaev, T. Winyard and E. Babaev, “Non-london electrodynamics in a multiband london model: Anisotropy-induced nonlocalities and multiple magnetic field penetration lengths”, Physical Review B97 (2018), 174504

2018
[13]

Static intervortex forces

J. M. Speight, “Static intervortex forces”, Phys. Rev. D55 (1997), 3830–3835. 18

1997
[14]

Skyrmions and spin waves in frustrated ferromagnets at low applied magnetic field

M. Speight and T. Winyard, “Skyrmions and spin waves in frustrated ferromagnets at low applied magnetic field”, Physical Review B101 (2020), 134420

2020
[15]

Intervortex forces in competing-order superconductors

M. Speight and T. Winyard, “Intervortex forces in competing-order superconductors”, Physical Review B103 (2021)

2021
[16]

Short range intervortex force coefficients

M. Speight and T. Winyard, “Short range intervortex force coefficients”, DOI: 10.7488/ds/7975 (2025). 19

2025 doi

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Collective coordinate models for 2-vortex shape mode dynamics

A. Alonso Izquierdo, N. Manton, J. Mateos Guilarte and A. Wereszczynski, “Collective coordinate models for 2-vortex shape mode dynamics”, Physical Review D110 (2024), 085006

work page 2024

[2] [2]

Dissecting normal modes of vibration on vortices in Ginzburg-Landau superconductors

A. Alonso-Izquierdo and D. Migu´ elez-Caballero, “Dissecting normal modes of vibration on vortices in Ginzburg-Landau superconductors”, Physical Review D110 (2024), 125026

work page 2024

[3] [3]

Spectral structure of fluc- tuations around n-vortices in the abelian-higgs model

A. Alonso-Izquierdo, D. Migu´ elez-Caballero and J. Queiruga, “Spectral structure of fluc- tuations around n-vortices in the abelian-higgs model”, (2025)

work page 2025

[4] [4]

Ring solitons and soliton sacks in imbalanced fermionic systems

M. Barkman, A. Samoilenka, T. Winyard and E. Babaev, “Ring solitons and soliton sacks in imbalanced fermionic systems”, Physical Review Research2 (2020), 043282

work page 2020

[5] [5]

Semi-meissner state and nonpairwise intervortex interactions in type-1.5 superconductors

J. Carlstr¨ om, J. Garaud and E. Babaev, “Semi-meissner state and nonpairwise intervortex interactions in type-1.5 superconductors”, Phys. Rev. B84 (2011), 134515

work page 2011

[6] [6]

Type-1.5 superconductivity in multiband sys- tems: Effects of interband couplings

J. Carlstr¨ om, E. Babaev and M. Speight, “Type-1.5 superconductivity in multiband sys- tems: Effects of interband couplings”, Physical Review B83 (2011)

work page 2011

[7] [7]

Chiral skyrmions in three-band superconductors

J. Garaud, J. Carlstr¨ om, E. Babaev and M. Speight, “Chiral skyrmions in three-band superconductors”, Physical Review B87 (2013)

work page 2013

[8] [8]

Bound states and instabilities of vortices

M. Goodband and M. Hindmarsh, “Bound states and instabilities of vortices”, Physical Review D 52 (1995), 4621–4632

work page 1995