Two-dimensional solitons in extended GPE models with Lee-Huang-Yang corrections

D. J. Frantzeskakis; E. C. Psychogiou; F. Bristy; G. A. Bougas; G. C. Katsimiga; G. N. Koutsokostas; P. G. Kevrekidis; S. I. Mistakidis

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 117 references

Two-dimensional solitons in extended GPE models with Lee-Huang-Yang corrections

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that the 2D extended Gross-Pitaevskii equation for quantum droplets reduces, in the long-wavelength limit, to integrable Kadomtsev-Petviashvili and Davey-Stewartson equations, from which line, lump, ring, and dromion solit

desk verdict Solid asymptotic-reduction paper for the logarithmic eGPE, with credible KP-I/cKP-I line/lump/ring numerics; the dromion branch is oversold because the simulation runs where the discarded DS-I term is not small. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.16820 v1 pith:XMKIGC6H submitted 2026-07-18 cond-mat.quant-gas nlin.PSphysics.atom-phquant-ph

G. N. Koutsokostas , F. Bristy , E. C. Psychogiou , G. A. Bougas , G. C. Katsimiga , S. I. Mistakidis , P. G. Kevrekidis , D. J. Frantzeskakis This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.quant-gasnlin.PSphysics.atom-phquant-ph MSC 35Q5535Q5335Q5137K40

keywords quantumdropletsLee-Huang-YangcorrectionsextendedGross-PitaevskiiequationKadomtsev-PetviashviliDavey-Stewartsondromionslumpsolitonsring

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

The paper tries to establish that a 2D quantum droplet model—the extended Gross-Pitaevskii equation with competing mean-field and logarithmic Lee-Huang-Yang nonlinearities—supports four families of previously unseen two-dimensional solitary waves. On the modulationally stable branch of the droplet background, it derives effective integrable models (KP-I, cylindrical KP-I, and DS-I) via multiscale expansions, then reads off approximate analytical solutions for line, lump, ring, and dromion solitons. Direct numerical integration of the full equation shows that all four states propagate over long times, emitting only weak radiation, with line, lump, and ring staying closest to theory and dromions deviating most. A sympathetic reader would care because genuine 2D solitons are usually destroyed by collapse or transverse instabilities in ultracold gases; this work identifies a concrete, experimentally accessible setting where they persist.

What carries the argument

The multiscale asymptotic reduction is the central mechanism. The density is expanded as ρ = ρ0 + ερ1 + ε²ρ2 + ... and the phase as a similar series with either half-integer or integer powers of ε, with stretched variables X = ε^{1/2}(x − ct), Y = εy, T = ε^{3/2}t. Solvability conditions at successive orders yield the compatibility condition C² = gρ0(1 + lnρ0), then the KP-I equation (Eq. 17), the cylindrical KP-I equation (Eq. 20), and the DS-I system (Eq. 31) with a non-integrable remainder R[q] = −(1 + 2A)|q|²q. These reduced integrable models supply exact soliton solutions that serve as approximate initial conditions for the original problem.

What would settle it

Run the dromion initial condition at two background densities: near ρ0 ≈ e^{−1} (where 1 + 2A ≈ 0, so the DS remainder is nearly absent) and at ρ0 = 2.25 (where the remainder is ≈ 0.56). If the dromion disperses or breaks apart far faster at ρ0 = 2.25 than near e^{−1}, then the claim that the DS-I reduction governs the dynamics for the simulated parameters would be refuted; conversely, similar survival times would show the non-integrable term is not the controlling factor. Additionally, computing the Bogoliubov–de Gennes spectrum of the four states would reveal any negative eigenvalues that im

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the 2D eGPE with logarithmic nonlinearity, linearized around a homogeneous droplet background, supports weakly nonlinear 2D solitary waves in the modulationally stable regime. Using density and phase expansions with stretched coordinates, the authors reduce the non-integrable eGPE to the KP-I equation in Cartesian geometry, to Johnson's cylindrical KP-I equation in polar geometry, and to a nearly integrable Davey-Stewartson system for a carrier wave with a mean-flow term. From these reductions they obtain approximate analytical dark line solitons, algebraically decaying lump solitons, expanding ring solitons, and exponentially localized dromions. Simulations of the

Load-bearing premise

The entire construction assumes that the neglected O(ε²) density corrections, and the non-integrable Davey-Stewartson remainder R[q], stay small over the simulated timescales—an assumption that is explicitly violated for the dromion parameter choice ρ0 = 2.25, where 1 + 2A ≈ 0.56.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the reduction is valid, the eGPE with logarithmic nonlinearity is an experimentally relevant platform where 2D dark line, lump, and ring solitons, as well as dromions, can be generated and observed over milliseconds-scale evolution.
The KP-I and DS-I reductions provide quantitative predictions—soliton speeds, depths, phase jumps, and the ring's amplitude decay ∝ (t0/t)^{2/3}—that can be tested against direct imaging of density and phase in ultracold atom experiments.
The simulation showing a perturbed line soliton dissolving into a lump array confirms the KP-I transverse instability scenario in a droplet medium, implying that stripe perturbations are a practical route to generating lump arrays.
All four states are only approximate, so their persistence rests on the smallness of the neglected corrections; the paper bounds initial deviations as O(ε²), with gradual growth due to radiation.
The identified reduction chain (eGPE → KP-I/DS-I → soliton families) suggests the same method can be extended to other nonlinearities that feature competing attractive and repulsive interactions.

Reading between the lines

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

An editorial extension: the dromion simulation at ρ0 = 2.25 lies far outside the window where the DS remainder R[q] = −(1 + 2A)|q|²q is small (1 + 2A ≈ 0.56 there); testing the dromion near ρ0 ≈ e^{−1}, where 1 + 2A ≈ 0, would cleanly separate the integrable prediction from the non-integrable correction.
The line-to-lump fragmentation observed at moderate perturbation amplitude suggests a striking experimental signature: imprinting a curved or periodically bent dark stripe on a droplet background should spontaneously produce a regular chain of lump solitons, observable in situ.
The paper leaves spectral (Bogoliubov–de Gennes) stability unexamined; if those spectra were computed, one would expect the ring and dromion states to harbor instabilities at longer times than simulated, constraining their true lifetimes.
The same multiscale machinery could be applied to 3D droplet shells or dipolar droplet settings, where analogous reductions to integrable equations might yield spherical or vortex-tangle soliton states.

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

Two things to know. First, this is a real asymptotic-reduction paper: the multiscale derivations of KP-I and cKP-I with explicit coefficients are carefully done, the Lambert-W stability analysis is coherent, and the line, lump, and ring soliton checks look like genuine persistence experiments. Second, the dromion section is the weak part of the manuscript, and the specific simulation shown does not sit in the regime the DS-I reduction claims to describe.

The genuinely new pieces are the explicit KP-I, cKP-I, and DS-I reductions for this logarithmic eGPE, with coefficients written in terms of rho0, and the first attempt to place dromions on a droplet background. The line and lump reductions are standard in structure but usefully worked out here, and the numerics visually support the claim that those waveforms are approximate coherent structures of the full 2D equation. The citation pattern looks appropriate, and the paper is honest that the dromions deviate the most.

The soft spots are specific and not all equally serious. The Sec. V claim that deviations are "of the order of epsilon^2 at the initial stages" is asserted without showing any error metric or convergence check. That is a fixable omission. More important, the dromion simulation at rho0 = 2.25 gives 1 + 2A approximately 0.56, so the term dropped to reach integrable DS-I is more than half the size of the retained nonlinear term. That is not a small perturbation. The paper's stated small-perturbation window near rho0 = e^{-1} is also ill-posed: at that point the sound speed vanishes and the DS coefficients are not well behaved, so no finite-speed background actually makes R[q] small. This does not destroy the numerical observation that a dromion-like object persists in the eGPE, but it does mean the DS-I reduction as presented does not explain that persistence. The authors should either find a scaling that makes the residual genuinely small, or reframe the dromion as a numerical observation supported only by the simulation. Minor points: no code or data is provided, and the ring-soliton reference time t0 is left unspecified.

The line, lump, and ring results are not affected by the dromion concern, and the paper is worth engaging with despite that weak spot. I would send it to peer review and ask for revision focused on quantifying the deviations and repairing or reframing the dromion claim.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies the two-dimensional extended Gross-Pitaevskii equation (eGPE) with a logarithmic nonlinearity, as used for quantum droplets. After analyzing the modulational stability of a homogeneous droplet background, the authors perform multiscale asymptotic reductions to derive effective integrable models: the KP-I equation (Eq. 17), the cylindrical KP-I equation (Eq. 20), and a nearly integrable Davey–Stewartson system (Eqs. 31). From these they construct approximate analytical solutions for line, lump, ring, and dromion solitary waves on the stable background, and test them in direct numerical simulations of the 2D eGPE. The line, lump, and ring solutions are reported to persist with small radiation, while the dromion keeps its envelope but deviates most from the analytical waveform.

Significance. The paper offers a systematic path from a non-integrable 2D eGPE with competing nonlinearities to integrable reductions, and gives explicit waveforms for several 2D solitary-wave families in a droplet environment. The KP/cKP derivations for the line, lump, and ring are carefully presented, the algebra is largely checkable, and the simulations provide qualitative evidence for the persistence of these structures. If fully correct, the work would extend the catalogue of multidimensional solitons in models with Lee–Huang–Yang corrections and could inspire experiments. The main weakness is the DS-I/dromion branch, where the perturbative justification is quantitatively problematic; this issue is analyzed below. The overall contribution would be strengthened by addressing this point and by quantifying the claimed accuracy.

major comments (2)

[§III B, Eq. (31) and §IV C, Fig. 7] The DS-I reduction for dromions is not justified as a small-perturbation limit at the parameters used in the simulation. The residual in Eq. (31a) is R[q] = -(1+2A)|q|^2 q with A = -(2+ln ρ0)/(8+6 ln ρ0), so 1+2A = 2(1+ln ρ0)/(4+3 ln ρ0). On the modulationally stable branch (c^2 > 0) we have 1+ln ρ0 > 0, hence 1+2A > 0. At the dromion simulation point ρ0 = 2.25, 1+2A ≈ 0.563, so the term dropped to reach the integrable DS-I limit is about 56% as large as the retained -|q|^2 q term. The manuscript's statement that R is small for ρ0 ≳ e^{-1} (Sec. III B) is not useful: as ρ0 → e^{-1}+, the sound speed c → 0, and the coefficients c1, c3, c4 in Appendix A diverge (c3 ~ c^{-3}, c4 ~ (1+ln ρ0)^{-1}), so the long-wavelength DS reduction degenerates. Thus no stable background with finite sound speed has a small R. Consequently, the dromion initial condition (37) is not an asymptotic solution of
[Sec. V, first paragraph] The paper asserts that 'the deviation between our analytical solutions and the time evolved states is of the order of ε^2 at the initial stages' without defining an error norm or providing any numerical measurement. Since this statement is used to characterize the validity of all four approximations, and since the dromion residual is not small at the chosen parameters, a quantitative comparison (e.g., L2 or L∞ difference between the evolved state and the predicted waveform at several early times) should be supplied. Without such data, the claim is unsupported and should be softened or removed.

minor comments (3)

[Sec. IV B, Eq. (36)] The ring-soliton amplitude contains η^2 = κ1^2 (t0/t)^{2/3}, which is singular at t = 0. The text and Fig. 6 do not specify how the t = 0 initial condition is defined (presumably t is set to t0 in the initialization) or what value of t0 is used. Please clarify the initialization procedure and give the parameter value.
[Sec. IV C, Eq. (31) references] There is a typographical error: 'the DS-I system of Eqs. (31a)-(31a)' should read 'Eqs. (31a)-(31b)'. This occurs both in Sec. IV C and in the surrounding text in Sec. III B.
[Appendix A and Sec. IV C] The dromion simulation uses k = 1.2 with the long-wavelength approximations for the coefficients c_j (Appendix A). The dispersion ratio k^4/4 vs c^2 k^2 is about 0.09, and higher-order terms in k may not be negligible. It would be useful to state the range of k over which the leading-order coefficients are quantitatively accurate, or to compare with the full coefficient values.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: KP/cKP/DS reductions are derived from the eGPE with explicit coefficients; the simulations are consistency checks; self-citations are contextual. The dromion window is an asymptotic-accuracy gap, not a circular step.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The model is Eq. (2); the hydrodynamic form (4a)-(4b) and linearization (6a)-(8) are computed in-paper. The KP-I reduction in Sec. III A substitutes the stated expansions (9a)-(9b) into (4a)-(4b), solves at O(ε) using the compatibility condition C²=c²=gρ0(1+lnρ0), and obtains Eq. (16), rescaled to standard KP-I (17); the cKP-I equation (19)-(20) is obtained identically in polar coordinates. The DS reduction in Sec. III B uses expansions (21a)-(21b), derives the dispersion relation (24), the envelope ansatz (25), the solvability conditions leading to Eqs. (30a)-(30b), with coefficients c_j given explicitly in Appendix A as functions of g, ρ0, k. No parameter is fitted to numerical outputs. The line/lump/ring/dromion waveforms in Secs. IV A-C are exact solutions of the reduced integrable models (KP-I, cKdV, DS-I) rewritten in physical variables; their amplitudes, speeds, and phases are functions of model parameters and arbitrary O(1) parameters. Initializing the eGPE with these waveforms and observing persistence is a consistency check, not a circular inference; the simulations could in principle have shown rapid decay or instability. Self-citations [48], [91], [103] supply context, a motivating 1D kink-stability argument, and a known line-to-lump instability analogy; none carries the derivation. Flagged as a validity (not circularity) concern: the DS-I/dromion reduction is used at ρ0=2.25 where, from Eq. (31a) and A=-(2+lnρ0)/(8+6lnρ0), the dropped residual is -(1+2A)|q|²q with 1+2A≈0.563, i.e., not small; the paper's stated small-perturbation window ρ0≳e^{-1} coincides with vanishing sound speed and singular DS coefficients in Appendix A, so the dromion simulation is not in a well-controlled asymptotic window. This is an approximation-accuracy gap, not a definitional or fit-based circularity, and it does not undermine the KP/cKP reductions.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No parameter is fitted to make the claims work; the reduction is derived with explicit coefficients. What the paper chooses by hand: the amplitude ε, the soliton waveform parameters (κ, λ, ν, k, ξ0, θ0), the background density ρ0 (1 or 2.25), and g=1. The dromion run at ρ0=2.25 sits outside the precise window where the DS remainder is small (1+2A≈0.56). The model and its single-component reduction are domain assumptions inherited from Petrov-Astrakharchik. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (8)

ε (amplitude expansion parameter) = 0.1 (line/lump/ring); 0.01 (dromion)
Hand-set small parameter controlling excitation amplitude; sets the validity of the multiscale expansion (Secs. III-IV).
ρ0 (background density) = 1 (line/lump/ring); 2.25 (dromion)
Selects the modulationally stable branch point. ρ0=2.25 places the dromion run where the DS remainder R[q]=-(1+2A)|q|²q has 1+2A≈0.56, i.e., not small.
κ1, κ2 (KP line-soliton parameters) = κ1=1.2, κ2=0 (Fig. 3); κ1=1 (Fig. 2)
Arbitrary O(1) parameters of the sech² line soliton in Eq. (32).
λ1, λ2 (lump parameters) = λ1=0, λ2=1
Arbitrary O(1) parameters of the rational lump, Eq. (33).
ξ0 (soliton position / ring center) = 0 (line, lump); 1 (ring)
Sets the initial location of the seed waveform.
t0 (ring soliton reference time) = not specified
Appears in the ring amplitude η²=κ1²(t0/t)^{2/3}, Eq. (36b); no simulation value is stated for Fig. 6.
Dromion constants (k, λr, μr, λi, μi, ν, θ0) = k=1.2, λr=μr=1, λi=μi=0, ν=1, θ0=0
Free constants of the one-dromion DS-I solution (Eqs. (38)-(40)) used to seed the simulation of Fig. 7.
g (interaction strength) = 1
Model input, set to unity in all runs; not fitted to data.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Eq. (2), iψt + (1/2)Δψ - g|ψ|²ψ ln(|ψ|²) = 0, is the correct 2D single-component description of a symmetric homonuclear mixture near mean-field balance (δa≲0).
Inherited from Petrov & Astrakharchik [21]; experimentally supported for 39K droplets [30]. Load-bearing because every subsequent claim is about solutions of this model.
domain assumption The two-component mixture reduces to one field under |ψ1|²/|ψ2|² = √(a22)/√(a11) and N1=N2.
Sec. II.A; follows Refs. [14,21,32]. If the density ratio is not fixed (e.g., in a non-symmetric mixture), the whole eGPE setting changes.
domain assumption The asymptotic expansions (9a)-(9b) and (21a)-(21b) with the stated ε-scalings are uniformly valid over the simulated times (t≈200); neglected O(ε²) terms and the DS remainder R[q] stay small.
Secs. III.A-III.B. The paper asserts deviations are 'of the order of ε²' (Sec. V) without quantifying them; for the dromion parameters the remainder is not small.
domain assumption The Appendix A coefficients cj are adequately approximated by keeping only the smallest power of k (long-wavelength limit).
Sec. III.B / Appendix A: 'keeping terms corresponding to the smaller power of k for each cj'; no error estimate on this truncation is provided.
standard math Known exact solutions of KP-I, cKP-I, and DS-I (line, lump, ring, dromion) are valid building blocks for approximate eGPE solutions.
Line/lump [62,66,68], cKdV ring [72,104], and DS-I dromions [69,70,79] are standard results imported as ansätze.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Two-dimensional solitons in extended GPE models with Lee-Huang-Yang corrections." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XMKIGC6H

@misc{pith2026260716820,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Two-dimensional solitons in extended GPE models with Lee-Huang-Yang corrections},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XMKIGC6H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.16820}
}

read the original abstract

We investigate the existence and dynamics of two-dimensional solitary waves in a quantum droplet environment described by the extended Gross-Pitaevskii equation featuring logarithmic mean-field and Lee-Huang-Yang interactions. In the modulationally stable regime of the background, we employ suitable multiscale asymptotic methods to derive effective nonlinear integrable models corresponding to the Kadomtsev-Petviashvili and Davey-Stewartson equations. Based on these reduced models, we construct approximate analytical solutions describing line solitons, algebraically localized lump solitons, ring solitons, and exponentially localized dromions embedded on the droplet background. The dynamical robustness of these solutions is monitored through numerical simulations. Line, lump and ring solitons stay closest to the theoretical predictions, although progressively deviate due to the emergence of small-amplitude radiation, while dromions depart from their analytical waveform the most, although they roughly maintain their shape. Our results unveil unprecedented multidimensional soliton solutions in models featuring the competition of mean-field and quantum fluctuations and as such are amenable to current ultracold atom experiments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.16820 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Density contours and theoretical projections along the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Spatiotemporal density evolution of the 2D line soliton described by Eq. (32a) at selected time-instants (see legends). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a)-(e) Density snapshots along the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a)-(e) Density and (f)-(j) phase profiles of the 2D bent line soliton at different evolution times (see the individual [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a)-(e) Density profiles across the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Monitoring the density snapshots [Fig. 7(a)–(e)] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

117 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

[1]

Bloch, J

I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and W. Zwerger, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 885 (2008)

2008
[2]

P. G. Kevrekidis, D. J. Frantzeskakis, and R. Carretero- Gonz´ alez,Emergent nonlinear phenomena in Bose- Einstein condensates: theory and experiment, Vol. 45 (Springer, 2008)

2008
[3]

Bloch, J

I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and S. Nascimbene, Nature Phys. 8, 267 (2012)

2012
[4]

Wolswijk, L

L. Wolswijk, L. Cavicchioli, G. Vinelli, M. Chiarotti, L. Donati, M. F. Fernandez, D. H. Rajkov, C. Mancini, P. Vezio, T. Zhou, G. Del Pace, C. Mazzinghi, N. An- tolini, L. Salvi, and V. Gavryusev, arXiv:2510.20790 (2025)

arXiv 2025
[5]

Navon, R

N. Navon, R. P. Smith, and Z. Hadzibabic, Nature Phys.17, 1334 (2021)

2021
[6]

C. Chin, R. Grimm, P. Julienne, and E. Tiesinga, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 1225 (2010)

2010
[7]

K¨ ohler, K

T. K¨ ohler, K. G´ oral, and P. S. Julienne, Rev. Mod. Phys.78, 1311 (2006)

2006
[8]

Dalfovo, S

F. Dalfovo, S. Giorgini, L. P. Pitaevskii, and S. Stringari, Rev. Mod. Phys.71, 463 (1999)

1999

Show all 117 references

[9]

E. A. Donley, N. R. Claussen, S. L. Cornish, J. L. Roberts, E. A. Cornell, and C. E. Wieman, Nature 412, 295 (2001)

2001
[10]

Langen, G

T. Langen, G. Valtolina, D. Wang, and J. Ye, Nature Phys.20, 702 (2024)

2024
[11]

Schindewolf, J

A. Schindewolf, J. Hertkorn, I. Stevenson, M. Ciardi, P. Gross, D. Wang, T. Karman, G. Quemener, S. Will, T. Pohl, and T. Langen, arXiv:2512.14511 (2025)

2025
[12]

Ferlaino and R

F. Ferlaino and R. Grimm, Physics3, 9 (2010)

2010
[13]

Naidon and S

P. Naidon and S. Endo, Rep. Progr. Phys.80, 056001 (2017)

2017
[14]

D. S. Petrov, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 155302 (2015)

2015
[15]

Z.-H. Luo, W. Pang, B. Liu, Y.-Y. Li, and B. A. Mal- omed, Front. Phys.16, 1 (2021)

2021
[16]

Chen and C.-L

C.-A. Chen and C.-L. Hung, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 023604 (2021)

2021
[17]

Bakkali-Hassani, C

B. Bakkali-Hassani, C. Maury, Y.-Q. Zou, E. Le Cerf, R. Saint-Jalm, P. C. M. Castilho, S. Nascimbene, J. Dal- ibard, and J. Beugnon, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 023603 (2021)

2021
[18]

Romero-Ros, G

A. Romero-Ros, G. C. Katsimiga, S. I. Mistakidis, S. Mossman, G. Biondini, P. Schmelcher, P. Engels, and P. G. Kevrekidis, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 033402 (2024)

2024
[19]

G. A. Bougas, G. C. Katsimiga, S. Mossman, P. Engels, P. G. Kevrekidis, and S. I. Mistakidis, arXiv:2510.24917 (2025)

2025
[20]

S. I. Mistakidis, A. G. Volosniev, R. E. Barfknecht, T. Fogarty, T. Busch, A. Foerster, P. Schmelcher, and N. T. Zinner, Phys. Rep.1042, 1 (2023)

2023
[21]

D. S. Petrov and G. E. Astrakharchik, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 100401 (2016)

2016
[22]

P. Zin, M. Pylak, T. Wasak, M. Gajda, and Z. Idzi- aszek, Phys. Rev. A98, 051603 (2018)

2018
[23]

J. C. Pelayo, G. Bougas, T. Fogarty, T. Busch, and S. I. Mistakidis, SciPost Physics18, 129 (2025)

2025
[24]

T. D. Lee, K. Huang, and C. N. Yang, Phys. Rev.106, 1135 (1957)

1957
[25]

Parisi, G

L. Parisi, G. E. Astrakharchik, and S. Giorgini, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 105302 (2019)

2019
[26]

S. I. Mistakidis, T. Mithun, P. G. Kevrekidis, H. R. Sadeghpour, and P. Schmelcher, Phys. Rev. Research 3, 043128 (2021)

2021
[27]

Ota and G

M. Ota and G. Astrakharchik, SciPost Phys.9, 020 (2020)

2020
[28]

Hu and X.-J

H. Hu and X.-J. Liu, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 195302 (2020)

2020
[29]

Chomaz, I

L. Chomaz, I. Ferrier-Barbut, F. Ferlaino, B. Laburthe- Tolra, B. L. Lev, and T. Pfau, Rep. Prog. Phys.86, 026401 (2023)

2023
[30]

C. R. Cabrera, L. Tanzi, J. Sanz, B. Naylor, P. Thomas, P. Cheiney, and L. Tarruell, Science359, 301 (2018)

2018
[31]

Cheiney, C

P. Cheiney, C. R. Cabrera, J. Sanz, B. Naylor, L. Tanzi, and L. Tarruell, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 135301 (2018)

2018
[32]

Semeghini, G

G. Semeghini, G. Ferioli, L. Masi, C. Mazzinghi, L. Wol- swijk, F. Minardi, M. Modugno, G. Modugno, M. In- guscio, and M. Fattori, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 235301 (2018)

2018
[33]

Ferioli, G

G. Ferioli, G. Semeghini, L. Masi, G. Giusti, G. Mod- ugno, M. Inguscio, A. Gallem ´ ı, A. Recati, and M. Fat- 14 tori, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 090401 (2019)

2019
[34]

D’Errico, A

C. D’Errico, A. Burchianti, M. Prevedelli, L. Salasnich, F. Ancilotto, M. Modugno, F. Minardi, and C. Fort, Phys. Rev. Research1, 033155 (2019)

2019
[35]

Z. Guo, F. Jia, L. Li, Y. Ma, J. M. Hutson, X. Cui, and D. Wang, Phys. Rev. Research3, 033247 (2021)

2021
[36]

Cavicchioli, C

L. Cavicchioli, C. Fort, F. Ancilotto, M. Modugno, F. Minardi, and A. Burchianti, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 093401 (2025)

2025
[37]

Ferioli, G

G. Ferioli, G. Semeghini, S. Terradas-Brians´ o, L. Masi, M. Fattori, and M. Modugno, Phys. Rev. Research2, 013269 (2020)

2020
[38]

Fort and M

C. Fort and M. Modugno, Applied Sciences11, 866 (2021)

2021
[39]

G. E. Astrakharchik and B. A. Malomed, Phys. Rev. A 98, 013631 (2018)

2018
[40]

T. A. Flynn, L. Parisi, T. P. Billam, and N. G. Parker, Phys. Rev. Research5, 033167 (2023)

2023
[41]

T. A. Flynn, N. A. Keepfer, N. G. Parker, and T. P. Billam, Phys. Rev. Research6, 013209 (2024)

2024
[42]

J. C. Pelayo, G. A. Bougas, T. Fogarty, T. Busch, and S. I. Mistakidis, Quantum Science and Technology10, 045074 (2025)

2025
[43]

Y. V. Kartashov and D. A. Zezyulin, Phys. Rev. A110, L021304 (2024)

2024
[44]

Tylutki, G

M. Tylutki, G. E. Astrakharchik, B. A. Malomed, and D. S. Petrov, Phys. Rev. A101, 051601(R) (2020)

2020
[45]

E. G. Charalampidis and S. I. Mistakidis, Phys. Rev. A 111, 013318 (2025)

2025
[46]

Van Loock, D

J. Van Loock, D. Ahmed-Braun, and J. Tempere, J. Low Temp. Phys.222, 73 (2026)

2026
[47]

Mithun, S

T. Mithun, S. I. Mistakidis, P. Schmelcher, and P. G. Kevrekidis, Phys. Rev. A104, 033316 (2021)

2021
[48]

G. C. Katsimiga, S. I. Mistakidis, G. N. Koutsokostas, D. J. Frantzeskakis, R. Carretero-Gonz´ alez, and P. G. Kevrekidis, Phys. Rev. A107, 063308 (2023)

2023
[49]

Edmonds, Phys

M. Edmonds, Phys. Rev. Research5, 023175 (2023)

2023
[50]

Chandramouli, S

S. Chandramouli, S. I. Mistakidis, G. C. Katsimiga, and P. G. Kevrekidis, Phys. Rev. A110, 023304 (2024)

2024
[51]

Chandramouli, S

S. Chandramouli, S. I. Mistakidis, G. C. Katsimiga, D. J. Ratliff, D. J. Frantzeskakis, and P. G. Kevrekidis, Phys. Rev. A113, 013308 (2026)

2026
[52]

Y. Li, Z. Chen, Z. Luo, C. Huang, H. Tan, W. Pang, and B. A. Malomed, Phys. Rev. A98, 063602 (2018)

2018
[53]

Bougas, G

G. Bougas, G. C. Katsimiga, P. G. Kevrekidis, and S. I. Mistakidis, Phys. Rev. A110, 033317 (2024)

2024
[54]

Caldara and F

M. Caldara and F. Ancilotto, Phys. Rev. A105, 063328 (2022)

2022
[55]

M. N. Tengstrand, P. St¨ urmer, E. ¨O. Karabulut, and S. M. Reimann, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 160405 (2019)

2019
[56]

T. A. Yo˘ gurt, U. Tanyeri, A. Kele¸ s, and M. Oktel, Phys. Rev. A108, 033315 (2023)

2023
[57]

Kopyci´ nski, B

J. Kopyci´ nski, B. T¨ uzemen, W. G´ orecki, K. Paw lowski, and M. Lebek, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys.57, 035302 (2024)

2024
[58]

Paredes, J

A. Paredes, J. Guerra-Carmenate, J. R. Salgueiro, D. Tommasini, and H. Michinel, Phys. Rev. E111, 054217 (2025)

2025
[59]

Quantum droplets in a beyond-mean-field density-dependent gauge theory,

M. Edmonds and P. ¨Ohberg, “Quantum droplets in a beyond-mean-field density-dependent gauge theory,” (2025), arXiv:2504.18220 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

2025 arXiv
[60]

Spin and density excitations of one-dimensional self- bound bose-bose droplets,

Ritu, Rajat, M. Singh, R. K. Gupta, and S. Gautam, “Spin and density excitations of one-dimensional self- bound bose-bose droplets,” (2026), arXiv:2603.00987 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

2026
[61]

Stable hopfions in trapped quantum droplets,

Z. Zhao, G. Li, H. Luo, B. Liu, G. Chen, B. A. Mal- omed, and Y. Li, “Stable hopfions in trapped quantum droplets,” (2025), arXiv:2507.10910 [cond-mat.quant- gas]

2025 arXiv
[62]

M. J. Ablowitz and P. A. Clarkson,Solitons, nonlin- ear evolution equations and inverse scattering, Vol. 149 (Cambridge University Press, 1991)

1991
[63]

Berg´ e, Phys

L. Berg´ e, Phys. Rep.303, 259 (1998)

1998
[64]

D. J. Frantzeskakis, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.43, 213001 (2010)

2010
[65]

M. J. Ablowitz,Nonlinear Dispersive Waves. Asymp- totic Analysis and Solitons(Cambridge University Press, 2011)

2011
[66]

B. B. Kadomtsev and V. I. Petviashvili, Sov. Phys. Dokl. 15, 539 (1970)

1970
[67]

Carretero-Gonz´ alez, D

R. Carretero-Gonz´ alez, D. J. Frantzeskakis, and P. G. Kevrekidis,Nonlinear Waves & Hamiltonian Systems: From One To Many Degrees of Freedom, From Discrete To Continuum(Oxford University Press, 2024)

2024
[68]

Kaup, Studies Appl

D. Kaup, Studies Appl. Math.62, 189 (1980)

1980
[69]

Fokas and P

A. Fokas and P. M. Santini, Physica D: Nonlinear Phe- nomena44, 99 (1990)

1990
[70]

C. R. Gilson and S. R. Macfarlane, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.42, 235202 (2009)

2009
[71]

A. S. Fokas and P. M. Santini, Phys. Rev. Lett.63, 1329 (1989)

1989
[72]

R. S. Johnson, Wave Motion30, 1 (1999)

1999
[73]

Experimental realizations of numerous among the above-mentioned nonlinear configurations remain rather scarce to date in different platforms

and Bose-Einstein condensates (BECs) [74]. Experimental realizations of numerous among the above-mentioned nonlinear configurations remain rather scarce to date in different platforms. For instance, line solitons have been observed in shallow water tanks, and their interaction...
[74]

P. G. Kevrekidis, D. J. Frantzeskakis, and R. Carretero- Gonz´ alez,The defocusing nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equa- tion: from dark solitons to vortices and vortex rings (SIAM, 2015)

2015
[75]

Y. S. Kivshar and B. Luther-Davies, Phys. Rep.298, 81 (1998)

1998
[76]

Yeh and W

H. Yeh and W. Li, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 482, 012046 (2014)

2014
[77]

Kodama, J

Y. Kodama, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.43, 434004 (2010)

2010
[78]

W. J. Kwon, S. W. Seo, and Y.-i. Shin, Phys. Rev. A 92, 033613 (2015)

2015
[79]

Dieli, D

L. Dieli, D. Pierangeli, F. Baronio, S. Trillo, and C. Conti, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 053804 (2026)

2026
[80]

Denschlag, J

J. Denschlag, J. E. Simsarian, D. L. Feder, C. W. Clark, L. A. Collins, J. Cubizolles, L. Deng, E. W. Hagley, K. Helmerson, W. P. Reinhardt, S. L. Rolston, B. I. Schneider, and W. D. Phillips, Science287, 97 (2000), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.287.5450.97

2000 doi
[81]

Gilson and J

C. Gilson and J. Nimmo, Proceedings of the Royal So- ciety of London. Series A: Mathematical and Physical Sciences435, 339 (1991)

1991
[82]

B. P. Anderson, P. C. Haljan, C. A. Regal, D. L. Feder, L. A. Collins, C. W. Clark, and E. A. Cornell, Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 2926 (2001)

2001
[83]

Burger, K

S. Burger, K. Bongs, S. Dettmer, W. Ertmer, K. Seng- stock, A. Sanpera, G. V. Shlyapnikov, and M. Lewen- stein, Phys. Rev. Lett.83, 5198 (1999)

1999
[84]

R. Nath, P. Pedri, and L. Santos, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 210402 (2008)

2008
[85]

P. G. Kevrekidis, G. Theocharis, D. J. Frantzeskakis, and A. Trombettoni, Phys. Rev. A70, 023602 (2004)

2004
[86]

Dreischuh, D

A. Dreischuh, D. Neshev, G. G. Paulus, F. Grasbon, 15 and H. Walther, Phys. Rev. E66, 066611 (2002)

2002
[87]

W. Wen, C. Zhao, and X. Ma, Phys. Rev. A88, 063621 (2013)

2013
[88]

Tamura, C.-A

H. Tamura, C.-A. Chen, and C.-L. Hung, Phys. Rev. X13, 031029 (2023)

2023
[89]

Theocharis, D

G. Theocharis, D. J. Frantzeskakis, P. G. Kevrekidis, B. A. Malomed, and Y. S. Kivshar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 120403 (2003)

2003
[90]

Sulem and P.-L

C. Sulem and P.-L. Sulem,The nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation: self-focusing and wave collapse, Vol. 139 (Springer Science & Business Media, 1999)

1999
[91]

R. Y. Chiao, E. Garmire, and C. H. Townes, Phys. Rev. Lett.13, 479 (1964)

1964
[92]

Saint-Jalm, P

R. Saint-Jalm, P. C. M. Castilho, E. Le Cerf, B. Bakkali- Hassani, J.-L. Ville, S. Nascimbene, J. Beugnon, and J. Dalibard, Phys. Rev. X9, 021035 (2019)

2019
[93]

S. I. Mistakidis, G. Bougas, G. C. Katsimiga, and P. G. Kevrekidis, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 123402 (2025)

2025
[94]

D. S. Petrov and G. V. Shlyapnikov, Phys. Rev. A64, 012706 (2001)

2001
[95]

Hadzibabic and J

Z. Hadzibabic and J. Dalibard, La Rivista del Nuovo Cimento34, 389 (2011)

2011
[96]

Tanzi, C

L. Tanzi, C. R. Cabrera, J. Sanz, P. Cheiney, M. Tomza, and L. Tarruell, Phys. Rev. A98, 062712 (2018)

2018
[97]

cylin- drical soliton

equation: h ρ1T − 1 8c ρ1RRR + g 2c (4 + 3 lnρ0)ρ1ρ1R + 1 2T ρ1 i R + 1 2cT 2 ρ1ΘΘ = 0.(19) Using the transformations R7→ − R (8c)1/3 ,Θ7→ Θ 2 √ 3c2/3 , ρ1 7→ − 6c2/3ρ1 g(4 + 3 lnρ0) , the cKP-I (19) is expressed in its standard form, ρ1T + 6ρ1ρ1R +ρ 1RRR + 1 2T ρ1 R − 3 T 2 ρ...
[98]

D’Errico, M

C. D’Errico, M. Zaccanti, M. Fattori, G. Roati, M. In- guscio, G. Modugno, and A. Simoni, New J. Phys.9, 223 (2007)

2007
[99]

R. S. Johnson, J. Fluid Mech.97, 701 (1980)

1980
[100]

D. J. Benney and G. J. Roskes, Stud. Appl. Math.48, 377 (1969)

1969
[101]

Davey and K

A. Davey and K. Stewartson, Proc. R. Soc. A338, 101–110 (1974)

1974
[102]

Djordjevic and L

V. Djordjevic and L. Redekopp, J. Fluid Mech.79, 703 (1977)

1977
[103]

M. J. Ablowitz and H. Segur, J. Fluid Mech.92, 691 (1979)

1979
[104]

M. A. Hoefer, M. J. Ablowitz, I. Coddington, E. A. Cornell, P. Engels, and V. Schweikhard, Phys. Rev. A 74, 023623 (2006)

2006
[105]

D. J. Frantzeskakis, T. P. Horikis, A. S. Rodrigues, P. G. Kevrekidis, R. Carretero-Gonz´ alez, and J. Cuevas- Maraver, Phys. Rev. E98, 022205 (2018)

2018
[106]

Hirota, Phys

R. Hirota, Phys. Let. A71, 393 (1979)

1979
[107]

Mannan, R

A. Mannan, R. Fedele, M. Onorato, S. De Nicola, and D. Jovanovi´ c, Phys. Rev. E91, 012921 (2015)

2015
[108]

Ko and H

K. Ko and H. H. Kuehl, Phys. Fluids22, 1343 (1979)

1979
[109]

Michinel, J

H. Michinel, J. Campo-T´ aboas, R. Garc ´ ıa-Fern´ andez, J. R. Salgueiro, and M. L. Quiroga-Teixeiro, Phys. Rev. E65, 066604 (2002)

2002
[110]

Numerical iden- tification of stationary states and their stability in a model of quantum droplets,

S. Lee, P. G. Kevrekidis, and W. Hao, “Numerical iden- tification of stationary states and their stability in a model of quantum droplets,” (2026), arXiv:2512.16218 [nlin.PS]

2026
[111]

M. Ma, R. Carretero-Gonz´ alez, P. G. Kevrekidis, D. J. Frantzeskakis, and B. A. Malomed, Phys. Rev. A82, 023621 (2010)

2010
[112]

D. L. Feder, M. S. Pindzola, L. A. Collins, B. I. Schnei- der, and C. W. Clark, Phys. Rev. A62, 053606 (2000)

2000
[113]

Hietarinta and R

J. Hietarinta and R. Hirota, Phys. Lett. A145, 237 (1990)

1990
[114]

P. G. Kevrekidis, W. Wang, G. Theocharis, D. J. Frantzeskakis, R. Carretero-Gonz´ alez, and B. P. An- derson, Phys. Rev. A100, 033607 (2019)

2019
[115]

A. M. Kamchatnov and S. V. Korneev, Phys. Lett. A 375, 2577 (2011)

2011
[116]

W. Wang, P. G. Kevrekidis, R. Carretero-Gonz´ alez, and D. J. Frantzeskakis, Phys. Rev. A93, 023630 (2016)

2016
[117]

H. A. J. Middleton-Spencer, A. D. G. Orozco, L. Galan- tucci, M. Moreno, N. G. Parker, L. A. Machado, V. S. Bagnato, and C. F. Barenghi, Phys. Rev. Research5, 043081 (2023)

2023

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Bloch, J

I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and W. Zwerger, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 885 (2008)

2008

[2] [2]

P. G. Kevrekidis, D. J. Frantzeskakis, and R. Carretero- Gonz´ alez,Emergent nonlinear phenomena in Bose- Einstein condensates: theory and experiment, Vol. 45 (Springer, 2008)

2008

[3] [3]

Bloch, J

I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and S. Nascimbene, Nature Phys. 8, 267 (2012)

2012

[4] [4]

Wolswijk, L

L. Wolswijk, L. Cavicchioli, G. Vinelli, M. Chiarotti, L. Donati, M. F. Fernandez, D. H. Rajkov, C. Mancini, P. Vezio, T. Zhou, G. Del Pace, C. Mazzinghi, N. An- tolini, L. Salvi, and V. Gavryusev, arXiv:2510.20790 (2025)

arXiv 2025

[5] [5]

Navon, R

N. Navon, R. P. Smith, and Z. Hadzibabic, Nature Phys.17, 1334 (2021)

2021

[6] [6]

C. Chin, R. Grimm, P. Julienne, and E. Tiesinga, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 1225 (2010)

2010

[7] [7]

K¨ ohler, K

T. K¨ ohler, K. G´ oral, and P. S. Julienne, Rev. Mod. Phys.78, 1311 (2006)

2006

[8] [8]

Dalfovo, S

F. Dalfovo, S. Giorgini, L. P. Pitaevskii, and S. Stringari, Rev. Mod. Phys.71, 463 (1999)

1999