Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 42 references

The Domain Wall String's Anti-Stokes Scattering Cross Section

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A meson scattering off a domain wall string's shape-mode excitation now has a cross section, given by Eq. (3.48), that is independent of the initial wave-packet shapes and positions.

desk verdict Careful, genuinely new cross-section calculation for meson–shape-mode scattering on a domain wall string; the result is plausible, but the wave-packet-independence claim rests on an unproven cancellation the authors themselves flag in Sec. 5. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.04799 v1 pith:FMFON4T5 submitted 2025-07-07 hep-th

Hengyuan Guo , Jarah Evslin , Hui Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th MSC 81T10 PACS 11.27.+d
keywords anti-StokesscatteringdomainwallstringshapemodecrosssectionLinearizedSolitonPerturbationTheorywavepacketindependence2+1dimensions
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

Anti-Stokes scattering here means that a meson, an ordinary particle of the quantum field, strikes a domain wall string that carries a localized shape-mode excitation, and in the process de-excites it. Earlier work computed only the probability for a perpendicular, centered collision, and that probability depended on the shapes and widths of the initial wave packets. This paper generalizes to arbitrary incident angle and impact parameter and defines a true cross section, which by construction is independent of those wave-packet details. The result is a compact formula, Eq. (3.48), written in terms of the three-point vertex of the theory. The authors argue that this is the first time a cross section has been defined for the scattering of a bulk degree of freedom with a localized excitation inside an extended soliton.

What carries the argument

The machinery is Linearized Soliton Perturbation Theory (LSPT), which factorizes the domain-wall state into a displacement operator acting on an ordinary Fock space, so that scattering amplitudes can be computed from the quadratic domain-wall Hamiltonian $H'_2$ and the $\sqrt{\lambda}$ three-point vertex $V_{k_2,S,-k_1}$ coupling two meson modes and one shape mode. The calculation reduces to Gaussian integrals over the initial wave packets, and the bookkeeping that turns a probability into a cross section is the standard formula $P = \Sigma\, l_m l_S \int dy'\, \rho_m(y')\rho_S(y')$, Eq. (3.43), adapted so that the wider wave packet supplies the density $\rho$ while the narrower one acts as a $\delta$-function. Matching the resulting $\exp(-b^2/2\sigma^2)$-type dependence on both sides of that formula fixes the cross section and leaves Eq. (3.48), which is independent of $x_0$, $y_0$, $\sigma$, and $\sigma_0$.

What would settle it

Run a numerical simulation of the $2+1$-dimensional $\phi^4$ field theory in which a meson wave packet of width $\sigma$ is fired at an excited shape mode localized at the origin, measure the de-excitation probability $P(b)$ for a range of impact parameters $b$, and repeat for several widths $\sigma$, $\sigma_0$ and separations $|x_0|$; if the integral of $P(b)$ over $b$ divided by the flux factor is not the constant given by Eq. (3.48), or changes with the widths, the central claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central result is that, at leading order in the coupling $\lambda$, the anti-Stokes cross section is $$\Sigma_{aS} = \frac{\$\lambda$}{8}\,\frac{|V_{k^I_{2x},S,-k_{0x}}|^2 + |V_{-k^I_{2x},S,-k_{0x}}|^2}{|\mathbf{k}_0|\,\omega_S\,k^I_{2x}},$$ where $k^I_{2x} = \sqrt{(\omega_{\mathbf{k}_0}+\omega_S)^2 - k_{0y}^2 - m^2}$ is the on-shell final momentum set by energy conservation, $\omega_S$ is the shape-mode frequency, and the two vertex factors correspond to the two degenerate final-momentum peaks, $k_{2x} = \pm k^I_{2x}$. The cross section depends on the incoming momentum $\mathbf{k}_0$ but not on the initial positions $x_0$, $y_0$, the wave-packet widths $\sigma$, $\sigma_0$, or the impact parameter. The identical formula emerges whether the meson wave packet is much wider or much narrower than the shape-mode packet, after the two limits are handled with the appropriate Jacobian factors. In the perpendicular case $k_{0y}=0$ it reduces to the known $1+1$-dimensional anti-Stokes probability on a kink, and in the $\phi^4$ double-well model it becomes an explicit analytic function of $|\mathbf{k}_0|$ for any incident angle.

Load-bearing premise

The formula is robust only if the two admitted approximations — keeping only the first-order frequency expansion and ignoring the impact-parameter dependence inside the $\mathbf{k}_2$ integral — over-localize the probability equally on both sides of Eq. (3.43) so that their errors cancel, which the paper argues heuristically rather than proves.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The anti-Stokes cross section for a domain wall string is now an explicit analytic expression for any incident angle and any potential with a single shape mode, once the vertex $V_{k_{2x},S,-k_{1x}}$ is provided.
  • A simulation or experiment measuring the de-excitation probability as a function of impact parameter will see a Gaussian profile whose width is set by the broader of the two wave packets, and the area under that Gaussian divided by the flux factor equals Eq. (3.48).
  • Setting $k_{0y}=0$ reproduces the $1+1$-dimensional kink result, giving a direct consistency check between the new $2+1$-dimensional cross section and the existing kink scattering literature.
  • In the $\phi^4$ model the cross section becomes a closed analytic function of $|\mathbf{k}_0|$ for every incident angle, providing concrete, falsifiable predictions for numerical studies of radiation interacting with domain wall strings.
  • Because the cross section, unlike the probability, is independent of the initial wave-packet widths, it is the appropriate observable for cosmological and field-theory settings where wave packets cannot be freely tuned.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same Gaussian-matching construction should assign cross sections to scattering off other localized excitations inside extended solitons, such as the string's translational zero mode or higher bound modes, as long as the target is localized along one direction.
  • The Sec. 5 cancellation argument suggests that residual errors from the two approximations are at most of higher order in $\sigma/|x_0|$; a classical lattice simulation of $\phi^4$ in $2+1$ dimensions could test both the formula and the size of those corrections directly.
  • The method should extend to Stokes scattering on a finite string segment, where the cross section would be finite and proportional to the segment length, potentially connecting to the small-loop statistics seen in cosmic string network simulations.
  • Since the only target-dependent input is the three-point vertex $V$, carrying the same calculation to next order in $\lambda$ would reveal how radiative corrections enter the cross section and whether the wave-packet independence survives.
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.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper uses Linearized Soliton Perturbation Theory to study anti-Stokes scattering of a perturbative meson off a shape-mode excitation of a domain wall string in 2+1 dimensions. It allows an arbitrary incident angle and impact parameter, computes the de-excitation probability, and extracts a cross section that is claimed to be independent of all wave-packet parameters. The central formula, Eq. (3.48), gives Sigma_aS = (lambda/8)(|V_{kI,S,-k0}|^2 + |V_{-kI,S,-k0}|^2)/(|k0| omega_S kI_2x). The derivation uses Gaussian and stationary-phase approximations, and the two limits sigma >> sigma0 and sigma0 >> sigma are shown to give the same cross section. Section 5 explicitly identifies two unjustified approximations and argues that their effect cancels in the cross-section formula.

Significance. If the central claim survives scrutiny, this is a useful and apparently new result: it provides the first cross-section definition for scattering of a bulk degree of freedom off a localized excitation inside an extended soliton. The final formula is analytic, depends only on model parameters and the initial momentum, and contains no fitted parameters. The consistency of the two wave-packet limits is a nontrivial check, and the connection with the earlier kink result at k0y=0 is reassuring. The main caveat is that the wave-packet independence rests on a heuristic cancellation that is admitted but not demonstrated; making that step rigorous is essential for the result to be fully supported.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 5 / Eq. (3.10)] The first-order expansion of omega_{k1} in Eq. (3.10) is not parametrically controlled in the phase: the neglected second-order term contributes phase errors of order |x0|/(m sigma^2) (up to O(1) velocity factors), which can be O(1) or larger even when sigma << |x0|. Since the same expansion is used in both Secs. 3.4 and 3.5, the agreement between the two limits does not provide independent validation. The manuscript asserts in Sec. 5 that the resulting over-localization cancels in Eq. (3.43), but no proof or estimate is supplied. Because Eq. (3.48) is the central claim, this missing step is load-bearing.
  2. [Sec. 3.4 / Eq. (3.38)] Pulling b(k2) out of the k2 integral is not justified: b depends on k2y through v_y, and over the support of the k2 Gaussian the induced variation delta b can be large compared to sigma. The statement that a shift in k2 can be undone by a shift in y0 is valid for the y0-integrated probability, but the extraction of Sigma in Eqs. (3.43)-(3.47) works by matching the b-dependence of the probability to a Gaussian density with a specific normalization. If the true probability has a different width or shape, that matching procedure would not yield the correct Sigma. I recommend defining Sigma directly as the integral of the probability over the transverse coordinate; performing the y0 integration before the k2 integration removes the k2 dependence of b through the Jacobian and makes the cross-section extraction independent of the over-localization.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 3.3, Eq. (3.35)] The text refers to PaS as the probability of Stokes scattering, but the process under consideration is anti-Stokes scattering.
  2. [Introduction] There are several typos in the Introduction: 'uniquitous' should be 'ubiquitous', and 'occurence' should be 'occurrence'.
  3. [Eq. (3.3)] The typesetting of the initial-position conditions as 'x 0 < 0, k 0x > 0' should be corrected to x0 < 0 and k0x > 0.
  4. [Sec. 4, Eq. (4.3)] The three-point coupling in Eq. (4.3) would benefit from parentheses clarifying the numerator; as typeset it is ambiguous whether the 128 m^2 k1^2 k2^2 term multiplies the product of the first two parentheses or is added to it.
  5. [Fig. 3] Figure 3 identifies curves only by color; please add linestyle or marker distinctions for accessibility and for grayscale printing.
  6. [Eq. (2.19)] There is a formatting issue in Eq. (2.19) where 'omega Sky' appears; this should be typeset as omega_{Sky} or similar.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular reduction; the cross section is a computed coefficient with wave-packet factors cancelling algebraically, and the admitted approximations are a robustness caveat, not a circular step.

full rationale

The central result, Eq. (3.48), is obtained by explicit Gaussian integration of the evolved state. The probability in Eq. (3.41) contains the prefactor lambda/(8 sqrt(2 pi) sigma) times exp(-b^2/(2 sigma^2)); inserting this into the standard cross-section relation Eq. (3.43) and using l_m rho_m(b) = exp(-b^2/(2 sigma^2))/sqrt(2 pi sigma) cancels the sigma factors algebraically. This is a computation, not a fit: lambda, m and the potential are model inputs, omega_S is the Sturm-Liouville eigenvalue of the shape mode, and no parameter is adjusted to data. The wave-packet and impact-parameter independence is not assumed in the final formula; it emerges from the explicit 1/sigma normalization in Eq. (3.41) combined with the definition of the cross section in Eq. (3.43). The LSPT formalism and the three-point vertex are cited from the authors' prior work (Refs. [20,21,24]), but these are analytic derivations that are re-stated in the paper; they do not assume the anti-Stokes cross section, and the k0y=0 limit reduces to the earlier kink probability as a consistency check rather than as an input. Section 5 openly identifies two uncontrolled approximations, the first-order frequency expansion of Eq. (3.10) and the extraction of b from the k2 integral in Eq. (3.38), and argues that their over-localization cancels on both sides of Eq. (3.43). That argument is heuristic and could fail, but a failed cancellation would make Eq. (3.48) numerically incorrect; it would not make the derivation equivalent to its input by construction. No circular reduction of the form 'Eq. X = Eq. Y by definition' or 'fitted parameter renamed as prediction' can be exhibited. The score of 2 reflects only the presence of non-load-bearing self-citations to the authors' own LSPT program, not circularity in the central derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central formula depends on no fitted numbers; the model parameters lambda and m are standard inputs, and the shape mode frequency omega_S is derived from the potential. The main burden is carried by the LSPT framework and the two admitted approximations, which are argued to cancel in the cross section.

assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The LSPT decomposition of soliton states as displaced coherent states with perturbative Fock space excitations
    Invoked in Sec. 2.1-2.3 (Eqs. 2.3-2.14) as the quantization framework; it is a published formalism from Refs. [20,21] but is not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption Reflectionless potential for the domain wall
    Assumed in Sec. 3.1 to simplify the normal modes to plane waves far from the wall; the paper cites Refs. [23,24] for the claim that generalization to generic potentials is straightforward.
  • domain assumption Equal meson masses in the two vacua
    Condition imposed via Eq. (2.10) to avoid accelerated domain walls in the quantum theory, following Ref. [38].
  • domain assumption Large wave packet and distance limits {1/k0x, 1/m} << {sigma, sigma0} << |x0|
    Stated in Eq. (3.3); needed for the stationary phase evaluation of the amplitude.
  • ad hoc to paper First-order Taylor expansion of frequencies in the scattering phase
    Made at Eq. (3.10) and justified by the large-sigma limit, but admitted in Sec. 5 to be unjustified and to underestimate the impact parameter variance.
  • ad hoc to paper The impact parameter b is independent of the final momentum k2
    Pulled out of the k2 integral at Eq. (3.38); admitted in Sec. 5 as a second unjustified approximation that localizes the probability too sharply.
  • standard math Peskin-Schroeder cross section formula (4.60) applies to meson-shape mode scattering
    Used in Sec. 3.4 (Eq. 3.43) to relate the probability to the cross section via transverse densities; a standard wave packet scattering result.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Domain Wall String's Anti-Stokes Scattering Cross Section." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FMFON4T5

@misc{pith2026250704799,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Domain Wall String's Anti-Stokes Scattering Cross Section},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FMFON4T5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.04799}
}
read the original abstract

We consider anti-Stokes scattering, in which a perturbative meson scatters off of a domain wall string's shape mode excitation, de-exciting it. Previously the probability of this process was calculated for a perpendicular incident meson striking the center of a localized shape mode. The answer depended on the profiles of the initial wave packets. In this paper we consider an arbitrary incident angle and impact parameter. In addition to the de-excitation probability, we compute the cross section for this process, which as usual is independent of the details of the wave packets. To our knowledge, this is the first time that a cross section has been defined for the scattering of a bulk degree of freedom with a localized excitation in an extended soliton.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.04799 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The initial conditions for anti-Stokes scattering consist of a meson at position [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. As in Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The cross section for anti-Stokes scattering as a function of the momentum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [24]

    (Anti-)Stokes Scattering on the Domain Wall String

    H. Guo, H. Liu and J. Evslin, “(Anti-)Stokes scattering on the domain wall string,” JHEP 02 (2025), 039 doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2025)039 [arXiv:2412.13409 [hep-th]]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  2. [1]

    A Nonlinear theory of strong interactions,

    T. H. R. Skyrme, “A Nonlinear theory of strong interactions,” Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 247 (1958), 260-278 doi:10.1098/rspa.1958.0183

    arXiv 1958

  3. [2]

    Soliton Quantization,

    V. E. Korepin, P. P. Kulish and L. D. Faddeev, “Soliton Quantization,” JETP Lett. 21 (1975), 138-139

    work page 1975

  4. [3]

    About the Zero Mode Problem in the Quantization of Solitons,

    L. D. Faddeev and V. E. Korepin, “About the Zero Mode Problem in the Quantization of Solitons,” Phys. Lett. B 63 (1976), 435-438 doi:10.1016/0370-2693(76)90390-7

    work page doi:10.1016/0370-2693(76)90390-7 1976

  5. [4]

    Cancellation of the Zero Mode Singularities in Soliton Quantization Theory,

    V. A. Matveev, “Cancellation of the Zero Mode Singularities in Soliton Quantization Theory,” Nucl. Phys. B 121 (1977), 403-412 doi:10.1016/0550-3213(77)90162-6

    work page doi:10.1016/0550-3213(77)90162-6 1977

  6. [5]

    Nonperturbative Methods and Extended Hadron Models in Field Theory 2. Two-Dimensional Models and Extended Hadrons,

    R. F. Dashen, B. Hasslacher and A. Neveu, “Nonperturbative Methods and Extended Hadron Models in Field Theory 2. Two-Dimensional Models and Extended Hadrons,” Phys. Rev. D 10 (1974), 4130-4138 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.10.4130

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.10.4130 1974

  7. [6]

    Quantization of Nonlinear Waves,

    J. Goldstone and R. Jackiw, “Quantization of Nonlinear Waves,” Phys. Rev. D 11 (1975), 1486-1498 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.11.1486

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.11.1486 1975

  8. [7]

    Mass Formulas for Static Solitons,

    K. E. Cahill, A. Comtet and R. J. Glauber, “Mass Formulas for Static Solitons,” Phys. Lett. B 64 (1976), 283-285 doi:10.1016/0370-2693(76)90202-1

    doi:10.1016/0370-2693(76)90202-1 1976

Show all 42 references
  1. [8]

    Quantum Theory of Solitons: Preliminary Version,

    L. D. Faddeev and V. E. Korepin, “Quantum Theory of Solitons: Preliminary Version,” Phys. Rept. 42 (1978), 1-87 doi:10.1016/0370-1573(78)90058-3

    1978 doi

  2. [9]

    Classical-quantum correspondence and backre- action,

    T. Vachaspati and G. Zahariade, “Classical-quantum correspondence and backre- action,” Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) no.6, 065002 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.065002 [arXiv:1806.05196 [hep-th]]. 25

    2018 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Classical-Quantum Correspondence for Fields,

    T. Vachaspati and G. Zahariade, “Classical-Quantum Correspondence for Fields,” JCAP 09 (2019), 015 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2019/09/015 [arXiv:1807.10282 [hep-th]]

    2019 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Quantum corrections to soliton energies,

    N. Graham and H. Weigel, “Quantum corrections to soliton energies,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 37 (2022) no.19, 2241004 doi:10.1142/S0217751X22410044 [arXiv:2201.12131 [hep-th]]

    2022 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Extended Particles in Quantum Field Theories,

    J. L. Gervais and B. Sakita, “Extended Particles in Quantum Field Theories,” Phys. Rev. D 11 (1975), 2943 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.11.2943

    1975 doi

  6. [13]

    Quantum Expansion of Soliton Solutions,

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

    1975 doi

  7. [14]

    Canonical Quantization of Nonlinear Waves,

    E. Tomboulis, “Canonical Quantization of Nonlinear Waves,” Phys. Rev. D 12 (1975), 1678 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.12.1678

    1975 doi

  8. [15]

    Point Canonical Transformations in Path Integral,

    J. L. Gervais and A. Jevicki, “Point Canonical Transformations in Path Integral,” Nucl. Phys. B 110 (1976), 93-112 doi:10.1016/0550-3213(76)90422-3

    1976 doi

  9. [16]

    Collective co- ordinate fix in the path integral,

    A. Bhattacharya, J. Cotler, A. Dersy and M. D. Schwartz, “Collective co- ordinate fix in the path integral,” Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) no.11, 116023 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.116023 [arXiv:2402.18633 [hep-th]]

    2024 arXiv

  10. [17]

    False vacuum decay of excited states in finite-time instanton calculus,

    B. Garbrecht and N. Wagner, “False vacuum decay of excited states in finite-time instanton calculus,” [arXiv:2412.20431 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  11. [18]

    Pion - nucleon scattering in the Skyrme model and the P wave Born amplitudes,

    A. Hayashi, S. Saito and M. Uehara, “Pion - nucleon scattering in the Skyrme model and the P wave Born amplitudes,” Phys. Rev. D 43 (1991), 1520-1531 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.43.1520

    1991 doi

  12. [19]

    Pion - nucleon scattering in the soliton model,

    A. Hayashi, S. Saito and M. Uehara, “Pion - nucleon scattering in the soliton model,” Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 109 (1992), 45-72 doi:10.1143/PTPS.109.45

    1992 doi

  13. [20]

    Manifestly Finite Derivation of the Quantum Kink Mass,

    J. Evslin, “Manifestly Finite Derivation of the Quantum Kink Mass,” JHEP 11 (2019), 161 doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2019)161 [arXiv:1908.06710 [hep-th]]

    2019 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Two-Loop Scalar Kinks,

    J. Evslin and H. Guo, “Two-Loop Scalar Kinks,” Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) no.12, 125011 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.125011 [arXiv:2012.04912 [hep-th]]

    2021 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Meson production from domain wall-meson scat- tering,

    H. Liu, J. Evslin and B. Zhang, “Meson production from domain wall-meson scat- tering,” Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) no.2, 025012 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.025012 [arXiv:2211.01794 [hep-th]]. 26

    2023 arXiv

  16. [23]

    (Anti-)Stokes scattering on kinks,

    J. Evslin and H. Liu, “(Anti-)Stokes scattering on kinks,” JHEP 03 (2023), 095 doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2023)095 [arXiv:2301.04099 [hep-th]]

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    On the Change of Refrangibility of Light,

    G. G. Stokes, “On the Change of Refrangibility of Light,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 142 (1852) 463–562 doi/10.1098/rstl.1852.0022

  18. [26]

    The Negative Absorption of Radiation,

    C. V. Raman, K. S. Krishnan, “The Negative Absorption of Radiation,” Nature 122 (1928), 12–13 doi:10.1038/122012b0

    1928 doi

  19. [27]

    New Phenomenon in the Scattering of Light (pre- liminary report),

    G. S. Landsberg, L. I. Mandelstam, “New Phenomenon in the Scattering of Light (pre- liminary report),” Jour. of the Russ. Phys.-Chem. Soc., Phys. 60 (1928) 335

    1928

  20. [28]

    Scaling from gauge and scalar radiation in Abelian Higgs string networks,

    M. Hindmarsh, J. Lizarraga, J. Urrestilla, D. Daverio and M. Kunz, “Scaling from gauge and scalar radiation in Abelian Higgs string networks,” Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) no.2, 023525 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.023525 [arXiv:1703.06696 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2017 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Abelian Higgs Cosmic Strings: Small Scale Structure and Loops,

    M. Hindmarsh, S. Stuckey and N. Bevis, “Abelian Higgs Cosmic Strings: Small Scale Structure and Loops,” Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009), 123504 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.79.123504 [arXiv:0812.1929 [hep-th]]

    2009 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Excited Abelian-Higgs vortices: Decay rate and radiation emis- sion,

    A. Alonso-Izquierdo, J. J. Blanco-Pillado, D. Migu´ elez-Caballero, S. Navarro-Obreg´ on and J. Queiruga, “Excited Abelian-Higgs vortices: Decay rate and radiation emis- sion,” Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) no.6, 065009 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.065009 [arXiv:2405.06030 [hep-th]]

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    The dynam- ics of domain wall strings,

    J. J. Blanco-Pillado, D. Jim´ enez-Aguilar, J. M. Queiruga and J. Urrestilla, “The dynam- ics of domain wall strings,” JCAP 05 (2023), 011 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/05/011 [arXiv:2209.12945 [hep-th]]

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Effective Actions for Domain Wall Dynamics,

    J. J. Blanco-Pillado, A. Garc ´ ıa Mart ´ ın-Caro, D. Jim´ enez-Aguilar and J. M. Queiruga, “Effective Actions for Domain Wall Dynamics,” [arXiv:2411.13521 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  25. [33]

    Bubble wall dynamics from nonequilibrium quantum field theory,

    W. Y. Ai, M. Carosi, B. Garbrecht, C. Tamarit and M. Vanvlasselaer, “Bubble wall dynamics from nonequilibrium quantum field theory,” [arXiv:2504.13725 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  26. [34]

    Effective mass and correlation length of nucleon constituents,

    P. Vinciarelli, “Effective mass and correlation length of nucleon constituents,” Lett. Nuovo Cim. 4S2 (1972), 905-909 doi:10.1007/BF02756261 27

    1972 doi

  27. [35]

    Effective Action for Composite Opera- tors,

    J. M. Cornwall, R. Jackiw and E. Tomboulis, “Effective Action for Composite Opera- tors,” Phys. Rev. D 10 (1974), 2428-2445 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.10.2428

    1974 doi

  28. [36]

    Classical Lumps and their Quantum Descendents,

    S. R. Coleman, “Classical Lumps and their Quantum Descendents,” Subnucl. Ser. 13 (1977), 297 PRINT-77-0088 (HAR V ARD)

    1977

  29. [37]

    Perturbative Construction of Coherent States,

    L. Berezhiani, G. Cintia and M. Zantedeschi, “Perturbative Construction of Coherent States,” [arXiv:2311.18650 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  30. [38]

    Quantum Instabilities of Solitons,

    H. Weigel, “Quantum Instabilities of Solitons,” AIP Conf. Proc. 2116 (2019) no.1, 170002 doi:10.1063/1.5114153 [arXiv:1907.10942 [hep-th]]

    2019 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Zur Paartheorie der Kernkr¨ afte,

    G. Wentzel, “Zur Paartheorie der Kernkr¨ afte,” Helv. Phys. Acta 15 (1942) 111

    1942

  32. [40]

    Mass Formulas for Static Solitons,

    K. E. Cahill, A. Comtet and R. J. Glauber, “Mass Formulas for Static Solitons,” Phys. Lett. B 64 (1976), 283-285

    1976

  33. [41]

    A (2+1)-dimensional domain wall at one-loop,

    K. Ogundipe, J. Evslin, B. Zhang and H. Guo, “A (2+1)-dimensional domain wall at one-loop,” JHEP 05 (2024), 098 doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2024)098 [arXiv:2403.14062 [hep-th]]

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    An Introduction to quantum field theory,

    M. E. Peskin and D. V. Schroeder “An Introduction to quantum field theory,” Addison- Wesley (1995). 28

    1995

Pith tools

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