Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 43 references

Exponential asymptotics of dark and bright solitons in the discrete nonlinear Schr\"odinger equation

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 Lattice discreteness in the discrete nonlinear Schrödinger equation, though exponentially small, selects exactly two soliton positions and sets their stability eigenvalues.

desk verdict New exponential-asymptotics formula for the intersite dark soliton instability looks solid, but the onsite dark instability is a conditional eigenvalue-counting conjecture, not a theorem. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.13643 v1 pith:OOQIO3KI submitted 2025-07-18 nlin.PS

Farrell Theodore Adriano , Abrari Noor Hasmi , Rudy Kusdiantara , Hadi Susanto This is my paper · ORCID
classification nlin.PS MSC 34E0537K6035Q5539A12 PACS 02.30.Mv63.20.Pw05.45.Yv42.65.Tg
keywords exponentialasymptoticsbeyondallordersdiscretenonlinearSchrödingerequationsolitonsdarkbrightlinearstabilityStokesphenomenon
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 applies exponential asymptotics, the study of effects that are smaller than every power of the perturbation parameter, to the discrete nonlinear Schrödinger equation in the strong-coupling limit. It claims that in this regime only two soliton positions are possible, centered on a lattice site (onsite) or between two adjacent sites (intersite), and that this selection follows from the Stokes phenomenon in the complex plane. It derives explicit exponentially small formulas for the stability eigenvalues, for example $\lambda^2 \sim -4\sqrt{2}\,\pi^2 |\Lambda_1| \varepsilon^{-5} e^{-\sqrt{2}\pi^2/\varepsilon}\cos(2\pi n_0)$ for dark solitons, predicting that intersite solitons are unstable while onsite bright solitons are stable. For the onsite dark soliton, whose continuous spectrum fills the imaginary axis, the paper supplies an eigenvalue-counting argument that the instability is a complex quartet. These results matter because lattice discreteness effects, though exponentially weak, decide which soliton configurations can actually be observed in waveguide arrays and Bose-Einstein condensates.

What carries the argument

The working machinery is the exponential-asymptotics scheme of [17]: the solution is expanded in powers of $\varepsilon^2$, the late-order terms are shown to take a factorial-over-power form, the singularity structure at the complex poles $\zeta = i\pi/\sqrt{2}$ (dark) and $\zeta = i\pi/2$ (bright) is matched to an inner solution to fix the constants $\Lambda_1$, and optimal truncation of the divergent series produces a Stokes phenomenon whose jump is smoothed by an erfc profile. Demanding that the exponentially small remainder not grow as $x \to \infty$ selects $n_0 = 0$ or $1/2$, and the same tail-cancellation argument at the eigenvalue level yields $\lambda^2$. A separate generalized-eigenvalue counting lemma converts counts of negative eigenvalues of $L_\pm$ into statements about real, imaginary, and complex eigenvalues of the linearized problem.

What would settle it

Numerically resolve the spectrum of the linearized operator around the onsite dark soliton for a sequence of small $\varepsilon$ (for example $\varepsilon = 0.1$ on a lattice of 2001 sites), keeping the discrete eigenvalues separated from the continuous spectrum: if two real eigenpairs appear instead of a complex quartet, or if an isolated eigenvalue is found sitting on the imaginary axis, the paper's eigenvalue-counting claim collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the exponentially small corrections to the continuum kink and sech profiles are controlled by singularities of the leading-order solution in the complex plane, and that enforcing boundedness of the resulting exponentially small tail forces $n_0 = 0$ or $n_0 = 1/2$ modulo 1. The same machinery yields the linearized eigenvalues directly: the intersite dark and bright solitons each carry a real eigenvalue pair with the exponentially small scale given by Eq. (48) and Eq. (83), and the onsite bright soliton carries an imaginary pair, matching and refining earlier Melnikov-based results. For the onsite dark soliton, the asymptotic method itself predicts an imaginary pair, which would suggest stability, but the paper argues via an eigenvalue-counting lemma that a complex quartet is forced once embedded imaginary eigenvalues are ruled out, consistent with the numerically known oscillatory instability.

Load-bearing premise

The counting argument for the onsite dark soliton's instability assumes that the linearized operator has no purely imaginary eigenvalues embedded in its continuous spectrum; if such an eigenvalue exists, the counting relations permit two real pairs instead of the claimed complex quartet, and the instability conclusion does not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Only the onsite ($n_0=0$) and intersite ($n_0=1/2$) solitons are permissible in the strong-coupling limit; all other centers produce an exponentially growing tail and are ruled out by the boundedness condition $\sin(2\pi n_0)=0$.
  • The intersite dark soliton is exponentially unstable, with its real eigenvalue pair described by Eq. (48) and verified against high-precision numerics across the tested range.
  • The onsite bright soliton is linearly stable, with an exponentially small imaginary eigenvalue pair given by Eq. (83), consistent with earlier predictions.
  • The onsite dark soliton is unstable through a complex quartet, a conclusion reached by combining the eigenvalue-counting relations of Lemma 1 with the assumption of no embedded imaginary eigenvalues.
  • The same Stokes-line construction works for both focusing and defocusing nonlinearities, indicating the method transfers to other discrete nonlinear lattice models.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the derived eigenvalue formulas imply a sharp scaling for the Peierls-Nabarro energy barrier between onsite and intersite states, since the exponential factors $e^{-\sqrt{2}\pi^2/\varepsilon}$ and $e^{-\pi^2/\varepsilon}$ control energy differences; this could be tested in waveguide-array experiments.
  • Beyond the paper: the conditional eigenvalue-counting argument for the onsite dark soliton could be made unconditional by computing an Evans function for the discrete linearized problem on the imaginary axis, which would either verify or contradict the assumption $N_i^- = 0$ directly.
  • Beyond the paper: because $\Lambda_1$ is fixed by a numerically solved recurrence, a Borel-summation treatment of the late-order terms could supply a fully analytic constant and improve accuracy at larger $\varepsilon$.
  • Beyond the paper: the bright-soliton analysis could be extended to next-nearest-neighbour couplings and to competing nonlinearities, where the same exponentially small tail-selection mechanism would determine which soliton configurations survive.
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 applies exponential asymptotics (beyond-all-orders analysis) to the discrete nonlinear Schrödinger equation in the strong-coupling limit. For defocusing nonlinearity, it derives exponentially small corrections to the tanh kink, shows that only onsite (n0=0) and intersite (n0=1/2) dark solitons are bounded, and computes the intersite stability eigenvalue λ² ∼ -4√2π²|Λ1|ε^{-5}e^{-√2π²/ε} cos(2πn0) (Eq. 48). For focusing nonlinearity, it similarly derives the exponentially small eigenvalue λ² ∼ -4π²|Λ1|ε^{-5}e^{-π²/ε} cos(2πn0) (Eq. 83). The constant Λ1 is evaluated numerically from a recurrence. For the onsite dark soliton, the method predicts imaginary eigenvalues and fails to capture the known oscillatory instability; the authors instead propose an eigenvalue-counting argument (Theorem 2) that is conditional on an unproved no-embedded-eigenvalue assumption. Numerical comparisons are provided for all cases.

Significance. The intersite dark-soliton eigenvalue formula (48) is, to my knowledge, a new analytical result and is convincingly supported by the numerics. The application of Stokes-phenomenon asymptotics to the linear stability problem, rather than only to the solution, is a useful methodological contribution. The paper is transparent about limitations, explicitly labeling the onsite dark instability as conjectural in the abstract and citing independent concurrent work on bright solitons. However, the central claim for the onsite dark soliton rests on an unverified spectral assumption, and the proof of Eq. (48) contains an algebraic inconsistency (see major comment 2). These issues are fixable by revision.

major comments (2)
  1. [Theorem 2 / Section 2.4, Eqs. (70)-(71)] The theorem as stated overclaims: the onsite dark-soliton instability is conditional on the unproved assumption N_i^- = 0 (no purely imaginary eigenvalues embedded in the continuous spectrum of L), introduced after Eq. (71). This is a nontrivial spectral fact: the essential spectrum of L covers the entire imaginary axis, so embedded imaginary eigenvalues are not excluded by general principles. Without N_i^- = 0, the counting identities (70)-(71) are compatible with N_i^- = 1 and N_r^- = N_r^+ = N_c = 0, i.e., a purely imaginary eigenvalue and no oscillatory instability. The subsequent argument ruling out N_r^- = N_r^+ = 1 uses the heuristic statement that the phase-invariant eigenvalue remains zero in the discrete case, but this does not exclude the N_i^- = 1 scenario. Consequently, Theorem 1's assertion that the onsite soliton is unstable is not a proved theorem but a conjecture. The abstract is appropriately cautious ('we conjecture an eigenvalue-counting argument'), yet the theorem statements are not. Please either prove the absence of embedded imaginary eigenvalues or restate Theorem 2 as a conditional result and adjust Theorem 1 and the abstract/title claims accordingly.
  2. [Section 2.4, Eqs. (41) and (48)] The derivation of Eq. (48) contains an algebraic inconsistency. Eq. (41) states u0 ∼ π² e^{-√2π²/ε} |Λ1|/(2ε^4) cos(2πn0) e^{√2 x}. Together with u1 ∼ (8√2)^{-1} e^{√2 x}, the solvability condition (coefficient of e^{√2 x} in u = u0 + λ² u1 + ... set to zero) yields λ² ∼ -4√2π²|Λ1| ε^{-4} e^{-√2π²/ε} cos(2πn0). However, Eq. (48) reports ε^{-5}. Please correct the typo: if (41) should have ε^{-5}, update the equation; otherwise revise (48). The numerical comparison in Fig. 3 presumably uses the correct formula, but as written the text does not allow the reader to reproduce it.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 4] The sentence 'We consider a range of ε values from 0.095 to 0.2 in increments of 0.05' is unclear; 0.095, 0.145, 0.195 are not the usual round grid. Please specify the actual ε values used.
  2. [Section 2.4, after Eq. (45)] The statement that the exponentially small growing tail of u0 is neglected in solving for h(x) deserves a justification, because λ² in Eq. (48) is itself exponentially small and the neglected source term could enter at the same exponential order. Even if the effect is subdominant, a brief argument would be helpful.
  3. [Section 4] The agreement with numerics is described qualitatively ('good', 'excellent') without error metrics. Reporting the ratio of the numerical to asymptotic eigenvalues (or a log-log plot) would allow the reader to assess the accuracy quantitatively.
  4. [Lemma 1, Eq. (58)] The displayed definition of B appears garbled; please check the composition of L_+^{-1} and L_{+,∞}^{-1}.
  5. [Conclusion] The final note about independent results in [42] and [43] should be integrated into the introduction so that the novelty claims reflect the current literature.
  6. [Throughout] Minor typos: 'off-site' appears instead of 'off-site' in several places; 'effects' in the abstract should be 'effects'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the exponentially small eigenvalues and soliton-selection conditions are derived from the governing equation with Stokes constants computed once from matched recurrences; numerics are used only for comparison.

full rationale

The paper's central predictions (Eqs. 48 and 83 for the intersite/onsite eigenvalue scalings, and the n0 = 0, 1/2 selection via sin(2πn0) = 0) are obtained by matched asymptotics from the DNLS equation itself: the late-order ansatz (12) leads to the recurrence (22)/(79), the Stokes constant Λ1 is computed once from that recurrence (Fig. 1), and the eigenvalue formulas follow by eliminating growing tails in the expansion (40)-(48), not by fitting to the numerically computed eigenvalues. Numerical results in Section 4 are used for comparison/validation. The only empirical fit, Eq. (84) for the onsite dark soliton's complex eigenvalue, is explicitly labeled a fit, not a derived prediction, and the paper concedes it cannot capture that instability analytically. The eigenvalue-counting argument in Theorem 2 is conditional on the unproved spectral assumption N_i^- = 0 ('Assuming that there is no eigenvalue embedded in the continuous spectrum of L, i.e., N_i^- = 0'), which is a genuine missing proof/limitation that the abstract also calls a conjecture; however, it is not circular, because the assumption is not the conclusion and the counting identities (49)-(50) do not by themselves force N_c = 1. No load-bearing self-citation or imported-uniqueness step was found: Lemma 1 rests on the external Chugunova-Pelinovsky theorem [24], and citations to the authors' own prior work are background only.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The Stokes constant Λ1 (approximately -2533 for dark, +2533 for bright) is computed numerically from the recurrence (22)/(24) and (79)/(80); it is not fitted to the eigenvalue data, so it is not listed as a free parameter, though its numerical evaluation is part of the derivation. The listed free parameters come only from the explicit fit for the onsite dark soliton eigenvalue. The axioms capture the formal asymptotic ansatz, the unproved spectral assumption for the onsite dark counting argument, the cited counting theorem, and the continuum-counting simplifications.

free parameters (2)
  • c1, c2, c3 for Re(λ) of onsite dark soliton = c1=8381.71, c2=-5.40, c3=13.79
    Fitted to the numerically computed real part of the onsite dark soliton eigenvalue using the ansatz f(ε)=c1 ε^(-c2) e^(-c3/ε) in Section 4 (Eq. (84), Fig. 5). Not derived from the asymptotic expansion.
  • c1, c2, c3 for Im(λ) of onsite dark soliton = c1=1237.69, c2=-4.69, c3=8.98
    Fitted to the numerically computed imaginary part of the onsite dark soliton eigenvalue with the same ansatz in Section 4. The onsite dark instability is therefore quantified by a fit, not a prediction.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Late-order ansatz (12): φ_j ∼ (-1)^j Γ(2j+β) W^(-(2j+β)) f0(x) as j→∞ with W=κ(x-ζ); the Stokes switching analysis follows King-Chapman [17].
    Assumed in Section 2.2 and used throughout to compute the exponentially small remainder; standard in exponential asymptotics but not proved from the discrete equation.
  • ad hoc to paper No embedded eigenvalues in the continuous spectrum of the linearized operator L for the onsite dark soliton (N_i^-=0).
    Invoked in Theorem 2 and the eigenvalue counting after Eq. (71) to force Nc=1; unproved and explicitly flagged by the authors as an assumption.
  • standard math The theorem of Chugunova and Pelinovsky [24] and edge bifurcation theory [25] apply to the operators L±, with trivial kernels in l2(Z) and algebraically simple eigenvalues of the spectral problem.
    Used in the proof of Lemma 1 in Section 2.4; the authors argue the kernel conditions hold, but algebraic simplicity is assumed.
  • domain assumption Sturm-Liouville and near-continuum spectral counting: L- has n_-=1 negative eigenvalue and the split zero eigenvalue of L+ has the sign given by Eq. (67).
    Used in Theorem 2 to obtain n±; the analysis is performed in the continuum limit with exponentially small corrections neglected.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exponential asymptotics of dark and bright solitons in the discrete nonlinear Schr\"odinger equation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OOQIO3KI

@misc{pith2026250713643,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exponential asymptotics of dark and bright solitons in the discrete nonlinear Schr\"odinger equation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OOQIO3KI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.13643}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate the existence and linear stability of solitons in the nonlinear Schr\"odinger lattices in the strong coupling regime. Focusing and defocusing nonlinearities are considered, giving rise to bright and dark solitons. In this regime, the effects of lattice discreteness become exponentially small, requiring a beyond-all-orders analysis. To this end, we employ exponential asymptotics to derive soliton solutions and examine their stability systematically. We show that only two symmetry-related soliton configurations are permissible: onsite solitons centered at lattice sites and intersite solitons positioned between adjacent sites. Although the instability of intersite solitons due to real eigenvalue pairs is known numerically, a rigorous analytical account, particularly for dark solitons, has been lacking. Our work fills this gap, yielding analytical predictions that match numerical computations with high accuracy. We also establish the linear stability of onsite bright solitons. While the method cannot directly resolve the quartet eigenvalue-induced instability of onsite dark solitons due to the continuous spectrum covering the entire imaginary axis, we conjecture an eigenvalue-counting argument that supports their instability. Overall, our application of the exponential asymptotics method shows the versatility of this approach for addressing multiscale problems in discrete nonlinear systems.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Y . S. Kivshar, G. P . Agrawal, Optical Solitons: From Fibe rs to Photonic Crystals, Academic Press, 2003

    work page 2003

  2. [2]

    O. M. Braun, Y . S. Kivshar, The Frenkel-Kontorova model: con- cepts, methods, and applications, V ol. 18, Springer, 2004

    work page 2004

  3. [3]

    P . G. Kevrekidis, The discrete nonlinear Schr¨ odinger e quation: mathematical analysis, numerical computations and physic al perspectives, V ol. 232, Springer Science & Business Media, 2009

    work page 2009

  4. [4]

    P . G. Kevrekidis, D. J. Frantzeskakis, R. Carretero-Gon z´ alez, The defocusing nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation: from darksoli- tons to vortices and vortex rings, SIAM, 2015

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    A. B. Aceves, C. D. Angelis, S. Trillo, S. Wabnitz, Storag e and steering of self-trapped discrete solitons in nonlinear wa veguide arrays, Opt. Lett. 19 (5) (1994) 332–334

    work page 1994

  6. [6]

    M. I. Weinstein, Excitation thresholds for nonlinear lo calized modes on lattices, Nonlinearity 12 (3) (1999) 673–691

    work page 1999

  7. [7]

    Kapitula, P

    T. Kapitula, P . Kevrekidis, Stability of waves in discre te sys- tems, Nonlinearity 14 (3) (2001) 533–566

    work page 2001

  8. [8]

    Fiedler, J

    B. Fiedler, J. Scheurle, Discretization of Homoclinic O rbits, Rapid Forcing and ”Invisible” Chaos, V ol. 570, American Math- ematical Soc., 1996

    work page 1996

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    M. J. Ablowitz, J. F. Ladik, Nonlinear di fferential-difference equations, Journal of Mathematical Physics 16 (3) (1975) 598–603

    1975

  2. [10]

    Grillakis, J

    M. Grillakis, J. Shatah, W. Strauss, Stability theory o f solitary waves in the presence of symmetry, I, Journal of Functional Analysis 74 (1) (1987) 160–197

    1987

  3. [11]

    Johansson, Y

    M. Johansson, Y . S. Kivshar, Discreteness-induced osc illatory instabilities of dark solitons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82 (1999) 8 5–88

    1999

  4. [12]

    E. P . Fitrakis, P . G. Kevrekidis, H. Susanto, D. J. Frant zeskakis, Dark solitons in discrete lattices: Saturable versus cubic nonlin- earities, Phys. Rev. E 75 (2007) 066608

    2007

  5. [13]

    M. Johansson, Hamiltonian Hopf bifurcations in the dis crete nonlinear schr¨ odinger trimer: oscillatory instabilitie s, quasi- periodic solutions and a new type of self-trapping transiti on, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 37 (6) (2004) 2201–2222

    2004

  6. [14]

    Pelinovsky, P

    D. Pelinovsky, P . Kevrekidis, Stability of discrete da rk solitons in nonlinear Schr¨ odinger lattices, Journal of Physics A: Mathe- matical and Theoretical 41 (18) (2008) 185206

    2008

  7. [15]

    Susanto, M

    H. Susanto, M. Johansson, Discrete dark solitons with m ultiple holes, Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Mat- ter Physics 72 (1) (2005) 016605

    2005

  8. [16]

    K. Y oshimura, Existence of dark solitons in discrete no nlinear Schr¨ odinger equations with non-weak couplings, Japan Journal of Industrial and Applied Mathematics 36 (3) (2019) 893–905

    2019

  9. [17]

    J. R. King, S. J. Chapman, Asymptotics beyond all orders and Stokes lines in nonlinear differential-difference equations, Euro- pean Journal of Applied Mathematics 12 (4) (2001) 433–463

    2001

  10. [18]

    Hwang, T

    G. Hwang, T. Akylas, J. Y ang, Gap solitons and their line ar sta- bility in one-dimensional periodic media, Physica D: Nonli near Phenomena 240 (12) (2011) 1055–1068

    2011

  11. [19]

    M. V . Berry, C. J. Howls, Hyperasymptotics, Proceeding s of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical and Physica l Sciences 430 (1880) (1990) 653–668

    1990

  12. [20]

    M. V . Berry, Uniform asymptotic smoothing of stokes’s d iscon- tinuities, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Ma th- ematical and Physical Sciences 422 (1862) (1989) 7–21

    1989

  13. [21]

    Say, Exponential asymptotics: multi-level asympto tics of model problems, Ph.D

    F. Say, Exponential asymptotics: multi-level asympto tics of model problems, Ph.D. thesis, University of Nottingham (2016)

    2016

  14. [22]

    Abramowitz, I

    M. Abramowitz, I. A. Stegun, Handbook of Mathematical F unc- tions with Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables, nint h dover printing, tenth gpo printing Edition, Dover, New Y ork , 1964

    1964

  15. [23]

    D. E. Pelinovsky, P . G. Kevrekidis, Dark solitons in ext ernal potentials, Zeitschrift f¨ ur angewandte Mathematik und Ph ysik 59 (4) (2007) 559–599

    2007

  16. [24]

    Chugunova, D

    M. Chugunova, D. Pelinovsky, Count of eigenvalues in th e gen- eralized eigenvalue problem, Journal of Mathematical Phys ics 51 (5) (2010) 052901

    2010

  17. [25]

    Kapitula, B

    T. Kapitula, B. Sandstede, Eigenvalues and resonances using the Evans function, Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems 10 (4) (2004) 857–869

    2004

  18. [26]

    I. C. Ipsen, Computing an eigenvector with inverse iter ation, SIAM review 39 (2) (1997) 254–291

    1997

  19. [27]

    G. W. Stewart, A Krylov–Schur algorithm for large eigen prob- lems, SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications 23 (3 ) (2002) 601–614

    2002

  20. [28]

    Petrov, Quantum mechanical stabilization of a colla psing Bose-Bose mixture, Physical Review Letters 115 (15) (2015) 155302

    D. Petrov, Quantum mechanical stabilization of a colla psing Bose-Bose mixture, Physical Review Letters 115 (15) (2015) 155302

    2015

  21. [29]

    Petrov, G

    D. Petrov, G. Astrakharchik, Ultradilute low-dimensi onal liq- uids, Physical Review Letters 117 (10) (2016) 100401

    2016

  22. [30]

    Z.-H. Luo, W. Pang, B. Liu, Y .-Y . Li, B. A. Malomed, A new form of liquid matter: Quantum droplets, Frontiers of Physi cs 16 (2021) 1–21

    2021

  23. [31]

    M. Guo, T. Pfau, A new state of matter of quantum droplets , Frontiers of Physics 16 (3) (2021) 32202

    2021

  24. [32]

    B¨ ottcher, J.-N

    F. B¨ ottcher, J.-N. Schmidt, J. Hertkorn, K. S. Ng, S. D. Graham, M. Guo, T. Langen, T. Pfau, New states of matter with fine-tuned interactions: quantum droplets and dipolar supersolids, R eports on Progress in Physics 84 (1) (2020) 012403

    2020

  25. [33]

    Cabrera, L

    C. Cabrera, L. Tanzi, J. Sanz, B. Naylor, P . Thomas, P . Ch einey, L. Tarruell, Quantum liquid droplets in a mixture of Bose- Einstein condensates, Science 359 (6373) (2018) 301–304

    2018

  26. [34]

    Morera, G

    I. Morera, G. E. Astrakharchik, A. Polls, B. Juli´ a-D´ ı az, Uni- versal dimerized quantum droplets in a one-dimensional lat tice, Physical Review Letters 126 (2) (2021) 023001

    2021

  27. [35]

    Natale, T

    G. Natale, T. Bland, S. Gschwendtner, L. La fforgue, D. S. Gr¨ un, A. Patscheider, M. J. Mark, F. Ferlaino, Bloch oscillations and matter-wave localization of a dipolar quantum gas in a one- dimensional lattice, Communications Physics 5 (1) (2022) 2 27

    2022

  28. [36]

    Chomaz, I

    L. Chomaz, I. Ferrier-Barbut, F. Ferlaino, B. Laburthe -Tolra, B. L. Lev, T. Pfau, Dipolar physics: a review of experiments with magnetic quantum gases, Reports on Progress in Physics 86 (2) (2022) 026401

    2022

  29. [37]

    Kusdiantara, H

    R. Kusdiantara, H. Susanto, F. Adriano, N. Karjanto, An alysis of multistability in discrete quantum droplets and bubbles, C haos, Solitons & Fractals 187 (2024) 115410

    2024

  30. [38]

    Y . V . Kartashov, D. A. Zezyulin, Enhanced mobility of qu an- tum droplets in periodic lattices, Chaos, Solitons & Fracta ls 182 (2024) 114838

    2024

  31. [39]

    B. A. Malomed, D. Mihalache, F. Wise, L. Torner, Multidi - mensional solitons: Well-established results and novel fin dings, Journal of Optics B: Quantum and Semiclassical Optics 4 (2) (2002) R53

    2002

  32. [40]

    B. A. Malomed, Nonlinearity and discreteness: Soliton s in lat- tices, Emerging Frontiers in Nonlinear Science (2020) 81–1 10

    2020

  33. [41]

    Bakkali-Hassani, C

    B. Bakkali-Hassani, C. Maury, Y .-Q. Zou, ´E. Le Cerf, R. Saint- Jalm, P . C. M. Castilho, S. Nascimbene, J. Dalibard, J. Beugnon, Realization of a Townes soliton in a two-component planar bose gas, Physical Review Letters 127 (2) (2021) 023603

    2021

  34. [42]

    Lustri, P

    C. Lustri, P . Kevrekidis, S. Chapman, Exponential asym ptotics for translational modes in the discrete nonlinear Schr¨ odi nger model, arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.08534 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Lustri, I

    C. Lustri, I. Aniceto, P . Kevrekidis, Borel-Pad´ e’ exp onen- tial asymptotics for the discrete nonlinear Schr¨ odinger m odel 20 with next-to-nearest neighbour interactions, arXiv prepr int arXiv:2506.21120 (2025). 21

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

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