An Extended Soliton's Zero Modes

Hui Liu; Jarah Evslin

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 48 references

An Extended Soliton's Zero Modes

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For an infinite domain wall string, the zero-mode wave function can be chosen normalizable: nonzero translation modes restore translation invariance, and the resulting meson-to-translation-mode scattering probability is infrared finite.

desk verdict A careful, non-circular construction of normalizable zero modes for infinite domain wall strings, with one clean scattering prediction; the decompactification prescription needs justification and the membrane finiteness claim is wrong. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.18922 v1 pith:HBYPUAOK submitted 2025-07-25 hep-th

Jarah Evslin , Hui Liu This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-th PACS 11.27.+d

keywords domainwallstringzeromodessolitonquantizationtranslationinvarianceStokesscatteringphi^4modelinfrareddivergencenormalizability

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 sets out to show that the zero-mode problem of soliton quantization is different, and simpler, for infinitely extended solitons than for localized ones. For an infinite domain wall string, the translation zero mode can be given a normalizable wave function, because translation invariance is restored not by a flat nonnormalizable superposition but by the infrared continuum of nonzero translation modes. The paper constructs the corresponding ground states for domain wall strings and membranes and uses them to compute, in the $\phi^4$ double-well model, the differential probability that a single incoming meson excites a string translation mode of momentum $p_3$; the result is finite at small $p_3$. A sympathetic reader would care because it removes a long-standing obstruction to scattering and loop calculations around extended solitons, and because it gives a concrete prediction (Eq. 6.15) that can be compared with the shape-mode analogue.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the zero-mode sector of the domain wall string on a large circle, together with the definition of the infinite string as the double-scaling limit $T/R\to 0$ in which the center-of-mass kinetic term $\pi_{B0}^2/(4\pi R)$ vanishes. In this limit the ground states are $$|0\rangle_\psi = |0\rangle_+ \otimes \int dx\,\psi(x)|x\rangle,$$ where $|x\rangle$ are position eigenstates of the zero-mode coordinate $\phi_0 = \lim_{R\to\infty} (2\pi R)^{-1}\int dx\,g_B(x)\int dy\,\phi(x,y)$ and $|0\rangle_+$ is the product of Gaussian ground states of the nonzero oscillators. The nonzero translation modes contribute a position variance $\Delta x^2 = (1/2\pi\rho_0)\int dp\,1/|p|$, whose infrared divergence delocalizes the string, restoring translation invariance while leaving $\psi(x)$ free to be normalizable. This zero-mode structure is what removes the need for a quotient by translations and underlies the scattering computation.

What would settle it

The decisive calculation is the one-loop correction to elastic meson–domain-wall-string scattering: if the amplitude receives zero-mode contributions that are not suppressed by powers of $1/(2\pi R)$, the paper's central claim is falsified. A numerical check on a large circle—whether the ground-state center-of-mass variance grows linearly with $R$ (flat distribution) or instead through the infrared divergence of nonzero modes—would also settle the normalizability question directly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is a shift in how the zero mode behaves when a soliton is infinitely extended. For a localized soliton or a string wrapped on a finite circle, the ground state must be a flat superposition over zero-mode positions, making the zero-mode wave function nonnormalizable and forcing amplitudes to be divided by the translation symmetry. For the infinite domain wall string, defined as the double-scaling limit $T/R\to 0$ of the compact string, the translation zero mode becomes one member of a continuous family of translation modes; the nonzero modes already give the position a Gaussian distribution of infinite variance, restoring translation invariance in accord with the no-Goldstone-boson theorem in 1+1 dimensions. The zero-mode wave function itself can then be chosen normalizable, and the degenerate ground states are indexed by arbitrary wave functions $\psi(x)$ in a zero-mode coordinate, with different positions related by infinite-action instantons. The paper applies this to Stokes scattering, obtaining the differential probability (Eq. 6.15) that an incoming meson excites a translation mode of momentum $p_3$ on a $\phi^4$ domain wall string; this probability is infrared finite, the naive $1/|p_3|$ divergence being cancelled.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim rests on defining the infinite string as the double-scaling limit $T/R\to 0$ with $T$ larger than every perturbative scale, and on assuming the nonzero translation modes sit in their ground states; if instead one uses an $R\to\infty$ limit that keeps the zero-mode commutator $2\pi i R$, or excites the nonzero modes, the normalizability conclusion and the scattering formula would need to be re-derived.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For an infinitely extended domain wall string, translation symmetry is preserved by the infrared nonzero modes, so the translation group never needs to be quotiented out of physical amplitudes.
The zero-mode part of the string ground state is a freely chosen normalizable wave function $\psi(x)$; it is untouched at leading order in Stokes scattering, so the leading recoil probability is the naive one obtained by replacing the shape mode with the translation mode.
The differential Stokes scattering probability in the $\phi^4$ model is infrared finite: Eq. (6.15) behaves as $|p_3|^2$ at small $p_3$ after the naive $1/|p_3|$ singularity is cancelled, with only the usual kinematic $1/k_0$ enhancement at low incoming momentum.
For infinite domain wall membranes, the position variance from nonzero modes is finite because the momentum-space integral is two-dimensional; there the zero-mode wave function can be normalizable and translation symmetry can actually be broken, unlike the string.
The zero modes of extended solitons are expected not to contribute to loop corrections to meson–domain-wall scattering, because the kinetic term that would cancel zero-mode insertions is suppressed by the string length; the paper leaves explicit verification to future work.

Reading between the lines

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

If the central claim holds, the divide-by-translation-symmetry apparatus and its Jacobian factor can be bypassed for any infinitely extended soliton whose zero mode lies in a continuum band; a direct test is a one-loop elastic meson–string amplitude, where the paper expects zero-mode contributions to be suppressed by powers of $1/(2\pi R)$.
Because the different zero-mode positions are separated by infinite-action instantons, the degenerate ground states form superselection sectors; a measurement sensitive to the string's recoil position should see no interference between sectors even if each sector's wave function is normalizable.
The same double-scaling-limit logic may apply on the light front, where zero modes are famously subtle: taking the infinite-volume limit before quantizing could turn light-front zero modes into normalizable band members, potentially clarifying the debated vacuum-structure role of light-front zero modes that the paper cites as motivation.
The order of limits matters: if one instead decompactifies with $R\to\infty$ while keeping the zero-mode commutator $2\pi i R$ finite, the ground state would retain the flat nonnormalizable profile; the paper's results are therefore specific to the $T/R\to 0$ definition of an infinite string.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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

Colleague,

This is a careful paper that mostly delivers what it promises. The new stuff: an explicit construction of the zero-mode part of the domain wall string ground state, both on a compact circle and in the uncompactified limit, and a parameter-free formula (6.15) for the differential probability that a single meson excites a translation mode of the string. The construction in Secs. 2–3 is clean; the free Hamiltonian is diagonalized exactly, and the zero-mode wave functions follow from the annihilation conditions. I also think the central claim—that for an infinite string the translation zero mode can be chosen normalizable, so no quotient by translations is needed—is defensible under the paper's own definition of the infinite string via the double-scaling limit T/R→0.

The stress-test is right to worry, but it doesn't land as a fatal blow. The T/R argument alone does not select a unique infinite-volume representation; the limit of the compact ground states is the nonnormalizable constant. The paper chooses a different representation by hand. That choice is legitimate only because the paper explicitly defines the infinite string as that limit, and because at tree level the scattering amplitude does not involve the zero-mode operator ϕ0, so the probability (6.15) is independent of ψ. The paper should have said this more directly—right now it leans on 'we consider this to be quite unlikely' for the nonzero-mode ground state choice, which is not an argument. A referee should ask for a clearer statement of why the normalizable representation is the physical one, or at least a proof that the S-matrix elements are unchanged in the nonnormalizable representation after the standard division by the translation volume.

There are two smaller issues. First, the claim in Sec. 3.1 that any differentiable ψ provides a degenerate vacuum is overbroad; the actual condition is a bound on ψ′/ψ that depends on the double-scaling parameter. This is minor and doesn't affect later results. Second, the membrane finiteness claim in Sec. 5 looks wrong: the 2D variance integral ∫ d²p/|p| is linearly UV divergent, not finite. The text says the p in the numerator removes the IR divergence, which is true, but the UV divergence remains. This is a real error in a side remark, and the membrane discussion needs a cutoff or a different argument.

Who is this for? People working on soliton quantization, LSPT, and cosmic strings. It is an honest, non-circular derivation with one explicit new prediction. The main result is not revolutionary, but it is useful.

Send it to review. With the membrane issue and the representation clarity, I'd expect a conditional accept after revision.

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper studies the quantum mechanics of the translation zero mode of extended solitons. For the domain wall string on a cylinder (Sec. 2) the ground state has a flat, nonnormalizable zero-mode wave function, exactly as for a localized kink. The paper then introduces a double-scaling limit (3.1), T/R→0 with T→∞ faster than all perturbative scales, in which the zero-mode kinetic energy times T vanishes for sufficiently slowly varying wave functions; this produces a family of degenerate ground states whose zero-mode factor ψ can be chosen normalizable (Table 1 and Sec. 4). Translation invariance of the full state is argued to be restored not by the zero mode but by the infinite variance contributed by the nonzero translation modes, consistent with Coleman's theorem (Secs. 3.2–4). The same construction is sketched for domain wall membranes (Sec. 5). As an application, the paper derives the tree-level differential probability (6.10), evaluated for the φ⁴ model in (6.15), that a single incoming meson excites a string translation mode of momentum p₃; in the φ⁴ model the 1/|p₃| infrared divergence is canceled by the momentum dependence of the vertex, so the differential probability vanishes linearly as p₃→0.

Significance. The strongest parts of the paper are the explicit mode decomposition and the free Hamiltonian of the wrapped string (Secs. 2.2–2.3), which are careful and internally consistent, and the tree-level scattering prediction (6.15), which is a parameter-free consequence of the Hamiltonian and a concrete target for direct numerical or analytic checks; I found no circularity in the derivation. If the central claim is accepted, the paper establishes a genuine qualitative difference between localized and extended solitons: for the infinite string the zero-mode factor of the vacuum may be chosen normalizable, avoiding the translation-volume quotient and its Jacobian (ref. [22]) that complicate kink amplitudes, while the string remains translation-invariant through its gapless nonzero translation modes. That said, the claim is tied to the double-scaling prescription and to the assumed ground state of the nonzero modes (the latter flagged by the authors in Sec. 3.2 as open), the membrane generalization in Sec. 5 contains a finiteness error, and the derivation of the scattering master formula is not shown.

major comments (4)

[§3.1, Eqs. (3.5)–(3.6)] The paragraph after Eq. (3.5) concludes that 'any function ψ(x) which is differentiable in the large R limit will provide a degenerate vacuum,' but this is inconsistent with the criterion derived in the same paragraph. The quantity that must vanish is πRT⟨ψ′|ψ′⟩/⟨ψ|ψ⟩; for a differentiable ψ with O(1) derivative scale in x this is O(πRT), which diverges in the double-scaling limit (R→∞ and T→∞ with T/R→0), rather than vanishing. What the computation supports is the condition stated in Eq. (3.6), namely that ψ have a fixed (R-independent) profile in the physical center-of-mass coordinate x/(2πR√ρ₀). Since this bound is the actual basis for the central claim in Table 1, please restate the normalizability claim with this precise condition and correct the 'any differentiable ψ' sentence.
[§3.1–§4, Eqs. (3.1), (4.14)] The normalizable zero-mode wave function is selected by the double-scaling prescription (3.1), not by the strict decompactification limit. In the compact theory the unique ground state satisfies πB0|0⟩=0 and therefore has ψ=const, a nonnormalizable wave function; the (weak) limit of the compact ground states is this nonnormalizable constant, while the states |ψ⟩=∫dx ψ(x)|x⟩ with normalizable ψ are limits of states whose energy×T tends to zero. The paper defines the infinite string to be the double-scaling limit (Sec. 4) but does not argue why this representation is the physical one; the Sec. 3.2 note that alternatives for the nonzero modes are 'quite unlikely' is an assertion, not a derivation, and the authors' own discussion there flags the question as open. Please either justify the representation (for instance, by showing that all observables in the sector π₀=0 are independent of ψ, using the Sec. 6.2 tree-level test as evidence), or state explicitly that the normalizability claim holds by prescription. Relatedly, the continuum zero-mode kinetic term in Eq. (4.14), πB0π0/2, equals πRπ₀² and is not a well-defined finite operator as R→∞ unless one restricts to the π₀=0 sector (π₀ is central, with [φ₀,π₀]=0); this restriction should be stated explicitly when H′₂ is written down.
[§5] The claim in Sec. 5 that for the membrane 'the variance is finite' because the momentum-space integral 'introduces a factor of p in the numerator of Eq. (3.16) which removes the infrared divergence' is incomplete. The membrane analog of (3.16) is ∫d²p/|p|, which is infrared-finite but linearly ultraviolet-divergent; without a UV cutoff the variance is not finite, and the statement 'there are ground states in which the domain wall is localized' does not follow from (3.16) alone. Please supply the cutoff-regulated expression (or a different localization argument) and adjust Table 1's membrane row accordingly.
[§6.2–§6.3, Eqs. (6.9)–(6.15)] The step from Eq. (6.9) to the master formula (6.10) is not shown; the text defers to Ref. [25], but the kinematics differ from the shape-mode case because the final-state energy is Ω_{k₂p₂}+|p₃| and the zero-mode phase space introduces new Jacobian factors. In fact, substituting the φ⁴ vertex (6.14) directly into (6.10) yields a prefactor of 6λπ⁵/[...] rather than the 27λπ/[...] of Eq. (6.15), a factor of 27/(6π⁴) ≈ 0.046, assuming the integration measure and the √(2πR) rescalings of Eq. (4.12) introduce no additional powers. Please display the derivation of (6.10) from (6.9), including the wave-packet normalization, the density of final states, and the zero-mode normalization, and verify the numerical prefactor of (6.15).

minor comments (7)

[Sec. 1] The sentence 'In Ref. 4 we define the infinite domain wall string to be that of the previous section' should presumably read 'In Sec. 4,' since the surrounding text discusses the sections of this paper rather than a reference.
[§3.2–§4, Eqs. (3.14)–(3.16), (4.1)–(4.3)] The symbol p is used both for the discrete mode index and for the continuum momentum, with the conversion written as p = p/R in Eq. (3.15); please use distinct notation for the two quantities, as this makes Secs. 3.2 and 4 needlessly hard to follow.
[Fig. 2] Figure 2 appears to plot the probability for k₀ = m/2 and k₀ = m beyond the kinematic threshold |p₃| = k₀²/(2ω_{k₀}) (≈0.11m and ≈0.35m for m=1), where the argument √(k₀²−2ω_{k₀}|p₃|) of Eq. (6.15) is imaginary; please restrict the curves to the physical range or explain how they were extended.
[§6.2, Eq. (6.8)] Please spell out that p₂+p₃ is the incoming meson's y-momentum, as follows from the momentum-conservation delta δ(p₁−p₂−p₃) in (6.4), and that the initial wave packet (6.5) is peaked at p₁=0, so the final state is peaked at p₂≈−p₃; this is implicit in the passage from (6.9) to (6.10).
[§6.3, Eq. (6.15)] The text states the lower bound of validity |p₃|≫mλ but not the kinematic upper bound |p₃|<k₀²/(2ω_{k₀}); please state the full range of validity next to the formula.
[§4] The statement that the states |x⟩ are 'distinct superselection sectors' is in tension with the coherent treatment used in Eqs. (3.3)–(3.5), where off-diagonal coherences ⟨x|π²_{B0}|x′⟩ carry the kinetic energy; please add a sentence reconciling the perturbative treatment of ψ with the superselection claim.
[§6.2, Eq. (6.6)] The condition '0<1/k0' appears to be a typo for '0<k0'; please correct it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the central claims are derived from the stated Hamiltonian and limiting definition, with no observable fitted and no load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's derivation is self-contained rather than circular. The compact-string Hamiltonian is expanded in normal modes and H'_2 is diagonalized explicitly, with the zero-mode kinetic term displayed in Eq. (2.32). The claim that a normalizable zero-mode wave function is allowed in the infinite-string limit follows from the stated double-scaling definition T/R -> 0 and the explicit estimate of the kinetic expectation value in Eq. (3.5); it is presented as a freedom, not as a forced prediction. The Gaussian wave functions for nonzero modes in Eq. (3.12) are derived from the annihilation condition (3.11), not imposed by ansatz. The infinite-string operators are defined in Eqs. (4.1)-(4.6), and the scattering probability in Eqs. (6.10) and (6.15) is a parameter-free consequence of the Hamiltonian: the vertex V_B is computed from the potential and normal modes in Eq. (6.14), and the cancellation of the 1/|p3| divergence is an explicit algebraic result. Self-citations to Refs. [20,25,44] provide methodology and prior compact-domain-wall quantization, but the present calculation re-derives the relevant Hamiltonian and vertex, and no author-invoked uniqueness theorem is used to forbid alternatives. The main caveat is the assumption that nonzero modes sit in their ground states, which the paper itself flags as an assumption ('we consider this to be quite unlikely'); this is a limitation rather than a circular step. Moreover, the tree-level interaction in Eq. (6.4) does not contain the zero-mode operator phi_0, so the zero-mode wave-function choice does not affect the quoted probability; the central application is independent of the normalizability claim. No circularity can be exhibited by quoting the paper's equations reducing to their own inputs.

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

No constants are fitted to data; the only inputs are the mass m and coupling lambda of the scalar field theory, plus the physical choices of wave packet width and position which cancel in the probability. The listed axioms are the technical assumptions of the semiclassical LSPT framework and the specific decompactification prescription.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption Semiclassical expansion: lambda*hbar/m is small and positive, so normal modes decompose the quantum fields and interactions H'_n>2 are suppressed by powers of sqrt(lambda).
Used throughout Sec. 2 to justify quantizing small fluctuations about the classical solution and old-fashioned perturbation theory.
standard math The normal modes (zero mode, shape modes, continuum modes) together with plane waves in y form a complete basis for functions on the cylinder, with a dual basis reproducing delta(x,y).
Invoked in Sec. 2.2 for the invertible decomposition (2.14)-(2.15); completeness of Sturm-Liouville eigenfunctions plus Fourier completeness in y.
standard math Coleman's theorem: continuous internal symmetries are not spontaneously broken in 1+1 dimensions.
Used in Sec. 3.2 to interpret why translation symmetry of the infinite string is restored by nonzero modes.
ad hoc to paper The infinite domain wall string is defined as the limit of the compact string with the double-scaling limit T/R to 0 and T diverging faster than all perturbative scales (Eq. 3.1).
This specific prescription makes the zero-mode kinetic term vanish and is the basis for the normalizable zero-mode wave function claim; it is not forced by the physics and the paper does not compare with other decompactification prescriptions.
domain assumption At fixed T the nonzero modes are taken to be in their ground states; any fixed nonzero mode is assumed arbitrarily close to its ground state for sufficiently large T.
Stated in Sec. 3.2 with a brief justification; more general initial states for nonzero modes are explicitly left to future work.
standard math The phi^4 kink is reflectionless (C=0) and the mode functions in Eq. (6.13), together with the matrix element Eq. (6.14), are exact.
These are standard, verifiable results for the phi^4 model, used in Sec. 6.3 to obtain the explicit probability.
domain assumption The wave packet initial state and large-time limit of Sec. 6.2 follow the calculation of Ref. [25].
Eq. (6.9) and the resulting master formula (6.10) are stated to follow Ref. [25]; the paper does not re-derive the saddle-point or large-time approximations.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An Extended Soliton's Zero Modes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HBYPUAOK

@misc{pith2026250718922,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An Extended Soliton's Zero Modes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HBYPUAOK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.18922}
}

read the original abstract

Quantum field theory in the presence of localized solitons is more complicated than vacuum sector quantum field theory, largely as a result of the soliton's zero modes. In the present work, we try to understand to what extent this situation carries over to extended solitons. To this end, we explicitly construct the quantum state corresponding to a domain wall string or membrane, treating the zero modes carefully. This is done both for compact and also infinitely extended solitons. As an application, we calculate the differential probability for a domain wall string's translation mode, with a given momentum, to be excited by a single quantum of incoming radiation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.18922 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** The probability density for the creation of a translation mode with momentum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

[22]

A reduced inner product for kink states,

J. Evslin and H. Liu, “A reduced inner product for kink states,” JHEP 03 (2023), 070 doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2023)070 [arXiv:2212.10344 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2023
[25]

(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]]

arXiv 2025
[1]

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
[2]

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

doi:10.1103/physrevd.11.1486 1975
[3]

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
[4]

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

doi:10.1016/0370-1573(78)90058-3 1978
[5]

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]]

arXiv 2018
[6]

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]]

arXiv 2019

Show all 48 references

[7]

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]]. 23

2022 arXiv
[8]

Soliton Quantization,

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

1975
[9]

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

1976 doi
[10]

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

1977 doi
[11]

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

1958
[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
[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
[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
[15]

Gravitational form factors of a kink in 1 + 1 dimensional ϕ4 model,

H. Ito and M. Kitazawa, “Gravitational form factors of a kink in 1 + 1 dimensional ϕ4 model,” JHEP 08 (2023), 033 doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2023)033 [arXiv:2302.08762 [hep- th]]

2023 arXiv
[16]

Framework for the Forced Soliton Equation: Regularization, Numerical Solutions, and Perturbation Theory,

Z. J. Allamon, Q. A. Hales, A. B. Royston, D. L. Rutledge and E. A. Yozie, “Framework for the Forced Soliton Equation: Regularization, Numerical Solutions, and Perturbation Theory,” [arXiv:2412.09487 [hep-th]]

arXiv
[17]

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
[18]

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
[19]

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
[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]]. 24

2019 arXiv
[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
[23]

Elastic Kink-Meson scattering,

J. Evslin and H. Liu, “Elastic Kink-Meson scattering,” JHEP 04 (2024), 072 doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2024)072 [arXiv:2311.14369 [hep-th]]

2024 arXiv
[24]

There are no Goldstone bosons in two-dimensions,

S. R. Coleman, “There are no Goldstone bosons in two-dimensions,” Commun. Math. Phys. 31 (1973), 259-264 doi:10.1007/BF01646487

1973 doi
[26]

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
[27]

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
[28]

Exciting the domain wall soliton,

J. J. Blanco-Pillado, D. Jim´ enez-Aguilar and J. Urrestilla, “Exciting the domain wall soliton,” JCAP 01 (2021), 027 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2021/01/027 [arXiv:2006.13255 [hep-th]]

2021 arXiv
[29]

A Unified Field Theory of Mesons and Baryons,

T. H. R. Skyrme, “A Unified Field Theory of Mesons and Baryons,” Nucl. Phys. 31 (1962), 556-569 doi:10.1016/0029-5582(62)90775-7

1962 doi
[30]

Current Algebra, Baryons, and Quark Confinement,

E. Witten, “Current Algebra, Baryons, and Quark Confinement,” Nucl. Phys. B 223 (1983), 433-444 doi:10.1016/0550-3213(83)90064-0

1983 doi
[31]

Nonlinear rigid-body quantization of Skyrmions,

S. B. Gudnason, “Nonlinear rigid-body quantization of Skyrmions,” Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) no.12, 125001 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.125001 [arXiv:2311.11667 [hep-th]]

2024 arXiv
[32]

Compressibility of dense nuclear matter in the ρ-meson variant of the Skyrme model,

M. Huidobro, P. Leask, C. Naya and A. Wereszczynski, “Compressibility of dense nuclear matter in the ρ-meson variant of the Skyrme model,” JHEP 01 (2025), 048 doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2025)048 [arXiv:2405.20757 [hep-th]]. 25

2025 arXiv
[33]

Factorization of Hard Processes in QCD,

J. C. Collins, D. E. Soper and G. F. Sterman, “Factorization of Hard Processes in QCD,” Adv. Ser. Direct. High Energy Phys. 5 (1989), 1-91 doi:10.1142/9789814503266 0001 [arXiv:hep-ph/0409313 [hep-ph]]

1989 arXiv
[34]

Spontaneous symmetry breaking of Phi**4 in (1+1)-dimensions in light front field theory,

C. M. Bender, S. Pinsky and B. Van de Sande, “Spontaneous symmetry breaking of Phi**4 in (1+1)-dimensions in light front field theory,” Phys. Rev. D48 (1993), 816-821 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.48.816 [arXiv:hep-th/9212009 [hep-th]]

1993 arXiv
[35]

The Vacuum structure of light front phi**4 in (1+1)-dimensions theory,

T. Heinzl, C. Stern, E. Werner and B. Zellermann, “The Vacuum structure of light front phi**4 in (1+1)-dimensions theory,” Z. Phys. C 72 (1996), 353-364 doi:10.1007/s002880050256 [arXiv:hep-th/9512179 [hep-th]]

1996 arXiv
[36]

Phase transition in light front phi**4(1+1),

V. T. Kim, G. B. Pivovarov and J. P. Vary, “Phase transition in light front phi**4(1+1),” Phys. Rev. D 69 (2004), 085008 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.69.085008 [arXiv:hep-th/0310216 [hep-th]]

2004 arXiv
[37]

Zero modes in the light-front coupled- cluster method,

S. S. Chabysheva and J. R. Hiller, “Zero modes in the light-front coupled- cluster method,” Annals Phys. 340 (2014), 188-204 doi:10.1016/j.aop.2013.10.016 [arXiv:1208.6076 [hep-ph]]

2014 arXiv
[38]

Nonperturbative light-front Hamiltonian methods,

J. R. Hiller, “Nonperturbative light-front Hamiltonian methods,” Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 90 (2016), 75-124 doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2016.06.002 [arXiv:1606.08348 [hep-ph]]

2016 arXiv
[39]

QUANTUM KINKS ON THE NULL PLANE,

J. Baacke, “QUANTUM KINKS ON THE NULL PLANE,” Z. Phys. C 1 (1979), 349 doi:10.1007/BF01546973

1979 doi
[40]

Spontaneous symmetry breaking at infinite momentum without P+ zero modes,

J. S. Rozowsky and C. B. Thorn, “Spontaneous symmetry breaking at infinite momentum without P+ zero modes,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 85 (2000), 1614-1617 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.1614 [arXiv:hep-th/0003301 [hep-th]]

2000 arXiv
[41]

Universality in effective strings,

S. Jaimungal, G. W. Semenoff and K. Zarembo, “Universality in effective strings,” JETP Lett. 69 (1999), 509-515 doi:10.1134/1.568059

1999 doi
[42]

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
[43]

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,” Phys. Rev. D 111 (2025) no.5, 056007 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.056007 [arXiv:2411.13521 [hep-th]]. 26

2025 arXiv
[44]

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
[45]

Normal modes of the small-amplitude oscillon,

J. Evslin, T. Romanczukiewicz, K. Slawinska and A. Wereszczynski, “Normal modes of the small-amplitude oscillon,” JHEP 01 (2025), 039 doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2025)039 [arXiv:2409.15661 [hep-th]]

2025 arXiv
[46]

I-balls,

S. Kasuya, M. Kawasaki and F. Takahashi, “I-balls,” Phys. Lett. B 559 (2003), 99-106 doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(03)00344-7 [arXiv:hep-ph/0209358 [hep-ph]]

2003 arXiv
[47]

Oscillons from Q-Balls through Renormalization,

F. Blaschke, T. Roma´ nczukiewicz, K. S lawi´ nska and A. Wereszczy´ nski, “Oscillons from Q-Balls through Renormalization,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 134 (2025) no.8, 081601 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.081601 [arXiv:2410.24109 [hep-th]]

2025 arXiv
[48]

Q-ball polar- ization – a smooth path to oscillons,

F. Blaschke, T. Romanczukiewicz, K. Slawinska and A. Wereszczynski, “Q-ball polar- ization – a smooth path to oscillons,” [arXiv:2502.20519 [hep-th]]. 27

arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [22]

A reduced inner product for kink states,

J. Evslin and H. Liu, “A reduced inner product for kink states,” JHEP 03 (2023), 070 doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2023)070 [arXiv:2212.10344 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2023

[2] [25]

(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]]

arXiv 2025

[3] [1]

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

[4] [2]

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

doi:10.1103/physrevd.11.1486 1975

[5] [3]

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

[6] [4]

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

doi:10.1016/0370-1573(78)90058-3 1978

[7] [5]

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]]

arXiv 2018

[8] [6]

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]]

arXiv 2019