pith. sign in

arxiv: 2511.20527 · v2 · pith:TGA64PVEnew · submitted 2025-11-25 · ✦ hep-th

Phases of Giant Magnetic Vortex Strings

Thomas T. Dumitrescu , Amey P. Gaikwad This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-17 04:59 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-th
keywords giant vorticesAbelian Higgs modelAbrikosov-Nielsen-Olesen stringsuniversality classeslarge-n limitmagnetic fluxbinding energyvortex stability
0
0 comments X

The pith

Giant vortex strings in Abelian Higgs models admit exact solutions in the large-flux limit that organize into distinct phases set by the Higgs potential.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper studies Abrikosov-Nielsen-Olesen magnetic vortex strings in 3+1 dimensional Abelian Higgs models in the giant vortex regime, where the strings are infinitely long, axially symmetric, and carry large magnetic flux n that causes them to spread out transversely. The authors demonstrate that the nonlinear equations for these configurations can be solved essentially exactly. The resulting solutions fall into universality classes determined by the form of the Higgs potential, and these classes become sharply distinct phases when n is taken to infinity while the transverse size stays finite. This exact control is then used to determine binding energies and stability for the strings in each class.

Core claim

The non-linear equations governing giant vortices can essentially be solved exactly. The solutions fall into different universality classes, reflecting the properties of the Higgs potential, that become sharply distinct phases in the large-n limit. This understanding is used to shed light on the binding energies and stability of vortex strings in each universality class.

What carries the argument

Exact solvability of the transverse profile equations for giant vortices with large magnetic flux n, which classifies solutions into universality classes according to the Higgs potential.

If this is right

  • Different forms of the Higgs potential produce qualitatively different large-n behaviors for the vortex strings.
  • Binding energies become exactly calculable once the universality class is identified.
  • Stability of the strings is fixed by membership in a given phase.
  • The transverse spreading remains finite and controlled even as the magnetic flux grows arbitrarily large.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same reduction to exact solvability may apply to other extended objects carrying large topological charge in gauge theories.
  • Numerical simulations at large but finite n could directly test how rapidly the phase distinctions appear.
  • Analogous large-charge limits in condensed-matter realizations of the Abelian Higgs model might display the same phase structure.

Load-bearing premise

The large-n limit must be taken while keeping the transverse profile finite; otherwise sub-leading corrections in 1/n may prevent the clean emergence of distinct phases for quantities like binding energy.

What would settle it

A numerical computation of the binding energy for a giant vortex at successively larger but finite n that fails to approach the exact large-n prediction would show that the claimed solvability and phase separation do not hold.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.20527 by Amey P. Gaikwad, Thomas T. Dumitrescu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A schematic depiction of an axially symmetric ANO vortex carrying [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The dimensionless, rescaled potentials Ve 4 (φ) and Ve 6 (φ), given in (2.29), corresponding to the conventional and degenerate models, respectively. The curves are shown for a representative choice of the parameter β = 1. See figure 2 for an illustration of the rescaled potentials in the two models. In both the conventional model, with quartic potential V = V4 in (2.3), and the degenerate model, with sext… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The figure depicts numerical solutions for the Higgs field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Higgs and magnetic field profiles for a large string of magnetic flux [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The deep and outer core, boundary, and exterior regions of large- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: For two values of β, we depict the solutions φ(y), γ(y) of the vortex equations in the boundary region, given in (4.33). ing region, are n-independent, it follows that the n-dependence of a∞, φ∞ is entirely fixed by (4.38). (The leading exponentials in these relations were already discussed in [8].) It can indeed be checked that (4.37) are asymptotic solutions of (4.33) close to the Higgs vac￾uum γ = 0, φ … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The boundary function φ(y) is computed numerically and matched with (4.35) in the outer core matching region for y ≪ −1. We show two values of β = 0.5, 0.9. This matching procedure yields the value of Ccore/bdy(β). • With Ccore/bdy(β) determined, we can directly compare the large-n analytic solution 35 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison between the full numerical solution to the vortex equations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of the Higgs field profile obtained from the full numerical solution (de [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison between the full numerical solution to the vortex equations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The center of mass y0 (β) of the domain wall, defined in (5.33). Its various features are discussed in the main text below. • In the extreme type-I regime β → 0, the asymptotic form of y0 (β) is given by,28 y0 (β) ≃ 1 √ 2β (log (1/β) + 2γE + O(β)) , β → 0 , (5.37) where γE ≃ 0.5772 is the Euler-Mascheroni constant. In figure 12 (left panel) we show the excellent agreement between the small-β asymptotics (… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Comparison of the small-β (left panel) and large-β (right panel) asymptotics of y0 (β), given by (5.37) and (5.38) respectively, with the full integral expression (5.33). In the left panel we plot √ 2β y0 (β) to facilitate the comparison. • In the extreme type-II regime β → ∞, y0 (β) approaches30 y0 (β) ≃ − 1 √ 2 , β → ∞ . (5.38) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p053_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: In solid blue we show the analytic boundary Higgs field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p055_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: We show the analytic boundary Higgs field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p056_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: . Comparison between the full numerical solution (shown in black crosses) and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p056_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: In the top panel we compare Tn and nT1 for n = 2, 3 as a function of β, identifying the critical values β n;c in (6.9) below which Tn is stable to decay into nT1 . In the bottom panel we show that the candidate decay channel T3 → T1 + T2 is never realized, because T3 < T1 + T2 for β < β2;c < β3;c . only becomes available for β < β2;c , where T2 is stable. We show in the bottom panel of figure 16 that T3 i… view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Schematic renditions of the interaction potentials [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p062_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Numerical field profiles for the Higgs field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p066_18.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: The figure shows the error functions E1 (u) (shown in red) and E2 (u) (shown in blue), defined in (A.4), evaluated on the numerical solutions at β = 0.8. The left panel corresponds to the fundamental n = 1 string and the right panel corresponds to the n = 20 string solution. These curves quantify how well the numerical profiles satisfy the differential equations. consisting of P = 500 points, and use the … view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Convergence test for the truncation error using the ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p068_20.png] view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: The figure illustrates the relative errors, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p069_21.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We consider Abrikosov-Nielsen-Olesen magnetic vortex strings in 3+1 dimensional Abelian Higgs models. We systematically analyze the giant vortex regime using a combination of analytic and numerical methods. In this regime the strings are infinitely long, axially symmetric, and support a large magnetic flux n along the symmetry axis in their core that causes them to spread out in the transverse directions. Extending previous observations, we show that the non-linear equations governing giant vortices can essentially be solved exactly. The solutions fall into different universality classes, reflecting the properties of the Higgs potential, that become sharply distinct phases in the large-n limit. We use this understanding to shed light on the binding energies and stability of vortex strings in each universality class.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes Abrikosov-Nielsen-Olesen magnetic vortex strings in 3+1D Abelian Higgs models in the giant vortex regime, where the strings are infinitely long, axially symmetric, and carry large magnetic flux n. It claims that the non-linear equations can be solved essentially exactly in this regime, with the solutions falling into universality classes determined by the properties of the Higgs potential; these become sharply distinct phases in the large-n limit while keeping the transverse profile finite. The classification is then used to analyze binding energies and stability of the vortex strings, supported by analytic reduction combined with numerical verification for finite n.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work provides a valuable classification of giant vortex phases and insights into their energetics and stability, building on the standard Abelian Higgs Lagrangian with no free parameters or ad-hoc assumptions. The analytic reduction plus numerical checks for finite n is a strength, offering a potential framework for understanding vortex binding in different Higgs potential regimes. This could impact studies of vortices in field theory and condensed matter contexts.

major comments (1)
  1. [Large-n limit and binding energy analysis] The central claim that the solutions organize into sharply distinct universality classes in the large-n limit (with finite transverse profile) and that this controls binding energies and stability depends on sub-leading O(1/n) corrections to the profile and integrated energy being parametrically small. The manuscript provides analytic reduction and numerical verification for finite n but does not include a rigorous error estimate or scaling bound on these corrections for the binding energy. If the corrections remain O(1) or decay slower than 1/n for physically relevant quantities, the claimed sharp phase distinctions would be formal rather than realized at accessible n. A concrete analysis of the 1/n expansion for the binding energy (e.g., in the section on universality classes or energy calculations) is needed to support the load-bearing claim.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract refers to 'extending previous observations' without citing the specific prior vortex work; adding a brief reference would improve context.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We appreciate the positive assessment of the work's potential impact and address the major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Large-n limit and binding energy analysis] The central claim that the solutions organize into sharply distinct universality classes in the large-n limit (with finite transverse profile) and that this controls binding energies and stability depends on sub-leading O(1/n) corrections to the profile and integrated energy being parametrically small. The manuscript provides analytic reduction and numerical verification for finite n but does not include a rigorous error estimate or scaling bound on these corrections for the binding energy. If the corrections remain O(1) or decay slower than 1/n for physically relevant quantities, the claimed sharp phase distinctions would be formal rather than realized at accessible n. A concrete analysis of the 1/n expansion for the binding energy (e.g., in the section on universality classes or energy calculations) is needed to support the load-bearing claim

    Authors: We agree that a more explicit treatment of the sub-leading corrections would strengthen the presentation. The analytic reduction proceeds by rescaling the transverse radial coordinate as r → r/√n (or equivalent, depending on the potential), which renders the profile functions n-independent at leading order while the equations become effectively two-dimensional. The integrated energy (and thus binding energy per unit length) then receives a leading contribution fixed by this limiting profile, with corrections arising from the O(1/√n) deviations of the actual finite-n solution from the limit. Our numerical solutions for n up to several hundred already demonstrate rapid convergence of both the rescaled profiles and the scaled binding energies to their limiting values, with the phase distinctions (e.g., different signs or magnitudes of the binding energy) remaining robust. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that an explicit perturbative expansion or a priori bound on the remainder term for the binding energy is not supplied. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated paragraph (or short subsection) deriving the expected O(1/n) scaling of the correction to the binding energy from the linearized perturbation around the large-n solution and confirming consistency with the existing numerics. This will make the parametric smallness of the corrections fully explicit without altering the central claims. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation self-contained from Lagrangian

full rationale

The paper begins from the standard Abelian Higgs Lagrangian in 3+1 dimensions and reduces the vortex equations in the giant regime via the large-n limit with finite transverse profile. The claimed exact solvability and emergence of distinct universality classes follow directly from this controlled approximation and the form of the Higgs potential, without any fitted parameters or self-referential definitions that force the target result. Minor self-citations to prior vortex literature are not load-bearing for the new large-n classification, and the central claims remain independently verifiable against the equations of motion. This is the most common honest finding for a paper whose derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard Abelian Higgs Lagrangian plus the assumption that the large-n limit can be taken while the transverse profile remains well-defined; no new entities are postulated and the only free parameters are those already present in the Higgs potential.

axioms (2)
  • standard math The Abelian Higgs model in 3+1 dimensions admits axially symmetric vortex solutions with integer winding n.
    Invoked when defining the giant-vortex ansatz.
  • domain assumption The large-n limit can be taken while keeping the transverse energy density finite.
    Required for the reduction to exact solvability and the emergence of sharp phases.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5413 in / 1452 out tokens · 48661 ms · 2026-05-17T04:59:34.876785+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    On the Magnetic properties of superconductors of the second group,

    A. A. Abrikosov, “On the Magnetic properties of superconductors of the second group,”Sov. Phys. JETP5(1957) 1174–1182

    work page 1957

  2. [2]

    Vortex Line Models for Dual Strings,

    H. B. Nielsen and P. Olesen, “Vortex Line Models for Dual Strings,”Nucl. Phys. B61 (1973) 45–61

    work page 1973

  3. [3]

    To appear,

    T. Dumitrescu and A. Gaikwad, “To appear,”

    work page

  4. [4]

    N. S. Manton and P. Sutcliffe,Topological solitons. Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics. Cambridge University Press, 2004

    work page 2004

  5. [5]

    Shifman,Advanced topics in quantum field theory.: A lecture course

    M. Shifman,Advanced topics in quantum field theory.: A lecture course. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 2, 2012

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    E. J. Weinberg,Classical solutions in quantum field theory: Solitons and Instantons in High Energy Physics. Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics. Cambridge University Press, 9, 2012

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    What becomes of giant vortices in the abelian higgs model,

    A. A. Penin and Q. Weller, “What becomes of giant vortices in the abelian higgs model,”Phys. Rev. Lett.125(Dec, 2020) 251601. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.251601

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.125.251601 2020

  8. [8]

    A theory of giant vortices,

    A. A. Penin and Q. Weller, “A theory of giant vortices,”Journal of High Energy Physics2021no. 8, (Aug, 2021) .https://arxiv.org/pdf/2105.12137.pdf

    work page arXiv 2021

  9. [9]

    Giant Vortices and the Regge Limit,

    G. Cuomo and Z. Komargodski, “Giant Vortices and the Regge Limit,”JHEP01 (2023) 006,arXiv:2210.15694 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2023

  10. [10]

    Chiral modes of giant superfluid vortices,

    G. Cuomo, Z. Komargodski, and S. Zhong, “Chiral modes of giant superfluid vortices,” Phys. Rev. B110no. 14, (2024) 144514,arXiv:2312.06095 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    work page arXiv 2024

  11. [11]

    Q-balls,

    S. R. Coleman, “Q-balls,”Nucl. Phys. B262no. 2, (1985) 263. [Addendum: Nucl.Phys.B 269, 744 (1986)]

    work page 1985

  12. [12]

    Mandelstam ’t Hooft Duality in Abelian Lattice Models,

    M. E. Peskin, “Mandelstam ’t Hooft Duality in Abelian Lattice Models,”Annals Phys. 113(1978) 122

    work page 1978

  13. [13]

    Phase Transition in a Lattice Model of Superconductivity,

    C. Dasgupta and B. I. Halperin, “Phase Transition in a Lattice Model of Superconductivity,”Phys. Rev. Lett.47(1981) 1556–1560. 71

    work page 1981

  14. [14]

    Domain walls and flux tubes,

    S. Bolognesi, “Domain walls and flux tubes,”Nuclear Physics B730no. 1–2, (Dec.,

    work page

  15. [15]

    127–149.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2005.09.032

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2005.09.032 2005

  16. [16]

    Multi-vortices are wall vortices: A numerical proof,

    S. Bolognesi and S. B. Gudnason, “Multi-vortices are wall vortices: A numerical proof,”Nuclear Physics B741no. 1–2, (May, 2006) 1–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2006.01.038

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2006.01.038 2006

  17. [17]

    Generalized Global Symmetries

    D. Gaiotto, A. Kapustin, N. Seiberg, and B. Willett, “Generalized Global Symmetries,”JHEP02(2015) 172,arXiv:1412.5148 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  18. [18]

    McGreevy, Generalized Symmetries in Condensed Matter, arXiv:2204.03045

    J. McGreevy, “Generalized Symmetries in Condensed Matter,”Ann. Rev. Condensed Matter Phys.14(2023) 57–82,arXiv:2204.03045 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page arXiv 2023

  19. [19]

    Snowmass White Paper: Generalized Symmetries in Quantum Field Theory and Beyond,

    C. Cordova, T. T. Dumitrescu, K. Intriligator, and S.-H. Shao, “Snowmass White Paper: Generalized Symmetries in Quantum Field Theory and Beyond,” inSnowmass

    work page

  20. [20]

    5, 2022.arXiv:2205.09545 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2022

  21. [21]

    Supercurrents and Brane Currents in Diverse Dimensions,

    T. T. Dumitrescu and N. Seiberg, “Supercurrents and Brane Currents in Diverse Dimensions,”JHEP07(2011) 095,arXiv:1106.0031 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2011

  22. [22]

    Dynamical Symmetry Restoration and Constraints on Masses and Coupling Constants in Gauge Theories,

    A. D. Linde, “Dynamical Symmetry Restoration and Constraints on Masses and Coupling Constants in Gauge Theories,”JETP Lett.23(1976) 64–67

    work page 1976

  23. [23]

    Mass of the Higgs Boson,

    S. Weinberg, “Mass of the Higgs Boson,”Phys. Rev. Lett.36(1976) 294–296

    work page 1976

  24. [24]

    Supersymmetry and Selfdual Chern-Simons Systems,

    C.-k. Lee, K.-M. Lee, and E. J. Weinberg, “Supersymmetry and Selfdual Chern-Simons Systems,”Phys. Lett. B243(1990) 105–108

    work page 1990

  25. [25]

    Selfdual Chern-Simons solitons,

    R. Jackiw, K.-M. Lee, and E. J. Weinberg, “Selfdual Chern-Simons solitons,”Phys. Rev. D42(1990) 3488–3499

    work page 1990

  26. [26]

    A. M. Jaffe and C. H. Taubes,VORTICES AND MONOPOLES. STRUCTURE OF STATIC GAUGE THEORIES. 1980

    work page 1980

  27. [27]

    Interaction Energy of Superconducting Vortices,

    L. Jacobs and C. Rebbi, “Interaction Energy of Superconducting Vortices,”Phys. Rev. B19(1979) 4486–4494

    work page 1979

  28. [28]

    The Behavior at Infinity of Isotropic Vortices and Monopoles,

    B. Plohr, “The Behavior at Infinity of Isotropic Vortices and Monopoles,”J. Math. Phys.22(1981) 2184–2190

    work page 1981

  29. [29]

    Asymptotics of nielsen-olesen vortices,

    L. Perivolaropoulos, “Asymptotics of nielsen-olesen vortices,”Physical Review D48 no. 12, (Dec., 1993) 5961–5962.http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.48.5961. 72

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.48.5961 1993

  30. [30]

    On the Equivalence of the First and Second Order Equations for Gauge Theories,

    C. H. Taubes, “On the Equivalence of the First and Second Order Equations for Gauge Theories,”Commun. Math. Phys.75(1980) 207

    work page 1980

  31. [31]

    Semiclassical approximations in wave mechanics,

    M. V. Berry and K. E. Mount, “Semiclassical approximations in wave mechanics,” Rept. Prog. Phys.35(1972) 315

    work page 1972

  32. [32]

    Multivortex Solutions of the Ginzburg-landau Equations,

    E. J. Weinberg, “Multivortex Solutions of the Ginzburg-landau Equations,”Phys. Rev. D19(1979) 3008

    work page 1979

  33. [33]

    Arbitrary N: Vortex Solutions to the First Order Landau-Ginzburg Equations,

    C. H. Taubes, “Arbitrary N: Vortex Solutions to the First Order Landau-Ginzburg Equations,”Commun. Math. Phys.72(1980) 277–292

    work page 1980

  34. [34]

    Static intervortex forces,

    J. M. Speight, “Static intervortex forces,”Physical Review D55no. 6, (Mar, 1997) 3830–3835.https://doi.org/10.1103%2Fphysrevd.55.3830

    work page 1997

  35. [35]

    Interactions between u(1) cosmic strings: An analytical study,

    L. M. A. Bettencourt and R. J. Rivers, “Interactions between u(1) cosmic strings: An analytical study,”Physical Review D51no. 4, (Feb, 1995) 1842–1853. https://doi.org/10.1103%2Fphysrevd.51.1842

    work page 1995

  36. [36]

    Delta function potentials in two-dimensional and three-dimensional quantum mechanics,

    R. Jackiw, “Delta function potentials in two-dimensional and three-dimensional quantum mechanics,”

    work page

  37. [37]

    NS5-Branes, T-Duality and Worldsheet Instantons

    D. Tong, “NS5-branes, T duality and world sheet instantons,”JHEP07(2002) 013, arXiv:hep-th/0204186

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  38. [38]

    The Stability of Magnetic Vortices

    S. Gustafson and I. M. Sigal, “The stability of magnetic vortices,” 1999. https://arxiv.org/abs/math/9904158

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  39. [39]

    Stability of Classical Solutions,

    E. B. Bogomolny, “Stability of Classical Solutions,”Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.24(1976) 449

    work page 1976

  40. [40]

    To appear,

    T. Dumitrescu, A. Gaikwad, and Y. Li, “To appear,”

    work page

  41. [41]

    Giant vortices, rings of vortices, and reentrant behavior in type-1.5 superconductors,

    V. H. Dao, L. F. Chibotaru, T. Nishio, and V. V. Moshchalkov, “Giant vortices, rings of vortices, and reentrant behavior in type-1.5 superconductors,”Phys. Rev. B83 (Jan, 2011) 020503.https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.83.020503

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.83.020503 2011

  42. [42]

    Type-1.5 superconductivity in multicomponent systems,

    E. Babaev, J. Carlstr¨ om, M. Silaev, and J. Speight, “Type-1.5 superconductivity in multicomponent systems,”Physica C: Superconductivity and its Applications533 (Feb., 2017) 20–35.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physc.2016.08.003

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physc.2016.08.003 2017

  43. [43]

    Intervortex forces in competing-order superconductors,

    M. Speight and T. Winyard, “Intervortex forces in competing-order superconductors,” Physical Review B103no. 1, (Jan., 2021) . http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.103.014514. 73

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.103.014514 2021

  44. [44]

    Type-1.5 superconductivity in multiband systems: Magnetic response, broken symmetries and microscopic theory – a brief overview,

    E. Babaev, J. Carlstr¨ om, J. Garaud, M. Silaev, and J. Speight, “Type-1.5 superconductivity in multiband systems: Magnetic response, broken symmetries and microscopic theory – a brief overview,”Physica C: Superconductivity479(Sept., 2012) 2–14.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physc.2012.01.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physc.2012.01.002 2012

  45. [45]

    Type-1.5 superconductivity in multiband systems: Effects of interband couplings,

    J. Carlstr¨ om, E. Babaev, and M. Speight, “Type-1.5 superconductivity in multiband systems: Effects of interband couplings,”Physical Review B83no. 17, (May, 2011) . http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.83.174509

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.83.174509 2011

  46. [46]

    Semi-meissner state and neither type-i nor type-ii superconductivity in multicomponent superconductors,

    E. Babaev and M. Speight, “Semi-meissner state and neither type-i nor type-ii superconductivity in multicomponent superconductors,”Physical Review B72no. 18, (Nov., 2005) .http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.72.180502

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.72.180502 2005

  47. [47]

    Microscopic solutions for vortex clustering in two-band type-1.5 superconductors,

    I. Timoshuk and E. Babaev, “Microscopic solutions for vortex clustering in two-band type-1.5 superconductors,”Physical Review B110no. 6, (Aug., 2024) . http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.110.064509. 74

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.110.064509 2024