Phase transitions and dynamics of one-dimensional solitons in spin-orbit-coupled

Bose-Bose mixtures
Gui-hua Chen1 , Hongcheng Wang1 , Boris A. Malomed2,3 , Haiming Deng4 ,∗ and Yongyao Li5
1
Department of Electronic Engineering, Dongguan University of Technology, Dongguan 523808, China
2
Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel
3
Instituto de Alta Investigación, Universidad de Tarapacá, Casilla 7D, Arica, Chile
4
School of Physics and Electronic-Electrical Engineering,
Xiangnan University, Chenzhou 423000, China and
5
School of Physics and Optoelectronic Engineering, Foshan University, Foshan 528000, China
arXiv:2508.10632v1 [cond-mat.quant-gas] 14 Aug 2025

(Dated: August 15, 2025)

We investigate the formation, stability, and dynamics of solitons in a one-dimensional binary
Bose-Einstein condensate under the action of the spin-orbit-coupling (SOC) and Lee-Huang-Yang
(LHY) correction to the underlying system of the Gross-Pitaevskii equations. We identify the semi-
dipole (SD) family of solitons and thoroughly analyze its properties. The numerical analysis reveals
intricate bifurcations, including transitions from real to complex-valued stationary wavefunctions
of the SD solitons and norm-dependent dynamical instabilities. Stability maps in the plane of the
solitons’ norm and interaction strength exhibit areas of monostability, oscillatory behavior, and
soliton splitting. Solitons with complex stationary wavefunctions emerge as ground states in broad
parameter areas, due to the effects of the LHY terms. The other soliton species, in the form of mixed
modes (MMs), does not feature the compexification bifurcation. In the LHY-dominated regime, the
SD and MM solitons exhibit identical values of the energy for the same norm. The results deepen
the understanding of nonlinear matter-wave states and reveal multi-stable ones in quantum gases.

I. INTRODUCTION that effects induced by quantum fluctuations around MF

states play a crucial role, especially near the boundary of
Spin-orbit coupling (SOC), initially explored in solid- the MF stability, significantly affecting the soliton forma-
state systems, has become a pivotal tool in ultracold tion, robustness, and phase transitions [28, 30–32]. The
quantum gases, significantly enriching their phenomenol- Lee-Huang-Yang (LHY) correction, which encapsulates
ogy [1–3]. Recent experimental realizations of synthetic the averaged effect of quantum fluctuations, has been
SOC in ultracold Bose-Einstein condensates (BECs), us- demonstrated to stabilize self-bound quantum droplets,
ing the Raman laser illumination, have paved the way for which were observed in binary [33–35] and dipolar [36–
exploring various quantum phenomena, including novel 39] atomic BECs . Recent theoretical investigations also
quantum phases, spin textures, and topological excita- highlight significant modifications in the soliton stability
tions [4–7]. Complementing these experiments, theoreti- and dynamics induced by the LHY corrections in SOC
cal studies have extensively investigated stationary states BECs [40–43].
and nonlinear dynamics emerging from the interplay of
SOC, mean-field (MF) self-interactions, and beyond-MF
effects induced by quantum fluctuations [8–12]. Motivated by these developments, our work aims to
Solitons represent one of the fundamental species of systematically investigate the existence, stability, and dy-
nonlinear excitations in ultracold gases, exhibiting sta- namical properties of solitons in the 1D binary BEC sys-
bility and coherence due to the balance between the tem under the combined action of SOC and LHY cor-
quantum pressure and nonlinearity [13–15]. Bright soli- rections. We identify and thoroughly analyze the semi-
tons, extensively studied in the framework of scalar and dipole (SD) soliton family, exploring its stability, bifurca-
spinor BECs, serve as versatile testbeds to explore non- tions, and complex dynamics. In particular, the analysis
linear dynamics in quantum matter [16–18]. Incorporat- uncovers novel bifurcations, which lead from real to com-
ing SOC into BEC systems further diversifies the soli- plex soliton wavefunctions, following the variation of the
ton phenomenology, giving rise to novel species of self- nonlinearity strength. The results highlight the crucial
trapped states, such as semi-vortex, semi-dipole (SD), role of the LHY effect and SOC in the emergence and
and mixed-mode (MM) solitons, which were primarily stabilization of the novel soliton states.
explored in multi-dimensional setups [19–24].
In one-dimensional (1D) binary SOC-BEC systems,
This subsequent presentation is organized as follows.
earlier theoretical studies were chiefly focused on soliton
The theoretical model is introduced in Section II. Then,
solutions and their dynamics under the action of MF in-
Section III reports systematically produced numerical
teractions [20, 25–27]. However, recent studies emphasize
findings which reveal the stability, structural transitions,
and dynamics of the solitons. Finally, Section IV sum-
marizes the results and discusses their implications for
∗ Corresponding author: [email protected] extension of theoretical and experimental studies.
 2

II. THE MODEL where the SOC coefficient is fixed to be γ ≡ 1 by means

of rescaling. Dynamical invariants of this system are the
We consider a homogeneous binary Bose gas confined energy, scaled number of atoms (alias the total norm of
to one spatial dimension, composed of two components the wave function),
with identical masses m and densities n1,2 , which repre- Z +∞
sent different hyperfine states of the same atomic species. N= (|ψ1 |2 + |ψ2 |2 )dx ≡ N1 + N2 , (4)
The interatomic interactions are modeled by contact −∞
pseudopotentials, so that both components feature the and the total momentum,
MF self-repulsion with a common strength g11 = g22 ≡ Z +∞  
g > 0, while the inter-component attraction is repre- ∂ ∗ ∂ ∗
P =i ψ1 ψ1 + ψ2 ψ2 dx. (5)
sented by coupling g12 < 0. The system’s scaled energy −∞ ∂x ∂x
density, derived from the MF theory and amended by
the LHY correction [44], which accounts for the effect of The overall characteristic of the two-component solitons
quantum fluctuations around the MF state, is [28] determines the asymmetry between the norms of its com-
ponents:

g 2 δg 2
η = (N1 − N2 )/(N1 + N2 ), (6)
E1D (n1 , n2 ) = (n1 − n2 ) + (n1 + n2 )
2 4 (1) where N1 and N2 follow the definitions adopted in
2 3/2 3/2 Eq. (4).
− g (n1 + n2 ) ,
3π Note that, due to the use of natural units (h̄ = m = 1)
with δg ≡ g + g12 . We address the binary system in the and several rescalings applied for the simplification of
region of weak overall MF repulsion, 0 ≤ δg ≪ g. In the coupled Gross–Pitaevskii equations, the scaled norm
this case, when the MF intra- and inter-component in- N defined in Eq. (4) does not directly correspond to
teractions nearly cancel each other, the LHY corrections the number of atoms. Based on the scaling relations
is a significant term. Note that it gives rise to effective and comparison with previous works [28, 30], we esti-
self-attraction in the 1D limit (on the contrary to the mate typical values of the atom number Nphys corre-
repulsion in the multi-dimensional case [28, 29]). sponding to our results. For instance, using characteristic
The binary system is represented by the two- values of the scattering length a ∼ 100, nm and trans-
component MF wave function, {ψ1 (x), ψ2 (x)}, which de- verse confinement length a⊥ ∼ 1 − 5 µm, the relation
termines the respective densities, n1,2 = |ψ1,2 |2 , and the Nphys ∼ N × (a⊥ /a) suggests that the scaled norms used
energy functional, in this work correspond to Nphys ∼ 103 –104 , which cer-
tainly belongs to the experimentally achievable ranges in
ultracold atomic gases.
Z +∞ 
Our first objective is to construct 1D solitons as solu-
 
E = dx E1D |ψ1 |2 , |ψ2 |2
−∞ tions of Eqs. (3). In the absence of the LHY terms, 1D
X h1 i (2) two-component solitons supported by SOC were investi-
2
+ |∂x ψj | − (−1)j γψj∗ ∂x ψ3−j . gated previously [20, 25]. We here focus on the oppo-
2
j=1,2 site case of the LHY superfluid, with δg = 0, when the
dominant nonlinearity is represented solely by the LHY
In addition to the basic energy density (1), it includes terms [45]. In this case, Eq. (3) simplifies to the form, in
the gradient (kinetic) energy of each component and the which the mean-field interaction term ∼ δg vanishes and
effective SOC with a real coefficient γ. This low-energy the nonlinearity amounts to the LHY correction. Assum-
model reliably predicts static configurations in the above- ing stationary solutions of the form ψ1,2 = e−iµt φ1,2 (x)
mentioned range, 0 ≤ δg ≪ g [30]. and substituting them into the reduced equations yields
Throughout this work, we adopt natural units by set- the coupled stationary equations
ting h̄ = m = 1, so that all physical quantities are ex-
pressed in the dimensionless form.
The variational procedure applied to the energy func- 1
µφ1 = − φ′′1 + φ′2 + g(|φ1 |2 − |φ2 |2 )φ1
tional (2) produces a system of scaled coupled Gross- 2
(7)
Pitaevskii equations (GPEs) [43]: g 3/2
− (|φ1 |2 + |φ2 |2 )1/2 φ1 ,
π
h 1 δg  
2 2
i∂t ψj = − ∂xx + |ψ1 | + |ψ2 | 1
2 2 µφ2 = − φ′′2 − φ′1 + g(|φ2 |2 − |φ1 |2 )φ2
2 2
 2
j
− (−1) g |ψ1 | − |ψ2 | (8)
(3) g 3/2
− (|φ1 |2 + |φ2 |2 )1/2 φ2 ,
g 3/2  2 2
1/2 i π
− |ψ1 | + |ψ2 | ψj
π where the prime stands for d/dx. These equations admit
− (−1)j ∂x ψ3−j , j = 1, 2, both real and complex solutions, as shown below.
 3

III. RESULTS

In this section, we present numerical results for the

variety of soliton solutions of the simplified Eq. (3) in
the LHY-only regime, obtained by means of the accel-
erated imaginary time evolution method (AITEM). The
stability of the solitons was then tested by adding ran-
dom noise, with the relative amplitude at the 1% level,
to the solutions of the simplified Eq. (3) in the LHY-only
regime and performing direct simulations. Our findings
reveal that the system gives rise to two distinct species of
solitons, namely SD and MM ones, which are generated
by different inputs. The primary focus of the study is the
effect of the total norm on the structure of the solitons
and phase transitions between them.

A. SD (semi-dipole) solitons

First, we employed AITEM to solve the coupled GPEs,

initiating the imaginary-time integration with the follow-
ing input:

ψ1 (t = 0) = A1 exp(−x2 /l12 ), (9) FIG. 1. (Color online) (a) The chemical potential of the
ψ2 (t = 0) = A2 x exp(−x2 /l22 ), (10) two types of the SD (semi-dipole) solitons as a function of
(1)
their norm N , featuring the bifurcation at N = Ncr ≈ 0.67
including the spatially even and odd components ψ1 (x) (marked by the circle), for the characteristic value of the in-
and ψ2 (x), respectively, with
√ amplitudes A1 = 1, A2 = teraction constant, g = π 2/3 , in the reduced form of Eq. (3)
0.5 and common width l0 = 10 ≈ 3.16. The established for δg = 0. The family of the solitons with real stationary
SD modes keep the same parities of their components. wavefunction, is stable (being represented by the solid blue
(1)
By way of this approach, we identify two distinct types curve) below the bifurcation point, at N < Ncr , and unsta-
of SD solitons, represented by purely real and complex ble (shown by the dashed blue curve) above the bifurcation,
(1)
stationary wavefunctions, respectively. The SD solitons at N > Ncr . The family of the SD solitons with complex
of the former type are obtained with a relatively small wavefunctions (plotted by the red line), exists and is stable
(1)
norm. A transition to solitons with complex stationary at N > Ncr . (b) The forward (supercritical) character of the
wavefunctions occurs with the increases of the norm. bifurcation is exhibited by the dependence of the order pa-
As a representative case, we take the contact- rameter (11) on N . The blue and red curves again represent
interaction parameter in the simplified Eq. (3) in the the SD solitons with real and complex wavefunctions, respec-
LHY-only regime as g = π 2/3 . The analysis reveals a tively.
well-defined phase transition (bifurcation) between the
real and complex types of the SD solitons, as their norm
N increases. Figure 1(a) displays the bifurcation by plot-
ting the chemical potential µ of the SD solitons vs. N . shown in Fig. 2, where the energy of both types of the
Note that the dependence µ(N ) for both the real and SD solitons is plotted vs. N . From the experimental
(1)
complex solitons satisfies the Vakhitov–Kolokolov crite- perspective, the bifurcation point at Ncr ≈ 0.67, ac-
rion, dµ/dN < 0, which is the commonly known nec- cording to the estimate given in Sec. II, corresponds to
essary stability condition for solitons of the nonlinear- a few thousand atoms, which implies an experimentally
Schrödinger type [46, 47]. The SD family with the real accessible regime with atomic species such as 7 Li or 39 K
stationary wavefunction, represented by the blue lines, under strong transverse confinement. We have verified
remains stable (the solid segment of the blue lines) be- that stationary states with other parity setups (in par-
(1)
low the bifurcation point, i.e., at N < Ncr ≈ 0.67 in ticular, with both components even or odd) for the same
(1) norm have positive total energy, therefore they are not
Fig. 1(a), and extends as an unstable one to N > Ncr .
The branch of the SD solitons with the complex station- self-trapped localized modes.
ary wavefunctions, represented by the red lines, emerges To characterize the bifurcation (phase transition) of
as a stable one above the bifurcation point, i.e., at the solitons, we define the order parameter, ε, as the
(1)
N > Ncr . When this branch exists, it represents the square root of the total norm of the imaginary compo-
system’s ground state (GS) with the minimal energy, as nents in the binary wavefunctions, i.e.,
 4

FIG. 2. (Color online) The total energy of two types of the

FIG. 3. (Color online) The norm-asymmetry parameter η (6)
SD solitons as a function of N , for g = π 2/3 . Above the for SD solitons as a function of interaction strength g. Results
(1)
bifurcation point (at N > Ncr ), the soliton with the complex are shown for two characteristic norms: N = 0.5 (soliton so-
wavefunction, plotted by the red line, realizes the system’s GS lutions with real wavefunctions, solid blue line) and N = 2.5
with the minimal energy, while the family of the solitons with (soliton solutions with dashed red line). For g < 2 (long-wave
the real wavefunction (plotted by the blue curve) has a larger limit), η ≈ 0 confirms near-exact equality N1 = N2 enforced
energy, being unstable. by component symmetry. For g > 2, both soliton families
exhibit progressive asymmetry (η > 0) due to nonlinearity-
driven symmetry breaking, with deviations exceeding numer-
ical error bounds. The saturation of η at large g aligns with
"Z ! #1/2 the LHY-superfluid asymptotics in Fig. 10.
+∞ 2 2
ψ1 − ψ1∗ ψ2 − ψ2∗
ε= + dx . (11)
−∞ 2 2
spatial derivatives become negligible, enforcing the com-
ponent symmetry, as argued above. For larger interaction
Figure 1(b) reveals the relationship between ε and N . strengths (g > 2), both real and complex families of SD
(1)
The bifurcation, which takes place at N = Ncr , is of the solitons exhibit significant asymmetry (η 6= 0), as quan-
forward (supercritical) type [48], alias the phase transi- tified in Fig. 3. Specifically, the departure from the long-
tion of the second kind. Accordingly, the SD solitons wave approximation allows the gradient terms to amplify
(1)
with the real wavefunctions are stable at N < Ncr , and the norm asymmetry, which is consistent with the be-
(1) havior observed in the LHY-dominated regime (g → ∞),
become unstable at N > Ncr , where the forward-going
branches of stable solitons with the complex wavefunc- where η attains large values, see Fig. 10 below.
tion are stable (hence the name of the forward bifurca- Figure 4 displays families of the stable real and com-
tion). plex SD solitons. These self-trapped modes, with the
It should be noted that, for SD-type solitons in the sys- opposite parities of their components, are 1D analogs of
tem with the interaction constant g = π 2/3 , the norms the 2D semi-vortex solitons, which are well known in the
N1 and N2 remain virtually identical (with differences 2D nonlinear SOC system [8]. The semi-vortices carry
∼ 10−3 ), confirming the specific nature of the SD states vorticities 0 and 1 in their coupled components. As seen
for this value of the interaction strength. In this con- in Figs. 4(d) and (h), the solitons with real and complex
nection, it is relevant to mention that relation N1 ≈ N2 stationary wavefunctions feature, respectively, single and
ensues from Eqs. (7) and (8) in the long-wave limit: if double stripes in terms of the total density, |ψ1 |2 + |ψ2 |2 .
the terms with the spatial derivatives may be neglected, Panels (a)-(d) in Figs. 4 depict a low-norm soliton
the equations reduce to the algebraic ones: (N = 0.5), corresponding to the triangular marker in
Fig. 1(a). The density profile in (a) reveals a symmet-
  g 3/2  1/2 ric two-lobe structure, consistent with the stationary real
µ = g |φ1,2 |2 − |φ2,1 |2 − |φ1 |2 + |φ2 |2 , (12) two-component wavefunctions shown in (b) and (c). The
π
real-time evolution in (d) is obtained by propagating the
from where N1 = N2 follows immediately. For compari- initial stationary wavefunctions with 1% random pertur-
son, the limit of the LHY superfluid, which is considered bations, which serves to examine the soliton’s robust-
below, being based on Eqs. (20) and (21), that do not ness; the results confirm its stability throughout the sim-
2 2

include the terms ∼ |φ1,2 | − |φ2,1 | , gives rise to states ulation time. Panels (e)-(h) display a high-norm soli-
with N1 6= N2 , i.e., η 6= 0 (see Eq. (6) and Fig. 10 below). ton (N = 1.5), corresponding to the rhombus marker in
Our comprehensive numerical analysis reveals that the Fig. 1(a), where stronger nonlinearity gives rise to the
near-equality N1 ≈ N2 [i.e., η ≈ 0, see Eq. 6] indeed SD solitons with the complex stationary wavefunction.
takes place only in the long-wave limit (g < 2), where The density distribution in panel (e) exhibits tighter self-
 5

FIG. 4. (Color online) Stable SD solitons (1D counterparts of 2D semi-vortex solitons) produced by the numerical solution
of the simplified Eq. (3) in the LHY-only regime with g = π 2/3 . Panels (a-d): A low-norm soliton [N = 0.5, marked by the
triangle in Fig. 1(a)]. (a) The density profile showing the symmetric two-lobe structure. (b) The real stationary wavefunction
of the first component, with the even parity. (c) The real stationary wavefunction of the second component, with the odd-
parity. (d) Real-time evolution of the soliton under 1% random perturbations applied to the initial wavefunctions, illustrating
stability or instability-induced dynamics. Panels (e)-(h): A high-norm soliton [N = 1.5, marked by the rhombus in Fig. 1(a)].
(e) The density distribution, featuring tighter nonlinear confinement. (f) The complex stationary wavefunction of the first
component, with the even parity. (g) The complex stationary wavefunction of the second component, with the odd parity. (h)
Real-time evolution of the soliton under 1% random perturbations applied to the initial wavefunctions, revealing robustness
against perturbations or, when unstable, the nature of the ensuing dynamics.

trapping, in comparison to the low-norm soliton. The An obvious (actually, trivial) solution of Eqs. (14) and
temporal evolution in panel (h), likewise simulated with (15) is χ1,2 (x) ≡ φ1,2 (x), which corresponds to the fact
1% random noise added to the initial condition, further that solutions of the simplified Eq. (3) in the LHY-only
demonstrates the full stability of this soliton. The charac- regime are invariant with respect to the phase shift [mul-
teristic flat-top shape of the 1D quantum droplets, which tiplication of both ψ1,2 by exp(iθ) with an infinitesimal
is maintained by the balance of the MF self-repulsion, phase θ].
with strength ∼ δg > 0 in Eq. (3), and self-attraction As a formal generalization of Eqs. (14) and (15), we
provided by the LHY terms [30] is not observed here, as also consider the corresponding linear eigenvalue problem
we have set δg = 0. in which chemical potential µ is replaced by a general
The transition from real to complex stationary wave- eigenvalue ν. This formulation is used to identify the
functions, which follows the increase of the norm, rep- onset of the complexification bifurcation when ν coincides
resents a fundamental symmetry-breaking mechanism with µ, signalling the appearance of a nontrivial solution
driven by the interplay between the nonlinearity and in addition to the trivial phase-rotation mode.
SOC. It distinguishes the SD solitons reported here from An obvious solution of this eigenvalue problem is ν =
the previously known ones, cf. Refs. [20, 24, 25]. µ, but other solutions may exist too. If there is an eigen-
The complexification bifurcation (phase transition) im- value ν 6= µ, the complexification bifurcation takes place
plies that a real solution for φ1,2 (x) carries over into at value µcrit of parameter µ in Eqs. (7) and (8) at which
(φ1,2 )complex = φ1,2 (x) + iχ1,2 (x), (13) the additional eigenvalue ν becomes equal to µ, i.e., µ
becomes a double eigenvalue. Indeed, in this special case
with infinitesimal real functions χ1,2 (x) satisfying the there is a solution of the generalized eigenvalue problem
system of linearized equations: based on Eqs. (14) and (15) with µ → ν which is different
from the trivial one, χ1,2 (x) ≡ φ1,2 (x), and this nontriv-
1 ial solution will initialize the onset of the complexification
µχ1 = − χ′′1 + χ′2 + g(φ21 − φ22 )χ1
2 at µ = µcrit .
(14)
g 3/2 2 To validate this hypothesis, we numerically solved the
− (φ1 + φ22 )1/2 χ1 ,
π system of Eqs. (7) and (8), obtaining wavefunctions φ1 ,
φ2 , and the corresponding chemical potentials. Subse-
1 quently, these wavefunctions were substituted into the
µχ2 = − χ′′2 − χ′1 + g(φ22 − φ21 )χ2
2 generalized linear eigenvalue problem based on Eqs. (14)
(15)
g 3/2 2 and (15), in which µ is replaced by a free eigenvalue
− (φ1 + φ22 )1/2 χ2 . ν; the resulting system was then solved numerically to
π
 6

first and odd-parity second components, whose unper-

turbed real stationary shapes are displayed in panels (b)
and (c), respectively. In contrast to that, the unstable
soliton with a high norm [N = 1.5, whose stationary real
wavefunctions are shown in panels (e-h)] demonstrates
strong instability: the initially balanced configuration
[see panels (e-g)], which features tighter self-trapping, in
comparison to the low-norm soliton, breaks apart into
two separating fragments during the perturbed evolution
(panel h). The oscillation period in Fig. 6(d) and the
splitting time in Fig. 6(h) provide representative values
for the adopted realization of the 1% random noise, and
may slightly vary for different noise realizations. The
norm-dependent transition from the oscillatory dynam-
FIG. 5. (Color online) The chemical potential of the soliton ics to the splitting highlights the role of the nonlinearity
solutions produced by the numerical solution of the nonlinear strength.
and linear systems [Eqs. (7), (8) and (14), (15), respectively, The soliton solutions are strongly affected by both
with g = π 2/3 ]. The blue solid and red dashed curves cor- norm N and the contact-interaction parameter, g. The
respond, severally, to the nonlinear and linear system. The above consideration addressed the role of N for fixed
bifurcation point (Ncr ≈ 0.67) separates two distinct regimes:
g = π 2/3 . Our findings reveal that, in the general case,
(i) Below the point (at N < Ncr ), both systems yield identical
chemical potentials; (ii) Above the bifurcation (at N > Ncr ), for fixed g (which may be different from g = π 2/3 ), the
the chemical potential of the linear system exhibits a linear increase of N drives the SD solitons through three dis-
dependence on norm N (the dashed curve), whereas the non- tinct transitions, which are determined by three sequen-
(1) (2) (3)
linear system deviates from this trend (the solid curve). These tially ordered critical norms Ncr < Ncr < Ncr at a
results fully agree with those displayed by the blue curve in fixed interaction strength g. When the norm passes from
Fig. 1(a). (1) (1)
N < Ncr to N > Ncr the system undergoes a fun-
damental stability transition: the soliton solutions with
(1)
real wavefunctions, which were stable at N < Ncr , en-
determine χ1 , χ2 , and the corresponding eigenvalue ν. ter a dynamically unstable regime. Actually, the value
Figure 5 displays the evolution of the chemical poten- (1)
Ncr (g = π 2/3 ) ≈ 0.67 is precisely the bifurcation point
tial of the soliton solutions for both the nonlinear (the shown above in Figs. 1 and 2 for g = π 2/3 . Beyond this
blue solid curve) and linear (the red dashed curve) sys- (2)
threshold, as N further increases past Ncr , the primary
tems. The results demonstrate full agreement with the
instability mechanism switches from intrinsic oscillations
blue curve in Fig. 1(a). The bifurcation point is identi-
of the solitons to their irreversible splitting. Finally, the
fied at Ncr ≈ 0.67: below this point (at N < Ncr ), the
soliton solutions with real wavefunctions cease to exist for
nonlinear and linear systems yield identical solutions, in (3) (1)
N > Ncr . Crucially, for N > Ncr , the soliton solutions
exact agreement with the above-mentioned fact that the
with complex wavefunctions emerge as the GS, coexist-
generalized linear eigenvalue problem based on Eqs. (14)
ing with progressively destabilized soliton solutions with
and (15), with µ replaced by ν, admits the obvious (actu- (3)
ally, trivial) solution with ν = µ. Above the bifurcation real wavefunction until their extinction at Ncr .
(1,2,3)
(at N > Ncr ), however, the solutions of the two systems Figure 7 shows the three bifurcation values Ncr as
separate, again in agreement with the above-mentioned functions of the coupling parameter g and distinct dy-
existence of the nontrivial solution of the linear system at namical states separated by them:
N > Ncr . Note that the chemical potential produced by (i) Real-SD monostability (the red region below the
the solution of the linear system exhibits a linear depen- solid curve): Only real-wavefunction SD solitons exist
dence on norm N , whereas the nonlinear system deviates stably and are the GSs in this region, where the SD soli-
from this trend. tons with the complex stationary wavefunctions do not
In the instability region of the solution with the real exist.
stationary wavefunction, represented by the dashed curve (ii) The oscillatory instability of the SD solitons with
in Fig. 1(a), the dynamical behavior of the solitons is sig- the real stationary wavefunctions transforms them into
nificantly affected by the norm. Figure 6 reports the per- breathers, such as the one displayed in Fig. 6(d) (the blue
turbed perturbed real-time evolution (initiated by adding region above the solid curve). In this region, the stable
1% random noise to the stationary wavefunctions) of two SD solitons with the complex stationary wavefunctions,
unstable SD solitons. In the low-norm case [N = 0.8, which represent the GS, coexist with the oscillatory SD
panels (a-d)], the unstable soliton maintains its spatial solitons.
structure, exhibiting only weak oscillations under the ap- (iii) The splitting instability affects stationary SD soli-
plied perturbation (panel d). In this regime, the unstable tons with real wavefunctions, as exemplified in Fig. 6(h)
solitons keep the phase locking between the even-parity (the brown area). In contrast, stationary SD solitons
 7

FIG. 6. (Color online) The instability of the SD solitons with the real stationary wavefunctions and different norms, in the case
of g = π 2/3 . Panels (a-d): A low-norm soliton (N = 0.8). (a) The density profile; (b) the first component of the real stationary
wavefunction (even-parity, purely real); (c) the second component of the real stationary wavefunction (odd-parity, purely real).
(d) The real-time evolution, obtained by adding 1% random perturbations to the initial stationary wavefunctions, indicates
weak instability of the low-norm soliton, which keeps its size and exhibits small-amplitude oscillations. Panels (e-h): A high-
norm soliton (N = 1.5). (e) The density profile similar to that of the low-norm soliton; (f) the first-component real stationary
wavefunction (even-parity); (g) the second-component real stationary wavefunction (odd-parity). (h) The real-time evolution,
likewise simulated with 1% random noise in the initial condition, reveals strong instability, which leads to the splitting of the
soliton into two separating fragments.

with complex wavefunctions, which serve as the GSs in

this regime, remain stable throughout this parameter re-
gion.
(iv) In the gray region above the dashed-dotted curve,
solely the stable stationary solitons with the complex
wavefunctions exist as SD modes.
The analysis of the 2D SOC model with the MF cu-
bic self-attraction had revealed, apart from the two-
component semi-vortex solitons, whose 1D counterparts
are the SD modes considered above, a family of station-
ary solutions constitutes the mixed-mode (MM) solitons,
characterized by the combination of zero-vorticity and
vortex components in both wavefunctions [8]. In the
present 1D setting, two-component solutions of the MM
FIG. 7. (Color online) The dependence of three critical bi- type can be generated by the following input:
(1,2,3)
furcation thresholds, Ncr , on functions of the interaction
parameter g. The respective parameter plane of (g, N ) is par-
titioned in four dynamical regimes, as described in the main
text: monostable SD solitons (the red area below the solid
ψ1 (t = 0) = (A1 + A2 x) exp(−x2 /l02 ), (16)
curve); oscillatory states (breathers, in the blue area); the ψ2 (t = 0) = (A1 − A2 x) exp(−x2 /l02 ), (17)
soliton-splitting states (the brown area); and the gray area
above the dashed-dotted curve, where solely the stable sta- √
with A1 = 1, A2 = 0.5 and l0 = 2 ≈ 1.41, cf. Eqs. (9)
tionary solitons with the complex wavefunctions exist (such
stable solitons exists as well in the blue and brown areas).
and (10). We numerically solved the simplified Eq. (3)
The yellow vertical line, plotted at g = π 2/3 , corresponds to
in the LHY-only regime with input (16), (17) by means
the situation presented in Fig. 1. The solid segment of the of AITEM. However, all stationary MM solutions admit
yellow line below the open circle indicates the stable station- strictly real wavefunctions up to a constant global phase.
ary SD solitons with real wavefunctions. The dashed segment We have concluded that no genuinely complex MM states
above the circle represents the stable stationary solitons with exist, any phase structure reducing to the trivial phase
the complex wavefunctions. rotation. Consequently, while stable MM solitons exist,
with properties similar to those of the SD states, they do
not exhibit the symmetry-breaking bifurcation observed
in the SD family.
 8

B. The LHY superfluid

Many of the above results are produced for the value of

the mean-field interaction coefficient g = π 2/3 , which ad-
equately represents the generic case. Another interesting
case corresponds to the limit
√of g → ∞. In this case, ap-
plying the rescaling, ψ1,2 ≡ πg −3/4 Ψ1,2 , one transforms
the underlying equations (3) into the simplified GPE sys-
tem, which is the model of the LHY superfluid, in which
the nonlinearity represented solely by the LHY terms, cf.
Ref. [45]:

1
i∂t Ψ1 = − ∂xx Ψ1 + ∂x Ψ2
2 (18)
− (|Ψ1 |2 + |Ψ2 |2 )1/2 Ψ1 ,

1
i∂t Ψ2 = − ∂xx Ψ2 − ∂x Ψ1
2 (19)
− (|Ψ1 |2 + |Ψ2 |2 )1/2 Ψ2 .
The AITEM technique was employed to numerically
solve Eqs. (18) and (19), yielding stable soliton solutions
with a real chemical potential µ and real-valued station-
ary two-component wavefunctions Φ1,2 (x) of two types, FIG. 8. (Color online) The degenerate (fully coinciding)
SD and MM ones, while no solitons with complex sta- chemical potential and energy of the SD and MM solitons
tionary wavefunctions were found. This means that the in the LHY superfluid, which corresponds to g → ∞. (a)
substitution of Ψ1,2 = exp (−iµt) Φ1,2 (x) in Eqs. (18) and Chemical potential µ as a function of the soliton norm N .
(19) leads to the system of real equations (b) Energy E as a function of N .

1
µΦ1 = − Φ′′1 + Φ′2 − (Φ21 + Φ22 )1/2 Φ1 , (20)
2 profile features the identical dual-lobe structure in both
1 components, as seen in panel (e). The evolution in panel
µΦ2 = − Φ′′2 − Φ′1 − (Φ21 + Φ22 )1/2 Φ2 . (21)
2 (h) confirms that the MM soliton remains stable under
The chemical potential µ and state energy E of the such perturbations.
SD and MM soliton species in the LHY superfluid are The coexistence of these stable solitons underscores
plotted, as functions of the soliton norm N , in Fig. 8. their dichotomy in the LHY regime: while the spatial
Numerical results reveal that both soliton types, despite configurations and symmetries of the SD and MM fami-
their starkly different spatial profiles, exhibit identical lies are widely different, both are completely stable, shar-
values of µ and E values at identical N , confirming their ing the same value of the energy for all values of the norm.
full mutual degeneracy, underscoring the thermodynamic This duality highlights the structural diversity admitted
equivalence of the two soliton families in the LHY regime. by the LHY superfluids, even within the constraint of the
Figure 9 depicts examples of the stable real- real-values stationary wavefunctions.
wavefunction SD and MM solitons in the LHY superfluid,
both with norm N = 1 but exhibiting fundamentally In contrast to the MM solitons that maintain equal
different shapes. The SD soliton displays a symmetric norms of both components, the SD solitons exhibit asym-
dual-lobe density profile in panel (a), with the charac- metry in this respect: as the total norm N increases, the
teristic structure of its components, viz., spatially even norm-asymmetry measure η, defined as per Eq. (6), in-
Φ1 (x) and odd Φ2 (x), as seen in panels (b) and (c), re- creases too, as shown in Fig. 10. The dependence of η(N )
spectively. Its robustness was verified by real-time sim- reveals the two-stage evolution with the growth of N : an
ulations in panel (d) under a 1% random perturbation initial rapid growth of η is followed by a saturation regime
applied to the initial stationary state, corroborating the at larger N . The latter feature can be easily explained
stability of the SD soliton. by an asymptotic analysis of Eqs. (20) and (21). Indeed,
The stationary real wavefunctions of the MM soliton in the lowest approximation, the solution for N → ∞
also underwent the same stability test under a 1% ran- degenerates into one with the vanishing odd component,
dom perturbation, maintains full mirror symmetry be- Φ2 → 0, and the even component represented by the sim-
tween its components in Figs. 9(f,g), while its density ple soliton solution of Eq. (20) with Φ2 = 0 and a simple
 9

FIG. 9. (Color online) The coexistence between the two species of stable solitons with real stationary wavefunctions and norm
N = 1 in the 1D SOC LHY superfluid. Panels (a-d) represent the SD (semi-dipole) soliton: (a) the symmetric density profile;
(b,c) the even and odd wavefunction components. (d) Real-time evolution under a 1% random perturbation applied to the
initial stationary state, demonstrating that the SD soliton remains robust. Panels (e-h) represent the MM (mixed-mode) soliton:
(e) the mirror-symmetric dual-lobe density structure; (f,g) real wavefunctions of both components, featuring the mutual mirror
symmetry. (h) Real-time evolution under the same perturbation, confirming the dynamical stability of the MM soliton.

expression for the norm:

−3µ √
Φ1 (x) = p  , N = 3 2 (−µ)3/2 . (22)
2 cosh2 −µ/2x

The first correction to this solution is given by the odd

mode determined by the simplified version of Eq. (21),
linearized with respect to Φ2 :

1 ′′
Φ + [µ + Φ1 (x)] Φ2 = −Φ′1 (x). (23)
2 2

A simple estimate demonstrates that √ Eq. (23) yields a

solution with amplitude (Φ2 )max ∼ −µ ∼ N 1/3 , hence
the norm of this component is estimated as N2 ∼ N 1/3 . FIG. 10. (Color online) The inter-component norm-
The substitution of this in Eq. (6) yields 1−η ≡ 2N2 /N ∼ asymmetry parameter (6) of the the SD-type solitons, in the
LHY-superfluid regime, vs. the total norm N . The depen-
N −2/3 , which provides the explanation of the shape of
dence exhibits a two-stage shape: the rapid initial growth
the curve in Fig. 10 for large values of N . and saturation at larger N , highlighting the dominance of the
even-parity component for larger nonlinearity.

IV. CONCLUSION
the system reveals the intricate stability landscape, in-
In this work, we have systematically explored the cluding transitions of the SD solitons to oscillatory and
existence, stability, and dynamics of soliton solutions splitting instabilities.
in the 1D SOC (spin-orbit-coupled) binary BEC sys- In the LHY-dominated regime, corresponding to the
tem incorporating the LHY (Lee-Huang-Yang) quantum- limit of diverging contact-interaction strength, g → ∞,
fluctuation corrections. Our analysis focuses primarily on we have identified a special class of SD and MM soli-
semi-dipole (SD) solitons, exhibiting distinct structural ton solutions characterized by strictly real wavefunctions.
transitions and stability regimes governed by nonlinear Notably, the SD and MM solitons coexist as stable modes
interactions and SOC effects. Thus, we have demon- with identical chemical potentials and total energies at
strated that the SD solitons undergo the supercritical bi- fixed values of the total norm. This degeneracy highlights
furcation (the phase transition of the second kind) from the thermodynamic equivalence and structural diversity
purely real to complex wavefunctions, following the in- inherent in the LHY superfluid, being a unique aspect of
crease of the norm. A corresponding phase diagram of the quantum matter dominated by the LHY nonlinearity
 10

(quantum fluctuations). use of controllable multistable states is highly relevant.

Thus, our findings underscore the critical role of quan-
tum fluctuations, encapsulated by LHY correction, in ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
stabilizing self-bound modes in ultracold quantum gases.
The emergence of stable complex-valued solitons in this
context exhibits a significant departure from the conven- The work of G.H.C. is supported by the Guangdong
Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation (Grant
tional scalar soliton phenomenology, highlighting the in-
terplay between the spinor effects, SOC, and LHY cor- No. 2024A1515010710). The work of H.C.W. is sup-
ported by Dongguan Science and Technology of Social
rections.
Development Program (Grant No. 20231800940532),
The present work suggests directions for further the- Songshan Lake Sci-Tech Commissioner Program (Grant
oretical and experimental investigations. These include No. 20234373–01KCJ-G). The work of H.M.D. is sup-
soliton collisions, the impact of external trapping poten- ported by the Project of the Natural Science Founda-
tials, and extensions to higher-dimensional settings. The tion of Hunan Province, China (Grant No. 2024JJ5364)
demonstrated bistability and symmetry-breaking phe- and the Hunan Provincial Education Office (Grant No.
nomena suggest possible applications to quantum data 23A0593). The work of B.A.M. is supported, in part, by
processing and coherent matter-wave control, where the the Israel Science Foundation (Grant No. 1695/22).

[1] V. Galitski and I. B. Spielman, “Spin-orbit cou- with Zeeman splitting,” Phys. Rev. A 97, 013607 (2018).
pling in quantum gases,” Nature 494, 49–54 (2013). DOI:10.1103/PhysRevA.97.013607.
DOI:10.1038/nature11841. [12] A. Tononi and L. Salasnich, “Bose–Einstein condensation
[2] Y. Zhang, M. E. Mossman, T. Busch, P. Engels, on the surface of a sphere,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 160403
and C. Zhang, “Properties of spin-orbit-coupled Bose- (2019). DOI:10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.160403.
Einstein condensates,” Front. Phys. 11, 118103 (2016). [13] P. G. Kevrekidis and D. J. Frantzeskakis, “Solitons
DOI:10.1007/s11467-016-0560-y. in coupled nonlinear Schrödinger models: A survey of
[3] H. Zhai, “Degenerate quantum gases with spin-orbit cou- recent developments,” Rev. Phys. 1, 140-153 (2016).
pling: A review,” Rep. Prog. Phys. 78, 026001 (2015). DOI:10.1016/j.revip.2016.07.002.
DOI:10.1088/0034-4885/78/2/026001. [14] L. Khaykovich, F. Schreck, G. Ferrari, T. Bourdel, J.
[4] Y. J. Lin, K. Jiménez-Garcı́a, and I. B. Spielman, “Spin- Cubizolles, L. D. Carr, Y. Castin, and C. Salomon, “For-
orbit-coupled Bose-Einstein condensates,” Nature 471, mation of a matter-wave bright soliton,” Science 296,
83–86 (2011). DOI:10.1038/nature09887. 1290–1293 (2002). DOI:10.1126/science.1071021.
[5] S.-C. Ji, J.-Y. Zhang, L. Zhang, Z.-D. Du, W. Zheng, Y.- [15] K. E. Strecker, G. B. Partridge, A. G. Truscott, and
J. Deng, H. Zhai, S. Chen, and J.-W. Pan, “Experimental R. G. Hulet, “Formation and propagation of matter-
determination of the finite-temperature phase diagram of wave soliton trains,” Nature 417, 150–153 (2002).
a spin-orbit coupled Bose gas,” Nat. Phys. 10, 314–320 DOI:10.1038/nature747.
(2014). DOI:10.1038/nphys2905. [16] J. H. V. Nguyen, P. Dyke, D. Luo, B. A. Malomed, and
[6] N. Goldman, G. Juzeliūnas, P. Öhberg, and I. B. Spiel- R. G. Hulet, “Collisions of matter-wave solitons,” Nat.
man, “Light-induced gauge fields for ultracold atoms,” Phys. 10, 918–922 (2014). DOI:10.1038/nphys3135.
Rep. Prog. Phys. 77, 126401 (2014). DOI:10.1088/0034- [17] Y. V. Kartashov and D. A. Zezyulin, “Stable multir-
4885/77/12/126401. ing and rotating solitons in two-dimensional spin-orbit-
[7] J. Dalibard, F. Gerbier, G. Juzeliūnas, and P. Öhberg, coupled Bose–Einstein condensates with a radially pe-
“Colloquium: Artificial gauge potentials for neu- riodic potential,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 123201 (2019).
tral atoms,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 1523–1543 (2011). DOI:10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.123201.
DOI:10.1103/RevModPhys.83.1523. [18] B. A. Malomed, D. Mihalache, F. Wise, and L. Torner,
[8] H. Sakaguchi, B. Li, B. A. Malomed, “Creation “Spatiotemporal optical solitons,” J. Opt. B: Quantum
of two-dimensional composite solitons in spin-orbit- Semiclass. Opt. 7, R53–R72 (2005). DOI:10.1088/1464-
coupled self-attractive Bose–Einstein condensates in 4266/7/5/R02.
free space,” Phys. Rev. E 89, 032920 (2014). [19] H. Sakaguchi and B. A. Malomed, “Discrete and con-
DOI:10.1103/physreve.89.032920. tinuum composite solitons in Bose-Einstein conden-
[9] B. A. Malomed, “Multidimensional solitons: Well- sates with the Rashba spin-orbit coupling in one and
established results and novel findings,” Eur. two dimensions,” Phys. Rev. E 90, 062922 (2014).
Phys. J. Spec. Top. 225, 2507–2532 (2016). DOI:10.1103/PhysRevE.90.062922.
DOI:10.1140/epjst/e2016-60025-y. [20] Y. V. Kartashov, V. V. Konotop, and F. K. Ab-
[10] Y. Li, Z. Chen, Z. Luo, C. Huang, H. Tan, W. dullaev, “Gap solitons in a spin-orbit-coupled Bose-
Pang, and B. A. Malomed, “Two-dimensional vortex Einstein condensate,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 060402
quantum droplets,” Phys. Rev. A 98, 063602 (2018). (2013). DOI:10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.060402.
DOI:10.1103/PhysRevA.98.063602. [21] Y. V. Kartashov, V. V. Konotop, D. A. Zezyulin, “Bose-
[11] H. Sakaguchi and B. A. Malomed, “One- and two- Einstein condensates with localized spin-orbit coupling:
dimensional gap solitons in spin-orbit-coupled systems Soliton complexes and spinor dynamics,” Phys. Rev.
 11

A 90, 063621 (2014). DOI:10.1103/PhysRevA.90.063621. bosonic mixture,” Phys. Rev. Res. 1, 033155 (2019).
[22] V. E. Lobanov, Y. V. Kartashov, and V. V. DOI:10.1103/PhysRevResearch.1.033155.
Konotop, “Fundamental, multipole, and half-vortex [36] I. Ferrier-Barbut, H. Kadau, M. Schmitt, M. Wenzel, and
gap solitons in spin-orbit coupled Bose-Einstein con- T. Pfau, “Observation of quantum droplets in a strongly
densates,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 180403 (2014). dipolar Bose gas,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 215301 (2016).
DOI:10.1103/physrevlett.112.180403. DOI:10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.215301.
[23] S. Gautam and S. K. Adhikari, “Vortex-bright solitons [37] M. Schmitt, M. Wenzel, F. Böttcher, I. Ferrier-Barbut,
in a spin-orbit-coupled spin-1 condensate,” Phys. Rev. and T. Pfau, “Self-bound droplets of a dilute mag-
A 95, 013608 (2017). DOI:10.1103/PhysRevA.95.013608. netic quantum liquid,” Nature 539, 259–262 (2016).
[24] Y. Xu, Y. Zhang, and B. Wu, “Bright solitons in spin- DOI:10.1038/nature20126.
orbit-coupled Bose-Einstein condensates,” Phys. Rev. [38] D. Baillie, R. M. Wilson, R. N. Bisset, and P. B. Blakie,
A 87, 013614 (2013). DOI:10.1103/PhysRevA.87.013614. “Collective excitations of self-bound droplets of a dipo-
[25] V. Achilleos, D. J. Frantzeskakis, P. G. Kevrekidis, lar quantum fluid,” Phys. Rev. A 94, 021602 (2016).
and D. E. Pelinovsky, “Matter-wave solitons DOI:10.1103/PhysRevA.94.021602.
in spin-orbit-coupled Bose–Einstein conden- [39] F. Böttcher, J.-N. Schmidt, J. Hertkorn, K. S. H. Ng,
sates,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 264101 (2013). S. D. Graham, M. Guo, T. Langen, and T. Pfau, “New
DOI:10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.264101. states of matter with fine-tuned interactions: quantum
[26] H. Sakaguchi and B. A. Malomed, “Matter-wave solitons droplets and dipolar supersolids,” Rep. Prog. Phys. 84,
in nonlinear optical lattices,” Phys. Rev. E 72, 046610 012403 (2021). DOI:10.1088/1361-6633/abc9ab.
(2005). DOI:10.1103/physreve.72.046610. [40] P. Cheiney, C. R. Cabrera, J. Sanz, B. Naylor,
[27] M. Merkl, A. Jacob, F. E. Zimmer, P. Öhberg, and L. Tanzi, and L. Tarruell, “Bright soliton to quan-
L. Santos, “Chiral confinement in quasirelativistic Bose- tum droplet transition in a mixture of Bose–Einstein
Einstein condensates,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 073603 condensates,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 135301 (2018).
(2010). DOI:10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.073603. DOI:10.1103/PhysRevA.105.053616.
[28] D. S. Petrov and G. E. Astrakharchik, “Ultradilute [41] X. Cui and Y. Ma, “Droplet under confinement:
low-dimensional liquids,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 100401 Competition and coexistence with a soliton bound
(2016). DOI:10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.100401. state,” Phys. Rev. Research 3, L012027 (2021).
[29] D. S. Petrov, “Quantum mechanical stabilization of a DOI:10.1103/PhysRevResearch.3.L012027.
collapsing Bose-Bose mixture,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, [42] A. Cappellaro, T. Macrı́, and L. Salasnich, ‘Collec-
155302 (2015). DOI:10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.155302. tive modes across the soliton-droplet crossover in bi-
[30] G. E. Astrakharchik and B. A. Malomed, “Dynamics of nary Bose mixtures,” Phys. Rev. A 97, 053623 (2018).
one-dimensional quantum droplets,” Phys. Rev. A 98, DOI:10.1103/PhysRevA.97.053623.
013631 (2018). DOI:10.1103/PhysRevA.98.013631. [43] S. Gangwar, R. Ravisankar, P. Muruganandam,
[31] S. R. Otajonov, E. N. Tsoy, and F. Kh. Ab- and P. K. Mishra, “Dynamics of quantum solitons
dullaev, “Modulational instability and quantum in Lee-Huang-Yang spin-orbit-coupled Bose-Einstein
droplets in a two-dimensional Bose–Einstein con- condensates,” Phys. Rev. A 106, 063315 (2022).
densate,” Phys. Rev. A 106, 033309 (2022). DOI:10.1103/PhysRevA.106.063315.
DOI:10.1103/physreva.106.033309. [44] T. D. Lee, K. Huang and C. N. Yang, “Eigenvalues and
[32] M. Tylutki, G. E. Astrakharchik, B. A. Malomed, and eigenfunctions of a Bose system of hard spheres and
D. S. Petrov, “Collective excitations of a one-dimensional its low-temperature properties,” Phys. Rev. 106, 1135
quantum droplet,” Phys. Rev. A 101, 051601(R) (2020). (1957). DOI:10.1103/PhysRev.106.1135.
DOI: 10.1103/physreva.101.051601. [45] N. B. Jørgensen, G. M. Bruun, J. J. Arlt,
[33] C. R. Cabrera, L. Tanzi, J. Sanz, B. Naylor, P. Thomas, “Dilute fluid governed by quantum fluctua-
P. Cheiney, and L. Tarruell, “Quantum liquid droplets in tions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 173403 (2018).
a mixture of Bose-Einstein condensates,” Science 359, DOI:10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.173403.
301–304 (2018). DOI:10.1126/science.aao5686. [46] N. G. Vakhitov and A. A. Kolokolov, “Stationary solu-
[34] G. Semeghini, G. Ferioli, L. Masi, C. Mazzinghi, L. Wol- tions of the wave equation in a medium with nonlinearity
swijk, F. Minardi, M. Modugno, G. Modugno, M. In- saturation,” Radiophys. Quantum Electron. 16, 783–789
guscio, and M. Fattori, “Self-bound quantum droplets (1973). DOI:10.1007/BF01031343.
of atomic mixtures in free space,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, [47] E. A. Kuznetsov and F. Dias, “Bifurcations of solitons
235301 (2018). DOI:10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.235301. and their stability,” Phys. Rep. 507, 43–105 (2011).
[35] C. D’Errico, A. Burchianti, M. Prevedelli, L. Salasnich, DOI:10.1016/j.physrep.2011.06.002.
F. Ancilotto, M. Modugno, F. Minardi, and C. Fort, [48] G. Iooss and D. D. Joseph, “Elementary stability bifur-
“Observation of quantum droplets in a heteronuclear cation theory,” Springer, New York, 1980.