Travelling kinks in discrete phi<sup>4</sup>models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, three exceptional discretizations of the ϕ 4 theory have been discovered (by Speight and Ward, Bender and Tovbis, and Kevrekidis) which support translationally invariant kinks, i.e. families of stationary kinks centred at arbitrary points between the lattice sites. It has been suggested that the translationally invariant stationary kinks may persist as sliding kinks, i.e. discrete kinks travelling at nonzero velocities without experiencing any radiation damping. The purpose of this study is to check whether this is indeed the case. By computing the Stokes constants in beyond-all-order asymptotic expansions, we prove that the three exceptional discretizations do not support sliding kinks for most values of the velocity—just like the standard, one-site discretization. There are, however, isolated values of velocity for which radiationless kink propagation becomes possible. There is one such value for the discretization of Speight and Ward and three sliding velocities for the model of Kevrekidis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".