1: \documentclass[a4paper,pre,twocolumn,showpacs,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}

2: 

3: \usepackage{graphicx}

4: \usepackage{amsmath}

5: 

6: \DeclareMathOperator{\sech}{sech}

7: \DeclareMathOperator{\csch}{cosech}

8: \DeclareMathOperator{\Real}{Re}

9: \DeclareMathOperator{\Imag}{Im}

10: \newcommand{\dx}{\, dx}

11: \newcommand{\conj}[1]{{#1}^{\ast}}

12: \newcommand{\conjl}[1]{\overline{#1}}

13: \newcommand{\order}[1]{{\cal O}\left({#1}\right)}

14: 

15: \raggedbottom

16: 

17: \usepackage[colorlinks,citecolor=blue,linkcolor=blue,filecolor=blue,urlcolor=blue]{hyperref}

18: 

19: \begin{document}

20: 

21: \title{Moving solitons in the discrete nonlinear Schr\"odinger equation}

22: \author{O. F. Oxtoby}

23: \email{Oliver.Oxtoby@uct.ac.za}

24: \author{I. V. Barashenkov}

25: \email{Igor.Barashenkov@uct.ac.za}

26: \affiliation{Department of Maths and Applied Maths, University of Cape

27: Town, Rondebosch 7701, South Africa}

28: \date{17 July 2007}

29: 

30: \begin{abstract}

31: Using the method of asymptotics beyond all orders,

32: we evaluate the amplitude of radiation from a moving small-amplitude

33: soliton in the discrete nonlinear Schr\"odinger equation.

34: When the nonlinearity is of the cubic type, this amplitude

35: is shown to be nonzero for all velocities and therefore small-amplitude

36: solitons moving without emitting radiation do not exist.

37: In the case of a \emph{saturable} nonlinearity, on the other hand, 

38: the radiation is found to be completely suppressed when the soliton moves 

39: at one of certain

40: isolated

41: `sliding velocities'.

42: We show that a discrete soliton moving at a general speed will

43: experience radiative deceleration until it either stops and remains

44: pinned to the lattice, or---in the saturable case---%

45: locks, metastably, onto one of the sliding velocities.

46: When the soliton's amplitude is small, however, this deceleration is  extremely slow;  hence,

47: despite losing energy to radiation, the 

48: discrete soliton may spend an exponentially long time travelling

49: with virtually unchanged amplitude and speed.

50: 

51: \end{abstract}

52: 

53: \pacs{05.45.Yv, 42.65.Tg, 63.20.Pw, 05.45.Ra}

54: 

55: \maketitle

56: 

57: \section{Introduction}

58: 

59: This paper deals with moving solitons of the discrete

60: nonlinear Schr\"odinger (DNLS) equation.

61: The earliest applications of the cubic DNLS equation were to the

62: self-trapping of electrons in lattices (the polaron problem)

63: and energy transfer in biological chains (Davydov solitons)

64: -- see the reviews \cite{hennig,braun,scott} for references.

65: Relatedly, the equation arises in the description of

66: small-amplitude breathers in Frenkel-Kontorova chains

67: with weak coupling \cite{braun}.

68: In optics the equation describes

69: light-pulse propagation in nonlinear waveguide arrays in the

70: tight-binding limit \cite{christodoulides,campbell}.

71: Most recently the DNLS equation has been used to model

72: Bose-Einstein condensates in optically induced lattices

73: \cite{trambettoni}.

74: 

75: The question of the existence of moving solitons in the

76: DNLS equation has been the

77: subject of debate for some time

78: \cite{duncan,flach,eilbeck,ablowitz,Kundu,pelinovsky,kevrekidis,

79: Feddersen,FKZ,Flach_Kladko,

80: Malomed_collisions_1,Malomed_collisions_2,Malomed_nonlinearity_management}.

81: Recently, G\'omez-Garde\~nes, Flor\'ia, Falo, Peyrard and Bishop

82: \cite{gomez1,gomez}

83: have demonstrated that the stationary motion of pulses in the cubic one-site DNLS

84: (the `standard' DNLS) is only possible over an oscillatory

85:  background consisting of a superposition of plane waves.

86: This result was

87: obtained by numerical continuation of the moving

88: Ablowitz-Ladik breather with two commensurate time scales.

89: In our present paper, we study the travelling discrete solitons analytically

90: and independently of any reference models.

91: Consistently with the conclusions of \cite{gomez1,gomez},

92: we will show that solitons cannot freely move in the cubic DNLS equation;

93: they emit radiation, decelerate and eventually become

94: pinned by the lattice.

95: We shall show, however,

96:  that this radiation is exponentially small in the soliton's

97: amplitude, so that broad, small-amplitude pulses are highly mobile and

98: are for all practical purposes indistinguishable from

99: freely moving solitons.

100: 

101: 

102: 

103: In the context of optical waveguide arrays---important

104: not only in themselves but also as a first step

105: to understanding more complicated

106: optical systems such as photonic crystals---%

107: interest among experimentalists \cite{efremidis,fleischer,chen}

108: has recently shifted away from media

109: with pure-Kerr nonlinearity (which gives rise to a cubic term in the DNLS

110: equation) and towards photorefractive media, which exhibit a

111: saturable nonlinearity \cite{cuevas,fleischer-nature,

112: vicencio,hadzievski,stepic}.  In practice such arrays may

113: be optically induced in a photorefractive material

114: \cite{efremidis,fleischer} or fabricated permanently -- see

115: \cite{chen}, for example.

116: The study of solitons in \emph{continuous} optical

117: systems with saturable nonlinearitites has a

118: long history; interesting phenomena here

119: include

120: bistability \cite{gatz1,gatz2}, fusion \cite{tikhonenko}

121: and radiation effects \cite{vidal} which do not arise in

122: the cubic equation. As for the \emph{discrete} case, the work of

123: Khare, Rasmussen, Samuelsen and Saxena \cite{khare}

124: suggests that the saturable one-site

125: DNLS may be \emph{exceptional} in the sense of ref.\,\cite{BOP};

126: that is, despite not

127: being a translation invariant system, it supports translationally

128: invariant stationary solitons.

129: This property is usually

130: seen as a prerequisite for undamped motion in

131: discrete equations (see e.g.\ \cite{OPB}) and indeed,

132: the numerical experiments of

133: Vicencio and Johansson \cite{vicencio} have revealed that soliton

134: mobility is enhanced in the saturable DNLS equation.

135: 

136: 

137: The DNLS equation with a saturable nonlinearity is the second object of

138: our analysis here; our conclusions will turn out to be in agreement with

139: the numerical observations of ref.\,\cite{vicencio}.

140: We will show that for nonlinearities which

141: saturate at a low enough intensity, solitons can

142: \emph{slide}---that is, move without

143: radiative deceleration---at certain isolated velocities.

144: These `sliding' solitons are examples of embedded solitons.

145: 

146: 

147: 

148: The usual saturable DNLS equation is the

149: discrete form of the Vinetskii-Kukhtarev model \cite{vinetskii}:

150: \begin{equation}

151: \label{VK}

152: i\dot{\Phi}_n + \Phi_{n+1} - 2\Phi_n + \Phi_{n-1} -

153: \gamma\frac{1}{1+|\Phi_n|^2} \Phi_n = 0.

154: \end{equation}

155: In order to encompass both cubic and saturable nonlinearities in a single

156: model, we shall instead consider the equation

157: \begin{equation}

158: \label{DNLS}

159: i\dot{\phi}_n + \phi_{n+1} + \phi_{n-1}

160: + \frac{2|\phi_n|^2}{1+\mu|\phi_n|^2}\phi_n = 0,

161: \end{equation}

162: obtained from eq.\,\eqref{VK} by making the transformation

163: $\Phi_n = \sqrt{2/\gamma}e^{-i(2+\gamma)t} \phi_n$ and letting $\mu=2/\gamma$.

164: In the form above, $1/\mu$ represents the saturation threshold of

165: the medium \cite{gatz2}, which tends to infinity as one approaches

166: the pure Kerr (cubic) case of $\mu = 0$.  The higher the value of $\mu$,

167: the lower is the intensity at which the nonlinearity saturates.

168: 

169: 

170: 

171: This paper is structured in the following way.

172: In section \ref{section2},  we construct

173: a small-amplitude,  broad

174: travelling pulse  as an asymptotic

175: series in powers of $\epsilon$, its amplitude. The velocity and frequency of this soliton

176: are obtained as explicit functions of $\epsilon$  and

177: its carrier-wave wavenumber.

178: Then in section \ref{section3}, the main section

179: of this paper, we derive an expression for

180: the soliton's radiation tails and measure their amplitude using the method of asymptotics

181: beyond all orders.  In section \ref{section4}, we investigate the influence of

182: this exponentially weak radiation on the

183: soliton's amplitude and speed.  Finally, in  section

184: \ref{section5}, we summarise our work and make comparisons with some earlier results.

185: 

186: 

187: \section{Asymptotic Expansion}

188: \label{section2}

189: 

190: \subsection{Leading order}

191: \label{section2_A}

192: 

193: We begin by seeking solutions of the form

194: \begin{equation}

195: \label{ansatz}

196: \phi_n(t) = \psi(X)e^{ikn+i\omega t},

197: \end{equation}

198: where

199: \begin{equation} X = \epsilon(n-vt)

200: \label{eps_wid}

201: \end{equation} and $\epsilon$ is a parameter.

202: By analogy  with the soliton of the continuous NLS,

203: we expect the discrete

204: soliton to be uniquely characterised by two parameters---% 

205: e.g.\ $\epsilon$ and $k$---%

206: while the other two ($\omega$ and $v$)

207:  are expected to be expressible through

208: $\epsilon$ and $k$.

209: Substituting the Ansatz \eqref{ansatz},\,\eqref{eps_wid} into

210: \eqref{DNLS} gives a differential

211: advance-delay equation

212: \begin{multline}

213: \label{maineqn}

214: \psi(X+\epsilon)e^{ik}+\psi(X-\epsilon)e^{-ik}-\omega\psi(X) \\

215: -i\epsilon v\psi'(X) +

216: \frac{2|\psi(X)|^2} {1+\mu|\psi(X)|^2}  \psi(X) = 0.

217: \end{multline}

218: This can be written as an ordinary differential equation of an infinite

219: order:

220: \begin{multline}

221: \label{ode}

222:  e^{ik}\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\epsilon^n\frac{1}{n!}\psi^{(n)}

223: + e^{-ik}\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\epsilon^n\frac{(-1)^n}{n!}\psi^{(n)}

224: -\omega\psi\\-i\epsilon v\psi' +

225:  \frac{2|\psi|^2} {1+\mu|\psi|^2}  \psi= 0,

226: \end{multline}

227: where $\psi^{(n)}= d^n \psi/dX^n$.

228: 

229: From now on we assume that $\epsilon$ is small.

230: Our aim in this section is to find an approximate solution to

231: eq.\,\eqref{ode}---and hence eq.\,\eqref{DNLS}---with $\psi={\cal O} (\epsilon)$.

232: (That is, we are

233: looking for small, broad

234: pulses which modulate a periodic carrier wave.)

235: To this end, we expand

236: $\psi$, $\omega$ and $v$ as power series in $\epsilon$:

237: \begin{subequations}

238: \label{expansions}

239: \begin{align}

240: \psi   &= \epsilon(\psi_0 + \epsilon\psi_1 + \cdots),

241: \label{exp_psi} \\

242: \omega &= \omega_0 + \epsilon^2 \omega_2 + \cdots,

243: \label{exp_om}  \\

244: v      &= v_0 + \epsilon^2 v_2 + \cdots.

245: \label{exp_v}

246: \end{align}

247: \end{subequations}

248: (We are not expanding $k$ as we consider it, along with $\epsilon$,

249: as one of the two independent parameters characterising our solution.)

250: Substituting these expansions into eq.\,\eqref{ode} gives a hierarchy

251: of equations to be satisfied at each power of $\epsilon$

252: by choosing  $\omega_n$ and $v_n$ properly.

253: In nonlinear

254: oscillations, this perturbation

255: procedure is known as Lindstedt's method

256: \cite{Lindstedt}.

257: 

258: 

259: At the order $\epsilon^1$ we obtain

260: \begin{equation}

261:  \omega_0 = 2\cos k,

262:  \label{alpha}

263:  \end{equation}

264: while  the order $\epsilon^2$ gives

265: \begin{equation}

266: v_0=2\sin k.

267: \label{beta}

268: \end{equation}

269: These two relations correspond to the

270: dispersion of linear waves.

271: At the power $\epsilon^3$ we obtain the following nonlinear equation

272: for $\psi_0$:

273: \begin{equation*}

274: \cos k \, \psi''_0 - \omega_2\psi_0

275: +2|\psi_0|^2\psi_0 = 0.

276: \end{equation*}

277: This is the stationary form of the NLS equation, which has

278: the homoclinic solution

279: \[\psi_0 = a\sqrt{\cos k}\sech(aX)\]

280: with

281: \[a^2 = \frac{\omega_2}{\cos k}.\]

282: Returning to the original variable $\psi$, we note that

283:  the amplitude $a$ can always be absorbed into

284: $\epsilon$, the  parameter in eq.\,(\ref{eps_wid}) and

285: in front of $\psi_0$ in

286: (\ref{exp_psi}). That is, there is no loss of generality

287: in setting $a = 1$ and letting $\epsilon$ describe

288: the amplitude (and inverse width) of the pulse instead.

289: This allows us to set

290: \begin{equation}

291:  \omega_2 = \cos k.

292:  \label{gamma}

293:  \end{equation}

294: 

295: 

296:  Note that the coefficients in eq.\,\eqref{maineqn} are periodic functions

297: of the parameter $k$ with period $2 \pi$; therefore it

298: is sufficient  to consider $k$ in the

299: interval $(-\pi, \pi)$.

300: Also, \eqref{maineqn} is invariant with

301: respect to the transformation $k \rightarrow -k$,

302: $ \epsilon \rightarrow -\epsilon$, $v \rightarrow -v$;

303: hence it is sufficient to consider positive $k$

304: only. Finally, our perturbative solution

305: does not exist if $\cos k$ is negative.

306: Thus, from now on we shall assume that $0 \leq k \leq \pi/2$.

307: 

308: 

309: \subsection{Higher orders}

310: 

311: At the order $\epsilon^{n+3}$, where $n \ge 1$, we arrive at the following

312: equations for the real and imaginary parts of $\psi_n$:

313: \begin{subequations}

314: \label{genlinear}

315: \begin{align}

316: \label{genlinearreal}

317: {\cal L}_1\Real\psi_n &= \frac{\Real f_{n-1}(X)}{\cos k} \\

318: \label{genlinearimag}

319: {\cal L}_0\Imag\psi_n &= \frac{\Imag f_{n-1}(X)}{\cos k},

320: \end{align}

321: \end{subequations}

322: where

323: \begin{align*}

324: {\cal L}_0 &= -d^2/dX^2 + 1 - 2\sech^2X, \\

325: {\cal L}_1 &= -d^2/dX^2 + 1 - 6\sech^2X

326: \end{align*}

327: and

328: \begin{widetext}

329: \begin{multline}

330: f_{n-1}(X) = \sum_{j=1}^{[n/2]}\left(\frac{2\cos k}{(2j+2)!}\psi_{n-2j}^{(2j+2)}-\omega_{2j+2}\psi_{n-2j}\right)

331: +i\sum_{j=1}^{[\frac{n+1}{2}]}\left(\frac{2\sin k}{(2j+1)!}\psi_{n-2j+1}^{(2j+1)}-v_{2j}\psi'_{n-2j+1}\right) \\

332: +\sum_{m=1}^{n-1}2\psi_0(\psi_m\conj{\psi}_{n-m}-\psi_{n-m}\conj{\psi}_m)

333: +\sum_{m=1}^{n-1}\sum_{\ell=0}^{n-1-m}2\psi_{n-m-\ell}\psi_m\conj{\psi}_{\ell}\\

334: +\mu\sum_{m=0}^{n-1}\sum_{\ell=0}^{n-1-m}\Bigg[

335: \sum_{j=1}^{[\frac{n-m-\ell}{2}]}\left(\frac{2\cos k}{(2j)!}\psi^{(2j)}_{n-m-\ell-2j} -\omega_{2j}\psi_{n-m-\ell-2j}\right)\\

336: +i\sum_{j=1}^{[\frac{n-m-\ell-1}{2}]}\left(\frac{2\sin k}{(2j+1)!}\psi^{(2j+1)}_{n-m-\ell-2j-1} -v_{2j}\psi'_{n-m-\ell-2j-1}\right)

337: \Bigg]\psi_m\conj{\psi}_{\ell}.

338: \label{all_p}

339: \end{multline}

340: \end{widetext}

341: The linear nonhomogeneous ordinary differential equations \eqref{genlinear} must

342: be solved subject to a boundedness condition.

343: 

344: The bounded homogeneous solutions of eqs \eqref{genlinearreal}   and

345: \eqref{genlinearimag} ($\sech X\tanh X$ and  $\sech X$, respectively)

346: correspond to the translation- and U(1)-invariances of eq.\,\eqref{maineqn}.

347: Including these zero modes in the full solution of eqs \eqref{genlinear}

348:  would amount just to the translation of $\psi(X)$ by a constant distance in $X$

349: and its multiplication by a

350: constant phase factor.  These deformations are trivial,

351: and hence we can safely discard

352: the homogeneous solutions at each order of $\epsilon$.

353: 

354: As $\psi_0$'s real part is even and its imaginary  part is odd (zero),

355: $\psi_1$'s real and imaginary parts are also even and odd, respectively.

356: The same holds, by induction, to all orders of the perturbation theory.

357: Indeed, assume

358: that $\psi_0, \psi_1, \ldots, \psi_{n-1}$ have even real parts and odd

359: imaginary parts. Then it is not difficult to verify

360: that the function ${\rm Re} f_{n-1}(X)$ is even and ${\rm Im} f_{n-1}(X)$

361: is odd.  Since the operators ${\cal L}_0$

362: and ${\cal L}_1$ are parity-preserving, and since

363: we have excluded the corresponding homogeneous solutions, this means

364: that $\psi_n$ has an even real part and an odd imaginary part.

365: Finally, the homogeneous solution of \eqref{genlinearimag} being even

366: and that of \eqref{genlinearreal} being odd, the

367: corresponding solvability conditions are satisfied

368: at any order.

369: 

370: 

371: 

372: 

373: Note that since the solvability conditions do not impose any constraints

374: on $v_n$ and $\omega_n$, the coefficients

375: $v_n$ with $n \geq 2$ and $\omega_n$

376: with $n \geq 4$ can be chosen completely arbitrarily.

377: 

378: 

379: \subsection{Explicit perturbative solution to order $\epsilon^3$}

380: 

381: Solving eqs \eqref{genlinear} successively,

382:  we can obtain the discrete soliton \eqref{exp_psi} to

383: any desired accuracy. Here, we restrict ourselves

384: to corrections up to the cubic power in $\epsilon$.

385:  The order $\epsilon^3$ is the lowest order

386: at which the saturation parameter $\mu$ appears in the solution.

387: On the other hand, it is high enough to exemplify

388: and motivate

389: our choice of the coefficients in \eqref{exp_om} and \eqref{exp_v}.

390: 

391: 

392: 

393: 

394: Letting $n=1$ in eq.\,\eqref{all_p}, we have

395: \begin{equation*}

396: f_0(X) = \frac{2i}{3!} \sin k \psi_0''' - iv_2\psi'_0.

397: \end{equation*}

398: The corresponding solution of

399: eq.\,\eqref{genlinear} is

400: \begin{align*}

401:  \psi_1 = \, &\frac{i}{\sqrt{\cos k}} \Bigg[ \frac{1}{2}\sin k\sech X\tanh X \\

402: &\;\;\;\;+\frac{1}{2}\left(v_2-\frac{1}{3}\sin k \right)X\sech X \Bigg].

403: \end{align*}

404: Here the term proportional to $X\sech X$

405: decays to zero as $|X| \to \infty$; however, it becomes greater than

406: $\psi_0(X)$ for sufficiently large $|X|$, leading to

407: nonuniformity of the expansion \eqref{exp_psi}.

408: In order to obtain a uniform

409: expansion,  the term in question

410: should be eliminated. Being free to choose the coefficients

411: $v_n$ with $n \geq 2$, we use this freedom to set

412: \[v_2 = \frac{1}{3}\sin k. \]

413:  This leaves us with

414: \[\psi_1 = \frac{i}{2} \sqrt{\cos k}\tan k\sech X\tanh X. \]

415: After `distilling' in a similar way the correction

416:  $\psi_2$,

417: where we fix $$ \omega_4 =  \frac{1}{12} \cos k $$

418: to eliminate a term proportional to $X \sech X$, we obtain

419: \begin{align}

420: \label{regularpert}

421: \psi &= \epsilon\sqrt{\cos k}\Big\{ \sech X + \frac{i}{2} \epsilon\tan k

422: \sech X\tanh X \nonumber\\

423: &\;\;+ \frac{1}{12}\epsilon^2\big[4\sech^3X-3\sech X \nonumber\\

424: &\;\;\;\;+ \frac{1}{2}\tan^2k(14\sech^3X-13\sech X) \nonumber\\

425: &\;\;\;\;\;\;+ 4\mu\cos k(2\sech X - \sech^3X)\big]

426: + {\cal O}(\epsilon^3)\Big\},

427: \end{align}

428: where

429: \begin{subequations}

430: \begin{align}

431: \omega &=

432: 2\left[1+\frac{1}{2!}\epsilon^2+\frac{1}{4!}\epsilon^4+

433: {\cal O}(\epsilon^6)\right]\cos k,

434: \label{omegadef} \\

435: v &=

436: 2\left[1+\frac{1}{3!}\epsilon^2+{\cal O}(\epsilon^4)\right]\sin k.

437: \label{cdef}

438: \end{align}

439: \end{subequations}

440: 

441: 

442: 

443: 

444: 

445: 

446: 

447: 

448: \subsection{Velocity and frequency of the discrete soliton}

449: 

450: In the previous subsection we have shown that fixing

451: suitably the coefficients $\omega_n$ and $v_n$ can lead to a uniform

452: expansion of $\psi$ to order $\epsilon^3$. Our approach

453: was based on solving for $\psi_n$ explicitly and then setting

454: the coefficients in front of the `secular' terms $X \sech X$ to zero.

455: Here, we show that the secular terms can be eliminated

456: to all orders -- and

457: without appealing to explicit solutions.

458: 

459: Assume that the secular terms have been

460: suppressed in all nonhomogeneous solutions

461:  $\psi_m$ with $m$ up to $n-1$; that is, let

462: \begin{align}

463: \psi_m(X) &\to C_m e^X + o(e^X) \nonumber\\

464: &\quad\mbox{as} \ X \to -\infty \quad

465: (m=0,1, \ldots, n-1).

466: \label{as_m}

467: \end{align}

468: (Since we know that the real part of $\psi_m$ is even

469: and the imaginary part odd, it is sufficient to consider the

470: asymptotic behaviour at one infinity only.)

471: The constant $C_m$ may happen to be zero for some $m$

472: in which case the decay of $\psi_m$ will be faster

473: than $e^X$.

474: Our objective is to choose $\omega_n$ and $v_n$ in

475: such a way that $\psi_n(X)$ will also satisfy \eqref{as_m}.

476: To this end, we consider the function \eqref{all_p}.

477: All terms which are trilinear in $\psi_0,\ldots,\psi_{n-1}$

478: and  derivatives of these functions decay  as $e^{3X}$ or faster; these

479: terms in $f_{n-1}$

480: cannot give rise to the secular terms

481: proportional to $X \sech X$ in

482: $\psi_n$. On the other hand, the terms making up the first

483: line in \eqref{all_p} tend to

484: \begin{align*}

485: &e^X \sum_{j=1}^{[n/2]} \left[

486: \frac{2\cos k}{(2j+2)!}

487: -\omega_{2j+2}\right] C_{n-2j} \\

488: &\quad +i e^X \sum_{j=1}^{[\frac{n+1}{2}]}\left[

489: \frac{2\sin k}{(2j+1)!}

490: -v_{2j}\right] C_{n-2j+1}

491: \end{align*}

492: as $X \to -\infty$. These are `asymptotically resonant' terms --

493: in the sense that

494: their asymptotics are proportional to the asymptotics  of the

495: homogeneous solutions of \eqref{genlinearreal} and

496: \eqref{genlinearimag}.

497: It is these terms on the right-hand sides

498: of \eqref{genlinearreal} and

499: \eqref{genlinearimag} that give rise to the secular terms in the

500: solution $\psi_n$.

501: The resonant terms will be suppressed if

502: we let

503: \begin{equation}

504: \omega_{2j+2} = \frac{2 \cos k} { (2 j+2)!}, \quad

505: v_{2j} =

506: \frac{2 \sin k} { (2 j+1)!}, \quad

507: j \ge 1.

508: \label{om_and_v}

509: \end{equation}

510: After the resonant terms have been eliminated, the bounded solution

511: to \eqref{genlinear} will have  the asymptotic behaviour $\psi_n \to C_n e^X$

512: as $X \to -\infty$. By induction, this result extends to all $n \ge 0$.

513: 

514: Substituting  \eqref{om_and_v}, together with

515: \eqref{alpha}--\eqref{gamma}, into

516: eqs \eqref{exp_om} and \eqref{exp_v}, and summing

517: up the series, we obtain

518: \begin{equation}

519: \omega= 2 \cos k \cosh \epsilon, \quad

520: v= 2 \sin k \frac{\sinh \epsilon}{\epsilon},

521: \label{om_and_v_via_eps}

522: \end{equation}

523: the frequency and velocity of the discrete soliton

524: parameterised

525: in terms of $k$ and $\epsilon$.

526: 

527: 

528: 

529: Equations \eqref{om_and_v_via_eps}

530:  coincide with the expressions \cite{AL} of the Ablowitz-Ladik

531: soliton's velocity and frequency in terms of its amplitude and wavenumber.

532: The difference between the two sets of answers is in that

533: eqs \eqref{om_and_v_via_eps} pertain to small-amplitude

534: solitons only, whereas Ablowitz and Ladik's formulas

535: are valid for arbitrarily large amplitudes.

536: 

537: Note, also, that the velocity and frequency

538: \eqref{om_and_v_via_eps}

539: do not depend on the saturation parameter $\mu$.

540: This is in contrast to the stationary ($v=0$) soliton of

541: eqs \eqref{maineqn} and \eqref{ode}

542: obtained by Khare, Rasmussen, Samuelsen and Saxena \cite{khare}.

543: The soliton of ref.\,\cite{khare} has its amplitude and

544: frequency uniquely determined by $\mu$.

545: 

546: 

547: 

548: 

549: % We close this section by commenting on the case of stationary

550: % solitons.

551: % From eq.\,\eqref{om_and_v_via_eps} it follows that

552: % $v=0$ implies $k=0$, and so all terms with $i$ in front are absent from the

553: % expansion \eqref{all_p}.

554: % As a result,

555: %  both $f_{n-1}(X)$ and $\psi_n(X)$ are real in this case,

556: % for all $n$ --- this can be easily shown by induction.

557: % Since real parts of all $\psi_n(X)$ are even, we conclude that

558: % for those $\epsilon$ and $\mu$ for which the

559: % series \eqref{exp_psi} converges, it converges to an even solution.

560: 

561: 

562: 

563: \section{Terms beyond all orders of the perturbation theory}

564: \label{section3}

565: 

566: \subsection{Dispersion relation for linear waves}

567: 

568: 

569: 

570: As $X \to -\infty$, the series \eqref{exp_psi} reduces to

571: $\psi(X)= \sum_{n=0}^\infty  \epsilon^{n+1}C_n e^X$.

572: The convergence of the series $\sum \epsilon^{n+1} \psi_n(X)$

573: for all $X$ would imply, in particular, the convergence of the

574: series $\sum \epsilon^{n+1}C_n $. Therefore, if the series

575: \eqref{exp_psi} converged, the solution $\psi(X)$ would be

576: decaying to zero as $X \to -\infty$. However, although

577: we have shown that the series $\sum \epsilon^{n+1} \psi_n(X)$

578: is asymptotic

579: to all orders, it does not have to be convergent.

580: For instance, it is easy to see that the series

581: cannot converge for $v=\mu=0$ and any $\epsilon$; since the

582: advance-delay equation \eqref{maineqn} is

583: translation invariant, this would imply that we have constructed

584: a family of stationary solitons

585: with an arbitrary position relative to the lattice.

586: This, in turn, would contradict the well established fact that the

587: `standard' cubic DNLS solitons can only be centered on a

588: site or midway between two adjacent sites \cite{Laedke_Kluth_Spatschek}

589: (that is, that the `standard' discretisation

590: of the cubic NLS is not exceptional \cite{pelinovsky-exceptional}).

591: Thus, we expect that

592:   the perturbative solution \eqref{exp_psi} satisfies

593:  $\psi(X) \to 0$ as $|X| \to \infty$ only for some special

594: choices of $v$, $\epsilon$ and $\mu$.

595: 

596: 

597: Can eqs \eqref{maineqn} and \eqref{ode} have a bounded solution

598: despite the divergence of the corresponding series $\sum

599: \epsilon^{n+1}C_n $? To gain some insight into this matter, we linearise

600: eq.\,\eqref{maineqn} about $\psi=0$ and

601: find nondecaying solutions of the form $\psi = e^{i{\cal Q} X/\epsilon}$

602: where ${\cal Q}$ is a root of the dispersion relation

603: \begin{equation}

604: \label{disprel}

605: \omega = 2\cos(k+{\cal Q})+ {\cal Q} v.

606: \end{equation}

607: It is easy to check that there is at least one such harmonic solution

608: [i.e.\ eq.\,\eqref{disprel} has at least one root] if $v \neq 0$.

609: These harmonic waves can form a radiation background over

610: which the soliton propagates (as suggested by the numerics of

611: \cite{gomez1,gomez} and the analysis

612: of a similar problem for the $\phi^4$ kinks in \cite{OPB}). Being

613: nonanalytic in $\epsilon$, such backgrounds

614: cannot be captured by any order of the

615: perturbation expansion.

616: 

617: As we will show below, not only the wavenumbers but also the amplitudes

618: of the harmonic waves are nonanalytic in $\epsilon$.

619: This phenomenon was first encountered

620: in the context of the breather of the continuous

621: $\phi^4$ model, where Eleonskii, Kulagin, Novozhilova,

622: and Silin \cite{eleonskii}

623: suggested that the radiation from

624: the breather could be

625: exponentially weak.  Segur and Kruskal \cite{sk,sk2}

626: then developed the method of `asymptotics beyond all orders' to

627: demonstrate that, in the limit

628: $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$, such radiation does exist.

629: We will use Segur and Kruskal's method to measure

630: the magnitude of the radiation background of the travelling discrete soliton.

631: 

632: 

633: Qualitatively, the fact that the radiation

634: is not excited at any order of the perturbation expansion

635: is explained by the fact that the soliton exists on the

636: long length scale $X$, whereas the radiation has the shorter

637: scale $X/\epsilon$.  To all orders, the two are uncoupled.

638: 

639: 

640: 

641: Using the relations \eqref{om_and_v_via_eps},

642: we can rewrite \eqref{disprel} as

643: \begin{equation}

644: \label{nicedisprel}

645: \frac{\cosh\epsilon-\cos {\cal Q}}

646: {(\sinh\epsilon/ \epsilon){\cal Q} -\sin {\cal Q}} = \tan

647: k.

648: \end{equation}

649: The left hand side is plotted in fig.\,\ref{nicedisprelfig}.  For $\epsilon =

650: 0$ it has minima at multiples of $2\pi$ where the curve is tangent to the horizontal axis.

651:   For nonzero $\epsilon$, the minima of the curve are lifted off the

652: ${\cal Q}$ axis

653: slightly.

654: The minima with larger values of ${\cal Q}$ have smaller elevations above the

655: horizontal axis; i.e.,

656: the minima come closer and closer to the ${\cal Q}$

657: axis as ${\cal Q}$ grows.

658: We see from the figure that for $k >k^{(1)}_{\rm max}$,

659: where $k^{(1)}_{\rm max} \approx 0.22$, there is only one

660: radiation mode. Note also that the left-hand side of

661: eq.\,\eqref{nicedisprel} is negative for negative ${\cal Q}$; since

662: we have assumed that $0 \le k \le \pi/2$, this implies

663: that eq.\,\eqref{nicedisprel} cannot have negative roots.

664: 

665: \begin{figure}[btp]

666: \includegraphics{disprel.eps}

667: \caption{\label{nicedisprelfig}The left hand side of eq.\,\eqref{nicedisprel} for

668: two values of $\epsilon$.  The root(s) ${\cal Q}_n$ of the

669: dispersion relation \eqref{disprel} are located where this graph

670: is intersected by a horizontal straight line with ordinate

671: equal to $\tan k$.}

672: \end{figure}

673: 

674: 

675: 

676: 

677: 

678: 

679: \subsection{Radiating solitons}

680: \label{Radi_Soli}

681: 

682: Although we originally constructed the

683: expansion \eqref{exp_psi} as an asymptotic

684: approximation to a  solution which is stationary

685: in the frame of reference moving with the velocity $v$, it can

686: also represent an approximation to a time-dependent solution

687: $\psi(X,t)$. Here $\psi(X,t)$ is related to $\phi_n(t)$,

688: the discrete variable in eq.\,\eqref{DNLS},

689: by the substitution \eqref{ansatz}:

690: \begin{equation}

691: \label{transformation}

692: \phi_n(t) = \psi(X,t)e^{ikn+i\omega t}.

693: \end{equation}

694:   The coefficients $\psi_n$ in the asymptotic expansion of $\psi(X,t)$ will

695: coincide with the coefficients in the expansion of the stationary

696: solution $\psi(X)= \sum

697: \epsilon^{n+1} \psi_n $ if

698: the time derivatives $\partial_t\psi_n$

699: lie beyond all orders of $\epsilon$ and hence the time evolution

700: of the free parameters $k$ and $\epsilon$ occurs on a time scale

701: longer than

702: any power of $\epsilon^{-1}$.

703: Physically, one such  solution represents

704: a travelling soliton slowing down and attenuating as the Cherenkov

705: radiation left in its wake carries momentum and energy away from its

706: core.

707: 

708: 

709: Substituting \eqref{transformation} into

710: eq.\,\eqref{DNLS}, gives

711: \begin{equation}

712: \label{timedepeqn}

713: i\psi_t+\psi^+e^{ik}+\psi^-e^{-ik}-\omega\psi-i\epsilon v\psi_X

714: +\frac{2|\psi|^2}{1+\mu|\psi|^2} \psi = 0,

715: \end{equation}

716: where $\psi^{\pm} = \psi(X\pm\epsilon,t)$.

717: 

718: We consider two solutions of this equation which both have the same

719: asymptotic expansion \eqref{exp_psi}, denoted $\psi_s(X,t)$

720: and $\psi_u(X,t)$, such that $\psi_s(X,t)\to 0$ as $X \to +\infty$ and

721: $\psi_u(X,t) \to 0$ as $X \to -\infty$.

722: Since the difference $\Psi \equiv \psi_s-\psi_u$ is small

723: (lies beyond all orders of $\epsilon$),  and since the solution

724: $\psi_s$ can be regarded as a perturbation of $\psi_u$,

725: $\Psi$ obeys the linearisation of eq.\,\eqref{timedepeqn}

726: about $\psi_u$ to a good approximation.  That is,

727: \begin{multline}

728: \label{linearised}

729: i\Psi_t + \Psi^+e^{ik} + \Psi^-e^{-ik} - \omega\Psi

730: -iv\epsilon\Psi_X \\

731: + \frac{4|\psi_u|^2\Psi +2\psi_u^2\conj{\Psi}}{1+\mu|\psi_u|^2}

732: + \frac{2\mu|\psi_u|^2(|\psi_u|^2\Psi +\psi_u^2\conj{\Psi})}{(1+\mu|\psi_u|^2)^2} = 0.

733: \end{multline}

734: Since $\psi_u = \order{\epsilon}$, we can solve  eq.\,\eqref{linearised}

735: to leading order in $\epsilon$ by ignoring the last two terms in it; the

736: resulting solutions are

737: exponentials of the form $e^{i\mathcal{Q}X/\epsilon-i\Omega t}$. We  make a

738: preemptive simplification by setting $\Omega = 0$.

739: [That $\Omega$ has to be set equal to zero follows from

740: matching these exponentials to the far-field 

741: asymptotes of the stationary `inner' solution;

742:  see section \ref{IIID} below.

743: Physically,  $\Omega = 0$ implies that the travelling pulse will

744:  only excite the radiation

745: with its own (zero) frequency in the comoving frame.]

746: The leading-order solution of eq.\,\eqref{linearised} is therefore

747: \begin{equation}

748: \label{stable-minus-unstable-outer}

749: \Psi = \sum_n A_n e^{i {\cal Q}_nX/\epsilon} + \order{\epsilon^1},

750: \end{equation}

751: where ${\cal Q}_n$ ($n=1,2,\ldots$) are the roots, numbered in order from smallest to

752: largest, of the dispersion relation \eqref{disprel}.

753: (Recall that since we have taken $k$ in the interval

754:  $[0, \pi/2]$, all the roots ${\cal Q}_n$ are positive.)

755: For $k >k_{\rm max}^{(1)} \approx 0.22$, there is only one root, ${\cal Q}_1$.

756: 

757: Higher-order corrections to the solution \eqref{stable-minus-unstable-outer}

758: can be found

759: by substituting the ansatz

760: \begin{multline}

761: \label{radansatz}

762: \Psi = \sum_n A_n[1+\epsilon f_1^{(n)}(X)

763: +\epsilon^2f_2^{(n)}(X)+\cdots]e^{i {\cal Q}_n X/\epsilon} \\

764: +  \sum_n A_n^* [\epsilon^2 g_2^{(n)}(X)

765: +\epsilon^3 g_3^{(n)}(X)+\cdots]e^{-i{\cal Q}_n X/\epsilon}

766: \end{multline}

767: into eq.\,\eqref{linearised}, expanding the advance/delay terms

768: $f^{(n)}_{1,2,\ldots}(X\pm\epsilon)$ and

769: $g^{(n)}_{2,3,\ldots}(X\pm\epsilon)$ in Taylor series in $\epsilon$,

770:  and making use of

771: the asymptotic expansion \eqref{exp_psi},\,\eqref{regularpert} for $\psi_u$.

772: For instance, the first few corrections are found to be

773: \begin{equation}

774: \begin{split}

775: %\label{rad2ndorder}

776: f_1^{(n)}(X) &= \frac{4i\cos k}{2\sin(k+{\cal Q}_n)-v}\tanh X,

777: \\

778: g_2^{(n)}(X) &= \frac{2 \cos k}{\omega+ vq_n-2\cos(k-{\cal Q}_n)}\sech^2 X.

779: \label{f1g2}

780: \end{split}

781: \end{equation}

782: 

783: 

784: 

785: Since $\psi_u \to 0$ as $X \to -\infty$, it follows that

786: $\psi_s \to \Psi$ as $X \to -\infty$, and hence, once we know

787: the amplitudes $A_n$, we know the asymptotic behaviour of $\psi_s$.

788: We shall now employ the method of asymptotics beyond all orders to

789: evaluate these amplitudes.

790: 

791: 

792: \medskip

793: 

794: \subsection{`Inner' equations}

795: 

796: Segur and Kruskal's method allows one to measure the amplitude of

797: the exponentially small radiation

798:  by continuing the solution analytically into the complex plane.

799:  The leading-order term

800: of $\psi$, $\epsilon\sqrt{\cos k}\sech X$, has singularities at

801: $X = \frac{i\pi}{2} + i\pi n$, $n=0, \pm 1, \pm 2, \ldots$.

802: In the vicinity of these points,

803: the radiation

804: becomes significant; the qualitative explanation for this is that the

805:   $\sech$ function forms a sharp spike with a

806: short length scale near the singularity point,

807: and hence there is a strong coupling to

808: the radiation modes, unlike on

809: the real axis.  The radiation, which is exponentially small

810: on the real axis, becomes large enough to be measured near the

811: singularities.

812: 

813: 

814: 

815: We define a new complex variable $y$, such that $\epsilon y$ is

816: small in absolute value

817: when $X$ is near the lowest singularity

818: in the upper half-plane:

819: \begin{equation}

820: \label{inner-variable}

821: \epsilon y = X-\frac{i\pi}{2}.

822: \end{equation}

823: The variables $y$ and $X$ are usually

824: referred to as the

825: `inner' and `outer' variables, respectively -- the transformation

826: to $y$ effectively `zooms in' on the singularity at

827: $X = \frac{i\pi}{2}$.

828: We also define $u(y) \equiv \psi(X)$ and $w(y) \equiv \psi^*(X)$.

829: Continuing eq.\,\eqref{maineqn}

830: to the complex plane---%

831: i.e.\ substituting $u(y)$ for $\psi(X)$ and $w(y)$

832: for $\psi^*(X)$---we obtain, in the limit $\epsilon\to 0$,

833: \begin{widetext}

834: \begin{subequations}

835: \label{inner-equations}

836: \begin{align}

837: & e^{ik}u(y+1)+e^{-ik}u(y-1)-2\cos k \, u(y) - 2i\sin k \, u'(y) +

838: \frac{2u^2w}{1+\mu uw} = 0, \\

839: & e^{-ik}w(y+1)+e^{ik}w(y-1)-2\cos k \, w(y) + 2i\sin k \, w'(y) +

840: \frac{2w^2u}{1+\mu wu} = 0.

841: \end{align}

842: \end{subequations}

843:  Here we have used the fact that

844:  $\omega \to 2\cos k$

845: and $v \to 2\sin k$ as $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$.  Equations \eqref{inner-equations}

846: are our `inner

847: equations'; they are valid in the `inner region' $-\infty< \text{Re}

848: \, y

849: < \infty$,

850: $\text{Im} \, y<0$. (The solution cannot be continued up from the real $X$ axis 

851: past the singularity at $y = 0$.)

852: 

853: Solving the system

854: \eqref{inner-equations} order by order,

855: we can find solutions in the form of

856: a series in powers of $y^{-1}$.

857: Alternatively, we can

858:  make the change of variables \eqref{inner-variable}

859: in the asymptotic expansion %\eqref{exp_psi},

860: \eqref{regularpert} and send

861: $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$. This gives, for the first few terms,

862: \begin{subequations}

863: \label{pertexpy}

864: \begin{align}

865: \hat{u} &= \sqrt{\cos k}\left\{ -\frac{i}{y} + \tan k\frac{1}{2y^2}

866: + \left[\frac{1}{3}(1-\mu\cos k)+\frac{7}{12}\tan^2k\right]\frac{i}{y^3}

867: + \mathcal{O}(y^{-4})\right\}, \\

868: \hat{w} &= \sqrt{\cos k}\left\{ -\frac{i}{y} - \tan k\frac{1}{2y^2}

869: + \left[\frac{1}{3}(1-\mu\cos k)+\frac{7}{12}\tan^2k\right]\frac{i}{y^3}

870: + \mathcal{O}(y^{-4})\right\}.

871: \end{align}

872: \end{subequations}\end{widetext}

873: We are using hats over $u$ and $w$ to

874: distinguish the series solution \eqref{pertexpy}

875: from other solutions of eq.\,\eqref{inner-equations}

876: that will appear in the next section. The asymptotic series \eqref{pertexpy}

877:  may or may not converge.

878: We note a symmetry $\hat{u}(-y)=-\hat{w}(y)$ of the power-series

879: solution.

880: 

881: 

882: \subsection{Exponential expansion}

883: \label{IIID}

884: 

885: In order to obtain an expression for the terms which lie beyond

886: all orders of $y^{-1}$, we substitute $(u,w) = (\hat{u}, \hat{w}) +

887: (\delta u, \delta w)$ into eqs \eqref{inner-equations}.

888: Since $\hat{u}$ and $\hat{w}$ solve

889: the equations to all orders in $y^{-1}$, then provided $\delta u$ and

890: $\delta w$ are small, they will solve the linearisation of eqs

891: \eqref{inner-equations} about $(\hat{u},\hat{w})$ for large $|y|$.

892: 

893: Formal solutions to the linearised system  can

894: be constructed as series in powers of $y^{-1}$.

895: Because $\hat{u}$ and $\hat{w}$ are both $\order{y^{-1}}$, the

896:  leading-order expressions for $\delta u$ and $\delta w$ as $y \to

897: \infty$ are obtained by substituting zero for $\hat{u}$ and $\hat{w}$

898: in the linearised equations. This gives

899: \begin{equation}

900: \begin{split}

901: \label{leading-order-inner}

902: \delta u &\to \sum_n J_n \exp(iq_ny), \\

903: \delta w &\to \sum_n K_n \exp(-iq_ny) \quad \mbox{as} \  y \to \infty,

904: \end{split}

905: \end{equation}

906: where $q_n$ ($n=0,1,2,\ldots$)

907: are the roots of

908: \begin{equation}

909: \label{leading-order-disp}

910: \cos(k+q)-\cos k + q\sin k = 0.

911: \end{equation}

912: Note that the roots $q_n$ with $n \geq 1$ are given by the $\epsilon \to 0$

913: limits of the roots of

914: the dispersion equation 

915: \eqref{nicedisprel}:

916: $q_n=\lim_{\epsilon \to 0} {\cal Q}_n$. 

917: In addition, there is a root $q_0=0$ which does not have a $\mathcal{Q}_0$ counterpart.

918: 

919: The full solutions (i.e.\ solutions including corrections

920: to all orders in $y^{-1}$) will result if we use the full inverse-power series

921: \eqref{pertexpy}

922: for $\hat u$ and $\hat w$; these solutions should have the form

923: \begin{subequations}

924: \label{expexpansion}

925: \begin{align}

926: \label{expexpansiona}

927: \delta u &= \sum_n K_n\sum_{m=1}^{\infty}

928: \frac{d_m^{(n)}}{y^m} \exp(-iq_ny), \\

929: \label{expexpansionb}

930: \delta w &= \sum_n K_n\left[1+\sum_{m=1}^{\infty}

931: \frac{c_m^{(n)}}{y^m}\right] \exp(-iq_ny).

932: \end{align}

933: \end{subequations}

934: Note that we have  excluded the terms proportional to $e^{iq_ny}$

935: from this ansatz (i.e.\ set the amplitudes $J_n$ to zero) as they would become

936: exponentially large

937: on the real $X$ axis. [One can readily verify this by making the change of

938: variables \eqref{inner-variable} in eq.\,\eqref{leading-order-inner}.]

939: The coefficients $c_1^{(n)}$, $c_2^{(n)}$, \ldots and $d_1^{(n)}$,

940: $d_2^{(n)}$, \ldots

941: are found recursively when the ansatz \eqref{expexpansion}

942: is substituted into the linearised

943: equations and like powers of $y^{-1}$ collected.

944: In particular, the first few coefficients are

945: \begin{subequations}

946: \begin{align}

947: c_1^{(n)} &= -\frac{2i\cos k}{\sin(k+q_n)-\sin k}, \nonumber\\

948: \label{c1c2}

949: c_2^{(n)} &= \frac{[\cos(k+q_n)-2\cos k]\cos k}{[\sin(k+q_n)

950: -\sin k]^2}

951: \end{align}

952: and

953: \begin{equation}

954: d_1^{(n)} = 0, \quad d_2^{(n)} = \frac{\cos k}{\cos(k-q_n)

955: -\cos k-q_n\sin k}, 

956: \label{d1n}

957: \end{equation}

958: \end{subequations}

959: where $n=1,2, \ldots$.

960: 

961: Having restricted ourselves to considering the linearised

962: equations for $\delta u$ and $\delta w$, we have

963: only taken into account the simple harmonics in

964: \eqref{leading-order-inner} and \eqref{expexpansion}.

965: Writing $\delta u= \varepsilon^1 U_1+ \varepsilon^2 U_2+\cdots$ and

966:  $\delta w=\varepsilon^1 W_1+ \varepsilon^2 W_2+\cdots$, where

967:  $\varepsilon$ is an auxiliary small parameter

968:  (not to be confused with our `principal' small parameter $\epsilon$);

969:  substituting $u=\hat{u}+\delta u$ and

970:  $w=\hat{w}+\delta w$  in eqs \eqref{inner-equations},

971:  and solving order-by-order the resulting hierarchy

972:  of nonhomogeneous linear equations, we can recover all nonlinear

973:  corrections to $\delta u$ and $\delta w$.

974:  The $\varepsilon^2$-corrections

975: will be proportional to

976: $e^{-i(q_n+q_m)y}$;

977: higher-order corrections will introduce harmonics

978:  with higher combination wavenumbers. Later in this section

979:  it will become clear that $\varepsilon$ is actually of the order $\exp(-\pi

980:  \mathcal{Q}_1 / 2 \epsilon)$ [see eq.\,\eqref{symb} below]; hence the

981:  amplitudes of the combination harmonics  will

982:  be exponentially smaller than that of $\exp(-i q_1 y)$.

983: 

984: Now we return to the object that is of ultimate interest to us in

985: this work -- that is, to the function $\Psi$ of section \ref{Radi_Soli}

986: representing the radiation of the moving soliton. We

987: need to match $\Psi$ to the corresponding object in the

988: inner region. To this end, we recall that $\Psi=\psi_s-\psi_u$, where

989: $\psi_s$ and $\psi_u$ are two solutions of the outer equation

990: \eqref{maineqn} which share the same asymptotic expansion

991: to all orders. In the limit $\epsilon \to 0$, the

992: corresponding functions

993: \begin{equation}

994: \begin{aligned}

995:  u_s(y,t) &\equiv \psi_s(X,t),

996: &w_s(y,t) &\equiv \psi_s^*(X,t), \\

997:  u_u(y,t) &\equiv \psi_u(X,t),

998: &w_u(y,t) &\equiv \psi_u^*(X,t) \label{continua}

999: \end{aligned}

1000: \end{equation}

1001: solve eqs \eqref{inner-equations}

1002: and share the same inverse-power expansions. We express this fact by writing

1003: \begin{align*}

1004:  u_s(y,t) &\sim \hat{u}(y),\quad

1005: &w_s(y,t) &\sim \hat{w}(y),\qquad \\

1006:  u_u(y,t) &\sim \hat{u}(y),\quad

1007: &w_u(y,t) &\sim \hat{w}(y).\qquad

1008: \end{align*}

1009: \begin{widetext}

1010: Therefore, the difference $u_s-u_u$ (which

1011: results from the analytic continuation of the function $\Psi$)

1012: can be identified with $\delta u$ and $w_s-w_u$ with $\delta w$.

1013: Continuing eq.\,\eqref{radansatz} and its

1014: complex conjugate gives,

1015: as $\epsilon \to 0$,

1016: \begin{subequations} \label{cont12}

1017: \begin{align} u_s-u_u = & \sum_n

1018: \lim_{\epsilon \to 0}

1019: A_n(\epsilon) \exp \left(-\frac{\pi \mathcal{Q}_n}{2 \epsilon} \right)

1020: \left[ 1+\order{\frac1y} \right]

1021: \exp(iq_ny) \nonumber\\

1022: &- \sum_n

1023: \lim_{\epsilon \to 0}

1024: A_n^*(\epsilon) \exp \left(\frac{\pi \mathcal{Q}_n}{2 \epsilon} \right)

1025: \left[\frac{2 \cos k}{\omega + vq_n- 2 \cos(k-q_n)}

1026: \frac{1}{y^2}+\order{\frac{1}{y^3}}\right]

1027: \exp(-iq_ny)

1028: \label{cont1}

1029: \end{align}

1030: and

1031: \begin{align}

1032: w_s-w_u = &\sum_n

1033: \lim_{\epsilon \to 0}

1034: A_n^*(\epsilon) \exp \left(\frac{\pi \mathcal{Q}_n}{2 \epsilon} \right)

1035: \left[ 1+\order{\frac1y} \right]

1036: \exp(-iq_ny) \nonumber\\

1037: &- \sum_n

1038: \lim_{\epsilon \to 0}

1039: A_n(\epsilon) \exp \left(-\frac{\pi \mathcal{Q}_n}{2 \epsilon} \right)

1040: \left[\frac{2 \cos k}{\omega + vq_n- 2 \cos(k-q_n)}

1041: \frac{1}{y^2}+\order{\frac{1}{y^3}}\right]

1042: \exp(iq_ny).

1043: \label{cont2}

1044: \end{align}

1045: \end{subequations}

1046: \end{widetext}

1047: [Here we have used eq.\,\eqref{f1g2}.]

1048: Matching  \eqref{cont1} to \eqref{expexpansiona} and \eqref{cont2}

1049: to \eqref{expexpansionb} yields then $K_0=0$ and

1050: \begin{subequations}

1051: \begin{eqnarray}

1052: \lim_{\epsilon \to 0} A_n(\epsilon) \exp\left(-\frac{\pi \mathcal{Q}_n}{2

1053: \epsilon} \right)=0,

1054: \label{Anex1} \\

1055: \lim_{\epsilon \to 0} A_n^*(\epsilon) \exp\left(\frac{\pi \mathcal{Q}_n}{2

1056: \epsilon} \right)=K_n

1057: \label{Anex2}

1058: \end{eqnarray}

1059: \end{subequations}

1060: for $n=1,2, \ldots $. We note that eq.\,\eqref{Anex1} follows from eq.\,\eqref{Anex2},

1061: while the latter equation can be written, symbolically,

1062: as

1063: \begin{equation}

1064: A_n(\epsilon) \longrightarrow

1065: K_n^* \exp\left(-\frac{\pi \mathcal{Q}_n}

1066: {2\epsilon} \right) \quad \text{as} \ \epsilon \to 0.

1067: \label{symb}

1068: \end{equation}

1069: Our subsequent efforts will focus on the evaluation of the

1070: constants $K_n$.

1071: 

1072: 

1073: For $k$ greater than $k^{(1)}_{\text{max}}$ (approximately $0.22$),

1074: there is only one radiation

1075: mode and therefore only one pre-exponential factor, $K_1$. For smaller

1076: $k$ we note that the

1077:  amplitude of the $n$th radiation mode, $A_n$,

1078: is a factor of $\exp\left\{

1079: \frac{\pi}{2\epsilon} (\mathcal{Q}_n-\mathcal{Q}_1)\right\}$

1080: smaller than $A_1$, the amplitude of the first mode.

1081: Referring to fig.\,\ref{nicedisprelfig}, it is clear that for $n \geq 3$,

1082: the difference

1083: $\mathcal{Q}_n-\mathcal{Q}_1$ will be no smaller than $\pi$.

1084: As for the second mode, it becomes as significant as the first one

1085: only when $k=\order{\epsilon^2}$ in which case

1086: $(\mathcal{Q}_2-\mathcal{Q}_1)/\epsilon =\order{1}$.

1087: But in our asymptotic expansion of section

1088: \ref{section2}  we assumed, implicitly, that

1089: $k$ is of order $1$ and so the case of $k =\order{\epsilon^2}$

1090: is beyond the scope of

1091: our current analysis. Therefore, for our purposes all

1092: the radiation modes with

1093: $n \geq 2$ (when they exist)

1094: will  have

1095:  negligible amplitudes compared to that of the first mode,

1096: provided $K_1$  is nonzero and $\epsilon$ is small.

1097: For this reason, we shall

1098: only attempt to evaluate $K_1$ in this paper.

1099: 

1100: 

1101: \subsection{Borel summability of the asymptotic series}

1102: \label{BLT}

1103: 

1104: Pomeau,  Ramani, and Grammaticos~\cite{pomeau}

1105: have shown that the radiation

1106: can be measured using the technique of

1107: Borel summation rather than by solving differential equations

1108: numerically,

1109: as in Segur and Kruskal's original approach.  The method has been refined by

1110: (among others)

1111: Grimshaw and Joshi \cite{GrimshawJoshi, GrimshawNLS} and Tovbis,

1112: Tsuchiya,  Jaff\'e

1113: and Pelinovsky \cite{Tovbis1, Tovbis2, Tovbis3, TovPel}, who have applied it to

1114: difference equations.  Most recently it has been applied to

1115: differential-difference equations

1116: in the context of moving kinks in $\phi^4$ models \cite{OPB}.

1117: This is the approach that we will be pursuing here.

1118: 

1119: Expressing $u(y)$ and $w(y)$ as Laplace transforms

1120: \begin{subequations}

1121: \label{laplace}

1122: \begin{equation}

1123: u(y) = \int_{\gamma}U(p)e^{-py}dp

1124: \end{equation}

1125: and

1126: \begin{equation}

1127: \quad w(y) = \int_{\gamma}W(p)e^{-py}dp,

1128: \end{equation}

1129: \end{subequations}

1130: where $\gamma$ is a contour extending

1131: from the origin to infinity in the complex $p$ plane,

1132: the inner equations \eqref{inner-equations} are cast in the

1133: form of integral equations

1134: \begin{subequations}

1135: \label{integral-equations}

1136: \begin{gather}

1137: f(p)U + \mu [f(p)U]\ast U\ast W + U\ast U\ast W = 0,

1138: \label{fpU} \\

1139: f(-p)W + \mu [f(-p)W]\ast W\ast U + W\ast W\ast U = 0,

1140: \label{gpU}

1141: \end{gather}

1142: \end{subequations}

1143: where

1144: \[

1145: f(p) = (\cosh p - 1)\cos k - i(\sinh p - p)\sin k.

1146: \]

1147: The asterisk $\ast$ denotes the convolution integral,

1148: \[ U(p) \ast W(p) = \int_0^p U(p-p_1) W(p_1) d p_1, \]

1149: where the integration is performed from the origin to the point $p$ on the

1150: complex plane, along the contour $\gamma$.

1151: In deriving eqs \eqref{integral-equations}, we

1152: have made use of the convolution theorem for the Laplace transform

1153: of the form \eqref{laplace}, where the integration is over

1154: a contour in the complex plane rather than a positive

1155: real axis. The theorem states that 

1156: \begin{equation}

1157: u(y) w(y)= \int_\gamma [ U(p) * W(p) ] e^{-py} dp.

1158: \label{conv_thm}

1159: \end{equation}

1160: The proof of this theorem is provided in appendix \ref{A}.

1161: 

1162: 

1163: 

1164: We choose the contour so that $\arg p \to \pi/2$ as $|p| \to

1165: \infty$ along $\gamma$. In this case we have

1166: $e^{-py} \to 0$ as $|p| \to \infty$ for all $y$ along any line

1167: $-\infty< \text{Re} \, y < \infty$ with $\text{Im} \, y<0$.

1168: Therefore, the integrals in \eqref{laplace} converge

1169: for all $y$ along this line

1170: and any bounded $U(p)$ and $W(p)$.

1171: 

1172: 

1173: 

1174: 

1175: The function $U(p)$ will have singularities

1176:  at the points

1177: where $f(p)$ vanishes  while the

1178: sum of the double-convolution terms in \eqref{fpU} does not. Similarly,

1179: $W(p)$ will have a singularity wherever $f(-p)$ vanishes

1180:  [while the

1181: sum of the double-convolution terms in \eqref{gpU} does not].

1182: Therefore,  $U$ and $W$ may have  singularities at the points where

1183: \begin{equation}

1184: \label{singularities}

1185: \cosh p - 1 = \pm i \tan k \, (\sinh p - p),

1186: \end{equation}

1187: with the top and bottom signs referring to $U(p)$ and $W(p)$,

1188: respectively.

1189: The imaginary roots of eq.\,\eqref{singularities}

1190: with the top sign are at $p = -iq_n$

1191: and those of eq.\,\eqref{singularities}

1192: with the bottom sign at $p = iq_n$,

1193: where $q_n$ are the real roots of

1194: \eqref{leading-order-disp}.

1195: (We remind the reader that all roots $q_n$

1196: are positive.) The point $p = 0$ is not a singularity

1197: as both double-convolution terms in each line of

1198: \eqref{integral-equations} vanish here.

1199: There is always at least one pure imaginary root of eq.\,\eqref{singularities}

1200: (and \emph{only} one if $k > k^{(1)}_{\rm max}$, where $k^{(1)}_{\rm max} \approx 0.22$).

1201: 

1202: In addition,

1203: there are infinitely many complex roots.  The complex singularities of $U$

1204: [complex roots of the top-sign equation in \eqref{singularities}] are at the

1205: intersections of the curve given by

1206: \begin{subequations}

1207: \begin{equation}

1208: q =  \frac{\cosh \kappa}{\sin k}

1209: \sqrt{1-\sin^2 k \left( \frac{\kappa}{\sinh \kappa} \right)^2 } -\cot k

1210: \label{curve1a}

1211: \end{equation}

1212: with the family of curves described by

1213: \begin{align}

1214: \label{curve2a}

1215: q &= k - {\rm arcsin} \, \left( \frac{\kappa}{\sinh \kappa} \sin k \right)

1216: + 2 \pi n, \\

1217: &\quad n=1,2, \ldots \, ,\nonumber

1218: \end{align}

1219: \end{subequations}

1220: and at the

1221: intersections of the curve

1222: \begin{subequations}

1223: \begin{equation}

1224: q =  -\frac{\cosh \kappa}{\sin k}

1225: \sqrt{1- \sin^2 k \left(\frac{\kappa}{\sinh \kappa} \right)^2 } -\cot k

1226: \label{curve1b}

1227: \end{equation}

1228: with the family of curves described by

1229: \begin{align}

1230: \label{curve2b}

1231: q &= k + {\rm arcsin} \, \left( \frac{\kappa}{\sinh \kappa} \sin k \right)

1232: +  \pi (2n+1), \\

1233: &\quad n=-2,-3,-4, \ldots \, .\nonumber

1234: \end{align}

1235: \end{subequations}

1236: Here $\kappa$ and $q$ are the real and imaginary part of $p$:

1237: $p=\kappa+iq$.

1238: The curve \eqref{curve1a} looks like a  parabola

1239: opened upwards, with the vertex at $\kappa=q=0$, and the

1240: curve \eqref{curve1b} like a  parabola opened

1241: downwards, with the vertex at $\kappa=0$, $q=-2 \cot k$. The curves

1242:  \eqref{curve2a} and \eqref{curve2b},

1243: on the other hand, look like parabolas for small $\kappa$

1244: but then flatten out

1245: and approach horizontal straight lines as

1246: $\kappa \to \pm \infty$.

1247: [In compiling the list of  these `flat' curves in \eqref{curve2a} and

1248: \eqref{curve2b}, we have taken into account

1249:  that the curve \eqref{curve2a} with $n=0$ does not have

1250: any intersections with the parabola \eqref{curve1a}, and

1251: the curve \eqref{curve2b} with $n=-1$ does not have

1252: any intersections with the parabola \eqref{curve1b}.]

1253:   As $k$ is reduced, the vertex of the

1254: parabola

1255: \eqref{curve1b} moves down along the $q$ axis;  the

1256: intersections of this parabola with the `flat' curves

1257: \eqref{curve2b} approach, pairwise, the $q$ axis. After colliding on

1258: the $q$ axis, pairs of complex roots move away from

1259: each other along it.

1260: [The parabola \eqref{curve1a}

1261:  does not move as $k$ is reduced, but only steepens,

1262: which results in the singularities in the upper half-plane approaching the

1263: imaginary axis but not reaching it until $k = 0$.]

1264: In a similar way, the complex singularities

1265: of $W(p)$ move onto the imaginary axis as $k$ is decreased.

1266: In section \ref{BLT} below we will use the fact that the

1267: distance from any complex

1268: singularity to the origin is larger than $2 \pi$;

1269: this follows from the observation that

1270: the closest points of the curves \eqref{curve2a} and

1271: \eqref{curve2b} to the origin are their intersections with

1272: the $q$ axis. These are further away than $2 \pi$ from the origin.

1273: 

1274: 

1275: 

1276: In addition to singularities at $p= -iq_n$, the function $U(p)$ will

1277: have singularities at points $p=iq_n$, $n=1,2,\ldots$. These are

1278: induced by the cubic terms in eq.\,\eqref{fpU}; for instance,

1279: the singularity at $p=iq_1$ arises from the convolution of

1280: the term proportional to $p$ in $U*U$ with

1281: the function $W$ which has a

1282: singularity at $p=iq_1$. [That $U(p)$ has singularities at

1283: $p=iq_n$ can also be seen directly from eq.\,\eqref{expexpansiona}.]

1284: Similarly, the function $W(p)$ will

1285: have singularities at points $p=-iq_n$, $n=1,2,\ldots$.

1286: By virtue of the nonlinear terms there will also be singularities

1287: at the `combination points' $i(\pm q_n \pm q_m)$, $i(\pm q_n \pm q_m \pm

1288: q_j)$, etc.

1289: 

1290:  The formal inverse-power series \eqref{pertexpy}, which

1291: we can write as

1292: \begin{equation}

1293: \hat{u}(y)= \sum_{\ell=0}^\infty \rho_\ell \, \frac{\ell !}{y^{\ell+1}},

1294: \quad

1295: \hat{w}(y)= \sum_{\ell=0}^\infty \nu_\ell \,

1296: \frac{\ell !}{y^{\ell+1}},

1297: \label{uywy}

1298: \end{equation}

1299: result from

1300: the Laplace transformation of power series for $U(p)$ and $W(p)$:

1301: \begin{equation}

1302: U(p)= \sum_{\ell=0}^\infty \rho_\ell \, p^\ell,

1303: \quad

1304: W(p)= \sum_{\ell=0}^\infty \nu_\ell \, p^\ell.

1305: \label{UpWp}

1306: \end{equation}

1307: The series \eqref{UpWp} converge in the disk of radius

1308: $q_1$, centred at the origin, and hence can be integrated term by term

1309: only over the portion of the contour $\gamma$ which lies within that disk.

1310: However, by Watson's lemma, the remaining part of the contour

1311: makes an exponentially small contribution to the integral and

1312: the resulting series \eqref{uywy} are asymptotic as $y \to \infty$.

1313: The functions

1314: $u(y)$ and $w(y)$ defined by eqs \eqref{laplace} give the Borel

1315: sums of the series $\hat{u}(y)$ and $\hat{w}(y)$.

1316: 

1317: 

1318: Consider now some horizontal line in the inner region; that is, let

1319: $\text{Im} \,y<0$ be fixed and $\text{Re} \,y$ vary from $-\infty$

1320: to $\infty$.

1321: If the integration contour $\gamma$ is chosen to lie

1322: in the first quadrant of the complex $p$ plane,  the functions $u(y)$ and $w(y)$ generated

1323: by eqs \eqref{laplace} will tend to zero as $\Real y\to +\infty$

1324: along this line.  Similarly,

1325: if it is chosen to lie in the second quadrant, they will tend

1326: to zero as $\Real y\to -\infty$.  Suppose there were no singularities 

1327: between two such contours: then the one could be continously 

1328: deformed to the other

1329: without any singularity crossings; i.e.\ they would 

1330: generate the same solution which, 

1331: therefore, would decay to zero at

1332: both infinities. [That is, the oscillatory tails in

1333: \eqref{expexpansion} would have zero amplitudes, $K_n=0$.]

1334:   In general, however, $U(p)$ and $W(p)$ have singularities

1335: both on and away from the imaginary axis.  In order to minimise the

1336: number of singularities to be crossed in the deformation

1337: of one contour to the other, we choose the contours to lie above

1338: all singularities with nonzero real part.

1339:  (That this is possible,

1340: is shown in appendix \ref{B}.)

1341: Note also that the imaginary part of the singularity

1342: grows faster than its real part and

1343: hence  $\arg p$ should tend to $\pi/2$ as $|p| \to

1344: \infty$ along $\gamma$; this was precisely our choice for

1345: the direction of the contours $\gamma$ in the beginning

1346: of section \ref{BLT}.

1347: 

1348: 

1349: 

1350: 

1351: \begin{figure}[btp]

1352: \includegraphics{contours.eps}

1353: \caption{\label{integration-contours}The integration contours

1354: $\gamma_s$ and $\gamma_u$ used to generate the solutions

1355: $(u_s, w_s)$ and $(u_u, w_u)$ respectively via eqs \eqref{laplace}.

1356: The dots are singularities of $W(p)$.  Shown  is the

1357: situation where the linear dispersion relation \eqref{leading-order-disp}

1358: has only one real root, $q_1$.}

1359: \end{figure}

1360: 

1361: Let $\gamma_s$ and $\gamma_u$ be two contours chosen in this

1362: way, with

1363: $\gamma_s$ lying in the first quadrant and $\gamma_u$ in the

1364: second quadrant.

1365: The solutions $u(y), w(y)$ generated by eqs \eqref{laplace} with the contour

1366: $\gamma_s$ will

1367: tend to zero as $\Real y \to \infty$

1368: (with $\text{Im} \, y <0$ fixed). Hence they can be identified with solutions 

1369: $u_s, w_s$ obtained by the continuation of the outer solution  $\psi_s$ 

1370:  which has the

1371: same asymptotic behaviour. 

1372: Similarly, the solutions generated by eqs \eqref{laplace} with the contour $\gamma_u$ 

1373: coincide with solutions $u_u$, $w_u$ -- like $u_u$, $w_u$, the solutions 

1374: generated by eqs \eqref{laplace}   tend to zero 

1375: as $\Real y \to -\infty$ (with fixed $\Imag y <0$).

1376: 

1377:  Consider, first, solutions $w_s$ and

1378: $w_u$.

1379: Since the contours $\gamma_s$ and $\gamma_u$

1380:  are separated by singularities of  $W(p)$ on

1381: the positive imaginary axis, they

1382: cannot be

1383: continuously deformed to each other

1384: without singularity crossings and so

1385: the solution $w_s$ does not coincide with $w_u$,

1386: unless the residue at the singularity happens to be zero.

1387: If we deform $\gamma_s$ to $\gamma_s'$ and $\gamma_u$ to

1388: $\gamma_u'$ as shown in fig.\,\ref{integration-contours}, without

1389: crossing any singularities, then the only difference between

1390: the two contours is that $\gamma_s'$ encircles the singularities,

1391: whereas $\gamma_u'$ does not. Therefore, the difference $w_s-w_u$

1392: can be deduced exclusively from the leading-order behaviour of  $W(p)$

1393: near its singularities.

1394: There can be two contributions to this difference:

1395: the first arises from integrating around the poles and

1396: is a sum of residues, while the second arises if the singularity is a

1397: branch point.

1398: 

1399: To find the singularity structure of the function $W(p)$, we equate

1400: \begin{equation}

1401: w_s-w_u= \int_{\gamma_s'} W(p) e^{-py} dp- \int_{\gamma_u'} W(p) e^{-py} dp

1402: \label{wswu}

1403: \end{equation}

1404: to the expansion \eqref{expexpansionb}. The

1405: first term in \eqref{expexpansionb}, $e^{-i q_ny}$, arises

1406: from the integration of a term $(2 \pi i)^{-1} (p-i q_n)^{-1}$ in

1407: $W(p)$. For such a term, the difference of the two integrals in

1408: \eqref{wswu} reduces to an integral around a circle

1409: centered on the point $p=iq_n$:

1410: \[

1411: \frac{1}{2 \pi i} \oint \frac{1}{p-iq_n} e^{-py} dp=

1412: \text{res} \left\{ \frac{e^{-py}}{p-iq_n}, iq_n \right\}.

1413: \]

1414: The term $y^{-m}e^{-iqy_n}$ in \eqref{expexpansionb}, with $m=1,2,\ldots$,

1415: arises from the integration of a term

1416: \[

1417:  \frac{1}{2 \pi i} \frac{(p-iq_n)^{m-1}}{(m-1)!} \ln (p-iq_n)

1418: \]

1419: in $W(p)$. This time, $p=iq_n$ is a branch point. After going around

1420: this point along the circular part of $\gamma_s'$, the logarithm

1421: increases by $2 \pi i$ and the difference between the integrals in

1422: \eqref{wswu} is given by

1423: \begin{align*}

1424: &\frac{1}{(m-1)!} \int_C (p-iq_n)^{m-1} e^{-py} dp \\

1425: &\quad = \frac{e^{-i q_n y}}{(m-1)!} \int_0^\infty z^{m-1} e^{-zy}dz,

1426: \end{align*}

1427: where $C$ is the part of $\gamma_s'$ extending from

1428: $p=iq_n$ to infinity. This equals exactly

1429: $y^{-m} e^{-i q_n y}$.

1430: 

1431: Thus, in order to generate the full series \eqref{expexpansionb}

1432: we must have

1433: \begin{multline}

1434: \label{Wsingularities}

1435: W(p) =

1436: \frac{1}{2 \pi i} \sum_n K_n

1437: \Bigg[

1438: \frac{1}{p-iq_n}

1439: + \sum_{m=1}^\infty \frac{c_m^{(n)}}{(m-1)!}\\

1440: \times (p-iq_n)^{m-1} \ln(p-iq_n) \Bigg]

1441: + W_{\rm reg}(p),

1442: \end{multline}

1443: where $W_{\rm reg}$ denotes the part of $W$ which is regular

1444: at $p=iq_n$, $n=1,2,\ldots$.

1445: By the same process, matching $u_s-u_u$ to $\delta u$ in

1446: \eqref{expexpansiona} yields

1447: \begin{multline}

1448: \label{Usingularities}

1449: U(p) =

1450: \frac{1}{2 \pi i} \sum_n K_n

1451: \sum_{m=1}^\infty \frac{d_m^{(n)}}{(m-1)!}\\

1452: \times (p-iq_n)^{m-1} \ln(p-iq_n)

1453: + U_{\text{reg}}(p).

1454: \end{multline}

1455: 

1456: The solution to eqs \eqref{integral-equations} is nonunique;

1457: for instance, if $\{ U(p), W(p) \}$ is a solution,

1458: then so is $\{ e^{py_0+ \zeta_0} U(p), e^{py_0 - \zeta_0}W(p) \}$

1459: with any complex $y_0$ and $\zeta_0$. Also,

1460: if $\{ U(p), W(p) \}$ is a solution, $\{ W(-p), U(-p) \}$ is

1461: another one. We will impose the constraint

1462: \begin{equation}

1463: U(p)= W(-p);

1464: \label{constraint}

1465: \end{equation}

1466: this constraint is obviously compatible with

1467: eqs \eqref{integral-equations}.

1468: It is not difficult to see that the reduction \eqref{constraint}

1469: singles out a unique solution of eqs \eqref{integral-equations}.

1470: The motivation for imposing the constraint \eqref{constraint}

1471: comes from the symmetry $\hat{u}(-y)=-\hat{w}(y)$ of the power-series

1472: solution of eq.\,\eqref{inner-equations}. Using this symmetry in

1473: eq.\,\eqref{uywy}, we get $\rho_\ell= (-1)^\ell \nu_\ell$ and

1474: then eq.\,\eqref{UpWp} implies \eqref{constraint}.

1475: 

1476: In view of \eqref{constraint}, the singularities of $U(p)$ in the upper

1477: half-plane are singularities of $W(p)$ in the lower half-plane,

1478: which fall within $W_{\text{reg}}(p)$, and vice versa.

1479: Thus we have, finally,

1480: \begin{multline}

1481: \label{allWsingularities}

1482: W(p) =

1483: \frac{1}{2 \pi i} \sum_n

1484:  \frac{K_n }{p-iq_n}

1485: + \frac{1}{2 \pi i} \sum_n K_n

1486: \sum_{m=1}^\infty \frac{1}{(m-1)!} \\ 

1487: \shoveleft{\times\Big[ c_m^{(n)}(p-iq_n)^{m-1} \ln(p-iq_n)}\\

1488: -(-1)^m d_m^{(n)}

1489: (p+iq_n)^{m-1} \ln(p+iq_n) \Big]

1490: + \tilde{W}_{\text{reg}}(p),

1491: \end{multline}

1492: where $\tilde{W}_{\text{reg}}(p)$ is regular at $p = \pm iq_n$.

1493: We also mention an equivalent representation for

1494: \eqref{allWsingularities} which turns out to be

1495: computationally advantageous:

1496: \begin{multline}

1497: \label{allWsingularities_int}

1498: W(p) =

1499:  \frac{1}{2 \pi i} \sum_n K_n

1500: \sum_{m=0}^\infty

1501:   D^{-m} \left[\frac{c_m^{(n)}}{p-iq_n} -

1502:  \frac{ (-1)^m d_m^{(n)}}{p+iq_n}

1503:  \right] \\

1504: + \check{W}_{\text{reg}}(p).

1505: \end{multline}

1506: Here $D^{-1}$ is an integral map:

1507: \[

1508: D^{-1} f(p) \equiv  \int_0^p f(p_1) dp_1;

1509: \]

1510: the notation $D^{-m} f(p)$ should be understood as

1511: \[

1512: D^{-m} f(p) \equiv  \int_0^p \! dp_1 \int_0^{p_1} \! dp_2 \int_0^{p_2}

1513:  \! dp_3 \cdots \int_0^{p_{m-1}} \! dp_m f(p_m).

1514: \]

1515: We have also introduced $c_0^{(n)} = 1$ and

1516: $d_0^{(n)} = 0$ for economy of notation.

1517: The only difference between eqs \eqref{allWsingularities} and

1518: \eqref{allWsingularities_int} is that the double-sum term on the right-hand

1519: side of \eqref{allWsingularities_int} includes some terms

1520: which are regular at $p=\pm iq_n$, whereas in 

1521: eq.\,\eqref{allWsingularities}, all regular terms are contained in

1522: $\tilde{W}_{\text{reg}}(p)$.

1523: 

1524: The residues $K_n$ at the poles of $W(p)$ are known

1525: as the Stokes constants.  The

1526: leading-order Stokes constant $K_1$

1527: can be related to the behaviour of the

1528: coefficients in the power-series expansion of $W(p)$.

1529: Indeed, the coefficients in the power series \eqref{UpWp} satisfy

1530: \begin{equation}

1531: \label{nudef}

1532: \nu_{\ell} \longrightarrow K_1 \sum_{m=0}^{\ell}\frac{c^{(1)}_m +

1533: (-1)^{\ell}d^{(1)}_m}{2\pi q_1

1534: (i q_1)^{\ell-m}}\frac{(\ell-m)!}{\ell!}

1535: \quad \text{as } \ell \to \infty.

1536: \end{equation}

1537: This is obtained by expanding the

1538: singular part of the expression \eqref{allWsingularities_int}

1539: in  powers of $p$. (Coefficients of the regular part become

1540: negligible in the limit $\ell\to\infty$ compared to those of the

1541: singular part.)  Note that we have ignored singularities

1542: with nonzero real part and singularities on the imaginary axis

1543: other than at $p = \pm iq_1$. The reason is that all these

1544: singularities are further away from the origin than the points

1545: $\pm iq_1$

1546: (in particular all complex singularities are separated

1547: from the origin by a distance greater than $2 \pi$),

1548: and their contribution to $\nu_{\ell}$ becomes

1549: vanishingly small as $\ell \to \infty$.

1550: We have also neglected singularities at the `combination points'

1551: because of their exponentially small residues.

1552: The coefficients $\nu_{\ell}$ can be calculated numerically; once they

1553: are known, it follows from \eqref{nudef} that

1554: \begin{equation}

1555: \label{limit}

1556: K_1 = 2\pi q_1\lim_{\ell\to\infty}(iq_1)^{\ell}\nu_{\ell}

1557: \end{equation}

1558: (where we have recalled that $c_0^{(1)} = 1$ and $d_0^{(1)} = 0$).

1559: 

1560: We now turn to the numerical calculation of the coefficients $\nu_{\ell}$.

1561: 

1562: \subsection{Recurrence relation}

1563: 

1564: 

1565: To make our forthcoming

1566: numerical procedure more robust,

1567: we normalise  the coefficients in the

1568: power series

1569:  \eqref{UpWp}  by writing

1570: \begin{equation}

1571: \nu_\ell = -i\frac{\delta_\ell}{(iq_1)^\ell}.

1572: \label{delta}

1573: \end{equation}

1574: Substituting the expansions \eqref{UpWp} with eq.\,\eqref{delta}

1575: as well as the constraint \eqref{constraint} into

1576: either of equations

1577: \eqref{integral-equations} and equating coefficients of

1578: like powers of $p$, yields the following

1579: recurrence relation for the numbers $\delta_n$

1580: ($n \ge 0$):

1581: \begin{multline}

1582: \sum_{m=0}^n \frac{q_1^m\delta_{n-m}}{(m+2)!}{\cal R}_m

1583: = \frac{1}{(n+2)(n+1)}\\ 

1584: \shoveleft{\times \sum_{m=0}^n\left[\delta_{n-m}

1585: +\mu\sum_{j=2}^{n-m}\frac{q_1^j\delta_{n-m-j}}{j!}

1586:  {\cal R}_j \right]} \\

1587: \times\left(\sum_{j=0}^m (-1)^{m-j}\delta_{m-j}

1588: \delta_j\frac{j!(m-j)!}{m!}\right)\frac{m!(n-m)!}{n!}.

1589: \label{recu}

1590: \end{multline}

1591: Here

1592: \[

1593: {\cal R}_m= \Bigg\{

1594: \begin{array}{ll}

1595: (-1)^{\frac{m}{2}}\cos k, &  \text{for } m \text{ even}, \\

1596: (-1)^{\frac{m-1}{2}}\sin k,  & \text{for } m \text{ odd}.

1597: \end{array}

1598: \]

1599: Solving eq.\,\eqref{recu} with $n = 0$ gives $\delta_0 = \sqrt{1-c^2}$.

1600: Thereafter it can be solved for each member of the sequence

1601: $\{ \delta_n \}$  in terms of the preceding ones, and thus each $\delta_n$

1602: can be calculated in turn.

1603: [Since all the coefficients in the recurrence relation \eqref{recu}

1604: are real, the sequence $\{\delta_n\}$ turns out to be a sequence

1605: of real numbers.]

1606: 

1607: 

1608: Once the sequence $\{ \delta_n \}$ has been generated,

1609: expression \eqref{limit} can be

1610: used to calculate the Stokes constant $K_1$:

1611: \begin{equation}

1612: K_1 = -2 \pi i q_1  \delta_\ell,

1613: \label{limmo}

1614: \end{equation}

1615: for sufficiently large $\ell$.

1616: Unfortunately, the convergence of the sequence $\{\delta_n\}$

1617:   is slow and thus

1618: the above procedure is computationally expensive.

1619: The convergence can be accelerated by

1620:  expanding  eq.\,\eqref{nudef} in powers of

1621:  small $1/\ell$:

1622: \[

1623: \delta_{\ell} = \frac{iK_1}{2\pi q_1}\!\!\left[1 +iq_1 \frac{c_1^{(1)}}{\ell}

1624: - q_1^2\frac{c_2^{(1)}+(-1)^\ell d_2^{(1)}}{\ell^2} +

1625: \order{\frac{1}{\ell^3}}\right],

1626: \]

1627: whence

1628: \begin{multline}

1629: K_1 = -2\pi i q_1 \delta_{\ell} \Bigg[1 -iq_1 \frac{c_1^{(1)}}{\ell} \\

1630: + q_1^2\frac{ c_2^{(1)}-(c_1^{(1)})^2 +(-1)^\ell d_2^{(1)}  }{\ell^2}

1631: + \order{\frac{1}{\ell^3}}\Bigg]. \label{K1}

1632: \end{multline}

1633: According to eq.\,\eqref{K1}, eq.\,\eqref{limmo}  gives $K_1$ with

1634: a relatively large error of order $1/\ell$.

1635: On the other hand, a two-term approximation

1636: \begin{equation}

1637: \label{betterlimit}

1638: K_1 = -2\pi i q_1 \delta_{\ell}\left(1 -iq_1 \frac{c_1^{(1)}}{\ell} \right)

1639: \end{equation}

1640: is correct to  $\mathcal{O} (1/\ell^2)$.  More precisely, the

1641: relative error associated with the answer \eqref{betterlimit} is given by

1642: \begin{equation}

1643: \frac{{\mathcal E}}{K_1} =q_1^2 \frac{c_2^{(1)}-(c_1^{(1)})^2 +(-1)^\ell

1644: d_2^{(1)}}{\ell^2}.

1645: \label{relati}

1646: \end{equation}

1647: In our calculations, we set $\mathcal{E}/K_1=10^{-5}$.

1648: Since $c_1^{(1)}$, $c_2^{(1)}$

1649: and $d_2^{(1)}$ are known constants [given by

1650: \eqref{c1c2} and \eqref{d1n}], eq.\,\eqref{relati}  tells us what

1651: $\ell$ we should take -- i.e.\ how many members of the sequence $\{\delta_n\}$

1652: we should calculate in order to achieve the set accuracy.

1653: Figure \ref{series} illustrates the

1654: convergence of the

1655: approximate values of $K_1$ calculated using \eqref{limmo} and

1656: \eqref{betterlimit} as $\ell$ is increased.  Note the drastic

1657: acceleration of convergence

1658: in the latter case.

1659: 

1660: \begin{figure}[tbp]

1661: \includegraphics{dnlseg.eps}

1662: \caption{\label{series}Convergence of the

1663: sequence on the right-hand side of \eqref{limmo} (dashed line) and

1664: the `accelerated' sequence defined by

1665: the right-hand side of  \eqref{betterlimit}

1666: (solid line).

1667: Shown are the $\ell$th approximations to the Stokes constant $K_1$

1668: [the $\ell$th members of the sequences \eqref{limmo}

1669: and  \eqref{betterlimit}]

1670:  divided by $i$ to get a real value.

1671: In this plot, $\mu = 0$ and $k = 0.5$.

1672: }

1673: \end{figure}

1674: 

1675: \begin{figure}[tbp]

1676: \includegraphics{dnlssat.eps}

1677: 

1678: \medskip

1679: \includegraphics{dnlssatmulti.eps}

1680: \caption{\label{stokes}The Stokes constant $K_1$ for various

1681: values of $\mu$.

1682: Note the logarithmic scale on the vertical axis.

1683: The

1684:  downward spikes extend all the way

1685:  to $-\infty$; hence each spike corresponds to a zero crossing.

1686:  Each panel shows only a portion of the full range

1687:  $0 \leq k \leq \pi/2$; there

1688:  are no additional zero crossings in the part which is not shown.

1689:  }

1690: \end{figure}

1691: 

1692: Figure \ref{stokes}(a) shows the calculated Stokes constant as a

1693: function of $k$ for various values of

1694: the saturation parameter $\mu$.

1695: First of all, $K_1(k)$

1696:  does not have any zeros

1697: in the case of the cubic nonlinearity ($\mu=0$).

1698: This means that solitons of the

1699: cubic one-site discrete NLS equation [eq.\,\eqref{DNLS} with $\mu=0$]

1700: cannot propagate without losing energy to radiation.

1701: For $\mu = 3$ the Stokes constant

1702:  does have a zero, but at a value of $k$ smaller than $k^{(1)}_{\rm max}$

1703: (where $k^{(1)}_{\rm max}\approx0.22=0.07\pi$).

1704: Since higher radiation modes do exist in this range of $k$,

1705: there will still be radiation from the soliton -- unless the

1706: `higher' Stokes constants $K_2(k)$, $K_3(k)$,\ldots,  happen to be zero

1707: at the same value of $k$.

1708: Finally,

1709: for $\mu = 4$ the zero is seen to have moved just above $k^{(1)}_{\rm max}$ and

1710: for $\mu = 6$ it has an even higher value.

1711: There are no $\mathcal{Q}_2, \mathcal{Q}_3,\ldots$ radiations

1712: for these $k$; hence the zeros of $K_1(k)$ define

1713: the carrier wavenumbers at which the soliton `slides' --

1714: i.e.\ travels without emitting any radiation. Equation \eqref{om_and_v_via_eps}

1715: then gives the corresponding sliding velocities, for each $\epsilon$.

1716: 

1717: Figure \ref{stokes}(b) shows the  Stokes constant $K_1(k)$

1718: for higher values of the

1719: parameter $\mu$.  For $\mu = 12$ a second zero of the

1720: Stokes constant has appeared while for $\mu = 25$,

1721: the function $K_1(k)$ has three zeros.

1722: As $\mu$ is increased, the existing zeros move to

1723: larger values of $k$  while new

1724: ones emerge  at the origin of the $k$ axis.

1725: 

1726: 

1727: 

1728: \subsection{Radiation waves}

1729: 

1730: For not very large $|X|$, the solution $\psi_s$ is close to the localised pulse

1731: found by means of the perturbation expansion

1732: in section \ref{section2}.  As $X \to +\infty$, it tends

1733: to zero, by definition, while the $X \to -\infty$ asymptotic

1734: behaviour is found from  $\psi_s = \psi_u + \Psi$.

1735:  Here the solution $\psi_u$ decays to zero as $X \to

1736: -\infty$ and hence

1737: $\psi_s$ approaches the oscillatory waveform

1738:  $\Psi$

1739: given by eqs \eqref{radansatz}, \eqref{f1g2}, and \eqref{symb}:

1740: \begin{multline}

1741: \label{final-solution}

1742: \psi_s(X) \to \sum_n K_n^*e^{-\pi \mathcal{Q}_n/2\epsilon} \\

1743: \times\left[1 +\epsilon

1744: \frac{4  i\cos k\tan X}{2\sin(k+\mathcal{Q}_n)-v} +

1745: \order{\epsilon^2}\right]e^{i\mathcal{Q}_n X/\epsilon}

1746: \end{multline}

1747:  as $X\to -\infty$.

1748: Equation \eqref{final-solution} describes a radiation background over which

1749:  the soliton is superimposed.

1750:  As we have explained, we can ignore all but the first term in the

1751: sum.

1752: 

1753: To determine whether the radiation is emitted by the soliton

1754: or being fed into it from outside sources,

1755:  we

1756: consider a harmonic solution $\psi =  e^{i\mathcal{Q}X/\epsilon-i\Omega t}$

1757: of the linearised eq.\,\eqref{timedepeqn}; the

1758: corresponding dispersion relation is

1759: \begin{equation*}

1760: \Omega(\mathcal{Q}) = -2\cos(k+\mathcal{Q}) + \omega - \mathcal{Q}v.

1761: \end{equation*}

1762: The  radiation background $\Psi$ consists of

1763: harmonics with

1764: $\Omega = 0$ and $\mathcal{Q} = \mathcal{Q}_n$

1765: where  $\mathcal{Q}_n$ are roots of eq.\,\eqref{disprel}.

1766: The group velocities of these harmonic waves are given by

1767: \begin{equation}

1768: \Omega'(\mathcal{Q}_n) = 2\sin(k+\mathcal{Q}_n)-v.

1769: \label{vgr}

1770: \end{equation}

1771: The $\mathcal{Q}_n$'s are zeros of the function $\Omega(\mathcal{Q})$

1772: and the group velocities are the slopes of this function at its zeros;

1773: thus the group velocities

1774: $\Omega'(\mathcal{Q}_1)$, $\Omega'(\mathcal{Q}_2)$,\ldots,

1775:  have alternating signs.  The first one,

1776: which is the only one that concerns us in this work,

1777:  must be negative.  Indeed, the value

1778: \[

1779: \Omega(0) = -2\cos k+\omega = 2\cos k (\cosh\epsilon-1)

1780: \]

1781: is positive, and hence the

1782:   slope of the

1783: function $\Omega(\mathcal{Q})$ as it crosses the $\mathcal{Q}$ axis

1784: at $\mathcal{Q}_1>0$  is negative.

1785: Therefore, the first radiation

1786: mode, extending to $-\infty$,  carries energy {\it away\/} from the

1787: soliton.

1788: 

1789: The even-numbered radiation modes (where present) in our

1790: asymptotic solution \eqref{final-solution} have positive group

1791: velocities

1792: and hence describe the flux of energy fed into

1793:  the system at the left infinity.

1794: A more interesting situation is obviously the one with

1795: no incoming radiation; the corresponding solution is obtained by

1796: subtracting off the required multiple of the solution of the

1797: linearised equation, e.g.\ $e^{i\mathcal{Q}_2X/\epsilon}$.  One would then

1798: have a pulse leaving the odd modes in its wake and sending even

1799: modes ahead of it.

1800: 

1801: If the first Stokes constant $K_1(k)$ has a zero at

1802: some $k=k_1$ while $\mathcal{Q}_1$ is the only

1803: radiation mode available (as happens in our

1804: saturable model with $\mu$ greater than

1805: approximately $4$), then according to

1806: eq.\,\eqref{final-solution}, the radiation from

1807: the soliton with the carrier-wave wavenumber $k_1$ is

1808: suppressed completely.

1809: 

1810: 

1811: 

1812: \section{Time evolution of a radiating soliton}

1813: \label{section4}

1814: 

1815: \subsection{Amplitude-wavenumber dynamical system}

1816: 

1817: To find the radiation-induced evolution of the

1818: travelling soliton, we use conserved quantities of the advance-delay

1819: equation associated with eq.\,\eqref{DNLS}.

1820: In the reference frame moving at the

1821: soliton velocity $v$ this equation reads

1822: \begin{equation}

1823: \label{timedepeqn2}

1824: i\varphi_t +\varphi(x+1,t)  + \varphi(x-1,t) -iv \varphi_x

1825: +\frac{2|\varphi|^2\varphi}{1+\mu|\varphi|^2} = 0.

1826: \end{equation}

1827: The discrete variable $\phi_n(t)$ in eq.\,\eqref{DNLS} is related to

1828: the value of the continuous variable $\varphi(x,t)$ at the

1829: point $x=n-vt$:  $\phi_n(t) = \varphi(n-vt,t)$.

1830: For future use, we also mention the relation between $\varphi(x,t)$ and

1831:  the corresponding solution of eq.\,\eqref{timedepeqn}:

1832:  \begin{equation}

1833:  \varphi(x,t)= \psi(X,t) e^{ik(x+vt)+ i \omega t}.

1834:  \label{corresp}

1835:  \end{equation}

1836: 

1837: 

1838: We first consider the number of particles integral:

1839: \[ N = \int_{a}^{b}|\varphi|^2dx. \]

1840: Multiplying eq.\,\eqref{timedepeqn2}

1841: by $\conj{\varphi}$, subtracting the complex

1842: conjugate and integrating yields the rate of change of the integral $N$:

1843: \begin{align}

1844: \label{mainN}

1845:  i\frac{dN}{dt} &= \int_{a-1}^{a}  (\varphi^+\conj{\varphi} - c.c.) dx \notag\\

1846: &\quad + \int_b^{b+1} (\varphi^-\conj{\varphi} - c.c.) dx

1847: +  iv|\varphi|^2 \Big|_{a}^b.

1848: \end{align}

1849: In eq.\,\eqref{mainN}, $\varphi^\pm \equiv \varphi(x \pm 1,t)$

1850: and    $c.c.$ stands for the complex conjugate of the

1851: immediately preceding term.

1852: The  integration limits $a<0$ and $b>0$ are

1853:  assumed to be large ($|a|,b \gg \epsilon^{-1}$)

1854: but finite; for example one can take $a,b= {\cal O}(\epsilon^{-2})$.

1855: 

1856: 

1857: Consider the soliton moving with a positive velocity

1858: and leaving radiation in its wake. This

1859: configuration is described by the

1860: solution $\psi_s$ of eq.\,\eqref{timedepeqn}; the corresponding

1861: solution of eq.\,\eqref{timedepeqn2} has the asymptotic behaviour

1862:  $\varphi_s \to 0$ as $x \to +\infty$.

1863: Substituting the leading-order expression  \eqref{stable-minus-unstable-outer}

1864: for the soliton's radiation tail into eq.\,\eqref{corresp} yields

1865: the  asymptotic behaviour at the other infinity:

1866: \begin{equation}

1867: \varphi_s(x,t) \to \sum_n A_n[1+\order{\epsilon}]e^{i(k+{\cal Q}_n)x+i(\omega+kv)t}

1868: \label{asympie}

1869: \end{equation}

1870: as $x \to -\infty$.

1871: Since, as we have explained above, the $\mathcal{Q}_1$ radiation is dominant, it

1872: is sufficient to keep only the $n=1$ term in \eqref{asympie}.

1873: 

1874: Substituting \eqref{asympie} into \eqref{mainN} and evaluating the

1875: integral over the region $(a-1,a)$ in the soliton's wake,

1876:  we obtain

1877: \begin{equation}

1878: \label{Ndot}

1879: \frac{dN}{dt} =

1880: |K_1|^2e^{-\pi \mathcal{Q}_1/\epsilon}[2\sin(k+\mathcal{Q}_1) - v],

1881: \end{equation}

1882: where we have used eq.\,\eqref{symb}.

1883: Note that $[2\sin(k+\mathcal{Q}_1) - v]$ is the group velocity

1884: of the first radiation

1885: mode, $\Omega'(\mathcal{Q}_1)$, which, as we have established, is negative;

1886:  hence ${\dot N} \leq 0$.

1887: 

1888: We now turn to the momentum integral,

1889: \[

1890: P =

1891: \frac{i}{2}\int_{a}^b (\conj{\varphi}_x\varphi-\varphi_x\conj{\varphi}) dx.

1892: \]

1893: Multiplying \eqref{timedepeqn2} by $\conj{\varphi}_x$, adding its complex

1894: conjugate and integrating, gives the rate equation

1895: \begin{multline}

1896: \label{mainP}

1897: \frac{dP}{dt} =

1898: \int_{a-1}^{a} (\varphi^+\conj{\varphi}_x + c.c.) dx

1899: -\int_b^{b+1} (\varphi^-\conj{\varphi}_x + c.c.) dx \\

1900: + \frac{i}{2}  (\varphi \conj{\varphi_t}

1901: -\conj{\varphi} \varphi_t) \Big|_{a}^b

1902: -   (\varphi^+)^* \varphi \Big|_{a-1}^b

1903: - (\varphi^-)^* \varphi \Big|_{a}^{b+1} \\

1904: -\left[\frac{2}{\mu}|\varphi|^2

1905: -\frac{2}{\mu^2}\ln\left(1+\mu|\varphi|^2\right)\right]_{a}^b.

1906: \end{multline}

1907: Evaluating the right-hand side of

1908: \eqref{mainP} similarly to the

1909: way we obtained \eqref{Ndot} and substituting eq.\,\eqref{disprel}

1910: for $\omega$,

1911: produces

1912: \begin{equation}

1913: \label{Pdot}

1914: \frac{dP}{dt} =

1915: |K_1|^2 e^{-\pi \mathcal{Q}_1/\epsilon}(k+\mathcal{Q}_1)[2\sin(k+\mathcal{Q}_1) - v].

1916: \end{equation}

1917: 

1918: Using the leading-order term of the perturbative solution

1919: \eqref{regularpert} and eq.\,\eqref{corresp},

1920: we can express $N$ and $P$

1921: via $\epsilon$ and $k$:

1922: \begin{eqnarray*}

1923: N  =2\epsilon\cos k + \order{\epsilon^2}, \\

1924: P = 2k \epsilon\cos k + \order{\epsilon^2}.

1925: \end{eqnarray*}

1926: In calculating $N$ and $P$

1927: we had to integrate from  $X =\epsilon a$ to $X=\epsilon b$.

1928:   Since the integrands decay exponentially, and since

1929:   $a<0$ and $b>0$ were assumed to be much larger than $\epsilon^{-1}$

1930:   in absolute value, it was legitimate to replace these

1931:   limits with $-\infty$ and $\infty$, respectively.

1932:   The error introduced in this way is exponentially small in $\epsilon$.

1933: 

1934: Taking time derivatives of $N$ and $P$ above

1935: and discarding $\epsilon^1$ corrections to $\epsilon^0$ terms,

1936:  we deduce that

1937: \begin{align*}

1938: {\dot \epsilon}   & = \frac{\dot{N}+\tan k(\dot{P}-k\dot{N})}{2\cos k},

1939: \\

1940: {\dot k} & =\frac{\dot{P}-k\dot{N}}{2\epsilon\cos k}.

1941: \end{align*}

1942: Finally,

1943:  substituting for $\dot{N}$ and $\dot{P}$ from eqs \eqref{Ndot} and \eqref{Pdot},

1944:   we arrive at the dynamical system

1945: \begin{subequations}

1946: \label{paramev}

1947: \begin{align}

1948: \dot{\epsilon} &= |K_1(k)|^2e^{-\pi \mathcal{Q}_1/\epsilon} \,

1949: \Omega'(\mathcal{Q}_1) \,

1950: \frac{1+\mathcal{Q}_1\tan k}{2\cos k},

1951: \label{param_top} \\

1952: \dot{k} &= |K_1(k)|^2e^{-\pi \mathcal{Q}_1/\epsilon} \,

1953: \Omega'(\mathcal{Q}_1) \,

1954: \frac{\mathcal{Q}_1}{2\epsilon\cos k}, \label{param_bottom}

1955: \end{align}

1956: \end{subequations}

1957: where the group

1958: velocity $\Omega'(\mathcal{Q}_1)=2 \sin(k+\mathcal{Q}_1)-v$ with $v=2 (\sinh \epsilon / \epsilon)

1959: \sin k$,

1960: and $\mathcal{Q}_1=\mathcal{Q}_1(\epsilon,k)$ is the 

1961: smallest root of eq.\,\eqref{nicedisprel}.

1962: 

1963: \begin{figure}[b]

1964: \includegraphics{phaseplane.eps}

1965: 

1966: \medskip

1967: \includegraphics{phaseplane2.eps}

1968: \caption{\label{phaseplane} The phase portrait of the system \eqref{paramev}

1969: in the case (a) where the Stokes constant $K_1(k)$ does not have zeros, and (b) 

1970: where $K_1(k)$ has one zero. In (b), the dashed line is the line of nonisolated 

1971: fixed points $k=k_1$. Note that in (b), the phase portrait has been replotted on

1972: the $(\epsilon, v)$ plane; hence the dashed line gives the value of the sliding 

1973: velocity for each value of $\epsilon$. In (a), $\mu=0$; in (b), $\mu=6$.}

1974: \end{figure}

1975: 

1976: 

1977: 

1978: \subsection{Soliton's deceleration and sliding velocities}

1979: 

1980: The vector field \eqref{paramev} is defined for $k \geq k^{(1)}_{\rm min}$,

1981: where  $k^{(1)}_{\rm min}$ is the value of $k$

1982: for which the roots $\mathcal{Q}_1$ and $\mathcal{Q}_2$ merge in

1983: fig.\,\ref{nicedisprelfig} (i.e.\ the smallest value of $k$ for

1984: which the roots  $\mathcal{Q}_1$ and $\mathcal{Q}_2$

1985: still exist). When $k = k^{(1)}_{\rm min}$, the group velocity $\Omega'(\mathcal{Q}_1)$

1986:  becomes equal to zero; therefore,

1987:  the equation $k=k^{(1)}_{\rm min}(\epsilon)$ defines a line of

1988: (nonisolated) fixed points of the system

1989: \eqref{paramev}.

1990: Assume, first, that

1991: the saturation parameter $\mu$ is such that $K_1(k)$ does not vanish for

1992: any $k$.

1993:  For $k > k^{(1)}_{\rm min}$,

1994: the factor $\Omega'(\mathcal{Q}_1)$ in \eqref{param_bottom} is negative;  since

1995: $\mathcal{Q}_1$ and $\cos k$ are

1996: positive for all $0< k \leq \pi/2$, the derivative

1997: $\dot{k}$ satisfies

1998: $\dot{k} \leq 0$ for all times. Hence, all trajectories are flowing towards the

1999: line $k=k^{(1)}_{\rm min}(\epsilon)$ from above.

2000: It is worth

2001: noting that the derivative

2002: $\dot{\epsilon}$ is also negative, and that the $k$ axis is also

2003: a line of nonisolated fixed points. However, no

2004: trajectories will end there as follows from the equation

2005: \[

2006: \frac{d \epsilon}{dk} = \epsilon \left[ \tan k +

2007: \frac{1}{\mathcal{Q}_1(k,\epsilon)} \right],

2008: \]

2009: which is a consequence of \eqref{param_top} and \eqref{param_bottom}.

2010: 

2011: 

2012: 

2013: 

2014: 

2015: 

2016: Representative trajectories are plotted in fig.\,\ref{phaseplane}(a).

2017: Since $k^{(1)}_{\rm min}(\epsilon) \approx \epsilon^2/4 \pi$

2018: is very small for small $\epsilon$,

2019: the line $k=k^{(1)}_{\rm min}(\epsilon)$ is practically indistinguishable

2020: from the horizontal axis. Therefore, we can assert that, to a good

2021: accuracy,

2022: $k \to 0$ as $t \to \infty$.

2023: This means that the soliton stops moving --

2024: and stops decaying at the same time.

2025: 

2026: For $k$ smaller than $k^{(1)}_{\rm min}$, the vector field \eqref{paramev} is

2027: undefined and we cannot use it to find out what happens

2028: to the soliton after $k$

2029: has reached $k^{(1)}_{\rm min}$. The reason

2030: for this is that the soliton stops radiating

2031: at the wavenumber $\mathcal{Q}_1$

2032: as $k$ drops below $k^{(1)}_{\rm min}$. In fact our analysis becomes invalid

2033: as soon as $k$ becomes $\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^2)$---i.e.\ even before $k$

2034:  reaches $k^{(1)}_{\rm min}$---because we can no longer disregard the

2035: $n=2$ radiation here.

2036: At the qualitative level it

2037: is obvious, however, that the parameter $k$ should continue

2038: to decay all the way to zero, in a cascade way.

2039: First, the $n=2$ radiation will

2040: become as intense as the $n=1$ mode when $k$ approaches $\epsilon^2/4\pi$.

2041: Subsequently---i.e.\ for $k$ smaller than $\epsilon^2/4\pi$---the $n=3$ harmonic will

2042: replace the radiation with the wavenumbers $\mathcal{Q}_1$ and

2043: $\mathcal{Q}_2$ as a dominant mode.

2044:  The $n=4$ mode will become equally intense

2045:  near $k=k^{(2)}_{\rm min} \approx \epsilon^2/8\pi$; as $k$ drops below $\epsilon^2/8\pi$,

2046:  both  $\mathcal{Q}_3$ and $\mathcal{Q}_4$ will cede to

2047: $\mathcal{Q}_5$, and so on.

2048: 

2049: 

2050: If $\mu$ is such that

2051: the Stokes constant $K_1(k)$ vanishes at one or more values of $k$,

2052: the system has one or more lines of nonisolated fixed points, $k=k_i$.

2053: The corresponding values of $v$, $v=v_i(\epsilon)

2054:  \equiv 2 (\sinh\epsilon /\epsilon ) \sin

2055: k_i$, define the {\it sliding\/} velocities of the soliton --

2056: i.e.\ velocities at which the soliton moves without radiative friction.

2057: One such velocity is shown by the dashed line in fig.\,\ref{phaseplane}(b).

2058: The fixed points $(\epsilon, k_i)$

2059: are semistable; for $k$ above

2060: $k_i$, the

2061: flow is towards the line $k=k_i$ but when $k$ is below  $k_i$,

2062: the flow is directed away from this straight line [see fig.\,\ref{phaseplane}(b)].

2063: Since both $\dot{\epsilon}$ and $\dot{k}$ are negative,

2064: the soliton's velocity $v = 2 (\sinh\epsilon /\epsilon ) \sin k$

2065: will generally be decreasing -- until it hits the nearest underlying

2066: sliding velocity $v_i$ and locks on to it.

2067: The ensuing sliding motion will be unstable; a small

2068: perturbation will be sufficient to take the soliton out of the sliding regime

2069: after which it will resume its radiative deceleration.

2070: However, since $\dot{k}$ is proportional to the {\it square\/} of the

2071: Stokes constant and not to $K_1(k)$ itself,  small perturbations

2072: $\delta k$ will be growing linearly, not exponentially, in $t$.

2073: As a result,

2074: the soliton may spend a fairly long time sliding  at the velocity $v_i$.

2075: It is therefore not unreasonable to classify this sliding motion

2076: as {\it metastable\/}.

2077: 

2078: 

2079:   We conclude

2080: that the soliton becomes pinned (i.e.\ $k \rightarrow 0$ and so $v

2081: \to 0$) before it has

2082: decayed fully (i.e.\ before the amplitude $\epsilon$ has decreased to zero).

2083: The exponential dependence

2084: of $\dot \epsilon$ and $\dot k$ on $1/\epsilon$ implies that

2085: tall, narrow pulses will be pinned very quickly while short, broad ones

2086: will travel for a very long time before they have slowed appreciably.

2087: Next, if $\mu$ is such that there is one or more sliding velocity

2088: available in the system,

2089: and if the soliton is initially moving faster than some of these,

2090: its deceleration will be interrupted by long periods of undamped

2091: motion at the corresponding sliding velocities.

2092: 

2093: \begin{figure}

2094: \hspace*{-2.5em}\includegraphics{decayrate.eps}

2095: \caption{\label{decayrate} The soliton's decay rate as a function of its velocity, for fixed $\epsilon=0.1$.

2096: (Here $\mu=0$.) In the inset, the same curve is replotted using a logarithmic scale

2097: on the vertical axis.}

2098: \end{figure}

2099: 

2100: 

2101: It is worth reemphasising here that if the 

2102:  amplitude $\epsilon$ is small, then 

2103: even if the soliton is {\it not\/} 

2104: sliding, its deceleration will be so slow that it will spend an exponentially long time travelling

2105: with virtually unchanged amplitude and speed. 

2106: The deceleration rate $-{\dot v}/v$ is shown in fig.\,\ref{decayrate}, as a function of 

2107: the soliton's velocity $v$, for fixed amplitude $\epsilon$. 

2108: Note that the decay rate drops, exponentially, as the velocity is decreased;

2109: this drop is due to the exponential factor $e^{-\pi \mathcal{Q}_1/ \epsilon}$ in eq.\,\eqref{paramev}.

2110: As the velocity $v$

2111: (and hence the wavenumber $k$) decreases, the root $\mathcal{Q}_1(\epsilon,k)$ grows

2112: towards the limit value of approximately $2 \pi$ (see fig.\,\ref{nicedisprelfig}). This 

2113:  variation in $\mathcal{Q}_1$ is amplified by the division by small $\epsilon$

2114: and exponentiation in $e^{-\pi \mathcal{Q}_1/ \epsilon}$.

2115: 

2116: 

2117: 

2118: 

2119: \section{Concluding remarks}

2120: \label{section5}

2121: 

2122: \subsection{Summary}

2123: 

2124: In this paper, we have constructed the moving discrete soliton of the

2125: saturable NLS equation \eqref{DNLS} [and hence \eqref{VK}]

2126: as an asymptotic expansion in powers of its amplitude.

2127: The saturable nonlinearity includes the cubic NLS as a particular case

2128: (for which $\mu=0$). Our perturbation procedure is a variant of the Lindstedt--Poincar\'e

2129: technique where corrections to the parameters of the solution are

2130: calculated along with the calculation of the solution itself.

2131: Although the resulting asymptotic series \eqref{regularpert} for the soliton

2132: is generally not convergent,

2133: the associated expansions for its frequency

2134: and velocity sum up to exact explicit expressions

2135: \eqref{om_and_v_via_eps}.

2136: 

2137: From the divergence of the asymptotic series \eqref{regularpert}

2138: it follows, in particular,

2139: that the travelling discrete soliton does not decay to zero at least at one of the

2140: two infinities. Instead, the soliton approaches, as

2141: $X \to \infty$ or $X \to -\infty$, an oscillatory resonant background

2142: \eqref{stable-minus-unstable-outer}

2143: where the amplitudes $A_n$ of its constituent harmonic waves

2144: lie beyond all orders of $\epsilon$. For the soliton moving with a

2145: positive velocity and approaching zero as $X \to \infty$, the oscillatory

2146: background at the left infinity represents

2147: the Cherenkov radiation left in the soliton's wake. To

2148: evaluate the amplitudes of the harmonic waves

2149: arising as $X \to -\infty$, we have

2150: continued the radiating soliton

2151: into the complex plane, where it exhibits

2152: singularities. We then matched the asymptotic expansion \eqref{cont12}

2153: of the background

2154: near the lowest singularity on the imaginary $X$ axis to the far-field asymptotic

2155: expansion \eqref{expexpansion} of

2156: the background solution of the `inner' equation -- i.e.\ of the

2157: advance-delay equation `zoomed in' on this singularity. The asymptotic

2158: expansions here are in inverse powers of the zoomed variable, $y$.

2159: The amplitudes of the radiation waves were found to be exponentially

2160: small in $\epsilon$, with the pre-exponential factors (the so-called Stokes

2161: constants) being dependent only on the soliton's carrier-wave wavenumber.

2162: Representing solutions to the inner equation % \eqref{inner-equations}

2163:   as  Borel sums

2164: of their asymptotic expansions,

2165: the Stokes constants can be related to the expansion coefficients;

2166: we have calculated these coefficients numerically, using algebraic recurrence

2167: relations.

2168: 

2169: The upshot of the calculation of the leading Stokes constant $K_1$ is that

2170: in the case of the cubic nonlinearity (i.e.\ for $\mu=0$), $K_1(k)$ does not vanish

2171: for any $k$. This means that the cubic discrete soliton cannot `slide' --

2172: i.e.\ cannot move without radiative friction. The saturable

2173: solitons, on the other hand, {\it can\/} slide provided the saturation

2174: parameter $\mu$ is large enough. 

2175: This is because, for a sufficiently large $\mu$, the

2176: Stokes constant $K_1(k)$ is found to have one or more zeros $k_1, k_2, \ldots$.

2177: Since the soliton with wavenumber $k>0.22$ can have no higher-order 

2178: resonances, 

2179: those zeros which satisfy $k_i>0.22$ do define the wavenumbers at which sliding motion

2180: occurs.

2181: For each

2182: value of the soliton's amplitude $\epsilon$, the formula \eqref{om_and_v_via_eps}

2183: then gives the sliding velocities $v(k_i, \epsilon)$.

2184: 

2185: The calculation of asymptotics beyond all orders is useful not only for

2186: determining the sliding velocities. Knowing the radiation amplitudes has

2187: allowed us to derive a two-dimensional dynamical system

2188: \eqref{paramev} for the soliton's parameters. Trajectories 

2189: of this dynamical system describe the evolution of the soliton 

2190: travelling at a generic speed. The evolution turns out to be 

2191: simple:

2192: If  $\mu$ is such that the Stokes constant

2193: $K_1(k)$ does not vanish anywhere in the region $k> 0.22$, 

2194: the soliton decelerates, although very slowly.

2195: Eventually it becomes pinned to the lattice

2196: with a decreased but finite amplitude.

2197: However, if $\mu$ is such that there are sliding velocities

2198: in the system, and if the soliton starts its motion

2199: with the velocity higher than some of these then, although

2200: it will finally become pinned to the lattice, its 

2201: deceleration will be interrupted by long periods of metastable sliding

2202: motion at these isolated velocities.

2203: 

2204: 

2205: 

2206: \subsection{Concluding remarks}

2207: 

2208: It is interesting to tie up the above results with our

2209: previous work on exceptional discretisations of the $\phi^4$

2210: model \cite{OPB}. In that case we discovered that for some

2211: exceptional models (in which the stationary soliton possesses an

2212: effective translational symmetry), sliding velocities, at which 

2213: the radiation disappears, do exist.

2214: The fact that all these models involve a

2215: complicated nonlocal discretisation of the nonlinearity

2216: leads one to wonder whether the nonlinearity

2217: {\it has\/} to be discretised nonlocally 

2218: in order for sliding solitons to exist. 

2219: This question is answered%

2220: ---negatively---by

2221:  our present work which gives a counterexample of 

2222:  a simple, local and physically motivated

2223: nonlinearity supporting sliding solitons.

2224: 

2225: A remaining open issue is whether exceptionality of the system is a

2226: prerequisite for the existence of sliding solitary waves. Indeed, we

2227: have yet to encounter a nonexceptional discrete system 

2228: permitting sliding motion. 

2229: 

2230: We conclude this section by placing our results in the context of

2231: earlier studies of discrete solitons.

2232: 

2233: Moving solitons in the cubic DNLS equation 

2234: have previously been studied by Ablowitz, Musslimani, and

2235:  Biondini \cite{ablowitz}

2236: (among others), using a numerical technique based on discrete

2237: Fourier transforms

2238: as well as perturbation expansions for small velocities.  As

2239: we have done, these authors suggest that sliding (radiationless)

2240: solitons  may not exist.  They also observe,

2241: with the aid of numerical simulations, that strongly

2242: localised pulses are pinned quickly to the lattice, while

2243: broader ones are more mobile -- results which are in agreement

2244: with ours.

2245: 

2246: Duncan, Eilbeck, Feddersen and  Wattis   \cite{Feddersen,duncan} have studied the

2247: bifurcation of periodic travelling waves from constant

2248: solutions in the cubic DNLS equation, using numerical

2249: path-following techniques.  They find that the paths terminate

2250: when the soliton's amplitude reaches a certain limit value,

2251: and in the light of our results it seems likely that this 

2252: is the point at which the radiation becomes large enough to

2253: have an effect on the numerics.

2254: 

2255: Solitary waves which decay to constant values at the spatial infinities,

2256: despite the fact that the generic asymptotic

2257:  behaviour in the underlying model is oscillatory,

2258: are commonly referred to as embedded solitons. An example is given

2259: by the sliding solitons reported in this paper as well as the

2260: sliding kinks of \cite{OPB}; both types of solitary waves propagate without

2261: exciting the resonant background oscillations.

2262: Embedded solitons have been studied for some time in continuous systems

2263: \cite{embedded_review}, but their history in lattice equations is

2264: younger.  Recently, Malomed, Gonz\'alez-P\'erez-Sandi, Fujioka,

2265: Espinosa-Cer\'on and Rodr\'iguez have considered certain lattice equations

2266: with next-to-nearest-neighbour couplings and shown (by means of explicit

2267: solutions) that both stationary

2268: \cite{Malomed_embedded_0} and moving \cite{Malomed_embedded} embedded solitons exist.  Stationary embedded

2269: solitons in discrete waveguide arrays have also been analysed by

2270: Yagasaki, Champneys and Malomed \cite{Malomed_embedded_2}.

2271: 

2272: 

2273: 

2274: Finally, while preparing the revised version of this paper,

2275: we learnt that Melvin, Champneys, Kevrekidis, and Cuevas

2276: have obtained results

2277: very similar to ours. Using a combination of

2278: intuitive arguments

2279: and numerical computations, they have found 

2280: sliding solitons for

2281: certain values of the

2282: parameters of a saturable DNLS model \cite{melvin}.

2283: 

2284: 

2285: 

2286: \begin{acknowledgments}

2287: The authors would like to thank Dmitry Pelinovsky and Alexander Tovbis

2288: for helpful discussions relating to this work.

2289: O.O. was supported by the National Research Foundation of South Africa

2290: and the University of Cape Town.

2291: I.B. was supported by the NRF under

2292: grant 2053723 and by the URC of UCT.

2293: 

2294: \end{acknowledgments}

2295: 

2296: 

2297: \appendix

2298: \section{Convolution theorem for the Laplace transform in the complex plane}

2299: \label{A}

2300: 

2301: This appendix deals with the convolution property 

2302: of the modified Laplace

2303: transform of the form \eqref{laplace}, where the integration is

2304: along an infinite contour in the complex plane rather than the

2305: positive real axis. In the context of asymptotics beyond

2306: all orders, this transform was pioneered by Grimshaw and Joshi

2307: \cite{GrimshawJoshi}. Since no proof of the convolution result \eqref{conv_thm} 

2308: is available in literature, and since it requires a nontrivial

2309: property (concavity) of the integration contour, we produce such

2310: a proof here.

2311: 

2312: 

2313: We wish to show that

2314: \begin{align}

2315: \label{rtp}

2316: &\int_{\gamma}e^{-pz}F(p)dp \int_{\gamma}e^{-p'z}G(p')dp' \nonumber\\

2317: = &\int_{\gamma}e^{-pz}

2318: \left[ \int_0^pF(p_1)G(p-p_1)dp_1  \right] dp,

2319: \end{align}

2320: where $\int_0^p$ stands for an integral along the curve $\gamma$

2321: from the origin to the point $p$ on that curve.

2322: We assume that the curve

2323: $\gamma$ extends from the origin to infinity on the complex plane; lies in 

2324: its first quadrant ($\Real p>0$, $\Imag p>0$);

2325: is described as a graph of a single-valued function $\Imag p= f( \Real p)$

2326: (i.e.\ never turns back on itself),

2327:  and is concave-up everywhere:

2328: \[

2329: \frac{d^2 f}{d(\Real p)^2} > 0 \quad \text{for} \ p \ \text{on} \, \gamma.

2330: \]

2331: We also assume that the function $G(p)$ is analytic in the region between the contour

2332: $\gamma$ and the imaginary axis.

2333: 

2334: \begin{figure}

2335: \includegraphics{conv.eps}

2336: \caption{\label{conv-paths}Deformation of the integration contour $\Gamma_p$ to $\Gamma_p'$.}

2337: \end{figure}

2338: 

2339: We begin by writing the left-hand side of \eqref{rtp} as

2340: \begin{align}

2341:   &\int_{\gamma}\int_{\gamma}e^{-(p+p')z}F(p)G(p')dp'dp 

2342: \nonumber \\

2343: \label{undeformed-integral}

2344: = &\int_{\gamma}F(p) \left[ \int_{\Gamma_p}e^{-rz}G(r-p)dr \right] dp,

2345: \end{align}

2346: where $r = p' + p$.  The curve $\Gamma_p$ is the path traced out

2347: by $r$ as $p'$ traces out the curve $\gamma$, for a given

2348: $p$ (which also lies on $\gamma$) -- this is depicted in 

2349: fig.\ \ref{conv-paths}.  The path $\Gamma_p$ is the same

2350: as the path $\gamma$ but translated from the origin to

2351: the point $p$.  

2352: 

2353: For each given $p$ we deform the path $\Gamma_p$ so that

2354: it now lies on $\gamma$, still starting at the point $p$.

2355: We call this deformed path $\Gamma_p'$.  The point $r-p = p'$, which

2356: lay on the path $\gamma$ before the

2357: deformation, 

2358: will now move inside the region bounded by $\gamma$ (i.e.\ the region to the left of $\gamma$),

2359: since all points on $\Gamma_p'$ lie inside the region bounded by $\Gamma_p$. 

2360:  This follows from the fact that the path $\Gamma_p$ is concave-up.

2361: The point $r-p$ will, however,

2362: stay to the right of the imaginary axis, since after the deformation

2363: all points $r$ on $\Gamma_p'$ lie to the right of the point $p$.

2364: This follows from the fact that the curve

2365: $\gamma$ never turns back on itself.

2366: Since $G(p')$ is analytic for all $p'$ between the imaginary axis and $\gamma$,

2367: the value of the integral \eqref{undeformed-integral}  will not be affected by

2368: the deformation.

2369: [In the particular case of the functions $U(p)$ and $W(p)$ 

2370: considered in section \ref{BLT}, we have deliberately chosen the contours of integration 

2371: so that the analyticity condition is satisfied.]

2372: 

2373: After the deformation, both integrals in \eqref{undeformed-integral}

2374: follow the path $\gamma$, with the inner one starting at the point $p$.

2375: By parameterising the path $\gamma$ it is now straightforward

2376: to change the order of integration, and end up with the desired

2377: result \eqref{rtp}.

2378: 

2379: The argument holds, with the obvious modifications, for paths

2380: in the second quadrant.

2381: 

2382: 

2383: \section{Proof that singularities do not accumulate to the imaginary axis}

2384: \label{B}

2385: 

2386: The roots of eq.\,\eqref{singularities} 

2387: with the top and bottom signs give singularities of

2388: $U(p)$ and $W(p)$, respectively.  Our aim

2389: here

2390: is to show that  the integration contours $\gamma_u$ and $\gamma_s$ 

2391: in section \ref{BLT} can be

2392: chosen to lie above all the complex singularities -- i.e., that

2393: singularities of

2394: $U(p)$ and $W(p)$ do not accumulate to the imaginary axis.  

2395: 

2396: The roots of

2397: eq.\,\eqref{singularities} are zeros of the functions $F(\pm p)$, where

2398: \begin{equation}

2399: F(p) \equiv \cosh p - 1 - i\tan k(\sinh p - p).

2400: \end{equation}

2401: The imaginary zeros of $F(p)$  are at $p = - iq_n$,

2402: where $q_n$ are the real roots of eq.\,\eqref{leading-order-disp}.

2403:  We let $N$ denote

2404: the number of these imaginary zeros;

2405: for $k \neq 0$, $N$ is finite.

2406: We recall that all $q_n$ are positive; hence all $N$ imaginary

2407: zeros of $F(p)$ are 

2408: on the negative imaginary axis, and all $N$ zeros of $F(-p)$ on the positive 

2409: imaginary axis.

2410: 

2411: Let $\kappa$ and $q$ be the real and imaginary part of $p$: $p = \kappa

2412: +iq$. We let $\mathcal{D}$ denote the rectangular region in the

2413: complex-$p$ plane bounded by the vertical lines $\kappa = \pm \varepsilon$

2414: and horizontal lines 

2415: $q = \varepsilon^{1/2}$ and $q = Q$, where $\varepsilon$ is small and

2416: $Q$ is large enough for the region to contain all $N$ zeros of $F(-p)$ on the

2417: positive imaginary axis. By the argument principle, the total number

2418: of (complex) zeros of the function $F(-p)$ in the region $\mathcal{D}$ is given by

2419: $(2 \pi)^{-1}$ times 

2420: the variation of its argument (i.e., its phase) along the boundary of $\mathcal{D}$. 

2421: In a similar way, one may count the  number of zeros of the

2422: function $F(p)$ in $\mathcal{D}$.

2423: 

2424: We have

2425: \begin{equation*}

2426: \tan \arg F(\pm p) \! = \! \frac

2427: {\sinh\kappa\sin q \mp \tan k(\sinh\kappa\cos q - \kappa)}

2428: {\cosh\kappa\cos q - 1 \pm \tan k(\cosh\kappa\sin q - q)}.

2429: \end{equation*}

2430: Points on the vertical line $\kappa = \varepsilon$

2431: satisfy

2432: \begin{equation}

2433: % \tan \arg F(\pm p) \approx {-\epsilon} \left[ \frac

2434: % {\sin q \pm \tan k(1-\cos q)}

2435: % {1-\cos q  \pm \tan k(q-\sin q )}

2436: % \right]. \\

2437: \tan \arg F(\pm p) \approx {-\varepsilon} \frac{d}{dq} \ln

2438: |1-\cos q  \pm \tan k(q-\sin q )|.

2439: \label{B3}

2440: \end{equation}

2441: Consider, first, the case of the bottom sign in eq.\,\eqref{B3}. 

2442: The expression between the bars in \eqref{B3}

2443: crosses through zero $N$ times as the line $\kappa = \varepsilon$ is

2444: traced out.  Each time 

2445: zero is crossed, the logarithmic derivative in \eqref{B3} jumps from $-\infty$ to $+\infty$,

2446:  and the argument of $F(-p)$ increases by $\pi$ as we move from one crossing

2447: to the next one.

2448:  The net increase of the argument

2449: as the line $\kappa = \varepsilon$

2450: is traversed from its bottom to the top, is $N \pi$.

2451: In the case of the top sign in \eqref{B3}, on the other hand, the expression in $|\ldots|$ never crosses 

2452: through zero and hence the total increment of the argument

2453: of $F(p)$ is zero. 

2454: 

2455:  As we move along the vertical

2456: line  $\kappa = -\varepsilon$ from top to bottom, the argument of $F(-p)$ 

2457: increases by another $N \pi$ while the argument of $F(p)$ 

2458: does not acquire any increment. Since there are no zero crossings on the horizontal segments,

2459: the net change of 

2460: the argument of $F(-p)$ along the boundary of $\mathcal{D}$  is

2461: $2N\pi$ while the total increment of ${\rm arg\/} \, F(p)$ is zero.

2462: Therefore $F(-p)$  has only $N$ zeros in the region $\mathcal{D}$ (and they all

2463: lie on the imaginary axis) while the function $F(p)$

2464: has no zeros in $\mathcal{D}$.  This implies that complex singularities 

2465: of $U(p)$ and $W(p)$ cannot accumulate to

2466: the positive imaginary axis.

2467: 

2468: 

2469: \begin{thebibliography}{22}

2470: 

2471: \bibitem{braun}

2472: O. Braun and Yu. S. Kivshar,

2473: Phys. Rep. \textbf{306}, 1 (1998).

2474: 

2475: \bibitem{hennig}

2476: D. Hennig and G. P. Tsironis

2477: Phys. Rep. \textbf{307}, 333 (1999).

2478: 

2479: \bibitem{scott}

2480: A. Scott, \emph{Nonlinear Science: emergence and dynamics of

2481: coherent structures} (Oxford University Press, 1999).

2482: 

2483: %-------------------------------------------

2484: 

2485: \bibitem{christodoulides}

2486: D. N. Christodoulides, F. Lederer, and Y. Silberberg,

2487: Nature \textbf{424}, 817 (2003).

2488: 

2489: \bibitem{campbell}

2490: D. K. Campbell, S. Flach, and Yu. S. Kivshar,

2491: Phys. Today \textbf{57}(1), 43 (2004).

2492: 

2493: %--------------------------------------------

2494: 

2495: \bibitem{trambettoni}

2496: A. Trombettoni and A. Smerzi,

2497: Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{86}, 2353 (2001).

2498: 

2499: %-------------------------------------------

2500: 

2501: \bibitem{Feddersen}

2502: H. Feddersen, in \emph{Nonlinear Coherent Structures in Physics

2503: and Biology. Proceedings of the 7th Interdisciplinary

2504: Workshop Held at Dijon, France, 4-6 June 1991.}

2505: Eds. M. Remoissenet and M. Peyrard, Lecture Notes

2506: in Physics vol. 393 (Springer, Berlin, 1991), pp. 159--167.

2507: 

2508: \bibitem{duncan}

2509: D. B. Duncan, J. C. Eilbeck, H. Feddersen, and J. A. D. Wattis,

2510: Physica D \textbf{68}, 1 (1993).

2511: 

2512: \bibitem{flach}

2513: S. Flach and C. R. Willis,

2514: Phys. Rep. \textbf{295}, 181 (1998).

2515: 

2516: \bibitem{Flach_Kladko}

2517: S. Flach and K. Kladko,

2518: Physica D \textbf{127}, 61 (1999).

2519: 

2520: \bibitem{FKZ}

2521: S. Flach, Y. Zolotaryuk and K. Kladko,

2522: Phys. Rev. E \textbf{59}, 6105 (1999).

2523: 

2524: \bibitem{kevrekidis}

2525: P. G. Kevrekidis, K. \O{}. Rasmussen, and A. R. Bishop,

2526: Int. J. Mod. Phys. B \textbf{15}, 2833 (2001).

2527: 

2528: \bibitem{ablowitz}

2529: M. J. Ablowitz, Z. H. Musslimani, and G. Biondini,

2530: Phys. Rev. E \textbf{65}, 026602 (2002).

2531: 

2532: \bibitem{Kundu} K. Kundu, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. {\bf 35}, 8109 (2002).

2533: 

2534: \bibitem{eilbeck}

2535: J. C. Eilbeck and M. Johansson,

2536: in \emph{Proceedings of the Third Conference on Localization

2537:   and Energy Transfer in Nonlinear Systems, San Lorenzo de El Escorial, Madrid,

2538:   Spain, June 17--21, 2002} (World Scientific, Singapore, 2003), pp. 44--67.

2539: 

2540: \bibitem{Malomed_collisions_1}

2541: I. E. Papacharalampous,  P. G. Kevrekidis, B. A. Malomed, and D. J. Frantzeskakis,

2542:   Phys. Rev. E \textbf{68}, 046604 (2003).

2543: 

2544: \bibitem{Malomed_collisions_2}

2545:  S. V. Dmitriev, P. G. Kevrekidis, B. A. Malomed, and D. J. Frantzeskakis,

2546:   Phys. Rev. E \textbf{68}, 056603 (2003).

2547: 

2548: \bibitem{pelinovsky}

2549: D. E. Pelinovsky and V. M. Rothos,

2550: Physica D \textbf{202}, 16 (2005).

2551: 

2552: \bibitem{Malomed_nonlinearity_management} 

2553: J. Cuevas, B. A. Malomed, and P. G. Kevrekidis, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 71}, 066614 (2005).

2554: 

2555: %----------------------------------------------------

2556: 

2557: \bibitem{gomez1}

2558: J. G\'omez-Garde\~nez, F. Falo, and L. M. Flor\'ia,

2559: Phys. Lett. A \textbf{332}, 213 (2004).

2560: 

2561: \bibitem{gomez}

2562: J. G\'omez-Garde\~nez, L. M. Flor\'ia, M. Peyrard, and A. R. Bishop,

2563: Chaos \textbf{14}, 1130 (2004).

2564: 

2565: %----------------------------------------------------

2566: 

2567: \bibitem{efremidis}

2568: N. K. Efremidis, S. Sears, D. N. Christodoulides, J. W. Fleischer, and M. Segev,

2569: Phys. Rev. E \textbf{66}, 046602 (2002).

2570: 

2571: \bibitem{fleischer}

2572: J. W. Fleischer, T. Carmon, M. Segev, N. K. Efremidis, and D. N. Christodoulides,

2573: Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{90}, 023902 (2003).

2574: 

2575: \bibitem{chen}

2576: F. Chen, C. E. R\"uter, D. Runde, D. Kip, V. Shandarov, O. Manela, and M. Segev,

2577: Opt. Exp. \textbf{13}, 4314 (2005).

2578: 

2579: %----------------------------------------------------

2580: 

2581: \bibitem{fleischer-nature}

2582: J. W. Fleischer, M. Segev, N. K. Efremidis, and D. N. Christodoulides,

2583: Nature \textbf{422}, 147 (2003).

2584: 

2585: \bibitem{hadzievski}

2586: L. Had\v{z}ievski, A. Maluckov, M. Stepi\'c, and D. Kip,

2587: Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{93}, 033901 (2004).

2588: 

2589: \bibitem{stepic}

2590: M. Stepi\'c, D. Kip, L. Had\v{z}ievski, and A. Maluckov,

2591: Phys. Rev. E \textbf{69}, 066618 (2004).

2592: 

2593: \bibitem{cuevas}

2594: J. Cuevas and J. C. Eilbeck,

2595: Phys. Lett. A \textbf{358}, 15 (2006).

2596: 

2597: \bibitem{vicencio}

2598: R. A. Vicencio and M. Johansson,

2599: Phys. Rev. E \textbf{73}, 046602 (2006).

2600: 

2601: %-----------------------------------------------------

2602: 

2603: \bibitem{gatz1}

2604: S. Gatz and J. Herrmann,

2605: J. Opt. Soc. Am. B \textbf{8}, 2296 (1991).

2606: 

2607: \bibitem{gatz2}

2608: S. Gatz and J. Herrmann,

2609: Opt. Lett. \textbf{17}, 484 (1992).

2610: 

2611: %------------------------------------------------------

2612: 

2613: \bibitem{tikhonenko}

2614: V. Tikhonenko, J. Christou, and B. Luther-Davies,

2615: Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{76}, 2698 (1996).

2616: 

2617: %------------------------------------------------------

2618: 

2619: \bibitem{vidal}

2620: F. Vidal and T. W. Johnston,

2621: Phys. Rev. E \textbf{55}, 3571 (1997).

2622: 

2623: %------------------------------------------------------

2624: 

2625: \bibitem{khare}

2626: A. Khare, K. \O{}. Rasmussen, M. R. Samuelsen, and A. Saxena,

2627: J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. \textbf{38}, 807 (2005).

2628: 

2629: %------------------------------------------------------

2630: 

2631: \bibitem{BOP} I. V. Barashenkov, O. F. Oxtoby, and

2632: D. E. Pelinovsky, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 72} 035602(R) (2005).

2633: 

2634: %------------------------------------------------------

2635: 

2636: \bibitem{OPB}

2637: O. F. Oxtoby, D. E. Pelinovsky, and I. V. Barashenkov,

2638: Nonlinearity \textbf{19}, 217 (2006).

2639: 

2640: %------------------------------------------------------

2641: 

2642: \bibitem{vinetskii}

2643: V. O. Vinetskii and N. V. Kukhtarev,

2644: Sov. Phys. Solid State \textbf{16}, 2414 (1975).

2645: 

2646: %------------------------------------------------------

2647: 

2648: \bibitem{Lindstedt} See e.g. A. H. Nayfeh and D. T. Mook, Nonlinear

2649: Oscillations (J. Wiley, New York, 1979); D. W. Jordan and P. Smith, Nonlinear

2650: Ordinary Differential Equations (Oxford University Press, 1999).

2651: 

2652: %------------------------------------------------------

2653: 

2654: \bibitem{AL} M.J. Ablowitz and J.F. Ladik, Stud. Appl. Math.

2655: {\bf 55} 213 (1976); J. Math. Phys. {\bf 17} 10011 (1976).

2656: 

2657: %------------------------------------------------------

2658: 

2659: \bibitem{Laedke_Kluth_Spatschek}

2660: E. W. Laedke, O. Kluth, and K. H. Spatschek, Phys. Rev.

2661: {\bf E 54} 4299 (1996).

2662: 

2663: %------------------------------------------------------

2664: 

2665: \bibitem{pelinovsky-exceptional}

2666: D. E. Pelinovsky, Nonlinearity \textbf{19}, 2695 (2006).

2667: 

2668: %------------------------------------------------------

2669: 

2670: \bibitem{eleonskii}

2671: V. M. Eleonksii, N. E. Kulagin, N. S. Novozhilova, and V. P. Silin,

2672: Teor. Mat. Fiz. \textbf{60}, 395 (1984).

2673: 

2674: %------------------------------------------------------

2675: 

2676: \bibitem{sk}

2677: H. Segur and M. D. Kruskal,

2678: Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{58}, 747 (1987).

2679: 

2680: \bibitem{sk2}

2681: M. D. Kruskal and H. Segur,

2682: Stud. Appl. Math. \textbf{85}, 129 (1991).

2683: 

2684: %------------------------------------------------------

2685: 

2686: \bibitem{pomeau}

2687: Y. Pomeau, A. Ramani, and B. Grammaticos,

2688: Physica D \textbf{31}, 127 (1988).

2689: 

2690: %------------------------------------------------------

2691: 

2692: \bibitem{GrimshawJoshi}

2693: R. H. J. Grimshaw and N. Joshi,

2694: SIAM J. Appl. Math. \textbf{55}, 124 (1995).

2695: 

2696: \bibitem{GrimshawNLS}

2697: R. H. J. Grimshaw,

2698: Stud. Appl. Math. \textbf{94}, 257 (1995).

2699: 

2700: %------------------------------------------------------

2701: 

2702: \bibitem{Tovbis1}

2703: A. Tovbis, M. Tsuchiya, and C. Jaff\'e,

2704: Chaos \textbf{8}, 665 (1998).

2705: 

2706: \bibitem{Tovbis2}

2707: A. Tovbis,

2708: Contemporary Mathematics \textbf{255}, 199 (2000).

2709: 

2710: \bibitem{Tovbis3}

2711: A. Tovbis, Stud. Appl. Math. \textbf{104}, 353 (2000).

2712: 

2713: \bibitem{TovPel}

2714: A. Tovbis and D. Pelinovsky,

2715: Nonlinearity \textbf{19}, 2277 (2006).

2716: 

2717: %------------------------------------------------------

2718: 

2719: \bibitem{embedded_review}

2720: J. Fujioka, A. Espinosa-Cer\'on, and R. F. Rodr\'iguez,

2721: Rev. Mex. F\'is. \textbf{52}, 6 (2006).

2722: 

2723: %------------------------------------------------------

2724: 

2725: \bibitem{Malomed_embedded_0}

2726: S. Gonz\'alez-P\'erez-Sandi, J. Fujioka, and B. A. Malomed,

2727: Physica D \textbf{197}, 86 (2004).

2728: 

2729: %------------------------------------------------------

2730: 

2731: \bibitem{Malomed_embedded}

2732: B. A. Malomed, J. Fujioka, A. Espinosa-Cer\'on, R. F. Rodr\'iguez, and

2733: S. Gonz\'alez,

2734: Chaos \textbf{16}, 013112 (2006).

2735: 

2736: %------------------------------------------------------

2737: 

2738: \bibitem{Malomed_embedded_2}

2739: K. Yagasaki, A. R. Champneys, and B. A. Malomed,

2740: Nonlinearity {\bf 18}, 2591 (2005).

2741: 

2742: %------------------------------------------------------

2743: 

2744: \bibitem{melvin}

2745: T. R. O. Melvin, A. R. Champneys, P. G. Kevrekidis, and J. Cuevas,

2746: Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{97}, 124101 (2006).

2747: 

2748: 

2749: \end{thebibliography}

2750: 

2751: \end{document}

2752: