MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982088565 · doi:10.1142/s0218127405013289

TWELVE LIMIT CYCLES IN A CUBIC CASE OF THE 16th HILBERT PROBLEM

2005· article· en· W1982088565 on OpenAlexafffund
Peter Yu, Mingyu Han

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Differential Equations and Dynamical Systems
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsLimit (mathematics)Focus (optics)Saddle pointMathematicsLimit cycleCubic functionPlanarPerturbation (astronomy)SaddlePolynomialInfinite-period bifurcationMathematical analysisApplied mathematicsBifurcationMathematical optimizationComputer scienceGeometryHopf bifurcationPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we prove the existence of twelve small (local) limit cycles in a planar system with third-degree polynomial functions. The best result so far in literature for a cubic order planar system is eleven limit cycles. The system considered in this paper has a saddle point at the origin and two focus points which are symmetric about the origin. This system was studied by the authors and shown to exhibit ten small limit cycles: five around each of the focus points. It will be proved in this paper that the system can have twelve small limit cycles. The major tasks involved in the proof are to compute the focus values and solve coupled enormous large polynomial equations. A computationally efficient perturbation technique based on multiple scales is employed to calculate the focus values. Moreover, the focus values are perturbed to show that the system can exactly have twelve small limit cycles.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.302 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations76
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Bifurcation and ChaosSame topicAdvanced Differential Equations and Dynamical SystemsFrench-language works237,207