Zigzag and Breakup Instabilities of Stripes and Rings in the Two‐Dimensional Gray–Scott Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two different types of instabilities of equilibrium stripe and ring solutions are studied for the singularly perturbed two‐component Gray–Scott (GS) model in a two‐dimensional domain. The analysis is performed in the semi‐strong interaction limit where the ratio O(ɛ−2) of the two diffusion coefficients is asymptotically large. For ɛ→ 0, an equilibrium stripe solution is constructed where the singularly perturbed component concentrates along the mid‐line of a rectangular domain. An equilibrium ring solution occurs when this component concentrates on some circle that lies concentrically within a circular cylindrical domain. For both the stripe and the ring, the spectrum of the linearized problem is studied with respect to transverse (zigzag) and varicose (breakup) instabilities. Zigzag instabilities are associated with eigenvalues that are asymptotically small as ɛ→ 0. Breakup instabilities, associated with eigenvalues that are O(1) as ɛ→ 0, are shown to lead to the disintegration of a stripe or a ring into spots. For both the stripe and the ring, a combination of asymptotic and numerical methods are used to determine precise instability bands of wavenumbers for both types of instabilities. The instability bands depend on the relative magnitude, with respect to ɛ, of a nondimensional feed‐rate parameter A of the GS model. Both the high feed‐rate regime A=O(1), where self‐replication phenomena occurs, and the intermediate regime O(ɛ1/2) ≪A≪O(1) are studied. In both regimes, it is shown that the instability bands for zigzag and breakup instabilities overlap, but that a zigzag instability is always accompanied by a breakup instability. The stability results are confirmed by full numerical simulations. Finally, in the weak interaction regime, where both components of the GS model are singularly perturbed, it is shown from a numerical computation of an eigenvalue problem that there is a parameter set where a zigzag instability can occur with no breakup instability. From full‐scale numerical computations of the GS, it is shown that this instability leads to a large‐scale labyrinthine pattern.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".