The singular and the 2:1 anisotropic Dunkl oscillators in the plane
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two Dunkl oscillator models are considered: one singular and the other with a 2:1 frequency ratio. These models are defined by Hamiltonians which include the reflection operators in the two variables x and y . The singular or caged Dunkl oscillator is second-order superintegrable and admits separation of variables in both Cartesian and polar coordinates. The spectrum of the Hamiltonian is obtained algebraically and the separated wavefunctions are given in the terms of Jacobi, Laguerre and generalized Hermite polynomials. The symmetry generators are constructed from the dynamical operators of the one-dimensional model and generate a cubic symmetry algebra. In terms of the symmetries responsible for the separation of variables, the symmetry algebra of the singular Dunkl oscillator is quadratic and can be identified with a special case of the Askey–Wilson AW(3) algebra with central involutions. The 2:1 anisotropic Dunkl oscillator model is also second-order superintegrable. The energies of the system are obtained algebraically, the symmetry generators are constructed using the dynamical operators and the resulting symmetry algebra is quadratic. The general system appears to admit separation of variables only in Cartesian coordinates. Special cases where separation occurs in both Cartesian and parabolic coordinates are considered. In the latter case the wavefunctions satisfy the biconfluent Heun equation and depend on a transcendental separation constant.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".