Coupled Oscillatory Systems with 𝔻4 Symmetry and Application to van der Pol Oscillators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we study the dynamics of autonomous ODE systems with [Formula: see text] symmetry. First, we consider eight weakly-coupled oscillators and establish the condition for the existence of stable heteroclinic cycles in most generic [Formula: see text]-equivariant systems. Then, we analyze the action of [Formula: see text] on [Formula: see text] and study the pattern of periodic solutions arising from Hopf bifurcation. We identify the type of periodic solutions associated with the pairs [Formula: see text] of spatiotemporal or spatial symmetries, and prove their existence by using the [Formula: see text] Theorem due to Hopf bifurcation and the [Formula: see text] symmetry. In particular, we give a rigorous proof for the existence of a fourth branch of periodic solutions in [Formula: see text]-equivariant systems. Further, we apply our theory to study a concrete case: two coupled van der Pol oscillators with [Formula: see text] symmetry. We use normal form theory to analyze the periodic solutions arising from Hopf bifurcation. Among the families of the periodic solutions, we pay particular attention to the phase-locked oscillations, each of them being embedded in one of the invariant manifolds, and identify the in-phase, completely synchronized motions. We derive their explicit expressions and analyze their stability in terms of the parameters.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".