Linear stability of Hill’s vortex to axisymmetric perturbations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider the linear stability of Hill’s vortex with respect to axisymmetric perturbations. Given that Hill’s vortex is a solution of a free-boundary problem, this stability analysis is performed by applying methods of shape differentiation to the contour dynamics formulation of the problem in a three-dimensional axisymmetric geometry. This approach allows us to systematically account for the effect of boundary deformations on the linearized evolution of the vortex under the constraint of constant circulation. The resulting singular integro-differential operator defined on the vortex boundary is discretized with a highly accurate spectral approach. This operator has two unstable and two stable eigenvalues complemented by a continuous spectrum of neutrally stable eigenvalues. By considering a family of suitably regularized (smoothed) eigenvalue problems solved with a range of numerical resolutions, we demonstrate that the corresponding eigenfunctions are in fact singular objects in the form of infinitely sharp peaks localized at the front and rear stagnation points. These findings thus refine the results of the classical analysis by Moffatt & Moore (J. Fluid Mech., vol. 87, 1978, pp. 749–760).
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".