Solitary waves in a nonintegrable chain with double-well potentials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study solitary waves in a one-dimensional lattice of identical masses that are connected in series by nonlinear springs. The potential of each spring is nonconvex, where two disjoint convex regions, phase I and phase II, are separated by a concave, spinodal region. Consequently, the force-strain relation of the spring is nonmonotonous, which gives rise to a bistable behavior. Based on analytical treatment, with some approximations, combined with extensive numerical simulations, we are able to reveal important insights. For example, we find that the solitary-wave solution is indifferent to the energy barrier that separates the two energy wells associated with phase I and phase II, and that the shape of the wave can be described by means of merely two scalar properties of the potential of the springs, namely, the ratio of stiffness in phase II and phase I, and the ratio between the Maxwell's force and corresponding transition strain. The latter ratio provides a useful measure for the significance of the spinodal region. Linear stability of the solitary-wave solution is studied analytically using the Vakhitov-Kolokolov criterion applied to the approximate solutions obtained in the first part. These results are validated by numerical simulations. We find that the solitary-wave solution is stable provided that its velocity is higher than some critical value. It is shown that, practically, the solitary waves are stable for almost the entire range of possible wave velocities. This is also manifested in the interaction between two solitary waves or between a solitary wave and a wall (rigid boundary). Such interaction results in a minor change of height and shape of the solitary wave along with the formation of a trail of small undulations that follow the wave, as expected in a nonintegrable system. Even after a significant number of interactions the changes in the wave height and shape are minor, suggesting that the bistable chain may be a useful platform for delivering information over long distances, even concurrently with additional information (other solitary waves) passing through the chain.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".