An efficient solution procedure for solving higher-codimension Hopf and Bogdanov-Takens bifurcations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In solving real world systems for higher-codimension bifurcation problems, one often faces the difficulty in computing the normal form or the focus values associated with generalized Hopf bifurcation, and the normal form with unfolding for higher-codimension Bogdanov-Takens bifurcation. The difficulty is not only coming from the teadious symbolic computation of focus values, but also due to the restriction on the system parameters, which frequently leads to failure of the conventional approach used in the computation even for simple $2$-dimensional nonlinear dynamical systems. In this paper, we use a simple 2-dimensional epidemic model, for which the conventional approach fails in analyzing the stability of limit cycles arising from Hopf bifurcation, to illustrate how our method can be efficiently applied to determine the codimension of Hopf bifurcation. Further, we apply the simplest normal form theory to consider codimension-3 Bogdanov-Takens bifurcation and present an efficient one-step transformation approach, compared with the classical six-step transformation approach to demonstrate the advantage of our method.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".