Obliquely interacting breathers in a three-layer fluid
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a three-layer system with equal upper and lower thin layers with the same density jump across each interface, fully nonlinear governing equations have revealed that breathers exist under the Boussinesq approximation. Also, it has been demonstrated that breathers may occur in the Baltic Sea. Additionally, in previous studies, it has been shown that the larger the upper- and lower-layer thicknesses, the more the breathers behave like solitons and that phase shifts occur after two breathers interact, with a forward/backward shift of the faster/slower breather, while the properties of the breathers are preserved. Still, the oblique interaction of breathers has yet to be explored. Thus, we aimed to investigate oblique breather interactions in a three-layer system by using fully nonlinear numerical simulations to clarify the characteristics of breathers. The ratio of the thin layer thicknesses to the total depth was 0.25 in this study. Breathers have two significant parameters, p and q, corresponding to the wavelength of a breather and the envelope amplitude. So, we had several configurations to clarify the influence of incident angles and amplitudes on the breather interactions by changing the parameters p and q. Stably progressing breathers, where p and q are 0.025 and 0.006, were examined by changing the incident angles from 10 to 40 degrees to estimate a critical angle. Also, the oblique breather interactions with a larger envelope amplitude were simulated to analyse the amplitude dependence of the critical angle. A Mach stem was found to occur in oblique breather interactions. Also, the critical angle was revealed to decrease as the envelope amplitude decreases. The behaviour of obliquely-interacting breathers provides further evidence that breathers in a three-layer fluid have soliton-like characteristics.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".