Dynamics of globally minimizing orbits in contact Hamiltonian systems

Jun Yan; Kai Zhao; Yang Xu

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Dynamics of globally minimizing orbits in contact Hamiltonian systems

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Under strict monotonicity of the contact Hamiltonian, every bounded globally minimizing orbit is asymptotic to a semi-static orbit on the graph of a stationary viscosity solution.

desk verdict A plausible and worthwhile contact analogue of Mané's omega-limit theorem, with one unproved strict inequality in the key geometric step; the repair is likely in the paper's own cited tools. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.20658 v1 pith:3AFU6HVB submitted 2024-12-30 math.DS math.AP

Yang Xu , Jun Yan , Kai Zhao This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.DSmath.AP MSC 37J5535F2135D40

keywords contactHamiltoniansystemsgloballyminimizingorbitsMañésetsemi-staticviscositysolutionsHamilton–Jacobiequationsω-limitlarge-timebehavior

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper establishes that the long-time behavior of globally minimizing orbits in contact Hamiltonian systems is controlled by the stationary viscosity solutions of the associated Hamilton–Jacobi equation. Under assumption (A1), that $\partial H/\partial u>0$ on the zero level set $\{H=0\}$, and assumption (B), the existence of a stationary solution, Theorem 1.1 shows that the $\omega$-limit set of every positive globally minimizing orbit is contained in the Mañé set $\widetilde{N}_{u_-}$ of semi-static orbits, which is itself contained in the graph $\Lambda_{u_-}$ of the unique stationary solution $u_-$. This transfers a classical Lagrangian-dynamics result—$\omega$-limit sets of globally minimizing orbits lie in static sets—to the contact setting. The proof connects the implicit action functions defining minimizers with the large-time limit of viscosity solutions of the evolution Hamilton–Jacobi equation. If correct, the asymptotic dynamics is organized by a single function $u_-$, and from every initial point $(x_0,u_0)$ a momentum can be selected so that the forward orbit is globally minimizing and converges toward that graph.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the pair of evolution semigroups $T^-_t$ and $T^+_t$ for the contact Hamilton–Jacobi equation, together with the implicit action functions $h_{x_0,u_0}(x,t)$ that define globally minimizing curves. The identity $h_{x_0,u_0}(x,t+1)=T^-_t h_{x_0,u_0}(x,1)$ is what lets the authors pass from large-time convergence of viscosity solutions—Theorem 2.1, which gives $T^-_t\varphi\to u_-$ uniformly for every continuous $\varphi$ under (A1) and (B)—to statements about minimizers. Uniform Lipschitz and compactness estimates on $\{T^-_t h_{x_0,u_0}(\cdot,1)\}$ justify passing to limits, and the comparison principles for the semigroups supply the inequalities that force the limiting orbit to be semi-static and its momentum to match the graph.

What would settle it

On the dissipative pendulum $H=\frac12 p^2-1+\cos x+u$, Theorem 1.2 predicts that for each $(x_0,u_0)$ the selected orbit converges to $(0,0,0)$ only for initial points on the stable manifold of that fixed point. A direct check: for a grid of $(x_0,u_0)$, approximate $p_0$ by the limit of momenta of minimizers of $h_{x_0,u_0}(x,n)$ as $n\to\infty$, and test whether $(x_0,p_0,u_0)$ lies on the stable manifold; a single initial condition with $u_0\neq0$ whose selected $p_0$ misses the manifold would falsify the selection claim. More generally, any bounded globally minimizing orbit whose $\omega$-limit set contains a point with $u$-coordinate different from $u_-(x)$ for every stationary solution $u_-$ would falsify Theorem 1.1.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Theorem 1.1 is the central claim: for each positive globally minimizing orbit $(x(t),p(t),u(t))$ of the contact Hamiltonian flow, under assumptions (A1) and (B) there exists a viscosity solution $u_-\in S^-$ of $H(x,\partial_x u,u)=0$ such that $\omega(x(0),p(0),u(0))\subset \widetilde{N}_{u_-}\subset\Lambda_{u_-}$, where $\widetilde{N}_{u_-}$ is the Mañé set of semi-static orbits labeled by $u_-$ and $\Lambda_{u_-}=\mathrm{cl}\{(x,\mathrm{d}u_-(x),u_-(x))\}$ is the graph of the stationary solution. Lemma 3.5 proves every positive globally minimizing orbit is bounded, so the $\omega$-limit set is nonempty. The authors then show that any $\omega$-limit point $(\bar{x},\bar{p},\bar{u})$ generates a globally minimizing curve whose $u$-component obeys $\bar{u}(t)=u_-(\bar{x}(t))$ for all $t$, and that this curve is semi-static. A strict inequality argument forces the momentum component to agree with $\partial L/\partial v(\bar{x},\dot{\bar{x}},\bar{u})$, placing the point on $\Lambda_{u_-}$. Theorem 1.2 adds that for every $(x_0,u_0)\in M\times\mathbb{R}$ one can choose an initial momentum $p_0$ such that the forward orbit is globally minimizing and satisfies the same $\omega$-limit conclusion.

Load-bearing premise

The proof depends on assumption (A1), that $\partial H/\partial u$ is strictly positive on the zero level set $\{H=0\}$, because this monotonicity is what makes the stationary solution unique and makes every viscosity solution of the evolution equation converge to it uniformly; without it, the identification of $\omega$-limit points with $u_-(x)$ can fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Every positive globally minimizing orbit is bounded, and its $\omega$-limit set lies in $\widetilde{N}_{u_-}\subset\Lambda_{u_-}$; under (A1)+(B) the long-time dynamics is organized by the single stationary solution $u_-$.
From each point $(x_0,u_0)\in M\times\mathbb{R}$ one can select an initial momentum $p_0$ so that the forward orbit is globally minimizing and its $\omega$-limit is contained in the Mañé set of semi-static orbits (Theorem 1.2).
If strict monotonicity (A1) is relaxed to nonnegativity (A2), the same dynamical conclusion holds, except that $u_-$ is no longer unique and the limiting stationary solution depends on the initial data.
Because $S^-$ has a single element under (A1)+(B), the Mañé set decomposition collapses to one component, $\widetilde{N}=\widetilde{N}_{u_-}$.
For the dissipative pendulum $H=\frac12 p^2-1+\cos x+u$, the selected orbit has $\omega$-limit $\{(0,0,0)\}$ precisely when its initial point lies on the stable manifold of that hyperbolic fixed point.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The proof suggests a general selection rule: the momentum $p_0$ produced by Theorem 1.2 is the point where the stable manifold of the semi-static set meets the fiber $T^*_{x_0}M$; this is visible in the pendulum example and could be checked numerically for other contact Hamiltonians with a unique stationary solution.
The convergence argument only uses the semigroup limit on the specific initial data $h_{x_0,u_0}(\cdot,1)$, so the conclusion may survive without global strict monotonicity (A1), provided the relevant semigroup still converges; a localized version of Theorem 2.1 would settle this.
The identity $h_{x_0,u_0}(x,t+1)=T^-_t h_{x_0,u_0}(x,1)$ also offers a computational route to approximating semi-static orbits: evolve the implicit action data under the semigroup until stabilization, then read off the graph $u_-$ and the selected orbit.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper proves a contact analogue of Mané's omega-limit theorem: under strict monotonicity (A1) and existence of a stationary solution, every positive globally minimizing orbit has omega-limit contained in the Mané set, classified by the unique stationary solution u-. That is a real extension, and the method differs from the classical action-potential route by working through large-time convergence of the Lax-Oleinik semigroup. Theorem 1.2, giving a globally minimizing lift from any (x0,u0), and the pendulum example are useful additions. Section 2's convergence theorem is largely assembled from prior semigroup results, but the proof here is self-contained enough and mostly sound.

Now the soft spots, in order.

Lemma 3.5 contains a false equality: |A - B + B| is not equal to |A-B| + |B|. It is clearly meant as ≤, and the subsequent estimate uses ≤, so this is a typo, not a real gap.

The load-bearing issue is in Step 2 of Theorem 1.1. To prove p̄ = ∂L/∂v, the authors assert a strict inequality in the chain

u-(x̃(1)) ≤ h_{...}(x̃(1),2) < h_{x̄,h_{...}(x̄,1)}(x̃(1),1) = ...

No justification is given. Dynamic programming for implicit action gives only ≤ for an intermediate point, and the fact that (x̄,ū) is globally minimizing would normally force equality at optimal intermediates. If equality holds, the chain is a string of equalities and no contradiction follows. That is a genuine gap in the written proof of the main theorem.

That said, the paper contains a likely bypass: it cites [6, Prop. 3.1], which says a globally minimizing curve automatically carries momentum p = ∂L/∂v. Since (x̄,ū) was already shown globally minimizing in (3.4), that proposition may supply the missing conclusion directly. The authors do not invoke it at the critical moment. A referee should ask them to justify the strict inequality or replace the step with the cited result.

Theorem 2.1, case (3), has a compressed boundedness argument that works after unpacking the semigroup inequalities, but it needs rewording. No fitted parameters, no data, and the heavy self-citation is to published prior results used as lemmas; that is not circular.

Verdict: the result is plausible and probably true, the strategy is right, and the gaps are repairable. It deserves a serious referee; I would send it out with a request for revision rather than desk-reject.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies the asymptotic dynamics of globally minimizing orbits of a contact Hamiltonian system on T*M × R. Under assumptions (H1)-(H3), plus (A1) (strict positivity of ∂H/∂u on the zero-energy set) and (B) (existence of a viscosity solution of H(x,du,u)=0), Theorem 1.1 asserts that the ω-limit set of every positive globally minimizing orbit is contained in the Mañé set \tilde N_{u-}, which is itself contained in the graph Λ_{u-} of the unique stationary viscosity solution u-. Theorem 1.2 asserts that from every (x0,u0) there is an initial momentum p0 whose forward orbit is a positive global minimizer, again with ω-limit in \tilde N_{u-}. The proof proceeds by proving convergence of the semigroups T^-_t to u- (Theorem 2.1), proving boundedness of global minimizers (Lemma 3.5), and then identifying any ω-limit point as a semi-static orbit. The main technical step is the momentum-matching argument in Section 3.1.

Significance. If established, this is a natural extension of classical Mañé theory for Tonelli Hamiltonians to contact Hamiltonian systems under a monotonicity condition on ∂H/∂u. The strategy is genuinely different from the classical action-potential route: it uses the large-time convergence of viscosity solutions of the contact Hamilton-Jacobi equation and identifies a distinguished solution u- for every positive global minimizer. The manuscript is transparent about its assumptions and relies on prior published results (the implicit variational principle and semigroup theory) rather than on fitted or ad hoc parameters. The main geometric claim is plausible, but the proof as written contains a load-bearing gap in the momentum-matching step.

major comments (3)

[Section 3.1 (Step 2, proof of Theorem 1.1)] The displayed chain containing the strict inequality u_-(\tilde x(1)) = T^-_2 u_-(\tilde x(1)) ≤ h_{\bar x(-1),u_-(\bar x(-1))}(\tilde x(1),2) < h_{\bar x,h_{\bar x(-1),u_-(\bar x(-1))}(\bar x,1)}(\tilde x(1),1) is not justified. The implicit variational principle gives only a non-strict inequality for an arbitrary intermediate point. Strictness would require a proof that \bar x is not an optimal intermediate point for the endpoint \tilde x(1). The preceding argument establishes equality at the intermediate point only for the endpoint \bar x(1), since (\bar x(·),\bar u(·)) is globally minimizing; it does not apply to \tilde x(1). If equality holds, the chain degenerates and no contradiction follows. This step is load-bearing: it is the only argument that \bar p = ∂L/∂v(\bar x,\dot{\bar x},\bar u), and hence that the ω-limit point lies in \tilde N_{u-}. A repair might use convexity and regularity of minimizers to rule out a corner at \bar x, but that argument is absent.
[Section 3.2 (proof of Theorem 1.2)] The assertion 'as {p_n(0)} is bounded' is unsupported. Since n is unbounded, Proposition 3.4, which requires t ≤ T, does not apply directly to the whole minimizer γ_n. The boundedness can presumably be obtained by restricting γ_n to [0,1] and applying Proposition 3.4 with T=1, but this argument is not given. Without a uniform bound on p_n(0), the existence of the convergent subsequence p_{n_k}(0) → p0 is not established, so Theorem 1.2 is incomplete as written.
[Section 2, proof of Theorem 2.1, case (3)] In case (3), the symbol u+ is used before it is defined in that case, and the claim that {T^+_t φ} is bounded on M × R+ is not derived. The text shows only that u+ ≤ T^+_{ntc+s}φ(x) ≤ max_{s∈[0,tc]} T^+_s φ(x); the latter upper bound requires an explicit use of T^+_{tc}φ ≤ φ and monotonicity, and u+ should be defined (e.g. as lim_{t→∞} T^+_t u-). Since Theorem 2.1 supplies the limit u- used in (3.5), this gap affects the proof of the main theorem, though it appears repairable.

minor comments (3)

[Lemma 3.5] The displayed equality |u(t)| = |T^-_{t-1}h_{x0,u0}(x(t),1) - T^-_{t-1}h_{x0,u0}(x(0),1)| + |h_{x0,u0}(x(0),t)| is false; the triangle inequality gives only ≤. The subsequent argument uses the ≤ direction, so the proof is easily repaired, but the written equality is incorrect.
[Throughout] There are numerous typographical and formatting issues with the diacritics in 'Ma˜n´e' and some inconsistent reference identifiers (e.g. [15] arXiv number 2017.11554 versus 2107.11554, and 'X. Su' in [12] versus 'X. Shu' in [16]); these should be corrected.
[Example 3.6] The claimed 'if and only if' characterization of the stable manifold W^s(0,0,0) is not proved in the paper and should either be justified or explicitly stated as a heuristic illustration.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Theorem 1.1 is derived from the semigroup convergence theorem and prior published weak-KAM machinery, not from its own conclusion.

full rationale

This paper contains no fitted parameters and no quantity is calibrated against the result it is supposed to predict. Theorem 2.1, which supplies the large-time convergence of the semigroup T^-_t, is proved inside the paper from comparison and monotonicity properties of the semigroups T^±_t; the imported propositions (A.1-A.6) are prior published results about those semigroups, not assumptions of the target theorem. The proof of Theorem 1.1 then directly shows that any omega-limit point (bar x, bar p, bar u) yields a globally minimizing curve (bar x, bar u) satisfying bar u(t) = u_-(bar x(t)), and that this curve is semi-static by the definition involving inf over s > 0 of the implicit action. That is a substantive derivation, not a restatement of the definitions. The final identification of the Mané set with the union of graphs of u_± is imported from [14], a prior theorem by the same research group; this is a self-citation, but it is used only to label the set already shown to contain the omega-limit, and it is a published external theorem rather than a hypothesis of this paper. The one genuinely serious issue is the momentum-matching step in Section 3.1, Step 2: the strict inequality h_{bar x(-1),u_-(bar x(-1))}(tilde x(1),2) < h_{bar x,h_{bar x(-1),u_-(bar x(-1))}(bar x,1)}(tilde x(1),1) is asserted without proof, and the dynamic programming principle for implicit action functions yields only a non-strict inequality. If strictness fails, the contradiction collapses and Theorem 1.1's geometric conclusion is unsupported. This is a proof gap and a correctness risk, but it is not circularity: it does not make the conclusion equivalent to an input, and it does not rename a fitted quantity as a prediction. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No numerical free parameters appear; the analysis is proof-based. The logical load is carried by structural assumptions (H1)-(H3), (A1)/(A2), and (B), plus a large imported apparatus of implicit action functions and semigroups from earlier papers by the same research group. The paper introduces no new physical or mathematical entities: the Mane set, semi-static orbits, and implicit action functions all predate this work.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption H is C^3 and satisfies Tonelli conditions (H1), (H2), (H3): positive definite Hessian in p, superlinear growth in p, and a uniform bound on the derivative of H with respect to u.
These assumptions, stated in Section 1.2, are needed to define the contact flow, the implicit action functions, and the two evolution semigroups from the prior literature.
domain assumption Strict monotonicity assumption (A1): dH/du > 0 on the zero-level set E = {H = 0}.
This is used in Lemma 2.3 and Theorem 2.1 to obtain uniqueness and convergence of the semigroup T^-_t. It is not satisfied by all contact Hamiltonians, so it restricts the scope of the theorem.
domain assumption Alternative monotonicity assumption (A2): dH/du >= 0 everywhere, together with condition (B).
The paper states the conclusions also hold under (A2) and (B), relying on convergence results imported from reference [12].
domain assumption Condition (B): the stationary equation H(x, du, u) = 0 admits at least one viscosity solution.
This ensures the set S- is nonempty and that the objects Lambda_{u-} and the Mane set classification (3.3) are available.
domain assumption Imported semigroup facts: comparison, the inequalities T^-_t T^+_t phi >= phi and T^+_t T^-_t phi <= phi, and the unbounded-growth dichotomy in Propositions A.1-A.4.
These propositions, taken from references [11, 15, 16], are the backbone of the proof of Theorem 2.1 and are not restated or proved in this paper.
domain assumption Implicit action functions from reference [13] satisfy the dynamic programming identities used in Section 3, including h_{x0,u0}(x, t+1) = T^-_t h_{x0,u0}(x, 1).
The regularity of h_{x0,u0}(., 1) as a function on M is not verified in this paper, yet the proof of the key limit (3.5) depends on applying semigroup convergence to this function.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dynamics of globally minimizing orbits in contact Hamiltonian systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3AFU6HVB

@misc{pith2026241220658,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dynamics of globally minimizing orbits in contact Hamiltonian systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3AFU6HVB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.20658}
}

abstract

In this paper, we study the asymptotic behavior of globally minimizing orbits of contact Hamiltonian systems. Under some assumptions, we prove that the $\omega$-limit set of globally minimizing orbits is contained in the set of semi-static orbits.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.20658 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

The existence and stability of viscosity solutions to perturbed contact Hamilton-Jacobi equations
math.AP 2025-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Small perturbations of a contact Hamilton-Jacobi equation preserve the existence and stability of viscosity solutions near a Lyapunov stable solution.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

18 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

R. Ma ˜n´e. Lagrangian flows: the dynamics of globally minimizing orbits. Bulletin Brazilian Math- ematical Society. 28(2):141-153, 1997

work page 1997
[2]

Contreras, J

G. Contreras, J. Delgado and R. Iturriaga. Lagrangian flows: The dynamics of globally minimizing orbits-II. Bulletin Brazilian Mathematical Society, 28(2):155-196, 1997

work page 1997
[3]

P. Bernard. The dynamics of pseudographs in convex Hamiltonian systems. Journal of the Ameri- can Mathematical Society, 21(3):615-669, 2008

work page 2008
[4]

P. Bernard. Connecting orbits of time dependent Lagrangian systems. Annales- Institut Fourier, 52(5):1533–1568, 2001

work page 2001
[5]

Fathi and J

A. Fathi and J. N. Mather. Failure of convergence of the Lax-Oleinik semi-group in the time- periodic case. Bulletin De La Societe Mathematique De France, 128(3):473-483, 2000

work page 2000
[6]

K. Wang, L. Wang and J. Yan. Aubry-Mather theory for contact Hamiltonian systems. Commun. Math. Phys., 366: 981–1023, 2019

work page 2019
[7]

Mar `o and A

S. Mar `o and A. Sorrentino. Aubry-Mather Theory for Conformally Symplectic Systems. Commun. Math. Phys., 354: 775–808, 2017

work page 2017
[8]

Jin and J

L. Jin and J. Yan. On the dynamics of contact Hamiltonian systems:I. Monotone systems. Nonlin- earity, 34:3314–3336, 2021

work page 2021

Show all 18 references

[9]

M. G. Crandall and P.-L. Lions. Viscosity solutions of Hamilton-Jacobi equations. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. , 277 (1): 1–42, 1983

1983
[10]

Wang and J

K. Wang and J. Yan. Viscosity solutions of contact Hamilton-Jacobi equations without monotonic- ity assumptions. arXiv: 2107.11554

arXiv
[11]

K. Wang, L. Wang and J. Yan. Variational principle for contact Hamiltonian systems and its appli- cations. J. Math. Pures Appl., 123: 167–200, 2019. 15

2019
[12]

X. Su, L. Wang and J. Yan. Weak KAM theory for Hamilton-Jacobi equations depending on un- known functions. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst., 36:6487–6522, 2016

2016
[13]

K. Wang, L. Wang and J. Yan. Implicit variational principle for contact Hamiltonian systems. Nonlinearity, 30:492-515, 2017

2017
[14]

K. Wang, L. Wang and J. Yan. Aubry-Mather theory for contact Hamiltonian systems II. Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems. DOI:10.3934/dcds.2021128, 42(2):555-595, 2022

2022 doi
[15]

Wang and J

K. Wang and J. Yan. Ergodic problems for contact Hamilton-Jacobi equations. http://arXiv: 2017.11554v2[math.AP]11Sep2022

2017
[16]

X. Shu, J. Yan and K. Zhao. Viscosity subsolutions of Hamilton-Jacobi equations and invariant sets of contact Hamilton systems. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 63(10), 2022

2022
[17]

P.-L. Lions. Generalized solutions of Hamilton-Jacobi equations. Pitman, Boston, 1982

1982
[18]

Ishii, K

H. Ishii, K. Wang, L. Wang and J. Yan. Hamilton-Jacobi equations with their Hamiltonians de- pending lipschitz continuously on the unknown. Communications in Partial Differential Equations, 47(2):417–452, 2022

2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

R. Ma ˜n´e. Lagrangian flows: the dynamics of globally minimizing orbits. Bulletin Brazilian Math- ematical Society. 28(2):141-153, 1997

work page 1997

[2] [2]

Contreras, J

G. Contreras, J. Delgado and R. Iturriaga. Lagrangian flows: The dynamics of globally minimizing orbits-II. Bulletin Brazilian Mathematical Society, 28(2):155-196, 1997

work page 1997

[3] [3]

P. Bernard. The dynamics of pseudographs in convex Hamiltonian systems. Journal of the Ameri- can Mathematical Society, 21(3):615-669, 2008

work page 2008

[4] [4]

P. Bernard. Connecting orbits of time dependent Lagrangian systems. Annales- Institut Fourier, 52(5):1533–1568, 2001

work page 2001

[5] [5]

Fathi and J

A. Fathi and J. N. Mather. Failure of convergence of the Lax-Oleinik semi-group in the time- periodic case. Bulletin De La Societe Mathematique De France, 128(3):473-483, 2000

work page 2000

[6] [6]

K. Wang, L. Wang and J. Yan. Aubry-Mather theory for contact Hamiltonian systems. Commun. Math. Phys., 366: 981–1023, 2019

work page 2019

[7] [7]

Mar `o and A

S. Mar `o and A. Sorrentino. Aubry-Mather Theory for Conformally Symplectic Systems. Commun. Math. Phys., 354: 775–808, 2017

work page 2017

[8] [8]

Jin and J

L. Jin and J. Yan. On the dynamics of contact Hamiltonian systems:I. Monotone systems. Nonlin- earity, 34:3314–3336, 2021

work page 2021