Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 65 references

Extreme mixed-mode oscillatory bursts in the Helmholtz-Duffing oscillator

T0 review · 5 major / 6 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 This paper reports a new kind of extreme event—irregular mixed-mode oscillatory bursts—in a driven Helmholtz-Duffing oscillator with an asymmetric double-well potential, and argues that the system velocity is a reliable lead indicator of…

desk verdict Genuinely new extreme-event subtype with a clear mechanism, but the numerical validation and the velocity-precursor claim need real work before the details can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.11889 v1 pith:IMZTOTJP submitted 2025-01-21 nlin.CD

S. Sudharsan , Subramanian Ramakrishnan This is my paper · ORCID
classification nlin.CD MSC 34C1537D4537M05
keywords extremeeventsmixed-modeoscillationsHelmholtz-Duffingoscillatorpeak-over-thresholdmethodgeneralizedvaluedistributioninter-wellhoppingvelocityleadindicatordouble-wellpotential
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 reports a new type of extreme event: extreme irregular mixed-mode oscillatory bursts in a driven, asymmetric double-well Helmholtz-Duffing oscillator. It argues that rare chaotic hopping between the two potential wells generates short bursts of irregular mixed-mode oscillations embedded in otherwise periodic mixed-mode oscillations, and that these bursts qualify as extreme events by the peak-over-threshold criterion. It further shows the burst statistics fit a generalized extreme value distribution of Weibull type, and that each burst is preceded by a sharp upward deviation in the system velocity, making velocity a reliable lead indicator. If correct, this adds a new mechanism and a measurable precursor for extreme events in a widely used oscillator model.

What carries the argument

The central object is the asymmetric double-well potential $V(x)=c_1 x^2/2 + c_2 x^3/3 + c_3 x^4/4$ with negative $c_1$ and positive $c_2$ and $c_3$, where the quadratic coefficient $c_2$ tunes the depth asymmetry between the wells. The mechanism that carries the argument is rare chaotic inter-well hopping: the trajectory spends long stretches in the deeper well in periodic mixed-mode motion, and occasionally crosses the unstable fixed point at $x=0$ to reach the shallower well, briefly showing irregular mixed-mode oscillations before returning. The velocity variable $y=\dot{x}$ is the proposed lead indicator because it deviates from its periodic burst pattern just before the position variable $x$ produces an extreme mixed-mode burst.

What would settle it

Recompute the same parameter values with an adaptive Runge-Kutta solver at a tolerance much smaller than the fixed step of 0.01, and check whether the irregular mixed-mode bursts and their preceding velocity spikes still occur at $c_2=91.5464884$; if they vanish or the velocity lead disappears, the reported events and indicator are artifacts of the fixed-step integration.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For the driven Helmholtz-Duffing oscillator with $\mu=0.1$, $c_1=-1.0$, $c_3=534.53$, $F=0.5$, and $\omega=0.42$, the paper finds that choosing the quadratic nonlinearity coefficient near $c_2=91.5464884$ places the system in a regime where the trajectory is mostly confined to the deeper left well, exhibiting periodic mixed-mode oscillations with one large and eight small peaks. Rarely, the trajectory chaotically crosses the unstable fixed point at the origin and hops to the shallower right well, producing an irregular mixed-mode burst whose peaks cross the peak-over-threshold threshold; these bursts are identified as extreme events. The hop occurs during the rising phase of the external drive, and the burst statistics are fitted to the generalized extreme value distribution with a negative shape parameter, indicating a Weibull-type tail. The paper further states that every burst is consistently preceded by a sudden upshot in the velocity variable, which it proposes as a reliable lead indicator of the event.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the fixed-step numerical integration at step size 0.01 reproduces the rare bursts as genuine dynamics rather than numerical artifacts, and that the peak-over-threshold choice of $n=5$ correctly marks the boundary between ordinary oscillations and extreme events.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Extreme events in nonlinear oscillators need not appear only as isolated large-amplitude spikes in a chaotic time series; they can also appear as intermittent bursts of irregular mixed-mode oscillations embedded in periodic mixed-mode oscillations.
  • The depth asymmetry of the double well, controlled by $c_2$, acts as a tunable switch: increasing $c_2$ deepens the left well and monotonically shortens the time spent in the right well until inter-well hopping becomes impossible, while decreasing $c_2$ makes the bursts so frequent that they no longer qualify as extreme events.
  • The rising phase of the external drive gates the inter-well transition, so the phase of the drive is part of the event mechanism and could be used in conjunction with the velocity indicator.
  • The velocity variable can be tracked as a single measurable early-warning signal for the bursts, without needing to know the full phase-space state in advance.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The velocity-precursor claim is presented qualitatively; a natural extension is to define a quantitative threshold on $y$, measure detection rates and false-alarm rates over long simulations, and compare against random-chance prediction.
  • The same asymmetry-induced inter-well bursting mechanism might appear in other double-well systems with a periodic mixed-mode baseline, such as buckled beam snap-through or energy harvesters, where a deeper well similarly suppresses rare escapes.
  • Because the generalized extreme value fit has a negative shape parameter (bounded tail), one could test how the tail and the extreme-event rate vary as $c_2$ approaches the transition, providing a parameter sweep the paper does not report.
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.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a new class of extreme events in the driven Helmholtz-Duffing oscillator, termed extreme irregular mixed-mode oscillatory bursts. The authors argue that, for a narrow interval of the quadratic nonlinearity coefficient c2 near a crisis, the trajectory intermittently escapes the deeper potential well and performs irregular back-and-forth hopping between the two wells, producing bursts that are classified as extreme events by a peak-over-threshold (POT) criterion. They further report that the threshold exceedances are well described by a generalized extreme value (GEV) distribution with a negative shape parameter, that the bursts occur during the rising phase of the external drive, and that the velocity variable provides a reliable lead indicator of an imminent burst. The paper is primarily numerical: it integrates the equation of motion with a fixed-step RKF45 scheme and analyzes the resulting time series, phase portraits, and histograms.

Significance. If the numerical results are robust, the paper identifies a phenomenologically distinct type of extreme event: rather than isolated large spikes, the extreme event is an entire burst of irregular mixed-mode oscillations, and the mechanism is rare chaotic inter-well hopping in an asymmetric double-well potential. The observation that the oscillator returns to periodic mixed-mode oscillations inside the deeper well between bursts is a notable qualitative feature that distinguishes this system from previously reported extreme-event mechanisms. The paper also makes a concrete, testable claim that velocity can serve as a lead indicator. However, the significance is currently limited by the absence of numerical convergence tests, inconsistent reporting of the central parameter c2 in figure captions, an arbitrary and unvalidated threshold, and a statistically under-supported GEV fit. The velocity-predictor claim is supported only by a visual inspection of a single time series. These issues are load-bearing because every conclusion in the paper derives from the same unverified trajectories.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section II, Eq. (2)] The fixed-step RKF45 integration with h=0.01 is not accompanied by any error-control or convergence test. Since the claimed extreme events are rare crossings of the unstable fixed point at (0,0) in a narrow parameter window just below crisis, deterministic integration error can act as a small perturbation that may induce or suppress these crossings. Please provide a convergence study (e.g., halving h, comparing with an adaptive solver, or reporting event counts as a function of tolerance) and state the total integration time and transient discarded. Without such evidence, the central observation could be a numerical artifact.
  2. [Sections II and III, Figs. 2, 4, 5] The parameter value at which extreme events occur is reported inconsistently. The text states that extreme events appear at c2=91.5464884, but the captions of Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 state c2=5.6494884, and the caption of Fig. 3 states c2=91.564884. Because the claimed phenomenon occurs in an extremely narrow c2 interval of width 1e-7, this inconsistency prevents the reader from knowing which trajectories were actually computed. Please correct all captions and verify that the displayed data correspond to the stated parameter value.
  3. [Section II, Eq. (3) and Fig. 3, Table I] The POT threshold with n=5 is arbitrary, and no sensitivity analysis is provided; the number of exceedances and all subsequent statistics depend on this choice. Moreover, the GEV density in Eq. (4) is fitted to peak-over-threshold exceedances, but the standard asymptotic model for POT exceedances is the generalized Pareto distribution, not the GEV, and no goodness-of-fit test (e.g., Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Anderson-Darling, or QQ plot) is reported. Please justify the threshold choice, scan over n, and test the distributional fit; otherwise the claim of a Weibull-type distribution in Table I is unsupported.
  4. [Section IV, Fig. 7] The velocity lead indicator is identified by visual inspection of the same time series in which the bursts occur. No quantitative rule is given for what constitutes a velocity 'shoot-up,' no prediction horizon is defined, and no false-alarm or miss rates are reported. The claim that velocity is a reliable lead indicator therefore requires a defined detection algorithm and validation on held-out data or on multiple independent realizations; the current evidence is anecdotal.
  5. [Section III] The largest Lyapunov exponent of 0.0396177 is quoted without describing the algorithm, integration time, or convergence. Given the extreme sensitivity of the dynamics near crisis, this value cannot be verified from the information provided. Please report the method and parameters used to compute the Lyapunov exponent, or remove the quantitative claim.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Introduction] There is a typo in 'Hemholtz-Duffing' (should be 'Helmholtz-Duffing').
  2. [Introduction] The mechanism name 'Pommeau-Maneville intermittency' should be 'Pomeau-Manneville intermittency.'
  3. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption says 'for c2 = 91.5464883 in subplots (g-h)', but the third row contains three columns; the histogram panel is presumably (i). Please correct the subplot references.
  4. [Section II, Eq. (3)] The statement 'n ∈ R \ {0} and n>1' is redundant and inconsistent with 'n can take any value except 0 and ±1'; please clarify the admissible range of n.
  5. [Section II, Table I] The fitting was performed using 'the MATLAB Distribution Fitter App,' which is not reproducible. Please provide the fitting procedure, likelihood optimization details, or a script/data file.
  6. [Fig. 3] The figure caption states c2=91.564884, which differs from the text value 91.5464884; this should be corrected along with the other parameter inconsistencies.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the burst observation, POT thresholding, GEV fit, and inter-well hopping mechanism are not constructed from their own conclusions; remaining concerns are numerical and statistical validation issues, not circularity.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Extreme bursts are first identified by the POT criterion (Eq. 3) applied to local maxima of the numerically integrated trajectory of Eq. (2); the event label is then used to plot phase portraits, isolate MMO patterns, and fit the GEV distribution (Eq. 4). The GEV fit is a post-hoc statistical description of the already-thresholded exceedances, not an input that defines those exceedances, so there is no reduction of the claim to a fitted parameter. The inter-well hopping mechanism is read off the phase-space geometry (Figs. 4-6) rather than imported from a self-citation; Refs. [24,29,36,50,57,58] involving the authors are contextual related-work citations and are not load-bearing for the new burst claim. The velocity lead-indicator statement (Sec. IV, Fig. 7) is an in-sample visual observation and is under-validated as a forecast, and the fixed-step RKF45 integration and inconsistent c2 values in figure captions (e.g., Fig. 4 caption c2=5.6494884 vs. text c2=91.5464884) are substantive correctness risks. However, none of these concerns makes a derived quantity equal to an input by construction, which is the standard required for circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a hand-picked parameter set, an arbitrary threshold n=5, and a GEV fit to the same exceedances; no new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (5)
  • quadratic nonlinear coefficient c2 at the extreme-event condition = 91.5464884
    Chosen from a bifurcation scan so that bursts are rare and cross the threshold; not derived from theory.
  • POT threshold multiplier n = 5
    Arbitrary choice defining which peaks count as extreme; changing n changes the classification and the existence of the claimed events.
  • GEV scale parameter beta = 0.00417023
    Fitted to the same exceedances used to define the events.
  • GEV location parameter alpha = 0.123104
    Fitted to the same exceedances used to define the events.
  • GEV shape parameter gamma = -0.521961
    Fitted to the same exceedances and used to claim a Weibull-type distribution.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The fixed-step RKF45 integration at step 0.01 accurately resolves the dynamics.
    No convergence study is reported; with c3=534.53 the equations may be stiff enough to make fixed-step integration unreliable.
  • ad hoc to paper Peak-over-threshold with n=5 provides a valid classification of extreme events.
    The threshold is chosen by hand and is the basis for calling bursts extreme.
  • ad hoc to paper The GEV distribution is the appropriate distribution for the threshold exceedances.
    POT exceedances are usually modeled with the generalized Pareto distribution; the paper does not justify the use of GEV.
  • domain assumption The asymmetric double-well potential with the chosen c2 has one deeper and one shallower well.
    Follows from V(x) for the chosen signs of c1, c2, and c3, but the potential shape is not analyzed explicitly.
  • domain assumption The largest Lyapunov exponent of 0.0396177 is computed by a standard and accurate method.
    No details of the Lyapunov exponent calculation are given; this value is used to assert chaotic dynamics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Extreme mixed-mode oscillatory bursts in the Helmholtz-Duffing oscillator." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IMZTOTJP

@misc{pith2026250111889,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Extreme mixed-mode oscillatory bursts in the Helmholtz-Duffing oscillator},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IMZTOTJP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.11889}
}
read the original abstract

We report a new type of extreme event - extreme irregular mixed-mode oscillatory burst - appearing in an asymmetric double-welled, driven Helmholtz-Duffing oscillator. The interplay of cubic and quadratic nonlinearities in the system, along with the external drive, contributes to this type of unusual extreme event. These extreme events are classified using the peak-over threshold method and found to be well-fitted with the generalized extreme value distribution. The asymmetry in the depth of one of the potential wells allows the oscillator to exhibit rare irregular mixed-mode oscillations between the two wells, manifesting as extremely irregular mixed-mode oscillatory bursts. Furthermore, we also find that such an irregular transition between the two potential wells occurs during the up phase of the periodic external drive. Importantly, we also find that the system velocity can be tracked and utilized as a reliable lead indicator of the occurrence of this novel type of extreme event.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.11889 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Bifurcation plot (blue points) of Eq. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Time series (Column-1), Phase portraits (Column-2), and histogram of peaks (Column-3) of system ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Blocks represent the numerically generated extreme [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Times series in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Time series of the system ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Depiction of the Phase portrait of system ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Farazmand and T

    M. Farazmand and T. P. Sapsis, Extreme events: Mech- anisms and prediction, Appl. Mech. Rev. 71, 050801 (2019)

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    underscore the importance of elucidating the under- lying mechanisms [1] that engender such events and de- veloping reliable forecasting methods [2] based on avail- able information, such as historical time series of system response [22–24]. Understanding and predicting extreme events in dynamical systems has therefore been described as a grand challenge ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Dysthe, H

    K. Dysthe, H. E. Krogstad, and P. M¨ uller, Oceanic rogue waves, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 40, 287 (2008)

    work page 2008

  4. [4]

    S. N. Chowdhury, A. Ray, S. K. Dana, and D. Ghosh, Ex- treme events in dynamical systems and random walkers: A review, Phys. Rep. 966, 1 (2022)

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    H. K. Joo, M. A. Mohamad, and T. P. Sapsis, Extreme events and their optimal mitigation in nonlinear struc- tural systems excited by stochastic loads: Application to ocean engineering systems, Ocean Eng. 142, 145 (2017)

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Albeverio, V

    S. Albeverio, V. Jentsch, and H. Kantz, Extreme events in nature and society (Springer, Heidel- berg, 2006)

    work page 2006

  7. [7]

    C. Qi, M. Wang, G. Kocharyan, A. Kunitskikh, and Z. Wang, Dynamically triggered seismicity on a tectonic scale: A review, Deep Undergr Sci Eng. 3, 1 (2024)

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Shenoy, D

    S. Shenoy, D. Gorinevsky, K. E. Trenberth, and S. Chu, Trends of extreme US weather events in the changing climate, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 119, e2207536119 (2022)

    work page 2022

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    J. T. Machado and A. M. Lopes, Rare and extreme events: The case of COVID-19 pandemic, Nonlinear Dyn. 100, 2953 (2020)

    2020

  2. [10]

    R¨ obke and A

    B. R¨ obke and A. V¨ ott, The Tsunami phenomenon, Prog. Oceanogr. 159, 296 (2017)

    2017

  3. [11]

    A. K. Singh, S. Ramakrishnan, and M. Kumar, Insta- bilities and self–organization in spatiotemporal epidemic dynamics driven by nonlinearity and noise, Phys. Biol. 21, 046001 (2024)

    2024

  4. [12]

    A. K. Singh, C. Buschmeyer, S. Ramakrishnan, and M. Kumar, Instabilities and pattern formation in epi- demic spread induced by nonlinear saturation effects and Ornstein–Uhlenbeck noise, ASME Letters Dyn. Sys. Con- trol. 5, 011002 (2024)

    2024

  5. [13]

    N. S. Frolov, V. V. Grubov, V. A. Maksimenko, A. L¨ uttjohann, V. V. Makarov, A. N. Pavlov, E. Sit- nikova, A. N. Pisarchik, J. Kurths, and A. E. Hramov, Statistical properties and predictability of extreme epileptic events, Sci. Rep. 9, 7243 (2019)

    2019

  6. [14]

    Majid, A

    F. Majid, A. M. Deshpande, S. Ramakrishnan, S. Ehrlich, and M. Kumar, Analysis of epidemic spread dynamics using a PDE model and COVID-19 data from Hamilton County OH USA, IF AC-PapersOnLine54, 322 (2021). 9

    2021

  7. [15]

    C. M. Schneider, A. A. Moreira, J. S. Andrade, S. Havlin, and H. J. Herrmann, Mitigation of malicious attacks on networks, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.108, 3838 (2011)

    2011

  8. [16]

    Sun, Cascading Failures in Power Grids (Springer, Cham, 2024)

    K. Sun, Cascading Failures in Power Grids (Springer, Cham, 2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    A. K. Singh, J. Meyer, and S. Ramakrishnan, On the emergence of traffic jams in a stochastic traffic flow driven by additive and multiplicative white gaussian noise pro- cesses, J. Stat. Mech. 2022, 123401 (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    Chen, Z.-G

    Y.-Z. Chen, Z.-G. Huang, H.-F. Zhang, D. Eisenberg, T. P. Seager, and Y.-C. Lai, Extreme events in multilayer, interdependent complex networks and control, Sci. Rep. 5, 17277 (2015)

    2015

  11. [19]

    J. E. Bell, C. L. Brown, K. Conlon, S. Herring, K. E. Kunkel, J. Lawrimore, G. Luber, C. Schreck, A. Smith, and C. Uejio, Changes in extreme events and the poten- tial impacts on human health, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 68, 265 (2018)

    2018

  12. [20]

    Sornette, Why Stock Markets Crash (Princeton Uni- versity Press, Princeton, 2003)

    D. Sornette, Why Stock Markets Crash (Princeton Uni- versity Press, Princeton, 2003)

    2003

  13. [21]

    Doocy, A

    S. Doocy, A. Daniels, A. Dick, and T. D. Kirsch, The hu- man impact of Tsunamis: A historical review of events 1900-2009 and systematic literature review, PLoS cur- rents 5 (2013)

    2013

  14. [22]

    Devinsky, A

    O. Devinsky, A. Vezzani, T. J. O’Brien, N. Jette, I. E. Scheffer, M. de Curtis, and P. Perucca, Epilepsy, Nat Rev Dis Primers 4, 18024 (2018)

    2018

  15. [23]

    Bialonski, G

    S. Bialonski, G. Ansmann, and H. Kantz, Data-driven prediction and prevention of extreme events in a spa- tially extended excitable system, Phys. Rev. E92, 042910 (2015)

    2015

  16. [24]

    Hallerberg, J

    S. Hallerberg, J. Br¨ ocker, and H. Kantz, Prediction of extreme events (Springer, Heidelberg, 2008) pp. 35–59

    2008

  17. [25]

    A. J. Majda, M. N. J. Moore, and D. Qi, Statistical dynamical model to predict extreme events and anoma- lous features in shallow water waves with abrupt depth change, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 116, 3982 (2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    Meiyazhagan, S

    J. Meiyazhagan, S. Sudharsan, and M. Senthilvelan, Model-free prediction of emergence of extreme events in a parametrically driven nonlinear dynamical system by deep learning, Eur. Phys. J. B 94, 156 (2021)

    2021

  19. [27]

    Suresh and V

    R. Suresh and V. K. Chandrasekar, Influence of time- delay feedback on extreme events in a forced Li´ enard system, Phys. Rev. E 98, 052211 (2018)

    2018

  20. [28]

    Lucarini, D

    V. Lucarini, D. Faranda, et al., Extremes and recurrence in dynamical systems (John Wiley & Sons, 2016)

    2016

  21. [29]

    Meiyazhagan, S

    J. Meiyazhagan, S. Sudharsan, A. Venkatesan, and M. Senthilvelan, Prediction of occurrence of extreme events using machine learning, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 137, 16 (2021)

    2021

  22. [30]

    Premraj, K

    D. Premraj, K. Suresh, S. A. Pawar, L. Kabiraj, A. Prasad, and R. I. Sujith, Dragon-king extreme events as precursors for catastrophic transition, Euro- phys. Lett.) 134, 34006 (2021)

    2021

  23. [31]

    A. S. Sharma, Chapter 6 - data-driven modeling of ex- treme space weather, in Extreme Events in Geospace, edited by N. Buzulukova (Elsevier, 2018) pp. 139–153

    2018

  24. [32]

    A. Ray, T. Chakraborty, and D. Ghosh, Optimized en- semble deep learning framework for scalable forecasting of dynamics containing extreme events, Chaos31, 111105 (2021)

    2021

  25. [33]

    V. K. Chandrasekar, M. Senthilvelan, and M. Laksh- manan, Unusual Li´ enard-type nonlinear oscillator, Phys. Rev. E 72, 066203 (2005)

    2005

  26. [34]

    S. L. Kingston, K. Thamilmaran, P. Pal, U. Feudel, and S. K. Dana, Extreme events in the forced Li´ enard system, Phys. Rev. E 96, 052204 (2017)

    2017

  27. [35]

    A. Ray, S. Rakshit, D. Ghosh, and S. K. Dana, Intermit- tent large deviation of chaotic trajectory in Ikeda map: Signature of extreme events, Chaos 29, 043131 (2019)

    2019

  28. [36]

    S. L. Kingston, K. Suresh, K. Thamilmaran, and T. Kap- itaniak, Extreme and critical transition events in the memristor based Li´ enard system, Eur. Phys. J. Plus229, 1033 (2020)

    2020

  29. [37]

    Bhagyaraj, S

    T. Bhagyaraj, S. Sabarathinam, A. I. Ahamed, and K. Thamilmaran, Super-extreme events in a forced Bonhoeffer-Van der Pol oscillator, Pramana 97, 170 (2023)

    2023

  30. [38]

    Sudharsan, A

    S. Sudharsan, A. Venkatesan, and M. Senthilvelan, Sym- metrical emergence of extreme events at multiple regions in a damped and driven velocity-dependent mechanical system, Phys. Scr. 96, 095216 (2021)

    2021

  31. [39]

    Z. Wei, S. Kumarasamy, M. Ramasamy, K. Rajagopal, and Y. Qian, Mixed-mode oscillations and extreme events in fractional-order Bonhoeffer–Van der Pol oscillator, Chaos 33, 093136 (2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    Thangavel, S

    B. Thangavel, S. Srinivasan, and T. Kathamuthu, Ex- treme events in a forced BVP oscillator: Experimental and numerical studies, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 153, 111569 (2021)

    2021

  33. [41]

    S. D. Vijay, K. Thamilmaran, and A. I. Ahamed, Ex- treme events and multistability in nonhyperbolic chaotic system, Nonlinear Dyn. 112, 1431 (2024)

    2024

  34. [42]

    A. Ray, S. Rakshit, G. K. Basak, S. K. Dana, and D. Ghosh, Understanding the origin of extreme events in El Ni˜ no southern oscillation, Phys. Rev. E 101, 062210 (2020)

    2020

  35. [43]

    Thamilmaran and S

    K. Thamilmaran and S. D. Vijay, Numerical and experi- mental evidence of extreme events in a sprott-like model, Int J Circ Theor Appl. (2024)

    2024

  36. [44]

    S. D. Vijay, S. L. Kingston, S. Kumarasamy, and T. Kap- itaniak, Extreme events in SQUID trimer, Appl. Phys. Lett. 125, 014101 (2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    S. D. Vijay, K. Thamilmaran, and A. I. Ahamed, Su- perextreme spiking oscillations and multistability in a memristor-based Hindmarsh-Rose neuron model, Nonlin- ear Dyn. 111, 789 (2023)

    2023

  38. [46]

    S. D. Vijay, K. Thamilmaran, and A. I. Ahamed, Transition to extreme events in a coupled memristive Hindmarsh-Rose neuron system, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 139, 234 (2024)

    2024

  39. [47]

    D. Zhao, Y. Li, Q. Liu, H. Zhang, and Y. Xu, The occur- rence mechanisms of extreme events in a class of non- linear Duffing-type systems under random excitations, Chaos 33, 083109 (2023)

    2023

  40. [48]

    C. L. E. Franzke, Extremes in dynamic-stochastic sys- tems, Chaos 27, 012101 (2017)

    2017

  41. [49]

    S. L. Kingston, T. Kapitaniak, and S. K. Dana, Transi- tion to hyperchaos: Sudden expansion of attractor and 10 intermittent large-amplitude events in dynamical sys- tems, Chaos 32, 081106 (2022)

    2022

  42. [50]

    S. L. Kingston, M. Balcerzak, S. K. Dana, and T. Kapi- taniak, Transition to hyperchaos and rare large-intensity pulses in Zeeman laser, Chaos 33, 023128 (2023)

    2023

  43. [51]

    arising from trajectories in the vicinity of discontin- uous boundaries. While the instabilities involved in all of the cases above are associated with chaotic strange at- tractors, recent work reported long excursions of trajec- tories in two distinct types of nonlinear oscil...

    2025 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Sudharsan, A

    S. Sudharsan, A. Venkatesan, P. Muruganandam, and M. Senthilvelan, Emergence and mitigation of extreme events in a parametrically driven system with velocity- dependent potential, Euro. Phys. J. Plus136, 129 (2021)

    2021

  45. [53]

    Kumarasamy and A

    S. Kumarasamy and A. N. Pisarchik, Extreme events in systems with discontinuous boundaries, Phys. Rev. E 98, 032203 (2018)

    2018

  46. [54]

    Kaviya, R

    B. Kaviya, R. Suresh, and V. Chandrasekar, Extreme bursting events via pulse-shaped explosion in mixed Rayleigh-Li´ enard nonlinear oscillator, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 137, 844 (2022)

    2022

  47. [55]

    Durairaj, S

    P. Durairaj, S. Kanagaraj, S. Kumarasamy, and K. Ra- jagopal, Emergence of extreme events in a quasiperiodic oscillator, Phys. Rev. E 107, L022201 (2023)

    2023

  48. [56]

    A. Ray, T. Br¨ ohl, A. Mishra, S. Ghosh, D. Ghosh, T. Kapitaniak, S. K. Dana, and C. Hens, Extreme events in a complex network: Interplay between degree distribu- tion and repulsive interaction, Chaos 32, 121103 (2022)

    2022

  49. [57]

    Ansmann, R

    G. Ansmann, R. Karnatak, K. Lehnertz, and U. Feudel, Extreme events in excitable systems and mechanisms of their generation, Phys. Rev. E 88, 052911 (2013)

    2013

  50. [58]

    A. Ray, A. Mishra, D. Ghosh, T. Kapitaniak, S. K. Dana, and C. Hens, Extreme events in a network of heteroge- neous Josephson junctions, Phys. Rev. E 101, 032209 (2020)

    2020

  51. [59]

    R. S. Ardhanareeswaran, S. Sudharsan, M. Senthilvelan, and D. Ghosh, Intermittent cluster synchronization in a unidirectional ring of bursting neurons, Phys. Rev. E 111, 014215 (2025)

    2025

  52. [60]

    Shashangan, S

    R. Shashangan, S. Sudharsan, A. Venkatesan, and M. Senthilvelan, Mitigation of extreme events in an ex- citable system, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 139, 203 (2024)

    2024

  53. [61]

    Roy and S

    A. Roy and S. Sinha, Impact of coupling on neuronal extreme events: Mitigation and enhancement, Chaos 33, 083130 (2023)

    2023

  54. [62]

    Roy and S

    A. Roy and S. Sinha, Impact of random links on neuronal extreme events, Chaos Solitons Fractals 180, 114568 (2024)

    2024

  55. [63]

    Rega, Bifurcation and chaos in the Helmholtz-Duffing oscillator, in Bifurcation and Chaos: Theory and Applications (Springer, 1995) pp

    G. Rega, Bifurcation and chaos in the Helmholtz-Duffing oscillator, in Bifurcation and Chaos: Theory and Applications (Springer, 1995) pp. 191–215

    1995

  56. [64]

    Kaviya, R

    B. Kaviya, R. Suresh, and V. Chandrasekar, Extreme events in the Li´ enard system with asymmetric potential: An in-depth exploration, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 139, 940 (2024)

    2024

  57. [65]

    Salas, S

    H. Salas, S. A. El-Tantawy, and M. R. Alharthi, Novel so- lutions to the (un) damped Helmholtz-Duffing oscillator and its application to plasma physics: Moving boundary method, Phys. Scr. 96, 104003 (2021)

    2021

Pith tools

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