Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 27 references

Quasi-Homogeneous Integrable Systems: Free Parameters, Kovalevskaya Exponents, and the Painlev\'e Property

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A resonance condition on Kovalevskaya exponents governs when fractional powers break the Painlevé property.

desk verdict False central lemma kills the resonance condition and the classification; the deformation framework in Sections 4–5 has content, but the paper needs major repair. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.24330 v3 pith:X2NACOBJ submitted 2025-05-30 nlin.SI math.DS

Changyu Zhou , Hayato Chiba This is my paper
classification nlin.SImath.DS MSC 34M5534M3537J3553D45
keywords quasi-homogeneoussystemsKovalevskayaexponentsPainlevépropertyresonanceconditionFrobeniusmanifoldsHamiltonianformalLaurentseriesparameterspace
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 studies systems of differential equations that are quasi-homogeneous, meaning they admit a weighted scaling symmetry, and asks when such a system can have a full family of solutions whose coefficients depend on fractional powers of a deformation variable. Its central claim is a necessary condition: if the coefficients depend on $(z_2-\beta_0)^{1/\gamma}$, then two Kovalevskaya exponents must differ by a multiple of $\gamma$. This arithmetic resonance condition, if correct, would explain which chains of exponents are compatible with the Painlevé property and would single out $(-1,2,5,8)$ as the only allowed exponent quadruple for the degree-8 four-dimensional Painlevé-type case with $\gamma=3$. The paper also constructs a Frobenius manifold structure on the space of free parameters and, in the Hamiltonian setting, shows the induced parameter flow preserves a symplectic form and pairs the exponents symmetrically. A sympathetic reader would care because the condition connects singularity analysis to geometry and sharpens classification results for Painlevé-type systems.

What carries the argument

The argument runs through three objects. First, the Kovalevskaya matrix $K(c)=\partial f/\partial x(c)+\mathrm{diag}(a_i)$ and its eigenvalues, the Kovalevskaya exponents $\kappa$, control where free parameters enter a Laurent solution and which resonances can occur. Second, the parameter space $A=(\alpha_0,\ldots,\alpha_{m-1})$ of free coefficients carries a quasi-homogeneous flow $dA/dz_2=(\partial\Phi/\partial A)^{-1}G(\Phi(A))$ whose components satisfy the scaling law $\hat{g}_l(\lambda^{\kappa_1}\alpha_1,\ldots)=\lambda^{\kappa_l+\gamma}\hat{g}_l(\alpha_1,\ldots)$; this law converts the existence of coefficient monomials of total weight in $\gamma\mathbb{N}$ into the arithmetic resonance condition. Third, the initial value map $\Phi(A)$ is used both for its quasi-homogeneity $\Phi_i(\lambda\cdot A)=\lambda^{a_i}\Phi_i(A)$, which drives the weight-lattice argument, and as the source of the pullback metric $\eta=\Phi^*\delta$ that becomes the flat metric of the Frobenius manifold.

What would settle it

For the paper's own rejected row $(-1,1,6,8)$ with $\gamma=3$, the exponents $1,6,8$ are all distinct modulo 3, yet the tuple $n=(1,0,1)$ gives $1+8=9\in3\mathbb{N}$ while no pair of exponents differs by a multiple of 3; likewise, for $\gamma=5$ and exponents $(1,4,7)$, the residues are distinct but $1+4=5$. Computing whether such monomials actually appear among the Laurent coefficients $d_{i,j}$ would settle whether the resonance conclusion follows or whether Lemma 5.5 fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is Theorem 5.6: under assumptions (A1)-(A3), if a quasi-homogeneous system with a commuting deformation admits an $m$-parameter family of Laurent series solutions whose coefficients depend on fractional powers $(z_2-\beta_0)^{1/\gamma}$, then there must exist indices $i\neq j$ with $\kappa_i-\kappa_j\in\gamma\mathbb{N}$. The same mechanism derives lower indicial loci from principal ones and shows that a movable branch point at $z_2=\beta_0$ appears when $\gamma>1$ unless the resonance condition holds. Applied to four-dimensional Painlevé-type Hamiltonians with degree $h=8$ and $\gamma=3$, the paper concludes that $(-1,2,5,8)$ is the only legitimate exponent set and that $(-1,1,6,8)$ and $(-1,3,4,8)$ are excluded. In the Hamiltonian case it proves that the parameter flow preserves a symplectic form and that Kovalevskaya exponents pair symmetrically, and under a gradient assumption on the initial value map it constructs a Frobenius manifold structure on the parameter space.

Load-bearing premise

The resonance condition rests on Lemma 5.5 in Section 5.1, which asserts that when the exponents are all distinct modulo $\gamma$, no nontrivial nonnegative integer combination of them can lie in $\gamma\mathbb{N}$; the Frobenius manifold construction separately assumes that the initial value map is the gradient of a scalar function.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For systems with $\gamma=1$, the resonance condition is automatically satisfied when the positive exponents are integer-spaced, so the classical Painlevé test appears as the limiting case.
  • For $\gamma>1$, failing the condition means the recursion for higher-order coefficients cannot be solved consistently, so the claimed $m$-parameter family cannot exist unless movable branch points are accepted.
  • In the four-dimensional Hamiltonian classification with $h=8$ and $\gamma=3$, the condition reduces the allowed exponent sets to $(-1,2,5,8)$ alone, excluding $(-1,1,6,8)$ and $(-1,3,4,8)$.
  • The parameter flow being Hamiltonian under the pullback symplectic form gives a systematic way to obtain the K-exponents of reduced systems from those of the original system, with the reduced exponents scaled by $\gamma$.
  • When the gradient assumption on the initial value map holds, the free coefficients become flat coordinates on a Frobenius manifold, so deformation theory of the system is recast as the geometry of that manifold.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the resonance condition is genuinely necessary, it can be used as a cheap pre-filter in any quasi-homogeneous classification: compute the K-exponents, check the $\gamma$-differences, and discard exponent sets that cannot support a deformation before running a full Painlevé test.
  • A direct test of the mechanism would be to compute the actual coefficient polynomials $d_{i,j}$ for one of the rejected rows of Table 2, such as $(-1,1,6,8)$ with $\gamma=3$: if a monomial of total weight $1+8=9$ appears in the Laurent coefficients, the recursion does not fail there, and the necessary condition as stated would need re-examination.
  • Extending the resonance filter to the remaining weights listed in Appendix A, such as $h=6,5,4,3$, would show how often the condition is binding in practice; the paper tabulates only a subset of the cases.
  • If the Frobenius construction is valid, the prepotential $F=\tfrac12\sum_k\Phi_k^2$ is a natural candidate for linking these parameter spaces to known WDVV prepotentials of Painlevé moduli, a connection the paper does not make explicitly.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies quasi-homogeneous systems dx/dz1=F(x), dx/dz2=G(x) with [F,G]=0, and analyzes their formal Laurent/Puiseux solutions through Kovalevskaya exponents. It introduces a parameter space A of free coefficients in the Laurent expansion, derives the induced parameter flow dA/dz2=(∂Φ/∂A)^{-1}G(Φ(A)), and claims an arithmetic resonance condition κ_i−κ_j∈γN as a necessary condition for the appearance of fractional powers (z2−β0)^{1/γ}. The paper then constructs a Frobenius manifold structure on A via the initial value map and states a Hamiltonian theorem pairing Kovalevskaya exponents. The main results are Theorem 5.6, Example 5.8 and Table 2, Theorem 6.5, and Theorem 7.11. The central claim of the paper is that these results together provide a framework for classifying Painlevé-type equations and for understanding their deformation geometry.

Significance. The intended contribution is substantial: if Theorem 5.6 and the Frobenius-manifold construction were correct, they would provide a new necessary condition for the Painlevé property and a geometric interpretation of the free-parameter space. There are some sound ingredients, notably Proposition 4.1 and Theorem 4.5 on the coefficients G_k of G(x(z)), and the connection of Hamiltonian exponent pairing to Yoshida's theorem in Section 7. However, the central arithmetic lemma, Lemma 5.5, is false, and the Frobenius section rests on unproved assumptions. As a result the classification claims in Example 5.8 and Table 2 are unsupported. The empirical motivation is also weak: Tables 1 and 2 are both taken from Chiba [6], the same dataset used to motivate the resonance condition, so no independent system is tested. In its present form the paper does not establish its main claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [Lemma 5.5] Lemma 5.5 is false as stated. The lemma claims that if the residues κ_k mod γ are all distinct, then ∑ κ_k n_k ∈ γN for nonnegative n_k forces n_k=0 for all k. This ignores modular carries. For γ=5 and κ=(1,4,7), the residues 1,4,2 are distinct, but (n_1,n_2,n_3)=(1,1,0) gives 1+4=5∈5N, while no pair difference is a multiple of 5. The same failure occurs inside the paper's own data: for Table 2's row (−1,1,6,8) with γ=3, the tuple (n_1,n_3)=(1,1) gives 1+8=9∈3N, yet the differences 6−1=5, 8−6=2, and 8−1=7 are not multiples of 3. The proof's assertion that distinct residues prevent a nonnegative combination from being congruent to 0 modulo γ is incorrect; the correct condition would involve the semigroup generated by the residues, not pairwise differences.
  2. [Theorem 5.6(2), Example 5.8, Table 2] Theorem 5.6(2) is not proved, because its proof invokes Lemma 5.5 at the step 'Therefore, by Lemma 5.5, there must exist indices i≠j such that κ_i−κ_j∈γN.' Since Lemma 5.5 is false, the claimed necessary condition does not follow. Consequently, Example 5.8's conclusion that (−1,2,5,8) is the only legitimate exponent set for γ=3, h=8, and Table 2's 'No' entries for (−1,1,6,8) and (−1,3,4,8), are unsupported. In fact the row (−1,1,6,8) is a direct internal counterexample to the lemma used: the monomial α_1 α_3 has weight 1+8=9∈3N, so nontrivial monomials with weight in γN can exist even when no pair difference lies in γN. A repaired argument would be needed; none is supplied in the manuscript.
  3. [Section 6, Eq. (6.1), Lemmas 6.2 and 6.3] The Frobenius manifold construction rests on unproved assumptions. Assumption (6.1), that the initial value map Φ is the gradient of a scalar function, is asserted without evidence or reference and is not shown for any of the systems considered. Lemma 6.2 claims that the pullback metric η=Φ^*δ is flat because δ is flat and Φ is locally biholomorphic; this is false in general, since the pullback of a flat metric by a general holomorphic map is not flat. Lemma 6.3 asserts associativity of the product by declaring that the WDVV equations hold 'as guaranteed by the gradient structure and quasi-homogeneity,' without carrying out the verification. Since Theorem 6.5 depends on these lemmas, the claimed Frobenius manifold structure on the parameter space is not established.
  4. [Section 7, Eq. (7.9), Proposition 7.10] Proposition 7.10 and Theorem 7.11 rely on the twisted infinitesimal symplectic condition (7.9), JD_xG+(D_xG)^T J=(1/γ)JΓ_x, but this condition is assumed rather than derived. For a Hamiltonian vector field G=J∇K, the standard infinitesimal symplectic condition gives JD_xG+(D_xG)^T J=0, so the term (1/γ)JΓ_x is a nontrivial extra structure that requires proof. Without a derivation of (7.9), the pairing symmetry of the G-flow exponents in Theorem 7.11 and the computations in Example 7.13 are not supported.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical errors, including 'principle' for 'principal' in several places, 'idencial locus' in Remark 5.4, 'Lenna 7.8' in the proof of Proposition 7.10, and 'associared' in the statement of Theorem 5.6.
  2. [Table 3] The table entries for H_Mat^IV, H^{(1,2,1,0)}, and H^{(-1,1,4,2)} cite equation numbers that do not match the displayed formulas: H_Mat^IV appears in Eq. (7.24), H^{(1,2,1,0)} in Eq. (7.25), and H^{(-1,1,4,2)} in Eq. (7.26), but the table lists other citations.
  3. [Lemma 5.9] The notation Ẽ_i = ξ_i^{κ_i} ξ_i is ambiguous; the proof seems to intend Ẽ_i = λ^{κ_i}ξ_i with λ=ξ_0, but this should be written explicitly to avoid confusion.
  4. [Eq. (7.13)] The displayed Hamiltonian for the Cosgrove case appears garbled, with an unclear term '−q_1 z −(1/48)(q_1+α/6) q_1^2 α'; this should be checked against the source.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the paper's main defects are an invalid lemma and unsupported assumptions, not a derivation that reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central theorem, Theorem 5.6(2), attempts a general proof of the arithmetic resonance condition via Lemma 5.5. The proof of that lemma is false (e.g., for gamma=3 and kappa=(1,6,8), n=(1,0,1) gives 1+8=9 in 3N while no pair difference lies in 3N), so the theorem is unproved. But an invalid proof is a correctness defect, not circularity: the theorem is not defined in terms of the data it classifies, and the resonance condition is not fitted to Table 2. Example 5.8 and Table 2 simply apply the stated condition to exponent sets taken from [6]; this is a consequence-checking exercise, not a prediction generated by a fitted parameter. The Frobenius manifold section explicitly assumes (6.1), namely that the initial value map is a gradient map, making the construction conditional rather than circular; the subsequent associativity claim is asserted rather than proved, which is again unsupported reasoning rather than equivalence to the input. The self-citations to [3] and [6] provide background theorems and classification tables, and while they are load-bearing as external sources, the paper does not define its conclusions by those citations. No step exhibits an equation that is identical to its input by construction, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. Hence the paper has no significant circularity under the stated criteria.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper's central claims rest on a large imported framework: assumptions (A1)-(A3), the principal-locus hypothesis, Theorem 3.1, and the entire catalog of weights and K-exponents come from the co-author's earlier work [3,4,6], as stated in Section 2 and Appendix A. The genuinely new ingredients add unproved or false premises: the combinatorial Lemma 5.5 (false), the gradient assumption (6.1), the asserted WDVV equations, and the twisted symplectic identity (7.9) that contradicts Lemma 7.4. No numerical constants are fitted, but per-system ramification indices gamma are chosen by hand and the resonance filter is validated in-sample.

free parameters (1)
  • minimal ramification index gamma (per system) = gamma=3 for the h=8 and h=6 rows; gamma=2 for the h=5 row in Table 2
    Assigned by hand per system from the classification in [6]; the resonance filter in Table 2 and the conclusions of Theorem 5.6 depend on this choice, and it is not derived within the framework.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption (A1)-(A3): F and G are quasi-homogeneous with degrees 1 and gamma, [F,G]=0, and F(x)=0 only at x=0.
    Stated in Section 3 and used throughout; (A3) is essential for Theorem 3.1 quoted from [3] and for the principal-locus framework.
  • domain assumption Existence of an isolated principal indicial locus c whose K-exponents are positive integers besides -1, so the Laurent family has m free parameters and Phi is locally biholomorphic.
    Invoked in Sections 3 through 7 before Prop 3.5 and in Theorem 5.6; no criterion is given for when such a locus exists.
  • standard math Theorem 3.1: formal series solutions are convergent Laurent series of weight order.
    Quoted from Chiba [3], Thm 2.9; used as the foundation for all series expansions in the paper.
  • ad hoc to paper Lemma 5.5: if the residues kappa_k mod gamma are all distinct, then sum kappa_k n_k in gamma*N forces n_k = 0 for all k.
    False: gamma=5, kappa=(1,4,7), n=(1,1,0) gives 1+4=5 in 5N. This single false premise invalidates Theorem 5.6(2).
  • ad hoc to paper The initial value map Phi is the gradient of a scalar function (Eq. 6.1).
    Assumed without proof in Section 6; the entire Frobenius manifold construction depends on it and no example or prior theorem is cited.
  • ad hoc to paper The WDVV equations hold for F = (1/2) sum Phi_k^2, so the product of Lemma 6.3 is associative.
    Associativity is asserted in Lemma 6.3 with no calculation; verifying WDVV is the main content of a Frobenius manifold structure, so this is a claim without derivation.
  • ad hoc to paper Twisted symplectic condition (7.9): J D_x G + (D_x G)^T J = (1/gamma) J Gamma_x for the Hamiltonian vector field G.
    Stated in Prop 7.10; contradicts the paper's own Lemma 7.4, which proves (D X_H)^T J + J D X_H = 0 for Hamiltonian X_H, so both cannot hold unless Gamma_x = 0.
invented entities (1)
  • Frobenius manifold structure on the free-parameter space A via the initial value map Phi
    purpose: Geometric interpretation of deformation parameters; claimed conformal when all weights coincide.
    No external falsifiable handle; depends on the unproved gradient assumption (6.1) and unverified WDVV equations, so it functions as a postulated structure rather than a derived one.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quasi-Homogeneous Integrable Systems: Free Parameters, Kovalevskaya Exponents, and the Painlev\'e Property." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X2NACOBJ

@misc{pith2026250524330,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quasi-Homogeneous Integrable Systems: Free Parameters, Kovalevskaya Exponents, and the Painlev\'e Property},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X2NACOBJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.24330}
}
read the original abstract

This paper investigates quasi-homogeneous integrable systems by analyzing their Laurent series solutions near movable singularities, motivated by patterns observed in Kovalevskaya exponents of four-dimensional Painlev\'e-type equations. We introduce a parameter space encoding the free coefficients in these expansions and study its deformation under a commuting quasi-homogeneous vector field. Within this framework, we derive lower indicial loci from the principal one and establish an arithmetic resonance condition on Kovalevskaya exponents that governs the emergence of fractional powers and the breakdown of the Painlev\'e property. Moreover, we construct a Frobenius manifold structure on the parameter space via the initial value map, which becomes conformal when all weights coincide. In the Hamiltonian context, we demonstrate that the induced flow on the parameter space preserves a symplectic form and yields a natural pairing of Kovalevskaya exponents. These findings unify analytic and geometric aspects of quasi-homogeneous integrable systems and offer new insights into their deformation theory and singularity structures. Our results provide a comprehensive framework applicable to the classification and analysis of Painlev\'e-type equations and related integrable models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.24330 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Degeneration of the indicial locus at β0. Proof. Proof of (1): The Puiseux series solution of the parameter flow is written as αi(z2) = (z2 − β0) −κi/γ ξi + X∞ j=1 ηi,j (z2 − β0) j/γ! =: (z2 − β0) −κi/γyi . (5.9) Thus, x(z1, z2), satisfying both equations of (A1), is given by xi = (z1 − α0) −ai [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [6]

    Chiba, Weights, Kovalevskaya exponents and the Painlev´ e property,Annales de l’Institut Fourier, in press, (2023)

    H. Chiba, Weights, Kovalevskaya exponents and the Painlev´ e property,Annales de l’Institut Fourier, in press, (2023)

    work page 2023

  2. [1]

    Adler, P

    M. Adler, P. van Moerbeke, P. Vanhaecke,Algebraic Integrability, Painlev´ e Geometry and Lie Algebras, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, (2004)

    work page 2004

  3. [2]

    A. V. Borisov, S. L. Dudoladov, Kovalevskaya exponents and Poisson structures, Regul. Chaotic Dyn.4(1999), no. 3, 13–20

    work page 1999

  4. [3]

    Chiba, Kovalevskaya exponents and the space of initial conditions of a quasi- homogeneous vector field,J

    H. Chiba, Kovalevskaya exponents and the space of initial conditions of a quasi- homogeneous vector field,J. Differential Equations259(2015), no. 12, 7681– 7716

    work page 2015

  5. [4]

    Chiba, The first, second and fourth Painlev´ e equations on weighted projec- tive spaces,J

    H. Chiba, The first, second and fourth Painlev´ e equations on weighted projec- tive spaces,J. Differential Equations260(2015), no. 2, 1263–1313

    work page 2015

  6. [5]

    Chiba, The third, fifth and sixth Painlev´ e equations on weighted projective spaces,SIGMA12(2016), 019

    H. Chiba, The third, fifth and sixth Painlev´ e equations on weighted projective spaces,SIGMA12(2016), 019

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    S. N. Chow, C. Li, D. Wang,Normal Forms and Bifurcation of Planar Vector Fields, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, (1994)

    work page 1994

  8. [8]

    Costin, R

    O. Costin, R. D. Costin, Singular normal form for the Painlev´ e equation P1, Nonlinearity11(1998), no. 5, 1195–1208

    work page 1998

Show all 27 references
  1. [9]

    Dubrovin, Geometry of 2D topological field theories, in:Integrable Sys- tems and Quantum Groups, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol

    B. Dubrovin, Geometry of 2D topological field theories, in:Integrable Sys- tems and Quantum Groups, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 1620, Springer, Berlin, (1996), 120–348

    1996

  2. [10]

    Goriely, Painlev´ e analysis and normal forms theory,Phys

    A. Goriely, Painlev´ e analysis and normal forms theory,Phys. D152/153 (2001), 124–144

    2001

  3. [11]

    Goriely,Integrability and Nonintegrability of Dynamical Systems, Advanced Series in Nonlinear Dynamics, vol

    A. Goriely,Integrability and Nonintegrability of Dynamical Systems, Advanced Series in Nonlinear Dynamics, vol. 19, World Scientific Publishing Co., River Edge, NJ, (2001)

    2001

  4. [12]

    Hertling,Frobenius Manifolds and Moduli Spaces for Singularities, Cam- bridge Tracts in Mathematics, vol

    C. Hertling,Frobenius Manifolds and Moduli Spaces for Singularities, Cam- bridge Tracts in Mathematics, vol. 151, Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, (2002)

    2002

  5. [13]

    J. Hu, M. Yan, Painlev´ e Test and the Resolution of Singularities for Integrable Equations,arXiv:1304.7982

    arXiv

  6. [14]

    E. L. Ince,Ordinary Differential Equations, Dover Publications, New York, (1956)

    1956

  7. [15]

    Kovalevskaya, Sur le probl` eme de la rotation d’un corps solide autour d’un point fixe,Acta Math.12(1889), 177–232

    S. Kovalevskaya, Sur le probl` eme de la rotation d’un corps solide autour d’un point fixe,Acta Math.12(1889), 177–232

  8. [16]

    Manin,Frobenius Manifolds, Quantum Cohomology, and Moduli Spaces, American Mathematical Society Colloquium Publications, vol

    Y. Manin,Frobenius Manifolds, Quantum Cohomology, and Moduli Spaces, American Mathematical Society Colloquium Publications, vol. 47, AMS, Prov- idence, RI, (1999). 40

    1999

  9. [17]

    Magri, A simple model of the integrable Hamiltonian equation,J

    F. Magri, A simple model of the integrable Hamiltonian equation,J. Math. Phys.19(1978), 1156–1162

    1978

  10. [18]

    J. J. Morales-Ruiz,Differential Galois Theory and Non-Integrability of Hamil- tonian Systems, Progress in Mathematics, vol. 179, Birkh¨ auser, Basel, (1999)

    1999

  11. [19]

    Okamoto, Studies on the Painlev´ e equations

    K. Okamoto, Studies on the Painlev´ e equations. I–IV,Math. Ann., various volumes, 1980–1987

    1980

  12. [20]

    Sakai, Rational surfaces associated with affine root systems and geometry of the Painlev´ e equations,Commun

    H. Sakai, Rational surfaces associated with affine root systems and geometry of the Painlev´ e equations,Commun. Math. Phys.220(2001), 165–229

    2001

  13. [21]

    Saito, Regular systems of weights and associated singularities,RIMS Kokyuroku49(1981), 99–108

    K. Saito, Regular systems of weights and associated singularities,RIMS Kokyuroku49(1981), 99–108

    1981

  14. [22]

    W. P. Thurston,Three-Dimensional Geometry and Topology, Vol. 1, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1997

    1997

  15. [23]

    Wasow,Asymptotic Expansions for Ordinary Differential Equations, Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol

    W. Wasow,Asymptotic Expansions for Ordinary Differential Equations, Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. XIV, Interscience Publishers, New York, (1965)

    1965

  16. [24]

    Balser,Formal Power Series and Linear Systems of Meromorphic Ordinary Differential Equations, Springer-Verlag, New York, (2000)

    W. Balser,Formal Power Series and Linear Systems of Meromorphic Ordinary Differential Equations, Springer-Verlag, New York, (2000)

    2000

  17. [25]

    Yoshida, Necessary conditions for algebraic first integrals,Celestial Mechan- ics31(1983), 363–399

    H. Yoshida, Necessary conditions for algebraic first integrals,Celestial Mechan- ics31(1983), 363–399

    1983

  18. [26]

    Yoshida, Painlev´ e resonance and Kovalevskaya exponents,J

    H. Yoshida, Painlev´ e resonance and Kovalevskaya exponents,J. Math. Phys. 25(1984), 786–793

    1984

  19. [27]

    Shioda, On Hamiltonian structures of Painlev´ e systems,Funkcialaj Ekvacioj 44(2001), 65–75

    T. Shioda, On Hamiltonian structures of Painlev´ e systems,Funkcialaj Ekvacioj 44(2001), 65–75. 41

    2001

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.