Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 56 references

Hamiltonian reduction from particular integrals

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Systems of particular integrals — functions whose time derivatives close linearly on the family — define invariant submanifolds, and their characteristic quotients carry reduced Hamiltonian flows. The paper proves this and introduces partic

desk verdict Sound but modest paper: the reduction theorem is honestly labeled standard coisotropic reduction; the new value is the particular-integral framing and the Liouville-type definition, though the examples skip the foliation check. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.07057 v2 pith:GX5HFYOO submitted 2026-07-08 math-ph math.DGmath.MP

R. Azuaje , A. M. Escobar-Ruiz , I. Gutierrez-Sagredo This is my paper · ORCID
classification math-phmath.DGmath.MP MSC 37J3570H0653D2070H45
keywords particularintegralsHamiltonianreductionpresymplecticLiouvilleintegrabilityinvariantsubmanifoldsauxiliary-coordinateliftsmagneticsystemspolynomialHamiltonians
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 aims to show that a family of phase-space functions whose time derivatives close linearly on the family itself — a system of particular integrals — defines a dynamically invariant submanifold, even when no single member is conserved. In Hamiltonian mechanics, if the family is additionally in particular involution and functionally independent on its common zero set, the restricted dynamics becomes presymplectic, and quotienting by the characteristic distribution produces a genuine Hamiltonian system with fewer degrees of freedom. The authors name this outcome particular Liouville integrability and illustrate it with mechanical examples and with auxiliary-coordinate lifts of natural Hamiltonian systems. The broader point is that non-global, partial conservation laws can organize lower-dimensional Hamiltonian dynamics through a mechanism that directly generalizes symplectic reduction.

What carries the argument

The workhorse is a system of particular integrals: a k-tuple of functions f_1,...,f_k whose time derivatives along the Hamiltonian flow close linearly on the tuple, f_dot_i = a_i^j f_j. The common zero set of such a tuple is dynamically invariant by uniqueness of solutions of linear ODEs. When the tuple is in particular involution, the zero set is coisotropic, and the pullback of the ambient symplectic form is a presymplectic form whose characteristic distribution is exactly the span of the restricted Hamiltonian vector fields of the f_i. Quotienting by that distribution, when it is regular, produces the reduced symplectic manifold; this is the presymplectic/coisotropic reduction mechanism t

What would settle it

Take the two-body Coulomb system in a constant magnetic field, restricted to K_x=K_y=0 as in the paper, and compute the foliation generated by the Hamiltonian vector fields of K_x and K_y on that invariant set. If the leaf space is not a smooth manifold, the theorem's regularity hypothesis fails and the claimed reduced two-degree system is not defined for this example, marking the boundary of the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1: for a Hamiltonian system on a 2n-dimensional symplectic manifold, a system of k particular integrals — functions satisfying {f_i,H}=a_i^j f_j — that is in particular involution ({f_i,f_j}=c_ij^l f_l) and functionally independent on its common zero set M_f makes M_f a coisotropic, dynamically invariant presymplectic submanifold of dimension 2n−k. The kernel of the restricted form is spanned by the Hamiltonian vector fields of the f_i on M_f, the restricted Hamiltonian is constant along the characteristic leaves, and when the characteristic foliation is simple and the quotient is smooth, the quotient carries a unique symplectic form and Hamiltonian whose flow is

Load-bearing premise

The reduction depends on the characteristic foliation of the restricted two-form being simple and its leaf space being a smooth manifold; if either fails, the reduced Hamiltonian system is not defined, and the paper's examples do not verify this condition.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If a Hamiltonian system admits k particular integrals in particular involution, its dynamics on their common zero set is presymplectic; under the additional regularity, it becomes a Hamiltonian system on a 2(n−k)-dimensional phase space.
  • Systems of particular integrals produce dynamically invariant submanifolds even when none of the functions is conserved; ordinary first integrals appear as the special case with all coefficients zero.
  • A first integral of a base natural Hamiltonian system becomes, in the scalar, diagonal, and non-diagonal auxiliary lifts, part of a system of particular integrals of the lifted system; setting the auxiliary momenta to zero and projecting away the auxiliary coordinates recovers the original dynamics.
  • Particular Liouville integrability means that the reduced Hamiltonian system is completely Liouville integrable, so on the reduced phase space the standard consequences of Liouville integrability — invariant tori and quasi-periodic motion under the usual compactness and regularity assumptions — apply.
  • The reduction mechanism extends beyond mechanical systems to Hamiltonian systems with magnetic vector potentials and to general polynomial Hamiltonians, as long as the auxiliary terms vanish on the constraint set.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not iterate the reduction; a natural extension is to ask whether the reduced Hamiltonian system can itself admit particular integrals, producing a tower of reductions that ends at a Liouville-integrable core.
  • The linear-closure condition is an algebraic closure condition on functions, so one could search systematically for systems of particular integrals on polynomial Hamiltonians; the paper demonstrates the phenomenon but does not attempt a classification.
  • The regularity of the quotient is never verified in the examples; applying singular-reduction techniques, or finding an example where the characteristic foliation is not simple, would sharpen the exact boundary of the theorem.
  • If the framework is correct, the number of particular integrals needed to reach a Liouville-integrable core could serve as a quantitative measure of partial integrability for a Hamiltonian system.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces systems of particular integrals, families of functions f_1,...,f_k whose time derivatives close linearly on the family. Lemma 1 shows that the common zero set M_f is a dynamically invariant embedded submanifold under a functional-independence assumption. In the Hamiltonian setting, Theorem 1 states that if the f_i are in particular involution, then M_f inherits a presymplectic form Ω = ι*ω whose characteristic distribution is spanned by the restricted Hamiltonian vector fields X_{f_i}; if the characteristic foliation is simple and the leaf space is a smooth quotient, the restricted Hamiltonian descends to a unique Hamiltonian system on a 2(n-k)-dimensional symplectic manifold. The paper then defines particular Liouville integrability and illustrates it with the planar two-body Coulomb problem in a constant magnetic field (Example 5). The remainder constructs lifts (Eisenhart, scalar/diagonal/non-diagonal auxiliary, magnetic, polynomial) that produce systems of particular integrals and recover the original dynamics by restriction to the zero set of auxiliary momenta and projection along auxiliary variables.

Significance. The main theorem is proved carefully and is correct under the stated regularity hypotheses; the proof is essentially standard coisotropic reduction, as the authors explicitly acknowledge in Remark 2. The paper's contribution lies in the formulation of systems of particular integrals as generators of invariant constraint ideals, and in the notion of particular Liouville integrability, which connects non-global conservation laws to presymplectic reduction. The lift constructions are concrete and may be useful for producing systems with particular integrals. However, the sole nontrivial example of particular Liouville integrability (Example 5) is asserted rather than verified in its quotient regularity, which is a load-bearing gap in the illustration of the paper's central new notion.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.2, Example 5] The claim that the original system is particularly Liouville integrable requires verifying the hypotheses of Theorem 1 on M_f = {K_x = K_y = 0}: the characteristic distribution spanned by X_{K_x}|M_f and X_{K_y}|M_f must have a simple foliation, the leaf space must be a smooth manifold with surjective submersion, and the reduced functions H_bar and J_z_bar must be functionally independent on the quotient. None of these is checked. Since this is the only example of Definition 2, the new notion is not yet substantiated. Please provide the quotient construction (or state and verify a sufficient condition, e.g. that the R^2 action generated by K_x, K_y is free and proper on M_f) and prove the independence of H_bar and J_z_bar.
  2. [§4.1–4.4] The lift constructions are presented as illustrations of the framework, but they do not instantiate Theorem 1. In each case the invariant set is {f=c, p_z=0} (or with several auxiliary momenta); the characteristic distribution for the system {f-c, p_z} is two-dimensional, spanned by X_f|M_f and ∂/∂z, and the quotient by this distribution would have dimension 2(n-1), not the dimension of the original system. The paper only projects along the auxiliary coordinate z after restricting to p_z=0, which is a different procedure. The simplicity of the characteristic foliation is never checked for these families. If these sections are meant only to illustrate Lemma 1, this should be stated explicitly; if they are intended as applications of the reduction theorem, the characteristic quotient must be constructed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.1, Example 6] The displayed formula for {H, eH} has a sign error: the right-hand side should have an overall minus sign. The conclusion is unaffected because the expression vanishes on the level p_z^2 = 2.
  2. [§3.1.2] The local-coordinate description assumes the stronger condition {f_l, f_s}=0, whereas Theorem 1 only assumes particular involution (4), i.e. {f_i,f_j}=c^ell_{ij} f_ell. The relation between the two conditions should be clarified, since the local slice M_{f,Q} is a slice of the characteristic distribution only under the stronger involution assumption.
  3. [§4.1] The statement that 'the pair z, p_z forms a system of particular integrals' is correct, but the subsequent discussion only uses the hypersurface p_z=0, not the zero set of z. Consider rephrasing to avoid suggesting that {z=0, p_z=0} plays a role.
  4. [§4.2 and §4.3] The magnetic vector potential is denoted A_i, while the auxiliary lift functions in §4.2 are also called A(q,z); later §4.3 uses Lambda for the auxiliary function. Consider renaming to avoid notational collision.
  5. [Example 5] The involution of the pseudomomentum components K_x, K_y is stated without proof or reference. A short verification or reference would help, since the bracket is not immediately obvious for two charges in a magnetic field.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Theorem 1 is a conditional coisotropic-reduction statement proved from its hypotheses; the paper's self-citations are definitional/inheritance, not load-bearing reductions.

full rationale

The central derivation, Theorem 1, is proved directly from the stated hypotheses (systems of particular integrals, particular involution, functional independence, simplicity of the characteristic foliation) and is explicitly benchmarked against standard coisotropic reduction in Remark 2: "The geometric part of Theorem 1 is the standard coisotropic reduction [34,35,38]. The role of the particular integrals is to provide the invariance condition directly from the dynamics." This is a genuine conditional theorem, not a prediction fitted to data and not an input renamed as an output. The paper inherits the definition of particular integrals from the authors' earlier work [13,14], but the generalization to systems with linearly closing derivatives (Definition 1, Lemma 1) is proved in the text and does not depend on the cited results for its validity. No parameter is fitted and later called a prediction; there is no self-citation invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as an unproved ansatz. The main caveat is substantive rather than circular: the examples, especially Example 5, assert the existence of the reduced Hamiltonian system and particular Liouville integrability without verifying the simplicity of the characteristic foliation required by Theorem 1. This is an unverified regularity condition, not a circular reduction, so it does not raise the circularity score. Overall, the derivation is self-contained and the claimed novelty is a framing/unification of known reduction geometry with particular-integral data.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central construction rests on standard symplectic geometry (regular level set theorem, Carathéodory–Jacobi–Lie, presymplectic Darboux, coisotropic reduction) plus a regularity assumption on the characteristic foliation. No parameters are fitted to data; the auxiliary functions in the lift examples (A, Λ, a_sl) are arbitrary smooth functions chosen to illustrate the construction, not fitted values.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math Regular level set theorem: functional independence of f_1,...,f_k on M_f implies M_f is an embedded submanifold of codimension k.
    Used in Lemma 1 and Theorem 1 to establish the submanifold structure of the invariant zero set.
  • standard math Carathéodory–Jacobi–Lie theorem guarantees a local canonical transformation placing commuting particular integrals among the momenta.
    Used in §3.1.2 to justify the local coordinate description (P_i = f_i).
  • domain assumption The characteristic foliation ker(Ω) is simple and M̄=M_f/ker(Ω) is a smooth manifold with surjective submersive quotient.
    Assumed in Theorem 1 after the word 'If in addition...' to ensure the reduced symplectic manifold exists; not verified for the examples.
  • domain assumption The functions f_i are functionally independent on M_f and k<n.
    Hypothesis of Theorem 1 ensuring M_f has dimension 2n-k and the characteristic distribution has rank k.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hamiltonian reduction from particular integrals." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GX5HFYOO

@misc{pith2026260707057,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hamiltonian reduction from particular integrals},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GX5HFYOO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.07057}
}
read the original abstract

We develop a geometric reduction mechanism generated by systems of particular integrals, namely, families of functions whose time derivatives close linearly on the family. Their common zero set is dynamically invariant. In the Hamiltonian case, under a weak involution condition, the restricted dynamics is presymplectic, and its characteristic quotient carries a reduced Hamiltonian flow. This yields a direct bridge between particular integrals, presymplectic reduction, and lower-dimensional Hamiltonian dynamics, and leads to a Liouville-type notion of particular integrability. We illustrate the framework through mechanical examples and lift constructions, including variants of the Eisenhart lift.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    V. I. Arnold.Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics. Springer New York, 1978

    1978

  2. [2]

    V. I. Arnold, V. V. Kozlov, and A. I. Neishtadt.Mathematical Aspects of Classical and Celestial Mechanics, third edition. Springer, 2006

    2006

  3. [3]

    Babelon, D

    O. Babelon, D. Bernard, and M. Talon.Introduction to Classical Integrable Systems. Cambridge University Press, 2003

    2003

  4. [4]

    Abraham and J

    R. Abraham and J. E. Marsden.Foundations of Mechanics. American Mathematical Soc. No. 364, 2008

    2008

  5. [5]

    Laurent-Gengoux, A

    C. Laurent-Gengoux, A. Pichereau, and P. Vanhaecke.Poisson structures. Springer, 2013

    2013

  6. [6]

    Magri and C

    F. Magri and C. Morosi.A geometrical characterization of integrable Hamiltonian systems through the theory of Poisson-Nijenhuis manifolds. Quaderno S 19, Universit‘a degli Studi di Milano, 1984

    1984

  7. [7]

    Kosmann-Schwarzbach and F

    Y. Kosmann-Schwarzbach and F. Magri. Lax–Nijenhuis operators for integrable systems.J. Math. Phys., 37:6173, 1996

    1996

  8. [8]

    Tempesta and G

    P. Tempesta and G. Tondo. Haantjes algebras of classical integrable systems.Annali di Matematica Pura ed Applicata, 201:57–90, 2022

    2022

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Miller, S

    W. Miller, S. Post, and P. Winternitz. Classical and quantum superintegrability with applications.J. Phys. A: Math. Theor., 46(42):423001, 2013

    2013

  2. [10]

    Tempesta, P

    P. Tempesta, P. Winternitz, J. Harnad, W. Miller, G. Pogosyan, and M. Rodr ´ ıguez.Superintegrability in classical and quantum systems, volume 37. AMS, 2004. 20

    2004

  3. [11]

    Marquette

    I. Marquette. Superintegrability and higher order polynomial algebras.J. Phys. A: Math. Theor., 43(13):135203, 2010

    2010

  4. [12]

    A. V. Turbiner. Particular integrability and (quasi)-exact-solvability.J. Phys. A: Math. Theor., 46:025203, 2013

    2013

  5. [13]

    A. M. Escobar-Ruiz and R. Azuaje. On particular integrability in classical mechanics.J. Phys. A: Math. Theor., 57:105202, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Azuaje and A

    R. Azuaje and A. M. Escobar-Ruiz. On particular integrability for (co) symplectic and (co) contact Hamiltonian systems.J. Phys. A: Math. Theor., 58:045201, 2025

    2025

  7. [15]

    J. F. Cari˜ nena, F. Falceto, J. Grabowski, and M. F. Ra˜ nada. Geometry of Lie integrability by quadratures.J. Phys. A: Math. Theor., 48:215206, 2015

    2015

  8. [16]

    R. Azuaje. Lie integrability by quadratures for symplectic, cosymplectic, contact and cocontact Hamiltonian systems. Rep. Math. Phys., 93(1):37–56, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    J. F. Cari˜ nena, J. Gomis, L. A. Ibort, and N. Rom´ an. Canonical transformations theory for presymplectic systems. J. Math. Phys., 26(8):1961–1969, 1985

    1961

  10. [18]

    Grabowska and J

    K. Grabowska and J. Grabowski. Reductions: precontact versus presymplectic.Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. (4) (1923-), 202:2803–2839, 2023

    1923

  11. [19]

    Libermann and C

    P. Libermann and C. M. Marle.Symplectic geometry and analytical mechanics, volume 35. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

    2012

  12. [20]

    Rosquist and G

    K. Rosquist and G. Pucacco. Invariants at fixed and arbitrary energy. a unified geometric approach.J. Phys. A: Math. Gen., 28(11):3235, 1995

    1995

  13. [21]

    Pucacco and K

    G. Pucacco and K. Rosquist. Non-integrability of a weakly integrable Hamiltonian system.Celestial Mech. Dynam. Astronom., 88(2):185–207, 2004

    2004

  14. [22]

    Kosmann-Schwarzbach and B

    Y. Kosmann-Schwarzbach and B. E. Schwarzbach.The Noether Theorems, Invariance and Conservation Laws in the Twentieth Century. Springer New York, 2011

    2011

  15. [23]

    J. F. Cari˜ nena and M. F. Ra˜ nada. Canonoid transformations from a geometric perspective.J. Math. Phys., 29:2181–2186, 1988

    1988

  16. [24]

    Rastelli and M

    G. Rastelli and M. Santoprete. Canonoid and poissonoid transformations, symmetries and bi-Hamiltonian structures. J. Geom. Mech., 7:483–515, 2015

    2015

  17. [25]

    Azuaje and A

    R. Azuaje and A. Bravetti. Scaling symmetries and canonoid transformations in Hamiltonian systems.Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys., 21(04):2450077, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    Godbillon.G´ eom´ etrie diff´ erentielle et m´ ecanique analytique

    C. Godbillon.G´ eom´ etrie diff´ erentielle et m´ ecanique analytique. FeniXX, 1969

    1969

  19. [27]

    A. J. Maciejewski and M. Przybylska. Darboux polynomials and first integrals of natural polynomial Hamiltonian systems.Phys. Lett. A, 326(3-4):219–226, 2004

    2004

  20. [28]

    Hietarinta

    J. Hietarinta. Direct methods for the search of the second invariant.Phys. Rep., 147(2):87–154, 1987

    1987

  21. [29]

    A. V. Turbiner and J. C. Lopez-Vieyra. Particular superintegrability of 3-body (modified) Newtonian gravity. Modern Physics Letters A, 35(22):2050185, 2020

    2020

  22. [30]

    A. V. Turbiner and J. C. Lopez-Vieyra. Superintegrability of (2n+1)-body choreographies, n= 1, 2, 3,. . . on the alge- braic lemniscate by Bernoulli (inverse problem of classical mechanics).Internat. J. Modern Phys. A, 36(17):2150116, 2021

    2021

  23. [31]

    A. M. Escobar-Ruiz and R. Azuaje. Nonlinear lissajous orbits and particular superintegrability.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.25145, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Lee.Introduction to Smooth Manifolds, second edition

    J. Lee.Introduction to Smooth Manifolds, second edition. Springer, 2012

    2012

  25. [33]

    A. M. Escobar-Ruiz and M. Fernandez-Guasti. On the four-body lima¸ con choreography: maximal superintegrability and choreographic fragmentation.Celestial Mech. Dynam. Astronom., 137(4):24, 2025

    2025

  26. [34]

    M. J. Gotay, J. M. Nester, and G. Hinds. Presymplectic manifolds and the Dirac–Bergmann theory of constraints. J. Math. Phys., 19(11):2388–2399, 1978

    1978

  27. [35]

    Echeverr ´ ıa-Enr ´ ıquez, M

    A. Echeverr ´ ıa-Enr ´ ıquez, M. C. Mu˜ noz-Lecanda, and N. Rom´ an-Roy. Reduction of presymplectic manifolds with symmetry.Rev. Math. Phys., 11(10):1209–1247, 1999

    1999

  28. [36]

    Bursztyn

    H. Bursztyn. A brief introduction to dirac manifolds.Geometric and topological methods for quantum field theory, pages 4–38, 2013

    2013

  29. [37]

    Gr` acia, J

    X. Gr` acia, J. De Lucas, X. Rivas, and N. Rom´ an-Roy. On Darboux theorems for geometric structures induced by closed forms.Revista de la Real Academia de Ciencias Exactas, F ´ ısicas y Naturales. Serie A. Matem´ aticas, 118(3):131, 2024

    2024

  30. [38]

    de Le´ on and R

    M. de Le´ on and R. Izquierdo-L´ opez. A review on coisotropic reduction in symplectic, cosymplectic, contact and co-contact hamiltonian systems.J. Phys. A: Math. Theor., 57(16):163001, apr 2024

    2024

  31. [39]

    Goldstein, C

    H. Goldstein, C. Poole, and J. Safko.Classical Mechanics, third edition. Addison-Wesley, 2002

    2002

  32. [40]

    L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz.Mechanics: Volume 1. Elsevier Science, 1982. 21

    1982

  33. [41]

    M. G. Calkin.Lagrangian and Hamiltonian Mechanics. World Scientific Publishing, 1996

    1996

  34. [42]

    A. J. Maciejewski, M. Przybylska, and T. Combot. Non-integrability of the n-body problem.J. Eur. Math. Soc, 2025

    2025

  35. [43]

    Iglesias-Ponte, J

    D. Iglesias-Ponte, J. C. Marrero, and E. Padr´ on. Mechanical Hamiltonian systems with respect to linear Poisson structures and Jacobi–reeb dynamics.Anal. Math. Phys., 13(1):10, 2023

    2023

  36. [44]

    L. P. Eisenhart. Dynamical trajectories and geodesics.Annals of Mathematics, 30(1/4):591–606, 1928

    1928

  37. [45]

    Szydlowski

    M. Szydlowski. The Eisenhart geometry as an alternative description of dynamics in terms of geodesics.General Relativity and Gravitation, 30(6):887–914, 1998

    1998

  38. [46]

    Cariglia and F

    M. Cariglia and F. K. Alves. The Eisenhart lift: a didactical introduction of modern geometrical concepts from Hamiltonian dynamics.European Journal of Physics, 36(2):025018, 2015

    2015

  39. [47]

    J. F. Cari˜ nena, F. J. Herranz, and M. F. Ra˜ nada. Superintegrable systems on 3-dimensional curved spaces: Eisenhart formalism and separability.J. Math. Phys., 58(2), 2017

    2017

  40. [48]

    Cariglia

    M. Cariglia. Hidden symmetries of dynamics in classical and quantum physics.Reviews of Modern Physics, 86(4):1283–1336, 2014

    2014

  41. [49]

    Ballesteros, A

    A. Ballesteros, A. Enciso, F.J. Herranz, and O. Ragnisco. A maximally superintegrable system on an n-dimensional space of nonconstant curvature.Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 237(4):505–509, 2008

    2008

  42. [50]

    Ballesteros et al

    A. Ballesteros et al. A new exactly solvable quantum model in n dimensions.Physics Letters A, 375(12):1431–1435, 2011

    2011

  43. [51]

    Ballesteros and I

    A. Ballesteros and I. Gutierrez-Sagredo. Shannon information entropy for a quantum nonlinear oscillator on a space of non-constant curvature.Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 445:133618, 2023

    2023

  44. [52]

    Baena-Jimenez, A

    I. Baena-Jimenez, A. Ballesteros, and I. Gutierrez-Sagredo. The fock-darwin-darboux system: eigenstates, informa- tion entropies and dispersion-like measures.Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation, page 110552, 2026

    2026

  45. [53]

    Md Hoque and L. ˇSnobl. Family of nonstandard integrable and superintegrable classical hamiltonian systems in non-vanishing magnetic fields.J. Phys. A: Math. Theor., 56(16):165203, 2023

    2023

  46. [54]

    Marchesiello, L

    A. Marchesiello, L. ˇSnobl, and P. Winternitz. Three-dimensional superintegrable systems in a static electromagnetic field.J. Phys. A: Math. Theor., 48(39):395206, 2015

    2015

  47. [55]

    C. Albert. Le th´ eor` eme de r´ eduction de Marsden-Weinstein en g´ eom´ etrie cosymplectique et de contact.J. Geom. Phys., 6(4):627–649, 1989

    1989

  48. [56]

    Gutierrez-Sagredo, D

    I. Gutierrez-Sagredo, D. Iglesias Ponte, J.C. Marrero, and E. Padr´ on. Mechanical presymplectic structures and marsden-weinstein reduction of time-dependent Hamiltonian systems.J. Geom. Phys., 213:105492, 2025. 22

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.