Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 36 references

Resonance in coupled nonlinear oscillators with decaying perturbations

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that decaying perturbations can still create stable phase-locked resonance in two nonidentical oscillators, and it gives explicit sign conditions on averaged perturbation coefficients that decide stability.

desk verdict A serious extension of the planar theory, but the α=1 instability claim overreaches: ρ-growth does not imply energy growth, and the α=1 stability proof uses terms outside the stated model system. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.22464 v1 pith:XQWL4BCX submitted 2026-07-24 math.DS math-phmath.MP

Oskar A. Sultanov This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.DSmath-phmath.MP MSC 34C1534C2934D2034E10
keywords resonancephaselockingcoupledoscillatorsdecayingperturbationsaveragingmethodLyapunovfunctionsasymptoticallyautonomoussystemsDuffing
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 two coupled nonlinear oscillators whose mutual coupling and external perturbations both decay as a power law t^{-α}. It asks whether such fading influences can still lock the oscillators into resonance, so that the first energy stays near zero, the second near a resonant level A, and the phase difference approaches a constant ψ0. The answer is yes under three explicit sign conditions on averaged perturbation coefficients: π(ψ0)<0, λ'(ψ0)ν<0, and ϑ(ψ0)<0. These conditions arise from an averaged three-dimensional model and are proved using Lyapunov functions; when any one of the signs is reversed, the resonant regime is unstable or absent. A sympathetic reader would care because many real synchronization settings involve coupling or forcing that weakens over time, and this paper turns resonance capture into an explicit, checkable criterion.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the averaging transformation (11)-(12) with the near-identity change of variables (22)-(25): it removes the fast phase φ to any finite order and produces the truncated system (17) with coefficients Π_K, Λ_K, and Ω_K. In the leading terms, Π_2=ρπ(ψ), Λ_1=λ(ψ), and Ω_1=νv; the sign of π(ψ0) controls the radial direction, the pair (λ'(ψ0),ν) controls a pendulum-like linearization, and ϑ(ψ0)=λ_{2,2}(ψ0)+ν'_{2,0}(ψ0) controls the next-order correction. Stability is established by explicit Lyapunov functions for the stable case and Chetaev-type functions for the unstable cases.

What would settle it

Take the model system of Example 1 with parameters satisfying the three stability signs and measure E1(t), E2(t), and φ1(t)-φ2(t) from small initial data; if the phase difference repeatedly slips by 2π or the energies leave a small tube around (0,A), then Theorem 2 is false. Alternatively, choose parameters with ϑ(ψ0)=0 and check whether the predicted Lyapunov-neutral behavior appears, testing the sharpness of the ϑ<0 requirement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the survival of a resonant phase-locking regime is controlled by three averaged quantities. After an averaging change of variables, the leading dynamics of the two oscillator energies and the phase difference reduce to a three-dimensional truncated system whose zero equilibrium (ρ=0, v=0, ψ=ψ0) is stable exactly when π(ψ0)<0 and λ'(ψ0)ν<0, with λ'(ψ0)≠0 guaranteed by a transversality assumption. If, in addition, ϑ(ψ0)<0, this equilibrium generates an asymptotically stable solution of the model system and, by persistence, a stable solution of the original four-dimensional system with E1(t)→0, E2(t)→A, and φ1(t)-κφ2(t)/κ→ψ0. If any of the three signs is reversed, or i

Load-bearing premise

The perturbation must vanish with the first oscillator's energy, meaning f1=O(E1) and f_{1,k,0}=f_{1,k,1}=0; if the first oscillator is directly forced, the averaged model changes structure and the phase-locking conditions no longer apply.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If Theorem 2 is correct, a phase-locked resonant solution exists and is stable for every sufficiently small initial deviation, for arbitrarily late start times.
  • The stability check is finite: compute the three averaged coefficients from the perturbation expansions and test their signs.
  • Systems where λ(ψ)≠0 for all ψ cannot support resonant phase-locking; their phase difference grows without bound (Theorem 3).
  • Both the stable-locking and phase-drift scenarios appear in the two worked examples, including a system of non-identical Duffing oscillators with decaying coupling.
  • The averaged model is equivalent to a pendulum with decaying forcing, so classical pendulum intuition transfers to the coupled-oscillator setting.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The author leaves open the case where the first oscillator is directly excited (f1=O(1) rather than O(E1)); this is a natural test of the boundary of the theory.
  • The same three-sign structure may generalize to resonances of higher order or to chains of oscillators, where each pair would contribute its own π, λ, and ϑ.
  • One could test the sharpness of the ϑ=0 boundary numerically; the proof predicts neutral behavior only in a measure-zero parameter set.
  • The connection to zero-Hopf bifurcation noted in the conclusion suggests that stable resonance capture here is a nonautonomous analogue of a fold-Hopf stability exchange, which the author flags as future work.
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

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies a system of two coupled, non-identical, non-isochronous oscillators with perturbations and coupling that decay as power laws in time. After an averaging transformation, the author derives a model system in new variables E1=t^{-alpha}R^2, E2=A+t^{-alpha/2}v, and a slow phase. The main results, Theorems 1–3, give conditions on averaged coefficients under which resonant phase-locked solutions with E1 near 0 and E2 near a resonant level A are stable or unstable. The proofs combine an averaging transformation with Lyapunov-function analysis, and the theory is illustrated on two Duffing-type examples.

Significance. If correct, the paper would provide explicit, parameter-free stability criteria for resonance capture and phase locking in a genuinely nonautonomous, non-small-parameter setting. The formal structure is attractive: Theorem 1 constructs an averaging transformation with stated remainder orders, and the Lyapunov-function approach is standard and potentially transferable. The examples are useful and the numerics appear to illustrate the intended regimes. However, several load-bearing statements in Theorem 2 are not supported by the proofs as written, and at least one claimed instability criterion is contradicted by the model system itself. These issues affect the central advertised conclusions, not just the presentation.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2, Theorem 2 bullet (i); §6] The condition pi(psi0)>0 is not sufficient for escape in the original variables. From (11) and the truncated equation (18), if pi>0 then rho(t)~t^{pi}, so E1=t^{-alpha}rho^2~t^{2pi-alpha}. Thus for 0<pi<alpha/2, E1 tends to 0 even though rho grows. For example, in system (10) with alpha=1/2, a11=0.4, a21=0, a22=1, b1,2=-b2,1, one has pi(psi0)=0.1>0, lambda'(psi0)nu<0, nu_{2,0}(psi0)=0, lambda_{2,1}=0; the (v,psi) subsystem is a bounded oscillator and E1 decays. The proof in §6 only shows that the auxiliary variable y1, a deviation in rho, grows; it does not show that the physical combination t^{-alpha}rho^2 grows. Bullet (i) is therefore false as stated.
  2. [§5, Lemma 2, alpha=1 case] The asymptotic construction for alpha=1 uses coefficients Pi_3, Pi_4 and Pi_5, e.g. X1=Pi_3(0,0,psi0), X2=Pi_4(0,0,psi0), X3=Pi_5(0,0,psi0) in (38). However Theorem 1 restricts 1<N<=2alpha^{-1}=2 when alpha=1, so the model system (17) contains only the terms through K=2: Pi_2, Lambda_1, Lambda_2, Omega_1, Omega_2. The higher-order coefficients Pi_3--Pi_5 are not defined for alpha=1 by the stated theorem. The alpha=1 stability construction, and consequently the alpha=1 part of Theorem 2's first bullet, is unsupported unless the theorem is extended or these coefficients are defined separately.
  3. [§2 and §6, original-variable vs averaged-variable basin] The proof of Theorem 2 controls |y(t)| in the averaged variables rho,v,psi starting from a small ball |y(t_s)|<=delta. But the theorem's hypotheses and conclusions are stated in terms of E1,E2,phi. Since E1=t^{-alpha}rho^2, the condition |E1(t_s)|<=delta only implies |rho(t_s)|<=t_s^{alpha/2}sqrt(delta), which is not small for large t_s. The Lyapunov argument in §6 therefore does not cover the stated basin, and no uniform-in-t_s stability statement follows. For alpha=1 and -1/2<pi(psi0)<0, a solution with E1(t_s)=delta, E2(t_s)=A, theta(t_s)=psi0 has E1(t)≈delta(t/t_s)^{2pi-1}; the resulting phase drift is approximately eta1 delta t_s, which is unbounded as t_s grows. This is incompatible with the ε-δ formulation of Theorem 2's first bullet. The theorem needs either a reformulation in averaged variables or a genuinely different argument in the original variables.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§3, proof of Theorem 1] Several crucial steps are delegated to 'it can easily be checked', especially the identities (24) and the remainder estimates (16). Since these support the averaging transformation, please expand these computations or provide a supplementary file with the details.
  2. [§7.1, Example 1] The inequality 'a1,1 < a2,1 a2,1/a2,2' appears to be a misprint. From pi(psi0^+)<0 the condition should presumably involve a1,2 a2,1/a2,2 rather than a2,1^2/a2,2. Please check and correct.
  3. [§4, proof of Lemma 1] In the definition of the Lyapunov function L(z), the integration variable is written as ψ and the lower limit as ψ0; this should be a dummy variable z3 to avoid confusion with the state variable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the stability criteria are derived from explicit averaging and Lyapunov estimates, not from fitted inputs or self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained. Theorem 1 constructs the averaged system (14) by an explicit change of variables with remainder estimates (16), where the coefficients Π2, Λ1, Ω1 etc. are written directly as averaged perturbation coefficients (e.g., π(ψ) = ⟨f1,1,2(A, ψ + κϕ/κ, ϕ) + δ1,α⟩κϕ). Lemma 1 obtains the stability/instability conditions π(ψ0)<0 and λ′(ψ0)ν<0 from the Jacobian of the truncated system (18), and the proofs use elementary linearization and Lyapunov functions. Lemma 2 constructs the asymptotic solution of the model system (17) by recurrence and verifies stability with an explicit Lyapunov function; Theorem 2 then transfers these estimates to the full system (14) using the same Lyapunov function. No parameter is fitted to a target quantity and then renamed as a prediction: the conditions involve only explicit averages of the given perturbation coefficients and the fixed resonant value A. The self-citations ([12], [20], [21], [24], [26]) are contextual—motivating similar planar problems or related damped-perturbation settings—and none is load-bearing for the main theorem. The conclusion's stated limitation that the theory requires f1=O(E1) and f1,k,0=f1,k,1=0 is an honest scope restriction, not a circular import. The skeptic's concern about the π(ψ0)>0 instability assertion at α=1 is a potential mathematical correctness issue about whether growth in the auxiliary variable ρ implies growth of the physical energy E1 = t^{-α}ρ²; it is not a circularity of the derivation chain and therefore does not affect this score.

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

The theory takes as inputs the resonance condition, the asymptotic expansion structure, and the equilibrium-preservation assumption; it fits no parameters. The main structural assumption is that f1=O(E1) near E1=0, which the author acknowledges is necessary for the scaling to work.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Asymptotic expansions (3) and (6) hold, with remainders uniform and differentiable termwise.
    Basis of the averaging transformation; the entire asymptotic construction depends on these expansions.
  • domain assumption f1(E1,·)=O(E1) and f_{1,k,0}=f_{1,k,1}=0 as E1→0 (equilibrium preservation).
    This makes E1=t^{-α}R^2 a consistent scaling and forces the form Π_2=ρπ(ψ). The author acknowledges in the conclusion that the theory collapses without it.
  • domain assumption Resonance condition (4): κω1(A1)=κω2(A2) with η_i=ω_i'(A_i)≠0.
    Defines the resonant energy level A around which the analysis is performed.
  • domain assumption Assumption (19): λ(ψ0)=0 and λ'(ψ0)≠0 for some phase ψ0.
    Needed for the zero equilibrium of the truncated system to be hyperbolic in the ψ direction; if λ'=0 the pendulum-like linearization degenerates.
  • domain assumption Smoothness and 2π-periodicity of f_i,g_i in the phases on the relevant domain.
    Required for the averaging procedure and the Lyapunov function constructions to be well-defined.
  • standard math Standard theorems of averaging, Lyapunov's direct method, and asymptotic solvability of linear systems with decaying coefficients.
    Used throughout without proof; standard background for this type of analysis.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Resonance in coupled nonlinear oscillators with decaying perturbations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XQWL4BCX

@misc{pith2026260722464,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Resonance in coupled nonlinear oscillators with decaying perturbations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XQWL4BCX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.22464}
}
read the original abstract

The influence of nonautonomous perturbations on a system of two coupled nonlinear non-identical oscillators is studied. Both the coupling intensity and the perturbation strength are assumed to decay in time according to a power law. We focus on resonance effects associated with the commensurability of the natural frequencies of the oscillators at some energy levels. In particular, we describe the conditions on perturbations and coupling parameters under which phase-locked solutions appear with the oscillator energies remaining asymptotically close to resonant levels. By combining the averaging method with the construction of Lyapunov functions, we derive a nonautonomous model system governing the perturbed dynamics and analyse the stability of resonant solutions in the phase-locking regime. The theoretical results are illustrated for a system of non-identical Duffing oscillators with decaying coupling.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.22464 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The evolution of E1(t) and E2(t) for solutions of system (1) with fi and gi , defined by (10), α = 1/2, different values of the parameters ai,j and bi,j , and different initial conditions. The dashed curve corresponds to E(t) ≡ 1/2. Theorem 1. Let system (1) satisfy (3), (4) and (6). Then, for all 1 < N ≤ 2α −1 and ǫ ∈ (0, ǫ∗) there exist t∗ ≥ t0 and the transformations (E1, E2, ϕ1, ϕ2) 7→ (R, E, S, ϕ) 7→ (ρ, v, ψ, … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The evolution of E1(t), E2(t), and θ(t) ≡ ϕ1(t) − ϕ2(t) for the solutions to system (1) with ω1(E) ≡ 1/2 + E, ω2(E) ≡ 1 − E, and perturbations (10), where a1,1 = b1,2 = −1, a1,2 = −2, b1,1 = a2,2 = b2,1 = b2,2 = 1, a2,1 = −0.5, and the initial conditions are E1(1) = E2(1) = 0.25, ϕ1(1) = 0.7, ϕ2(1) = 0. The dashed curves correspond to E(t) ≡ 0.5 and θ(t) ≡ π/3. 10 20 30 40 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 t E 10 20 30 40 -15 -10 -5 … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The evolution of E1(t), E2(t), and θ(t) ≡ ϕ1(t) − ϕ2(t) for the solutions to system (1) with ω1(E) ≡ 1/2 + E, ω2(E) ≡ 1 − E, and perturbations (10), where a1,1 = b1,2 = −1, a1,2 = −2, b1,1 = a2,2 = b2,1 = b2,2 = 1, a2,1 = −1.2, and the initial conditions are E1(1) = E2(1) = 0.5, ϕ1(1) = 0.7, ϕ2(1) = 0. The dashed curve corresponds to E(t) ≡ 0.5. If |a2,1/a2,2| > 1, then assumption (20) holds, and it follows from The… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Finding A, when u1 = 1/4, u2 = −0.1, w1 = 0.98, w2 = 1, κ = 1, and κ = 2. 1. Consider the perturbations in the form G1(x1, z1, x2, z2) ≡ a1x1x 2 2 + b1z1, G2(x1, z1, x2, z2) ≡ x 2 1 (a2x2 + b2z2) w2 1 x 2 1 + z 2 1 (49) with constant parameters a1, a2, b1, and b2. In t…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The evolution of E1(t), E2(t), and θ(t) ≡ ϕ1(t) − ϕ2(t) for solutions to system (7) with Ui(x) ≡ w 2 i x 2 + uix 4/4, right-hand sides (49), u1 = 1/4, u2 = −0.1, w1 = 0.98, w2 = 1, a1 = −5, b1 = −1, a2 = −2.5, and b2 = −0.5. The dashed curves correspond to E(t) ≡ 0.257…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The evolution of E1(t), E2(t), and θ(t) ≡ ϕ1(t) − ϕ2(t) for the solutions to system (7) with Ui(x) ≡ w 2 i x 2 + uix 4/4, right-hand sides (49), u1 = 1/4, u2 = −0.1, w1 = 0.98, w2 = 1, a1 = −5, b1 = −1, a2 = −0.5, and b2 = −1. The dashed curve corresponds to E(t) ≡ 0.2…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references

  1. [24]

    O. A. Sultanov, Nonlinear resonance in oscillatory systems with decaying pe rturbations, Discrete and Con- tinuous Dynamical Systems, 45 (2025), 1691–1719

    2025

  2. [1]

    I. I. Blekhman, Synchronization in Science and Technology , ASME Press, New York, 1988

    1988

  3. [2]

    R. Z. Sagdeev, D.A. Usikov, G.M. Zaslavsky, Nonlinear Physics: From the Pendulum to Turbulence and Chaos, Harwood Academic Publishers, New York, 1988

    1988

  4. [3]

    Fidlin, Nonlinear Oscillations in Mechanical Engineering , Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 2006

    A. Fidlin, Nonlinear Oscillations in Mechanical Engineering , Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 2006

    2006

  5. [4]

    Friedland, Autoresonance in nonlinear systems , Scholarpedia, 4 (2009), 5473

    L. Friedland, Autoresonance in nonlinear systems , Scholarpedia, 4 (2009), 5473

    2009

  6. [5]

    Rajasekar, M

    S. Rajasekar, M. A. F. Sanju´ an, Nonlinear Resonances, Springer, Switzerland. 2016

    2016

  7. [6]

    Manevitch et al., Nonstationary Resonant Dynamics of Oscillatory Chains and Na nostructures, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2018

    L.I. Manevitch et al., Nonstationary Resonant Dynamics of Oscillatory Chains and Na nostructures, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2018

    2018

  8. [7]

    N. N. Bogolubov, Yu. A. Mitropolsky, Asymptotic Methods in Theory of Non-linear Oscillations , Gordon and Breach, New York, 1961

    1961

Show all 36 references
  1. [8]

    B. V. Chirikov, A universal instability of many-dimensional oscillator sys tems, Physics Reports, 52 (1979), 263–379

    1979

  2. [9]

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

    2006

  3. [10]

    S. Ji, M. Mei, Optimal decay rates of the compressible Euler equations wit h time-dependent damping in Rn: (I) under-damping case , J Nonlinear Sci., 33 (2023), 7

    2023

  4. [11]

    A. Y. Aleksandrov, A. A. Tikhonov, Attitude stabilization of a rigid body under the action of a va nishing control torque, Nonlinear Dyn., 93 (2018), 285–293

    2018

  5. [12]

    O. A. Sultanov, Bifurcations of autoresonant modes in oscillating systems with combined excitation , Stud. Appl. Math., 144 (2020), 213–241

    2020

  6. [13]

    Castillo-Ch´ avez, H.R

    C. Castillo-Ch´ avez, H.R. Thieme, Asymptotically autonomous epidemic models . In: O. Arino, D. Axelrod, M. Kimmel, M. Langlais (Eds.), Mathematical Population Dyn amics: Analysis of Heterogenity, Theory of Epidemics, vol. 1, Wuertz, 1995, p. 33–50. 23

    1995

  7. [14]

    A. D. Millano, G. Leon, A. Paliathanasis, Averaged dynamics in anisotropic interacting cosmologies , Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 207 (2026), 118054

    2026

  8. [15]

    W.-M. Ni, S. Yotsutani, On Matukuma’s equation and related topics , Proc. Japan Acad. Ser. A Math. Sci. 62 (1986), 260–263

    1986

  9. [16]

    S. F. Rohmah et al, Time-dependent damping effect for the dynamics of DNA transc ription, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser., 1204 (2019), 012012

    2019

  10. [17]

    Markus, Asymptotically autonomous differential sys tems, Contributions to the Theory of Nonlinear Oscillations III , Ann

    L. Markus, Asymptotically autonomous differential sys tems, Contributions to the Theory of Nonlinear Oscillations III , Ann. Math. Stud., 36, Princeton University Press, Princet on, 1956, 17–29

    1956

  11. [18]

    L. D. Pustyl’nikov, Stable and oscillating motions in nonautonomous dynamical systems. A generalization of C. L. Siegel’s theorem to the nonautonomous case , Math. USSR-Sbornik, 23 (1974), 382–404

    1974

  12. [19]

    Thieme, Asymptotically autonomous differential equations in the pl ane, Rocky Mountain J

    H. Thieme, Asymptotically autonomous differential equations in the pl ane, Rocky Mountain J. Math., 24 (1994), 351–380

    1994

  13. [20]

    O. A. Sultanov, Stability and bifurcation phenomena in asymptotically Ham iltonian systems , Nonlinearity, 35 (2022), 2513–2534

    2022

  14. [21]

    O. A. Sultanov, Damped perturbations of systems with center-saddle bifurcati on, Int. J. Bifurcation Chaos, 31 (2021), 2150137

    2021

  15. [22]

    A. P. Kuznetsov, N. V. Stankevich, L. V. Turukina, Coupled van der Pol–Duffing oscillators: Phase dy- namics and structure of synchronization tongues , Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 238 (2009), 1203–1215

    2009

  16. [23]

    L. A. Kalyakin, Resonance capture in a system of two oscillators near equilib rium, Theoret. and Math. Phys., 194 (2018), 331–346

    2018

  17. [25]

    V. Burd, P. Nesterov, Parametric resonance in adiabatic oscillators , Results. Math., 58 (2010), 1–15

    2010

  18. [26]

    O. A. Sultanov, Asymptotic analysis of systems with damped oscillatory pertu rbations, Journal of Mathe- matical Sciences, 269 (2023), 111–128

    2023

  19. [27]

    P. N. Nesterov, On asymptotics for critical solutions of systems of different ial equations with oscillatory decreasing coefficients, Aut. Control Comp. Sci., 47 (2013), 500–515

    2013

  20. [28]

    I. Y. Polekhin, Hamiltonian systems under small nonautonomous perturbation s, Moscow Univ. Mech. Bull. 67 (2012), 11–17

    2012

  21. [29]

    Scarcella, Asymptotically quasiperiodic solutions for time-dependen t Hamiltonians , Nonlinearity, 37 (2024), 065005

    D. Scarcella, Asymptotically quasiperiodic solutions for time-dependen t Hamiltonians , Nonlinearity, 37 (2024), 065005

    2024

  22. [30]

    Moro¸ sanu, C

    G. Moro¸ sanu, C. Vladimirescu, Qualitative analysis of a mechanical system of coupled nonl inear oscillators, Electron. J. Qual. Theory Differ. Equ., 16 (2023), 1–26

    2023

  23. [31]

    A. I. Neishtadt, The separation of motions in systems with rapidly rotating p hase, J. Appl. Math. Mech., 48 (1984), 133–139

    1984

  24. [32]

    Br¨ uning, S

    J. Br¨ uning, S. Yu. Dobrokhotov, M. A. Poteryakhin, Averaging for Hamiltonian systems with one fast phase and small amplitudes , Math. Notes., 70 (2001), 599–607

    2001

  25. [33]

    Gelfreich, L

    V. Gelfreich, L. M. Lerman, Almost invariant elliptic manifold in a singularly perturbed Ha miltonian system, Nonlinearity, 15 (2002), 447–457

    2002

  26. [34]

    S. Yu. Dobrokhotov, D. S. Minenkov, On various averaging methods for a nonlinear oscillator with slow time-dependent potential and a nonconservative perturbation , Regul. Chaot. Dyn. 15 (2010), 285–299

    2010

  27. [35]

    Cveticanin, Analysis Techniques for the Various Forms of the Duffing Equatio n

    L. Cveticanin, Analysis Techniques for the Various Forms of the Duffing Equatio n. In: I. Kovacic and M. J. Brennan (Eds.), The Duffing Equation: Nonlinear Oscillato rs and their Behaviour, John Wiley & Sons, 2011, p. 81–137

    2011

  28. [36]

    Guckenheimer, Yu

    J. Guckenheimer, Yu. A. Kuznetsov, Fold-Hopf bifurcation, Scholarpedia, 2 (2007), 1855

    2007

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.