Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 41 references

Numerical integration in celestial mechanics: a case for contact geometry

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that every Newton equation with velocity-linear time-dependent damping—including the modified Kepler problem, the spin-orbit model, and the Lane-Emden equation—is the flow of a contact Hamiltonian, and builds…

desk verdict Solid, useful paper on contact integrators; the spin-orbit Hamiltonian as printed has a sign error, and the 4th-order variational integrator rests on an unproved conjecture. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.02613 v3 pith:EMZILOGR submitted 2019-09-05 math.NA astro-ph.EPcs.NAmath-phmath.MP

Alessandro Bravetti , Marcello Seri , Mats Vermeeren , Federico Zadra This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.NAastro-ph.EPcs.NAmath-phmath.MP MSC 65D3034K2834A26
keywords contactgeometrygeometricintegratorsmodifiedKeplerproblemspin-orbitmodelLane-EmdenequationHamiltoniansystemsHerglotzvariationalprinciplesplittingmethods
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

This paper claims that the large class of Newton equations with time-dependent damping linear in velocity—covering the modified Kepler problem, the spin-orbit model, and the Lane-Emden equation—can be written as contact Hamiltonian systems, so the geometric toolkit of Hamiltonian mechanics extends to them. It introduces the contact Hamiltonian $H=\sum_a p_a^2/2+V(q,t)+f(t)s$, whose flow restricts to the given Newton equation on the physical variables while the extra variable $s$ encodes the damping. On this basis the paper constructs two families of integrators that preserve the contact structure: splitting-based Hamiltonian integrators of any even order, and higher-order variational integrators from a discrete Herglotz principle. Numerical experiments show these integrators staying stable at step sizes where fixed-step Runge-Kutta diverges, reproducing known spin-orbit phase portraits and resonance capture, and handling the singular Lane-Emden equation without special treatment.

What carries the argument

The central object is the contact Hamiltonian $H(p,q,s,t)=\sum_a p_a^2/2+V(q,t)+f(t)s$ on an exact contact manifold with contact form $\eta=ds-\sum_a p_a dq^a$; the extra coordinate $s$ absorbs the damping term $f(t)\dot q$ because Hamilton's equations become $\dot q^a=p_a$, $\dot p_a=-\partial V/\partial q^a-f(t)p_a$, $\dot s=\sum_a p_a^2/2-V-f(t)s$, and the first two reproduce the target Newton equation. The integrators are built by splitting this Hamiltonian into exactly integrable pieces $A=f(t)s$, $B=V(q,t)$, $C=\sum_a p_a^2/2$, and composing their flows symmetrically; a Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff calculation yields the modified Hamiltonian $\tilde H'=H+\tau^2\Delta H'+O(\tau^4)$ that supplies local error estimates. On the Lagrangian side, the machinery is the Galerkin discretisation of the discrete Herglotz variational principle, using polynomials of degree $\ell$ and a Runge-Kutta method of order $u$, producing variational integrators conjectured to have order $\min(2\ell,u)$.

What would settle it

Integrate a contact system with a known exact solution (e.g., the damped harmonic oscillator $H=p^2/2+q^2/2+\alpha s$) with the 'Variational 4th' integrator at several step sizes $\tau$ and fit the observed error slope: if the order is not 4, the unproved order conjecture fails and the Section 4.1.2 comparisons involving that integrator would need revision; separately, rerun the modified-Kepler large-$\tau$ experiment with fixed-step RK4 at a much smaller step until convergence to see whether the claimed stability advantage is about step-size regime rather than structure preservation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that every equation $\ddot q+\partial V(q,t)/\partial q+f(t)\dot q=0$ is the flow of the contact Hamiltonian $H=\sum_a p_a^2/2+V(q,t)+f(t)s$, giving a uniform Hamiltonisation for the modified Kepler problem, the spin-orbit model, and the Lane-Emden equation without the reparameterisation required by earlier symplectic Hamiltonisation attempts. It then builds two families of structure-preserving integrators—splitting-based contact Hamiltonian integrators of arbitrary even order with explicit modified-Hamiltonian error bounds, and higher-order variational integrators from a Galerkin discretisation of Herglotz' principle—and shows numerically that these remain stable at large time steps where fixed-step RK4 diverges, reproduce spin-orbit Poincaré sections and resonance capture, and integrate the singular Lane-Emden equation from its natural initial conditions.

Load-bearing premise

The fourth-order label on the 'Variational 4th' integrator depends on an unproved conjecture—supported only by numerical evidence from the symplectic version—that the Galerkin-Herglotz construction has order $\min(2\ell,u)$; if the true order is lower, every accuracy and stability comparison that uses that integrator would need to be re-examined.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every system in the class (1) gains a Hamiltonian formulation in one extra dimension, so tools from Hamiltonian dynamics—variational principles, invariants, and periodic-orbit theory—become available for damped Newtonian systems.
  • The second-order contact Hamiltonian integrator with modified Hamiltonian $\tilde H'$ produces explicit local error estimates that match observed errors in the damped oscillator and perturbed Kepler tests.
  • Contact Hamiltonian splitting integrators can be built to any even order from exactly integrable pieces; for separable Hamiltonians of the form (6) this yields explicit, structure-preserving methods.
  • For the modified Kepler problem with time-dependent drag, the contact integrators remain bounded and stable at time steps where fixed-step RK4 diverges, with Hamiltonian integrators showing more precession but greater stability at large $\tau$ than the variational ones.
  • For the singular Lane-Emden equation, the contact Hamiltonian integrator handles the natural initial condition without special treatment, and the modified Hamiltonian predicts bounded first-step errors despite the failure of Proposition 10.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the order conjecture is proved, the Galerkin-Herglotz construction would give a uniform recipe for arbitrary-order variational integrators for any contact Hamiltonian, including non-separable ones such as the damped Schwarzschild geodesics the paper mentions, where splitting methods cannot be applied.
  • The modified-Hamiltonian error estimate suggests a practical adaptive step-size or initial-condition correction: since the leading error term is known explicitly, one could subtract it or choose modified initial data to reduce drift, especially for the Lane-Emden first step where the paper gives explicit initial errors.
  • The Hamiltonisation is not merely formal: because the flow is contact, one could apply contact analogues of weak-KAM and Aubry-Mather theory to the modified Kepler and spin-orbit models to study capture into resonances and dissipation-driven transitions analytically, not just numerically.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies Newton equations of the form q̈ + ∂V(q,t)/∂q + f(t)q̇ = 0 and shows that every such system admits a contact Hamiltonian formulation: Proposition 3 verifies directly that H = Σ p_a²/2 + V(q,t) + f(t)s reproduces Eq. (1) through the contact Hamiltonian equations. The authors then construct two families of geometric integrators: higher-order Galerkin contact variational integrators and even-order contact splitting integrators obtained by Yoshida composition. They derive a modified-Hamiltonian backward error analysis and use it to produce explicit, parameter-free local error estimates, which they compare numerically with the observed error. The methods are applied to three celestial-mechanics-type problems: the modified Kepler problem with time-dependent linear drag, the spin-orbit model with time-varying moment of inertia, and the Lane–Emden equation. The numerical sections report that the contact integrators remain stable at time steps where fixed-step RK4 diverges, and that the modified-Hamiltonian estimates track the actual error on the damped oscillator, modified Kepler, and Lane–Emden tests.

Significance. If the identified issues are resolved, this is a useful contribution to geometric numerical integration. The Hamiltonisation of the broad class (1) is clean and self-contained, with Proposition 3 verified directly from the definition of contact Hamiltonian systems. The splitting integrators are standard Strang/Yoshida compositions, and the modified-Hamiltonian error estimates are genuine predictions rather than fitted curves: they match the reported numerics without adjustable parameters. The paper also ships reproducible code (DOI 10.5281/zenodo.3557652), which strengthens the numerical claims. The contact-geometric viewpoint offers a practical unification for damped Newtonian systems in celestial mechanics, and the comparison against RK4 addresses a question of real interest to practitioners. However, two load-bearing points require attention before the results can be accepted as stated: the printed spin-orbit Hamiltonian in Eq. (35) is inconsistent with the equation it claims to represent, and the fourth-order variational integrator used in Section 4.1.2 is labeled fourth order on the strength of a conjecture that the paper itself declares to be unproved.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4.2, Eq. (35)] The contact Hamiltonian in Eq. (35) does not generate the stated equation of motion (34). By Proposition 1, for H = p²/2 + N_z(θ,t)/C + (Ċ/C)s one obtains θ̈ = −∂(N_z/C)/∂θ − (Ċ/C)θ̇, while Eq. (34) is equivalent to θ̈ = N_z/C − (Ċ/C)θ̇. Matching the two expressions requires ∂(N_z/C)/∂θ = −N_z/C, which is not an identity for the triaxial torque N_z ∝ Σ W(m/2,e) sin(2θ − mt). The correct Hamiltonian must use a potential V(θ,t) satisfying ∂V/∂θ = −N_z/C, and this is precisely the form used later in §4.2 through the expression for ∂V/∂q. Please correct Eq. (35) and state explicitly which system the spin-orbit experiments integrate.
  2. [§3.1, Remark 1; §4.1.2] The order formula min(2ℓ,u) for the Galerkin contact variational integrators is conjectured, with only numerical evidence from the symplectic analogue [30] and a proof declared future work. Nevertheless, §4.1.2 and Figures 6–8 use a 'Variational 4th' integrator as a fourth-order method in the headline stability and accuracy comparisons. If the actual order is lower, the conclusions drawn from those comparisons would need revision. The paper should either provide a proof of the order statement in the contact case, or explicitly qualify the label and soften the claims that rely on it.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figures 1–2] The captions use γ for the damping coefficient that Eq. (27) and the surrounding text call α; please unify the notation.
  2. [Table 1] The decimal formatting of the coefficients is inconsistent (varying spaces and digit counts), which makes reproduction from the table unnecessarily error-prone; please format all entries uniformly.
  3. [§3.2.3, Eq. (21)] In the explicit formula for ∆H′, the term p ∂V/∂q and similar products are written without summation indices; if the multi-dimensional case is intended, please add the sum over a, or state that the formula is for the scalar case.
  4. [§4.2.1] A direct comparison with [21, Figure 5] is described, but the paper does not report the parameter values used in [21] or the precise values used for the comparison aside from C̃=1, ν=1, B−A and e; please add these values so the reproducibility of Figure 10 does not depend on the companion code alone.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central Hamiltonisation is a direct verification and the error estimates are parameter-free; minor self-citations supply framework but are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, Proposition 3, is not a fitted prediction but an explicit construction: substituting H = sum p_a^2/2 + V(q,t) + f(t)s into the contact Hamiltonian equations (3)-(5) gives qdot_a = p_a and pdot_a = -∂V/∂q_a - f(t) p_a, which immediately reproduces equation (1). This is a representation theorem, not a hidden use of the target result. The integrator error estimates in Section 3.2.3 (e.g. equations (23), (31), (38)-(40)) are derived from the BCH-based modified Hamiltonian and are compared against exact solutions or high-order reference trajectories; no parameter is fitted to the data being predicted. The self-citations [5] and [38] supply the contact-Hamiltonian and discrete-Herglotz framework, but the present paper verifies its own key identities directly and does not invoke a uniqueness theorem or a forbidden-alternative argument; these citations are therefore not load-bearing in a circular sense. Two caveats should be flagged, but neither is circularity. First, Remark 1 explicitly states that the order min(2ℓ,u) of the higher-order variational integrator is conjectural, so the 'Variational 4th' integrator used in Section 4.1.2 rests on an unproved premise; this is an acknowledged limitation affecting the numerical comparison, not a circular derivation. Second, the printed spin-orbit Hamiltonian in equation (35), H = p^2/2 + N_z/C + (Cdot/C)s, appears inconsistent with equation (34): Proposition 3 applied to this H gives θddot = -∂(N_z/C)/∂θ - (Cdot/C)θdot, whereas (34) gives θddot = N_z/C - (Cdot/C)θdot, requiring ∂(N_z/C)/∂θ = -N_z/C, which is not true for the triaxial torque. The potential used later, with ∂V/∂q = -N_z/C (for μ=0), is the consistent choice, so this is an internal sign/consistency issue in one application, not a case of the derivation reducing to its own input. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained and the numerical predictions are not forced by construction.

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

The paper's central claims rest on standard contact geometry (Darboux coordinates, contact Hamiltonian equations), the discrete Herglotz principle from the authors' prior work [38], Yoshida splitting, and the BCH formula. No parameters are fitted to make the method work: the integrator coefficients are Yoshida's standard constants from [41], and the Galerkin control points in Example 2 are design choices. The contact variable s is the standard extra coordinate of contact mechanics, not a new physical entity. The only unproved premise is the order conjecture for the Galerkin variational integrator (Remark 1).

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Contact Hamiltonian equations and Jacobi bracket in Darboux coordinates (Propositions 1-2)
    Background contact geometry cited to [19,36]; used for Prop 3 and for the modified Hamiltonian computation in Section 3.2.3.
  • standard math Discrete Herglotz variational principle and its momentum-matching form (Proposition 5)
    Foundation of the contact variational integrators; published theorem from the authors' prior work [38], accepted here without re-derivation.
  • standard math Yoshida higher-order splitting construction and the BCH formula (Propositions 6-8, Eq 17)
    Standard splitting theory [41,29,37] used to build the 2n-th order contact integrators and the modified Hamiltonian expansion.
  • ad hoc to paper Order formula min(2ℓ,u) for the Galerkin contact variational integrators (Remark 1)
    Stated as an expectation from the symplectic case [30]; proof explicitly deferred. Load-bearing for the 'Variational 4th' integrator label used in Section 4.1.2.
  • domain assumption Physical models in Section 4 are faithfully represented by equations of class (1)
    The drag-modified Kepler equation (32), the spin-orbit equation (34), and the Lane-Emden equation (36) are each rewritten in the form (1) with the displayed V and f; the modelling step itself is not derived.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Numerical integration in celestial mechanics: a case for contact geometry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EMZILOGR

@misc{pith2026190902613,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Numerical integration in celestial mechanics: a case for contact geometry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EMZILOGR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.02613}
}
read the original abstract

Several dynamical systems of interest in celestial mechanics can be written in the form of a Newton equation with time-dependent damping, linear in the velocities. For instance, the modified Kepler problem, the spin-orbit model and the Lane-Emden equation all belong to such class. In this work we start an investigation of these models from the point of view of contact geometry. In particular we focus on the (contact) Hamiltonisation of these models and on the construction of the corresponding geometric integrators.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [21]

    & Celletti A.Hamiltonian formu- lation of the spin-orbit model with time-varying non-conservative forces

    Gkolias I., Efthymiopoulos C., Pucacco G. & Celletti A.Hamiltonian formu- lation of the spin-orbit model with time-varying non-conservative forces. Com- munications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation, 51:23–38, 2017

    work page 2017

  2. [30]

    & Saake N

    Ober-Blöbaum S. & Saake N. Construction and analysis of higher order Galerkin variational integrators. Advances in Computational Mathematics, 41:955–986, 2015

    work page 2015

  3. [1]

    Ahmad I., Raja M. A. Z., Bilal M. & Ashraf F.Neural network methods to solve the Lane–Emden type equations arising in thermodynamic studies of the spherical gas cloud model. Neural Computing and Applications, 28:929–944, 2017

    work page 2017

  4. [2]

    I.Mathematical methods of classical mechanics

    Arnold V. I.Mathematical methods of classical mechanics. Volume 60 ofGrad- uate Texts in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1989

    work page 1989

  5. [3]

    Entropy, 19, 2017

    Bravetti A.Contact Hamiltonian dynamics: The concept and its use. Entropy, 19, 2017

    work page 2017

  6. [4]

    Contact geometry and thermodynamics

    Bravetti A. Contact geometry and thermodynamics. International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics:1940003, 2018

    work page 2018

  7. [5]

    & Tapias D.Contact Hamiltonian mechanics

    Bravetti A., Cruz H. & Tapias D.Contact Hamiltonian mechanics. Annals of Physics, 376:17–39, 2017

    work page 2017

  8. [6]

    & Zadra F

    Bravetti A., Seri M., Vermeeren M. & Zadra F. Numerical integration in celestial mechanics: a case for contact geometry - support code . https: //doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3557652, 2019

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.3557652 2019

Show all 41 references
  1. [7]

    & Jackson A.Unified analytical solutions to two-body problems with drag

    Breiter S. & Jackson A.Unified analytical solutions to two-body problems with drag. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 299:237–243, 1998

    1998

  2. [8]

    & Yan J.Herglotz’ generalized variational principle and contact type Hamilton-Jacobi equations

    Cannarsa P., Cheng W., Wang K. & Yan J.Herglotz’ generalized variational principle and contact type Hamilton-Jacobi equations. In Trends in Control Theory and Partial Differential Equations, pages 39–67. Springer, 2019

    2019

  3. [9]

    Tables of the Developments of Functions in the Theory of Elliptic Motion

    Cayley A. Tables of the Developments of Functions in the Theory of Elliptic Motion. Mem. Royal Astr. Soc., 29:191, Jan 1861

  4. [10]

    Zeitschrift für angewandte Mathe- matik und Physik ZAMP, 41:174–204, Mar 1990

    Celletti A.Analysis of resonances in the spin-orbit problem in celestial mechan- ics: The synchronous resonance (part I). Zeitschrift für angewandte Mathe- matik und Physik ZAMP, 41:174–204, Mar 1990

    1990

  5. [11]

    & Chandrasekhar S.An introduction to the study of stellar structure

    Chandrasekhar S. & Chandrasekhar S.An introduction to the study of stellar structure. Volume 2. Courier Corporation, 1957

    1957

  6. [12]

    Contact manifolds and dissipation, classical and quantum

    CiagliaF.M., CruzH.&MarmoG. Contact manifolds and dissipation, classical and quantum. Annals of Physics, 398:159–179, 2018

    2018

  7. [13]

    & Sardón C

    de León M. & Sardón C. Cosymplectic and contact structures for time- dependent and dissipative Hamiltonian systems. Journal of Physics A: Mathe- matical and Theoretical, 50:255205, 2017

    2017

  8. [14]

    & Valcázar M

    de León M. & Valcázar M. L.Singular Lagrangians and precontact Hamiltonian systems. arXiv:1904.11429, 2019

    1904 arXiv

  9. [15]

    Two-body problems with drag or thrust: qualitative results

    Diacu F. Two-body problems with drag or thrust: qualitative results. Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 75:1–15, 1999

    1999

  10. [16]

    & Torres P

    Fonda A., Toader R. & Torres P. J.Periodic motions in a gravitational cen- 29 tral field with a rotating external force. Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 113:335–342, 2012

    2012

  11. [17]

    C., Rivas X

    Gaset J., Gràcia X., Muñoz-Lecanda M. C., Rivas X. & Román-Roy N.A con- tact geometry framework for field theories with dissipation. arXiv:1905.07354, 2019

    1905 arXiv

  12. [18]

    C., Rivas X

    Gaset J., Gràcia X., Muñoz-Lecanda M. C., Rivas X. & Román-Roy N.New contributions to the Hamiltonian and Lagrangian contact formalisms for dissi- pative mechanical systems and their symmetries. arXiv:1907.02947, 2019

    1907 arXiv

  13. [19]

    An introduction to contact topology

    Geiges H. An introduction to contact topology. Volume 109. Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 2008

    2008

  14. [20]

    & Bodurov T.Generalized variational principle of Herglotz for several independent variables

    Georgieva B., Guenther R. & Bodurov T.Generalized variational principle of Herglotz for several independent variables. First Noether-type theorem. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 44:3911–3927, 2003

    2003

  15. [22]

    Geometric Numerical Integration: Structure- Preserving Algorithms for Ordinary Differential Equations

    HairerE., LubichC.&WannerG. Geometric Numerical Integration: Structure- Preserving Algorithms for Ordinary Differential Equations. Volume 31 of Springer Series in Computational Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Hei- delberg, 2006

    2006

  16. [23]

    Vorlesungen über die Theorie der Berührungstransformationen

    Herglotz G. Vorlesungen über die Theorie der Berührungstransformationen. Universität Göttingen, 1930

    1930

  17. [24]

    J., Paiva J., Amaral J

    Lazo M. J., Paiva J., Amaral J. T. & Frederico G. S.Action principle for action- dependent Lagrangians toward nonconservative gravity: Accelerating universe without dark energy. Physical Review D, 95:101501, 2017

    2017

  18. [25]

    J., Paiva J., Amaral J

    Lazo M. J., Paiva J., Amaral J. T. & Frederico G. S.An action principle for action-dependent Lagrangians: Toward an action principle to non-conservative systems. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 59:032902, 2018

    2018

  19. [26]

    Liu Q., Torres P. J. & Wang C.Contact Hamiltonian dynamics: Variational principles, invariants, completeness and periodic behavior. Annals of Physics, 395:26–44, 2018

    2018

  20. [27]

    & Rebelo C.Dynamics of Kepler problem with linear drag

    Margheri A., Ortega R. & Rebelo C.Dynamics of Kepler problem with linear drag. Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 120:19–38, 2014

    2014

  21. [28]

    Marsden J. E. & West M.Discrete mechanics and variational integrators. Acta Numerica, 10:357–514, 2001

    2001

  22. [29]

    McLachlan R. I. & Quispel G. R. W. Splitting methods. Acta Numerica, 11:341–434, 2002

    2002

  23. [31]

    Pandey R. K. & Kumar N. Solution of Lane–Emden type equations using Bernstein operational matrix of differentiation. New Astronomy, 17:303–308, 2012

    2012

  24. [32]

    & Taghavi A

    Parand K., Rezaei A. & Taghavi A. Lagrangian method for solving Lane– Emden type equation arising in astrophysics on semi-infinite domains. Acta 30 Astronautica, 67:673–680, 2010

    2010

  25. [33]

    Sanz-Serna J. M. Symplectic integrators for Hamiltonian problems: an overview. Acta numerica, 1:243–286, 1992

    1992

  26. [34]

    Tao M.Explicit symplectic approximation of nonseparable hamiltonians: Algo- rithm and long time performance. Phys. Rev. E, 94:043303, 2016

    2016

  27. [35]

    slimplectic

    Tsang D., Galley C. R., Stein L. C. & Turner A. “slimplectic” integrators: Variational integrators for general nonconservative systems. The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 809:l9, 2015

    2015

  28. [36]

    Valcázar M. L. & de León M.Contact Hamiltonian Systems. Journal of Math- ematical Physics, 60:102902, 2019

    2019

  29. [37]

    Lie groups, Lie algebras, and their representations

    Varadarajan V. Lie groups, Lie algebras, and their representations. Prentice- Hall series in modern analysis. Prentice-Hall. ISBN 9780135357323, 1974

    1974

  30. [38]

    & Seri M.Contact variational integrators

    Vermeeren M., Bravetti A. & Seri M.Contact variational integrators. J. Phys. A: Math. Theor., 52:445206, 2019

    2019

  31. [39]

    & Yan J.Implicit variational principle for contact Hamil- tonian systems

    Wang K., Wang L. & Yan J.Implicit variational principle for contact Hamil- tonian systems. Nonlinearity, 30:492, 2016

    2016

  32. [40]

    & Yan J.Aubry–Mather theory for contact Hamiltonian systems

    Wang K., Wang L. & Yan J.Aubry–Mather theory for contact Hamiltonian systems. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 366:981–1023, 2019

    2019

  33. [41]

    Physics letters A, 150:262–268, 1990

    Yoshida H.Construction of higher order symplectic integrators. Physics letters A, 150:262–268, 1990. 31

    1990

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.