Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 64 references

Massive evaluation and analysis of Poincar\'e recurrences on grids of initial data: a tool to map chaotic diffusion

T0 review · 4 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 A grid of first-return times, not Lyapunov exponents, can chart where chaotic diffusion is fast and slow across a Hamiltonian phase space.

desk verdict A cheap, simple chaos/stability indicator that matches Lyapunov charts, but the advertised diffusion-timescale capability is unsupported and needs either validation or a softer claim. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09683 v1 pith:2T4KY5PC submitted 2019-08-26 nlin.CD astro-ph.EPastro-ph.IM

Ivan I. Shevchenko , Guillaume Rollin , Alexander V. Melnikov , José Lages This is my paper · ORCID
classification nlin.CDastro-ph.EPastro-ph.IM PACS 02.60.-x05.45.-a05.45.Pq45.50.Pk95.10.Ce95.10.Fh
keywords PoincarérecurrenceschaoticdiffusionHamiltoniansystemsstabilitychartsLyapunovexponentsrestrictedthree-bodyproblemnumericalmethodstimescales
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 proposes the Poincaré recurrence method (PRM): on a fine grid of initial conditions, integrate each orbit until it first returns to a small $\varepsilon$-neighbourhood of its starting point and record the return time. Across two very different Hamiltonian regimes, bounded (a two-degree-of-freedom potential) and unbounded (a planar restricted three-body problem), the resulting log-recurrence-time charts reproduce the same regular-versus-chaotic structure as finite-time Lyapunov charts. The added payoff is that, through the approximate relation $\tau\sim(\Delta y)^2/D_y$, the same charts can be read as maps of local chaotic diffusion timescales, something standard chaos indicators do not provide. A sympathetic reader would take this as a practical new tool for global stability analysis that is simpler than and complementary to Lyapunov-based methods.

What carries the argument

The engine is a per-node return-time measurement: for each initial condition, fix a neighbourhood of radius $\varepsilon$ (a sphere or box), integrate the equations of motion, and record the first time $T_r$ the orbit re-enters that neighbourhood; painting $T_r$ over the grid produces the chart. The theoretical bridge from return times to diffusion is the approximate identity $\tau\sim(\Delta y)^2/D_y$ between mean recurrence time, a characteristic distance in the slow variable, and the local diffusion coefficient $D_y$. The paper also uses the integral distribution $F(T_r)\propto T_r^{-\alpha}$ with $\alpha\approx 3/2$–$1.6$ to connect recurrence statistics to the long-time algebraically decaying component caused by sticky chaotic motion; the numerical integrations are carried out with an adaptive high-order Runge–Kutta integrator, supplemented by a regularization scheme for close encounters in the three-body case.

What would settle it

Compute, for a Hamiltonian with a known stochastic layer, both the PRM-derived local diffusion coefficient $D_y=(\Delta y)^2/\tau$ at a grid of points and an independent direct estimate of diffusion from the growth of the variance of the slow action with time; if the two disagree systematically across the chaotic layer, the diffusion-chart interpretation of PRM fails while its chaos-detection value remains.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the global chart of massively computed first-return times is itself a global chart of local diffusion times: where the return time is short, chaotic diffusion is fast, and where it is long, diffusion is slow. The claim is backed by two demonstrations. In the bounded case, a $500\times500$ grid of return times in the section plane reproduces the known island-and-stochastic-layer structure of the two-degree-of-freedom Hamiltonian at $E=0.1$, in close agreement with a parallel Lyapunov-time chart. In the unbounded case, a $201\times201$ grid of first-return times in the pericentric-distance–eccentricity plane of the restricted three-body problem reproduces the Lyapunov chart including the fractal resonant 'teeth' at the order/chaos boundary. The paper also shows that the integral distribution of return times splits into an exponential part and an algebraic tail with exponent near $3/2$, connecting the method to established recurrence-statistics theory.

Load-bearing premise

The argument's load-bearing premise is that the approximate relation $\tau\sim(\Delta y)^2/D_y$ between mean recurrence time and diffusion coefficient, borrowed from the study of the standard map, holds locally for the Hamiltonian system being charted; the paper does not verify this relation independently.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the method holds, any Hamiltonian system whose equations of motion can be integrated can receive a global diffusion map at roughly the same computational effort as a Lyapunov chart.
  • The recurrence-time chart reproduces the regular/chaotic boundaries that Lyapunov charts show, so PRM can serve as a direct replacement for LE-based stability charts in bounded and non-bounded systems.
  • Because the recurrence distribution has an algebraic tail with nearly universal exponent, recurrence charts of modest integration time remain stable indicators of chaos even when sticky regions contribute.
  • Running LE and PRM in parallel on long timescales opens a route to massive statistical studies of Lyapunov-time versus recurrence-time correlations, including escape-related power laws in systems with unbounded phase space.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the relation $\tau\sim(\Delta y)^2/D_y$ suggests PRM charts could be made anisotropic by measuring returns along separate coordinate directions, which would recover directional diffusion coefficients instead of a scalar; the paper does not do this.
  • Editorial inference: because the method needs no variational equations, it may transfer directly to stochastic or dissipative systems where recurrence can be defined without a conserved Hamiltonian; the paper explicitly leaves dissipative systems to future work.
  • Editorial inference: the empirical recipe for choosing $\varepsilon$ (lower it until the chart is noiseless, or match resolution) could be automated into an adaptive-resolution scheme that scans phase space at multiple scales, something the paper does not attempt.
  • Editorial inference: a cheap PRM pre-filter could be used to decide where to spend expensive Lyapunov or FLI computations in high-dimensional systems, concentrating variational integration on the chaotic regions that PRM flags.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the Poincaré recurrence method (PRM), a numerical tool that computes first recurrence times to small neighborhoods of initial conditions on massive grids, and applies it to two Hamiltonian systems: the bounded Hénon–Heiles system and the non-bounded planar restricted three-body problem. The authors compare PRM charts with Lyapunov exponent (LE) charts and report close structural agreement. The central claimed novelty is that PRM, unlike LE, FLI, MEGNO, or FA, can construct charts of local diffusion timescales via the approximate relation τ ∼ (Δy)^2/D_y (Eq. 5). The paper also provides implementation details and links to Fortran codes.

Significance. If the diffusion-mapping claim were established, PRM would be a valuable addition to the toolbox of global chaos diagnostics, especially because the method is algorithmically simple, computationally parallelizable, and the authors provide openly accessible code. The visual agreement between PRM and LE charts in Figs. 1 and 3 is credible and supports PRM as a chaos/stability indicator at zero fitted-parameter cost. However, the paper's advertised advantage over existing methods rests entirely on Eq. (5), and the manuscript does not validate this relation against any direct diffusion measurement. The significance of the contribution therefore depends on whether that validation can be supplied or whether the claims are appropriately weakened; as it stands, the paper establishes a useful chaos indicator but not the claimed diffusion-timescale mapping.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, Eq. (5)] The central claim that PRM charts diffusion rates rests on the relation τ ∼ (Δy)^2/D_y, which is quoted from Ref. [38] but neither derived nor validated in this paper. No independent computation of D_y is performed, and the quantity Δy is never identified for either application. For the bounded Hénon–Heiles case, Kac's lemma gives a mean first-return time to an ε-neighborhood that scales as V/ε^n for an ergodic chaotic component, with no dependence on a diffusion coefficient; the observed recurrence statistics could therefore reflect volumetric recurrence geometry rather than diffusive transport. To support the diffusion-timescale interpretation, the authors should either compare PRM-derived local diffusion times with directly measured diffusion rates (e.g., from ensembles of trajectories spreading in action space) or identify Δy explicitly and show that Eq. (5) reproduces known diffusion coefficients.
  2. [Section 2.2, Fig. 1] The PRM charts for the Hénon–Heiles system assign the color red to trajectories with Tr > 10^5, which equals the integration time Tint; for the most chaotic regions, no recurrence is observed within the integration interval, so the chart does not provide a numerical recurrence time for those regions. This means the claimed diffusion timescale is undefined precisely in the strongly chaotic domains where diffusion is most relevant, and the red regions merely indicate 'no recurrence within Tint', analogous to a truncated-time chaos indicator. The paper should state this limitation and, if diffusion timescales are the goal, demonstrate that the integration time is long enough to resolve recurrences in the chaotic regions or discuss how the upper-bound values should be interpreted.
  3. [Section 2.4 and Section 3] For the restricted three-body problem, the phase space is non-bounded and particles can escape before experiencing diffusive transport; a recurrence to the initial box can also occur early, before the trajectory has spread appreciably. Equation (5) assumes normal diffusion across a characteristic scale Δy, and this assumption is not examined for the escape-dominated dynamics of the circumbinary problem. The paper should either justify the applicability of Eq. (5) to the non-bounded case or restrict the diffusion-timescale claim to bounded systems, with a separate indicator (e.g., escape time) for unbounded ones.
  4. [Section 4, Discussion] The Discussion states that 'global charts of the massively computed Poincaré recurrence times provide direct global representations of spatial distributions of the local diffusion times' and that inverse recurrence times provide 'massive measures of the local diffusion rates.' This is stronger than what the preceding sections establish, because the connection between recurrence times and diffusion rates is only the approximate Eq. (5) and is not tested on either system. The overstatement should be corrected unless direct diffusion validation is added.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.2, Fig. 2] The fitting of the integral recurrence distribution is reported with a correlation coefficient R = 0.99, but no uncertainty on the fitted exponents α and β is given; since the fits are used to characterize the distributions, confidence intervals would be helpful.
  2. [Section 2.4, Eq. (4)] The recurrence condition (4) uses the same box half-width ΔX = ΔY = ΔPX = ΔPY = 10^-3, but the text does not explain how this choice relates to the natural scales of position and momentum in the restricted three-body problem; a sentence justifying the common half-width would improve reproducibility.
  3. [Figure 4] The caption says 'relationships between the Lyapunov and Poincaré recurrence times', but the text states that the plots show no correlation; the wording should be consistent, for example 'correlation plots' or 'scatter plots'.
  4. [Throughout] The phrase 'massive measures of the local diffusion rates' in Section 4 is informal; 'massively computed' is used elsewhere, and the paper would read better if the terminology were unified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: PRM charts are computed independently of LE data, and the diffusion-timescale bridge is an external cited scaling relation rather than a fitted or self-referential construct.

full rationale

The paper's central comparison is between two independently computed quantities on the same grid: Poincaré first-recurrence times T_r and finite-time Lyapunov times T_L. No parameter is fitted from one quantity to reproduce the other; in fact, the paper explicitly reports that the T_L–T_r correlation plots 'show no correlation' and states that PR charts 'cannot be reproduced by any transformation of LE data.' The claimed diffusion-rate capability rests on Eq. (5), τ ∼ (Δy)^2/D_y, attributed to Chirikov and Shepelyansky [38]. That is an external, independently stated relation; the paper does not define D_y through its own computed τ in a way that would make the chart a tautology. The relation may be insufficiently validated for the systems at hand, which is a correctness risk rather than a circularity, but it is not an input fitted to the target output. Self-citations appear mainly as background or peripheral references (e.g., [3], [4], [52], [60], [62]) and are not used to force the central claim. Therefore there is no self-definitional, fitted-prediction, or self-citation-chain circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The PRM itself introduces no new physical or mathematical entities. The method's parameters (ε, Tint) are chosen empirically, and the diffusion-timescale output depends on a cited approximate relation rather than a new derivation.

free parameters (3)
  • ε (recurrence sphere radius, Hénon-Heiles) = 10^{-3}
    Chosen by trial: 10^{-2} yields too-short recurrences, 10^{-4} yields recurrences for only 1% of trajectories at t=10^5.
  • ε (recurrence box half-width, three-body problem) = 10^{-3}
    Set as ΔX=ΔY=ΔP_X=ΔP_Y=10^{-3} in Eq. (4).
  • Integration time Tint = 10^5 (Hénon-Heiles), 10^6 (three-body)
    Set so that most first recurrences are fixed on the grid; determined empirically.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Poincaré recurrence theorem for volume-preserving maps on bounded domains
    Invoked in Section 2.1 to justify that recurrences exist for the bounded Hénon-Heiles phase space.
  • domain assumption Approximate relation τ ~ (Δy)^2/D_y between mean recurrence time and diffusion rate
    Borrowed from [38] in Section 3; this is the basis for the claimed diffusion-timescale capability and is not validated in this paper.
  • domain assumption Finite-time local Lyapunov exponents, separated by the modal distribution method, identify chaotic and regular orbits
    Used in Section 2.2 via the method of [3] to interpret the LE charts compared with PRM.
  • domain assumption Approximate ergodicity of the chaotic component
    Section 4 uses this to estimate the minimum computation time as ~ V_s/ε^n.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Massive evaluation and analysis of Poincar\'e recurrences on grids of initial data: a tool to map chaotic diffusion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2T4KY5PC

@misc{pith2026190809683,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Massive evaluation and analysis of Poincar\'e recurrences on grids of initial data: a tool to map chaotic diffusion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2T4KY5PC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09683}
}
read the original abstract

We present a novel numerical method aimed to characterize global behaviour, in particular chaotic diffusion, in dynamical systems. It is based on an analysis of the Poincar\'e recurrence statistics on massive grids of initial data or values of parameters. We concentrate on Hamiltonian systems, featuring the method separately for the cases of bounded and non-bounded phase spaces. The embodiments of the method in each of the cases are specific. We compare the performances of the proposed Poincar\'e recurrence method (PRM) and the custom Lyapunov exponent (LE) methods and show that they expose the global dynamics almost identically. However, a major advantage of the new method over the known global numerical tools, such as LE, FLI, MEGNO, and FA, is that it allows one to construct, in some approximation, charts of local diffusion timescales. Moreover, it is algorithmically simple and straightforward to apply.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.09683 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) The Poincar´e recurrence chart for the H´enon–He [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The integral distribution of the Poincar´e recurrence tim [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) The Poincar´e recurrence chart in the ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The relationships between the Lyapunov and Poincar´e re [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages

  1. [38]

    Chirikov, D.L

    B.V. Chirikov, D.L. Shepelyansky, Statistics of Poincar´ e recurrences and the structure of the stochastic layer of the non-linear resonanc e. PPPL- TRANS-133 (1981). INP Preprint 81–69. Institute of Nuclear Phy sics, Novosibirsk, 1981

    work page 1981

  2. [1]

    Morbidelli, Modern Celestial Mechanics

    A. Morbidelli, Modern Celestial Mechanics. Aspects of Solar Syste m Dy- namics. Taylor and Francis, Padstow, UK, 2002

    work page 2002

  3. [2]

    Maffione, L.A

    N.P. Maffione, L.A. Darriba, P.M. Cincotta, C.M. Giordano, Mon. Not . R. Astron. Soc. 429 (2013) 2700–2717

    work page 2013

  4. [3]

    Melnikov, I.I

    A.V. Melnikov, I.I. Shevchenko, Solar System Research 32 (1998 ) 480– 490

    work page 1998

  5. [4]

    Shevchenko, A.V

    I.I. Shevchenko, A.V. Melnikov, JETP Lett. 77 (2003) 642–646

    work page 2003

  6. [5]

    Popova, I.I

    E.A. Popova, I.I. Shevchenko, Astrophys. J. 769 (2013) 152. 18

    work page 2013

  7. [6]

    Lages, I.I

    J. Lages, I.I. Shevchenko, D.L. Shepelyansky, Astron. J. (20 17) 153–272

    work page

  8. [7]

    Lages, I.I

    J. Lages, I.I. Shevchenko, G. Rollin, Icarus 307 (2018) 391–39 9

    work page 2018

Show all 64 references
  1. [8]

    Pilat-Lohinger, R

    E. Pilat-Lohinger, R. Dvorak, Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron. 82 (2 002) 143– 153

  2. [9]

    Cincotta, C

    P.M. Cincotta, C. Sim´ o, Astron. Astrophys. Suppl. 147 (2000) 205–228

    2000

  3. [10]

    Cincotta, C.M

    P.M. Cincotta, C.M. Giordano, C. Sim´ o, Physica D 182 (2003) 151 –178

    2003

  4. [11]

    Correia, S

    A.C.M. Correia, S. Udry, M. Mayor, W. Benz, J.-L. Bertaux, F. B ouchy, J. Laskar, C. Lovis, C. Mordasini, F. Pepe, D. Queloz, Astron. Astrophys. 496 (2009) 521–526

    2009

  5. [12]

    Laskar, A.C.M

    J. Laskar, A.C.M. Correia, Astron. Astrophys. 496 (2009) L5 –L8

    2009

  6. [13]

    Oseledec, Transactions of the Moscow Mathematical Socie ty 19 (1968) 197–231

    V.I. Oseledec, Transactions of the Moscow Mathematical Socie ty 19 (1968) 197–231

    1968

  7. [14]

    Benettin, L

    G. Benettin, L. Galgani, J.-M. Strelcyn, Phys. Rev. A. 14 (1976 ) 2338– 2345

    1976

  8. [15]

    Benettin, L

    G. Benettin, L. Galgani, A. Giorgilli, J.-M. Strelcyn, Meccanica 15 ( 1980) 9–30

    1980

  9. [16]

    von Bremen, F.E

    H.F. von Bremen, F.E. Udwadia, W. Proskurowski, Physica D 101 ( 1997) 1–16

    1997

  10. [17]

    Tancredi, A

    G. Tancredi, A. S´ anchez, F. Roig, Astron. J 121 (2001) 1171 –1179

    2001

  11. [18]

    Kuznetsov, G.A

    N.V. Kuznetsov, G.A. Leonov, T.N. Mokaev, A. Prasad, M.D. Shr imali, Nonlinear Dynamics 92 (2018) 267–285

    2018

  12. [19]

    Shevchenko, V.V

    I.I. Shevchenko, V.V. Kouprianov, Astron. Astrophys. 394 ( 2002) 663– 674

    2002

  13. [20]

    Froeschl´ e, E

    C. Froeschl´ e, E. Lega, R. Gonczi, Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astro n. 67 (1997) 41–62

    1997

  14. [21]

    D. D. Carpintero, N. Maffione, L. Darriba, Astron. and Comp. 5 (2014) 19–27. 19

    2014

  15. [22]

    Laskar, Icarus 88 (1990) 266–291

    J. Laskar, Icarus 88 (1990) 266–291

    1990

  16. [23]

    Laskar, Physica D 67 (1993) 257–281

    J. Laskar, Physica D 67 (1993) 257–281

    1993

  17. [24]

    Laskar, arXiv: math/0305364 (2003)

    J. Laskar, arXiv: math/0305364 (2003)

    2003 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Valluri, V

    M. Valluri, V. P. Debattista, T. Quinn, B. Moore, Mon. Not. R. As tron. Soc. 403 (2010) 525–544

    2010

  19. [26]

    Valluri, V

    M. Valluri, V. P. Debattista, T. R. Quinn, R. Roˇ skar, J. Wadsley , Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 419 (2012) 1951–1969

    2012

  20. [27]

    Dvorak, E

    R. Dvorak, E. Pilat-Lohinger, R. Schwarz, F. Freistetter, As tron. Astro- phys. 426 (2004) L37–L40

    2004

  21. [28]

    Schwarz, N

    R. Schwarz, N. Haghighipour, S. Eggl, E. Pilat-Lohinger, B. Fun k, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 414 (2011) 2763–2770

    2011

  22. [29]

    Holman, P.A

    M.J. Holman, P.A. Wiegert, Astron. J. 117 (1999) 621–628

    1999

  23. [30]

    Pilat-Lohinger, B

    E. Pilat-Lohinger, B. Funk, R. Dvorak, Astron. Astrophys. 4 00 (2003) 1085–1094

    2003

  24. [31]

    Panichi, K

    F. Panichi, K. Go´ zdziewski, G. Turchetti, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 468 (2017) 469–491

    2017

  25. [32]

    Poincar´ e, Acta Math

    H. Poincar´ e, Acta Math. 13 (1890) 1–270

  26. [33]

    Arnold, Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics

    V.I. Arnold, Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics. Spr inger- Verlag, New York, 1989

    1989

  27. [34]

    Marwan, M.C

    N. Marwan, M.C. Romano, M. Thiel, J. Kurths, Physics Reports 4 38 (2007) 237–329

    2007

  28. [35]

    Marwan, European Physical Journal Special Topics 164 (20 08) 3–12

    N. Marwan, European Physical Journal Special Topics 164 (20 08) 3–12

  29. [36]

    Asghari, C

    N. Asghari, C. Broeg, L. Carone, et al., Astron. Astrophys. 4 26 (2004) 353–365

    2004

  30. [37]

    Manchein, M.W

    C. Manchein, M.W. Beims, Phys. Lett. A 377 (2013) 789–793. 20

    2013

  31. [39]

    Chirikov, D.L

    B.V. Chirikov, D.L. Shepelyansky, Physica D 13 (1984) 395–400

    1984

  32. [40]

    Shepelyansky, Phys

    D.L. Shepelyansky, Phys. Rev. E 82 (2010) 055202(R)

    2010

  33. [41]

    Chirikov, Patterns in chaos, INP Preprint 90–109, Institu te of Nu- clear Physics, Novosibirsk, 1990

    B.V. Chirikov, Patterns in chaos, INP Preprint 90–109, Institu te of Nu- clear Physics, Novosibirsk, 1990

    1990

  34. [42]

    Chirikov, Poincar´ e recurrences in microtron and the globa l critical structure, INP Preprint 99–7, Institute of Nuclear Physics, Nov osibirsk, 1999; eprint arXiv:nlin/0006013

    B.V. Chirikov, Poincar´ e recurrences in microtron and the globa l critical structure, INP Preprint 99–7, Institute of Nuclear Physics, Nov osibirsk, 1999; eprint arXiv:nlin/0006013

    1999 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Cristadoro, R

    G. Cristadoro, R. Ketzmerick, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100 (2008) 1 84101

    2008

  36. [44]

    Ngamga, D.V

    E.J. Ngamga, D.V. Senthilkumar, A. Prasad, P. Parmananda, N. Marwan, J. Kurths, Phys. Rev. E 85 (2012) 026217

    2012

  37. [45]

    H´ enon, C

    M. H´ enon, C. Heiles, Astron. J. 69 (1964) 73–79

    1964

  38. [46]

    Hairer, S.P

    E. Hairer, S.P. Nørsett, G. Wanner, Solving Ordinary Differentia l Equa- tions I. Nonstiff Problems. Springer–Verlag, Berlin, 1993

    1993

  39. [47]

    Murray, S

    C.D. Murray, S. Dermott, Solar System Dynamics. Cambridge Un iver- sity Press, Cambridge, 1999

    1999

  40. [48]

    Celletti, Stability and chaos in celestial mechanics, Springer–V erlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2010

    A. Celletti, Stability and chaos in celestial mechanics, Springer–V erlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2010

    2010

  41. [49]

    Celletti, Singularities in gravitational systems: Applications to chaotic transport in the Solar system, Springer–Verlag, Berlin, He idel- berg, 2002

    A. Celletti, Singularities in gravitational systems: Applications to chaotic transport in the Solar system, Springer–Verlag, Berlin, He idel- berg, 2002

    2002

  42. [50]

    Rollin, J

    G. Rollin, J. Lages, D.L. Shepelyansky, New Astronomy 47 (2016 ) 97– 104

    2016

  43. [51]

    Chirikov, Phys

    B.V. Chirikov, Phys. Rep. 52 (1979) 263–379

    1979

  44. [52]

    Shevchenko, Physica A 386 (2007) 85–91

    I.I. Shevchenko, Physica A 386 (2007) 85–91. 21

    2007

  45. [53]

    Dynamics, ephemerides and ast rometry of the Solar system,

    I.I. Shevchenko, H. Scholl, in: “Dynamics, ephemerides and ast rometry of the Solar system,” edited by S. Ferraz-Mello, B. Morando, J.-E. A rlot, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 183, 1996

    1996

  46. [54]

    Shevchenko, H

    I.I. Shevchenko, H. Scholl, Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron. 68 (19 97) 163– 175

  47. [55]

    Ruffo, D.L

    S. Ruffo, D.L. Shepelyansky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76 (1996) 3300 –3303

    1996

  48. [56]

    Chirikov, D.L

    B.V. Chirikov, D.L. Shepelyansky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82 (1999) 5 28–531

    1999

  49. [57]

    Greene, J

    J.M. Greene, J. Math. Phys. 20 (1979) 1183–1201

    1979

  50. [58]

    MacKay, Physica D 7 (1983) 283–300

    R.S. MacKay, Physica D 7 (1983) 283–300

    1983

  51. [59]

    Frahm, D.L

    K.M. Frahm, D.L. Shepelyansky, Eur. Phys. J. B 86 (2013) 322

    2013

  52. [60]

    Shevchenko, Phys

    I.I. Shevchenko, Phys. Lett. A 241 (1998) 53–60

    1998

  53. [61]

    Murray, M

    N. Murray, M. Holman, Astron. J. 114 (1997) 1246–1259

    1997

  54. [62]

    Shevchenko, Phys

    I.I. Shevchenko, Phys. Rev. E 81 (2010) 066216-1-11

    2010

  55. [63]

    Morbidelli, C

    A. Morbidelli, C. Froeschl´ e, Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron. 63 (1 996) 227– 239

  56. [64]

    pericentric dis- tance – eccentricity

    M.S. Baptista, E.J. Ngamga, P.R.F. Pinto, M. Brito, J. Kurths, Ph ys. Lett. A 374 (2010) 1135–1140. 22 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 q2 p2 1 2 3 4 5 log10 Tr -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 1 2 3 4 5 log10 TL q2 p2 (a) (b) Figure 1: (a) The Poincar´ e...

    2010

Pith tools

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