Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 33 references

Rogue Wave Statistics from a Sparse Coherent Structure Decomposition

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · 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 in moderately to strongly nonlinear random seas, the probability of a rogue wave is governed by the upper tail of a log-normal distribution of sparse soliton-like packet amplitudes, and validates that claim with…

desk verdict A clever empirical claim about sparse soliton-like decompositions, but the missing linear-wave control and parameter re-fitting keep it from being a closed-form prediction. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09584 v1 pith:BEG5XWNB submitted 2026-08-10 nlin.PS physics.data-an

Yuchen He , Amin Chabchoub , Zhan Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification nlin.PSphysics.data-an
keywords roguewavessolitondecompositionmatchingpursuitlog-normaldistributionextremevaluestatisticsnonlinearwaterJONSWAPspectrummodulationalinstability
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 a strongly nonlinear random sea is not a dense jumble of linear waves but can be viewed as a sparse collection of soliton-like wave packets. After extracting those packets from laboratory wave flume data with an iterative matching pursuit algorithm, the packet amplitudes follow a log-normal distribution while phases and arrival times are uniform. The paper argues that once those two facts hold, the probability of an extreme wave is just the upper tail of the packet amplitude distribution, P(>H) ≈ 1 − F_A(H), with no further adjustable parameters. The prediction is checked against three JONSWAP sea states with different steepness and spectral width and agrees with the experimental exceedance probabilities, including in a saturated, strongly nonlinear regime with kurtosis near 4. If true, this gives a physics-based, analytically simple route to rogue wave statistics that does not rely on weak-nonlinearity corrections.

What carries the argument

The engine of the paper is the sparse soliton dictionary produced by iterative matching pursuit. Each element is a sech-shaped envelope soliton template with four parameters: amplitude a_j, continuous shape factor N_j, carrier phase φ_j, and emergence time t_0,j. The algorithm repeatedly finds the most energetic localized packet in the residual, subtracts it, and stops when residual energy is below 5%, yielding roughly one soliton per peak period. The statistics of this dictionary—log-normal amplitudes A = a·N, uniform phases, uniform arrival times—are then fed into the extreme value relation P(>H) = 1 − exp[−ρ(1 − F_A(H))], which, for sparse fields with ρ ≈ 1, collapses to P(>H) ≈ 1 − F_A(H) = 1 − Φ((ln H − μ)/σ). The log-normal cumulative distribution F_A is the piece that converts packet statistics into wave-height statistics.

What would settle it

Run the same matching pursuit with a different soliton template (for example, a Gaussian envelope) or a different stopping criterion on the same flume records; if the extracted amplitudes no longer follow a log-normal distribution, or if the resulting P(>H) ≈ 1 − F_A(H) prediction departs from the measured exceedance curve, then the rogue-wave tail is an artifact of the chosen basis rather than a property of the wave field.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that extreme wave heights in moderately to strongly nonlinear unidirectional seas are governed by the statistics of sparse coherent structures, not by a dense superposition of linear modes. Representing the measured complex envelope as a sum of sech-shaped soliton templates and extracting the parameters with an iterative matching pursuit algorithm (residual energy below 5%), the authors find that the effective soliton amplitudes A = a·N follow a log-normal distribution, while phases and peak emergence times are uniformly distributed. Combining this log-normal law with the observed sparsity (roughly one soliton per wave period, ρ ≈ 1) reduces the extreme value formula to a closed form: the exceedance probability is P(>H) ≈ 1 − Φ((ln H − μ)/σ), where μ and σ come from the packet amplitudes alone. This formula contains no adjustable parameters once the log-normal parameters are fixed, and it reproduces the experimental tails across three independent sea states, comparing favorably with Rayleigh, Tayfun, and NLS-based predictions in the ranges tested. The paper proposes that heavy tails are therefore an intrinsic consequence of the amplitude distribution of sparse coherent structures.

Load-bearing premise

The decomposition of the wave field into soliton-like packets is not unique, so the log-normal amplitude law, the uniform phases, and the resulting tail prediction all describe the particular dictionary produced by this algorithm rather than an independently defined physical ensemble.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Rogue wave probability in a given sea state reduces to estimating two numbers, μ and σ, from the distribution of coherent structure amplitudes.
  • Heavy tails persist even when bulk spectral parameters are identical to Gaussian fields, because the log-normal amplitude law is the mechanism.
  • Reduced steepness and broader bandwidth enter the theory as one-parameter changes in μ or σ, giving physical interpretation to the two log-normal parameters.
  • The framework complements weakly nonlinear kurtosis corrections and may apply to any nonlinear dispersive system with sparse coherent structures, such as optics, cold gases, and plasmas.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the log-normal amplitude law is robust, wave-height hazard forecasts could be made from spectral shape alone by calibrating μ and σ against sea-state parameters, without running the full decomposition each time; this is an extension beyond the paper's stated results.
  • The non-uniqueness of the decomposition implies a testable robustness check: varying the template shape or the 5% stopping threshold should leave the tail prediction statistically unchanged, and if it does not, the log-normal tail is an artifact of the fitting procedure rather than a physical mechanism.
  • The cascade analogy suggests that the log-normal amplitudes may be a signature of multiplicative energy transfer through the modulational instability; a direct test would be to track individual packets between wave gauges and verify that their amplitudes evolve multiplicatively.
  • Directional seas and wave-breaking energy loss are natural next regimes; the paper already notes that breaking suppresses the tail, so a combined model that includes breaking should recover the observed deviation at H/H_s greater than about 2.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a sparse coherent structure decomposition of unidirectional laboratory wave fields: an iterative matching pursuit algorithm represents the complex envelope as a sum of sech-shaped soliton-like packets with effective amplitudes A = aN, phases φ, and arrival times t0. From extracted ensembles, the authors report log-normal A, uniform phases, and uniform arrival times, and derive an extreme-value formula P(>H) ≈ 1 − F_A(H) in the sparse limit ρ ≈ 1. The formula is validated against three JONSWAP sea states and compared with Rayleigh, Tayfun, and NLS simulation predictions.

Significance. If the result holds, the paper provides an analytically simple, closed-form estimate of rogue-wave exceedance probabilities from the tail of a log-normal coherent-structure amplitude distribution, without weakly nonlinear corrections. Strengths include the use of controlled flume experiments across multiple sea states, a quantified sparsity count (862 solitons in a 1000-peak-period record), and the inclusion of NLS simulation benchmarks. However, the central physical interpretation as a nonlinear cascade effect, the quantitative mapping from soliton amplitude to wave height, and the parameter-free character of the prediction all require scrutiny before the claim of a direct physics-based link is fully established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (6) and Figure 3] The effective soliton amplitude A = aN is the envelope amplitude of the packet in Eq. (1), whose surface elevation η(t) = Re(ψ(t)e^{-iω_p t}) has a crest-to-trough height of approximately 2A for a narrowband soliton. Yet Eq. (6) evaluates F_A(H) directly at the wave height H plotted in Figure 3 against the Rayleigh and Tayfun wave-height distributions. If H is the crest-to-trough height, the correct argument should be H/2; if H is the crest height, the benchmark Rayleigh and Tayfun curves in Figure 3 would be wrong by several orders of magnitude. The authors must state explicitly which definition of H is used and correct the argument of F_A accordingly, or justify why A and H are the same quantity.
  2. [Page 3, paragraph on log-normal statistics] The assertion that 'these statistical features are entirely absent under linear wave conditions' is load-bearing because the log-normal law of A is the foundation of the prediction, and the matching pursuit is a nonlinear fitting procedure that could imprint such statistics on any input signal. No linear-wave control, either from experiments or from synthetically generated Gaussian sea states with the same JONSWAP spectrum, is provided in the paper or the Supplemental Material. The authors should either supply this control or remove and qualify the claim; without it, the physical mechanism (multiplicative cascade from modulational instability) remains unverified and the log-normal tail could be an artifact of the greedy decomposition algorithm.
  3. [Eqs. (4) and (5)] The transition from Eq. (4), the exceedance probability of the maximum over an observation time T, to Eq. (5), interpreted as the exceedance probability of an individual randomly selected wave crest, is compressed. In the sparse limit with independent events, Pmax(>H) ≈ ρ P(>H) for small P(>H); setting ρ ≈ 1 equates the two only if the number of independent events equals the number of waves in the record, which is exactly the sparsity assumption being made. This reasoning should be stated explicitly and tested, and the validity of Eq. (5) should be restricted to the range where 1 − F_A(H) is small, as already noted in the text but not reflected in the figures.
  4. [Figure 3(b)–(d)] The per-sea-state adjustment of μ and σ, together with the systematic overprediction for H/H_s > 2 in panel (b), limits the predictive claim. The overprediction occurs in the rogue-wave range and is attributed to breaking, but no quantitative breaking correction is provided. Furthermore, panels (c) and (d) use μ and σ that are re-estimated or adjusted for each sea state, so the framework is not parameter-free but a two-parameter statistical fit per condition. The independent content is the log-normal form of A and the mapping A→H; this should be acknowledged, and the applicable range of the theory should be clearly stated.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Text near Eq. (4)] The notation ρ = λT is introduced without defining λ and T in the main text; specify how these are computed from the experimental records and how the observed value ρ ≈ 1 is obtained.
  2. [Eq. (1)] The continuous shape factor N_j is used in Eq. (1) before it is defined; introduce it explicitly in the main text rather than only in the Supplemental Material.
  3. [Experimental methods] The phrase 'Hilbert-Huang transform' is unusual for envelope extraction; clarify whether the standard analytic signal via the Hilbert transform is meant, or a specific empirical-mode-decomposition procedure, and cite the method.
  4. [Figure 3] The experimental exceedance probabilities are shown without error bars. Given the finite record length, add bootstrap or other uncertainty estimates so that the reported agreement can be assessed quantitatively.
  5. [Eq. (5) and Figure 2(d)] In the figure captions, indicate the range of validity of the approximation in Eq. (5) (i.e., where 1 − F_A(H) is small), so that the curve is not read as an exact expression for all H.
  6. [General] There are a few typographical issues, such as 'JONSW AP' in the experimental section and the repeated use of 'Hilbert-Huang transform' with inconsistent capitalization; these should be corrected.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The exceedance 'prediction' is the survival function of a log-normal distribution fitted to soliton amplitudes extracted from the very same wave field, so the agreement is in-sample by construction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Eqs. (5)-(6), Sec. 'Predictive theoretical framework', Fig. 3]
    "P(> H)≈1−F A(H),(5) ... FA(H) = Φ( ln H−µ σ ) (6) ... Remarkably, this formula contains no adjustable parameters once µ and σ are estimated from the data, yielding a direct and physics-based prediction of extreme events."

    The µ and σ entering Eq. (6) are estimated from the effective soliton amplitudes A=a·N extracted by the matching-pursuit algorithm from the same experimental wave field whose exceedance P(>H) is then compared. The predicted curve is therefore the survival function of a log-normal distribution fitted to the validation data; the agreement is in-sample by construction. The text further shows per-sea-state refitting ('slightly decrease... from µ=−4.4 to −4.5', 'σ=0.48'), so the 'prediction' is a fit, not an out-of-sample forecast.

  2. self definitional [Text after Eq. (5), Sec. 'Predictive theoretical framework']
    "Under this condition, the exceedance probability P(> H) = 1−F A(H) is interpreted as the probability that a randomly selected wave crest exceeds a given height H."

    From Eq. (1), each template has peak value N_j a_j (sech(0)=1), so A=a·N is by definition the crest amplitude contributed by a soliton. Equation (5) then equates the wave-height exceedance to the survival of these template peak amplitudes. Under the sparsity ansatz (one soliton per crest), this is a restatement of the definition of A as a wave crest height; the extreme-value formula adds the Poisson assumption but no independent content connecting A to H.

1 more flagged steps
  1. other [Fig. 1 paragraph and Supplemental Material, 'Iterative Matching Pursuit Algorithm']
    "Although such a nonlinear soliton decomposition is inherently non-unique, our iterative algorithm yields a consistent and physically robust representation."

    The log-normal F_A that drives Eq. (5) is produced by a specific non-unique greedy algorithm (adaptive grid search over a,N,ϕ, stopping at 5% residual energy). Because the decomposition is admitted to be non-unique, the fitted amplitude distribution is a property of the chosen extraction rule, not a unique physical observable. Using this algorithm-dependent distribution to 'predict' the tail of the same wave field does not independently confirm the proposed MI-cascade mechanism.

full rationale

The paper's sparse-soliton decomposition is a real experimental/data-analysis contribution, and its equations (4)-(6) embed a standard extreme-value/Poisson argument. However, the central claim that rogue-wave exceedance is 'predicted' from the log-normal amplitude distribution is partly circular: the log-normal parameters µ and σ are fitted to soliton amplitudes A=a·N extracted from the same wave field whose height tail is then compared with 1−F_A(H). Because A is defined as the peak amplitude of a sech template (sech(0)=1), Eq. (5) largely restates the sparsity ansatz that each crest height equals a soliton amplitude. The paper does not fix parameters from one sea state and predict another without refitting; instead it reports per-sea-state adjustments ('µ=−4.5', 'σ=0.48'), which makes the 'validation' in-sample. The synthetic-field comparison in Fig. 2(c)-(d) tests internal consistency of the model, not its predictive power against independent data. The statement that the log-normal features are 'entirely absent under linear wave conditions' is asserted without a shown control; this is an evidentiary gap rather than circularity. Self-citations (refs. 25, 28, 30, 33) are used for setup, breaking, and context and are not load-bearing for the statistical claim, so they do not raise the score further. Overall, the derivation chain contains a fitted input renamed as a prediction, but it is not fully tautological because the sparse-limit mapping and the extreme-value formula carry some independent content; hence a moderate circularity score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on the fitted log-normal distribution of extracted packet amplitudes, the assumption that the matching-pursuit dictionary is physically meaningful, the mapping between packet amplitude and wave height, and the reduction of the Poisson maxima formula to a marginal exceedance probability via rho approximately 1.

free parameters (4)
  • mu (log-normal scale parameter) = -4.4 (baseline epsilon=0.08,gamma=6); -4.5 (epsilon=0.06,gamma=6); -4.4 (epsilon=0.10,gamma=3.3)
    Mean of ln A estimated from extracted soliton amplitudes; changes by sea state and directly sets the tail location in Eq.6.
  • sigma (log-normal shape parameter) = 0.5 (epsilon=0.08,gamma=6 and epsilon=0.06,gamma=6); 0.48 (epsilon=0.10,gamma=3.3)
    Standard deviation of ln A; fitted per sea state; controls the tail slope in Eq.6.
  • Continuous shape factor N_j = Not fixed; extracted per soliton
    Relaxes the integer-order soliton constraint; since N can absorb arbitrary envelope shapes, the sparsity and log-normality of A = a*N are partly imposed by the fitting flexibility.
  • Residual energy threshold (5 percent) = 0.05
    Arbitrary stopping rule for matching pursuit; affects the number and amplitudes of extracted solitons and therefore the fitted log-normal statistics.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper The matching pursuit decomposition with sech templates converges to a physically meaningful sparse representation; non-uniqueness does not affect the statistics.
    Invoked after Fig.1, where the paper states the decomposition is inherently non-unique yet calls it robust. All subsequent statistics come from this dictionary.
  • domain assumption Effective soliton amplitude A = a*N can be identified with wave height H in the exceedance formula.
    Eqs.5-6 use F_A(H) without stating the units or mapping between A and H; the log-normal fit uses mu approximately -4.4 with H in metres, implying A is implicitly scaled to H.
  • domain assumption Soliton events are temporally sparse and independent with rho approximately 1, so Eq.4 reduces to Eq.5.
    The approximation exp[-(1-F)] approximately 1-(1-F) and reinterpretation of Pmax as marginal P(>H) are made after Eq.5; this is only valid if exactly one independent structure contributes per wave period.
  • domain assumption The bandpass plus Hilbert-Huang transform yields the true complex envelope, so phase and arrival-time distributions are not artifacts of envelope extraction.
    The envelope extraction step is described briefly in the main text and Supplemental Material; the statistical claims depend on this representation.
invented entities (2)
  • Sparse soliton-like coherent structures (sech templates with continuous order N_j)
    purpose: Basis for decomposing the wave envelope; their amplitude tail is used to predict rogue wave probability.
    The paper itself cautions these templates do not necessarily propagate as persistent solitons and that alternative localized templates may be considered; they are a fitting dictionary, not independently observed entities.
  • Continuous shape factor N_j
    purpose: Relaxes the integer-order NLS soliton constraint to fit arbitrary localized packets.
    It is an adjustable fitting degree of freedom, not a conserved or observable physical quantity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Rogue Wave Statistics from a Sparse Coherent Structure Decomposition." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BEG5XWNB

@misc{pith2026260809584,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Rogue Wave Statistics from a Sparse Coherent Structure Decomposition},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BEG5XWNB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09584}
}
read the original abstract

While conventional rogue wave statistical models rely on linear or weakly nonlinear descriptions of random seas, we demonstrate experimentally that moderately or strongly nonlinear wave fields can be represented by sparse ensembles of coherent soliton-like packets. These packets exhibit log-normal amplitude distributions together with uniformly distributed phases and peak emergence times. This sparse coherent structure framework naturally leads to an extreme value description in which the probability of exceedance is governed by the tail of the coherent-structure amplitude distribution. The prediction is validated against laboratory hydrodynamic experiments across a variety of unidirectional sea states, showing good agreement with the experimental observations and comparing favourably with conventional statistical prediction models while retaining analytical simplicity. Our results provide a direct physics-based link between sparse coherent structures and rogue wave probabilities, with broader implications for nonlinear wave physics in optics, cold gases, and plasmas.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.09584 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Soliton decomposition of a random wave field. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Statistical properties of soliton parameters and JONSWAP ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Predictive theoretical framework for extreme [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Flowchart of the iterative matching pursuit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Three-dimensional scatter plot of extracted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Kharif, E

    C. Kharif, E. Pelinovsky, and A. Slunyaev,Rogue waves in the ocean(Springer Science & Business Media, 2008)

    2008

  2. [2]

    Dysthe, H

    K. Dysthe, H. E. Krogstad, and P. M¨ uller, Oceanic rogue waves, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech.40, 287 (2008)

    work page 2008

  3. [3]

    J. M. Dudley, G. Genty, A. Mussot, A. Chabchoub, and F. Dias, Rogue waves and analogies in optics and oceanography, Nature Reviews Physics1, 675 (2019)

    2019

  4. [4]

    N. Mori, T. Waseda, and A. Chabchoub,Science and Engineering of Freak Waves(Elsevier, 2023)

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Romero-Ros, G

    A. Romero-Ros, G. C. Katsimiga, S. I. Mistakidis, S. Mossman, G. Biondini, P. Schmelcher, P. Engels, and P. Kevrekidis, Experimental realization of the Peregrine soliton in repulsive two-component Bose-Einstein con- densates, Physical Review Letters132, 033402 (2024)

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Longuet-Higgins, Breaking waves in deep or shallow water, inProc

    M. Longuet-Higgins, Breaking waves in deep or shallow water, inProc. 10th Conf. on Naval Hydrodynamics, Vol. 597 (MIT, 1974) p. 605

    work page 1974

  7. [7]

    Onorato, A

    M. Onorato, A. R. Osborne, M. Serio, and S. Bertone, Freak waves in random oceanic sea states, Physical Re- view Letters86, 5831 (2001)

    work page 2001

  8. [8]

    Mori and P

    N. Mori and P. A. Janssen, On kurtosis and occurrence probability of freak waves, Journal of Physical Oceanog- raphy36, 1471 (2006)

    work page 2006

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    M. S. Longuet-Higgins, The effect of non-linearities on statistical distributions in the theory of sea waves, Jour- nal of Fluid Mechanics17, 459 (1963)

    1963

  2. [10]

    M. A. Tayfun, Narrow-band nonlinear sea waves, Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans85, 1548 (1980)

    1980

  3. [11]

    M. A. Tayfun and F. Fedele, Wave-height distributions and nonlinear effects, Ocean engineering34, 1631 (2007)

    2007

  4. [12]

    Onorato, S

    M. Onorato, S. Residori, U. Bortolozzo, A. Montina, and F. Arecchi, Rogue waves and their generating mecha- nisms in different physical contexts, Physics Reports528, 47 (2013)

    2013

  5. [13]

    Toffoli, E

    A. Toffoli, E. Bitner-Gregersen, A. R. Osborne, M. Se- rio, J. Monbaliu, and M. Onorato, Extreme waves in ran- dom crossing seas: Laboratory experiments and numeri- cal simulations, Geophysical Research Letters38(2011)

    2011

  6. [14]

    Slunyaev, E

    A. Slunyaev, E. Pelinovsky, A. Sergeeva, A. Chabchoub, N. Hoffmann, M. Onorato, and N. Akhmediev, Super- rogue waves in simulations based on weakly nonlinear and fully nonlinear hydrodynamic equations, Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics88, 012909 (2013)

    2013

  7. [15]

    Osborne,Nonlinear Ocean Waves and the Inverse Scattering Transform(Academic Press, 2010)

    A. Osborne,Nonlinear Ocean Waves and the Inverse Scattering Transform(Academic Press, 2010)

    2010

  8. [16]

    Maestrini, G

    D. Maestrini, G. Dematteis, A. Benetazzo, and M. Ono- rato, Revealing wave-wave resonant interactions in ocean wind waves, Communications Physics (2026)

    2026

  9. [17]

    P. A. Janssen, Nonlinear four-wave interactions and freak waves, Journal of Physical Oceanography33, 863 (2003)

    2003

  10. [18]

    Onorato, A

    M. Onorato, A. R. Osborne, M. Serio, L. Cavaleri, C. Brandini, and C. T. Stansberg, Extreme waves, mod- ulational instability and second order theory: wave flume experiments on irregular waves, European Journal of Mechanics-B/Fluids25, 586 (2006)

    2006

  11. [19]

    Shabat and V

    A. Shabat and V. Zakharov, Exact theory of two- dimensional self-focusing and one-dimensional self- modulation of waves in nonlinear media, Sov. Phys. JETP34, 62 (1972)

    1972

  12. [20]

    Onorato, L

    M. Onorato, L. Cavaleri, S. Randoux, P. Suret, M. I. Ruiz, M. De Alfonso, and A. Benetazzo, Observation of a giant nonlinear wave-packet on the surface of the ocean, Scientific Reports11, 23606 (2021)

    2021

  13. [21]

    Cousins and T

    W. Cousins and T. P. Sapsis, Reduced-order precursors of rare events in unidirectional nonlinear water waves, Journal of Fluid Mechanics790, 368 (2016)

    2016

  14. [22]

    Farazmand and T

    M. Farazmand and T. P. Sapsis, Extreme events: Mech- anisms and prediction, Applied Mechanics Reviews71, 050801 (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    N. N. Akhmediev and A. Ankiewicz,Solitons: nonlinear pulses and beams(Chapman & Hall, 1997)

    1997

  16. [24]

    Tikan, C

    A. Tikan, C. Billet, G. El, A. Tovbis, M. Bertola, T. Sylvestre, F. Gustave, S. Randoux, G. Genty, P. Suret, 7 et al., Universality of the peregrine soliton in the focus- ing dynamics of the cubic nonlinear schr¨ odinger equation, Physical review letters119, 033901 (2017)

    2017

  17. [25]

    Chabchoub, A

    A. Chabchoub, A. Slunyaev, N. Hoffmann, F. Dias, B. Kibler, G. Genty, J. M. Dudley, and N. Akhmediev, The Peregrine breather on the zero-background limit as the two-soliton degenerate solution: An experimental study, Frontiers in Physics9, 633549 (2021)

    2021

  18. [26]

    Y. Zhai, M. Klahn, M. Onorato, and D. R. Fuhrman, Fully nonlinear simulations of rogue wave formation in finite-depth irregular waves, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 1017, A23 (2025)

    2025

  19. [27]

    R. Fu, H. Cai, G. Wang, J. Zheng, and A. Tao, Statis- tics of unidirectional wave groups with and without freak waves observed in the norwegian sea, Physics of Fluids 36(2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    Chabchoub, P

    A. Chabchoub, P. Engels, P. Kevrekidis, S. I. Mis- takidis, G. C. Katsimiga, M. E. Mossman, and S. Moss- man, Extreme (rogue) waves: From theory to exper- iments in ultracold gases and beyond, arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.25908 (2026)

    2026

  21. [29]

    Hasselmann, T

    K. Hasselmann, T. Barnett, E. Bouws, H. Carlson, D. Cartwright, K. Enke, J. Ewing, H. Gienapp, D. Has- selmann, P. Kruseman,et al., Measurements of wind- wave growth and swell decay during the joint north sea wave project (jonswap), Erg¨ anzungsheft 8-12 (1973)

    1973

  22. [30]

    Y. He, A. Slunyaev, N. Mori, and A. Chabchoub, Exper- imental evidence of nonlinear focusing in standing water waves, Physical Review Letters129, 144502 (2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    Chabchoub and R

    A. Chabchoub and R. H. Grimshaw, The hydrodynamic nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation: Space and time, Fluids 1, 23 (2016)

    2016

  24. [32]

    Nazarenko,Wave turbulence, Vol

    S. Nazarenko,Wave turbulence, Vol. 825 (Springer Sci- ence & Business Media, 2011)

    2011

  25. [33]

    Eeltink, H

    D. Eeltink, H. Branger, C. Luneau, Y. He, A. Chab- choub, J. Kasparian, T. Van Den Bremer, and T. Sapsis, Nonlinear wave evolution with data-driven breaking, Na- ture communications13, 2343 (2022). 8 SUPPLEMENT AL MA TERIAL ITERA TIVE MA TCHING PURSUIT ALGORITHM FOR SOLITON DE...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.