No Access Submitted: 27 April 2007 Accepted: 26 August 2007 Published Online: 12 October 2007
Chaos 17, 043101 (2007); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2785159
more...
We propose recurrence plots (RPs) to characterize the stickiness of a typical area-preserving map with coexisting chaotic and regular orbits. The difference of the recurrence properties between quasiperiodic and chaotic orbits is revisited, which helps to understand the complex patterns of the corresponding RPs. Moreover, several measures from the recurrence quantification analysis are used to quantify these patterns. Among these measures, the recurrence rate, quantifying the percentage of black points in the plot, is applied to characterize the stickiness of a typical chaotic orbit. The advantage of the recurrence based method in comparison to other standard techniques is that it is possible to distinguish between quasiperiodic and chaotic orbits that are temporarily trapped in a sticky domain, from very short trajectories.
The authors would like to thank Diego Pazó for very fruitful discussions. This work was supported by the International Helmholtz Institute for Super-computational Physics (MWFK Land Brandenburg), SPP 1114 (DFG), and the Promotionskolleg Behavioral and Cognitive Dynamics (Excellence Programme, Potsdam University). The constructive and careful comments and suggestions from the referees are also acknowledged.
  1. 1. A. Lichtenberg and M. Lieberman, Regular and Chaotic Dynamics, 2nd ed. (Springer, Berlin, 1992). Google ScholarCrossref
  2. 2. D. K. Umberger and J. D. Farmer, Phys. Rev. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.55.661 55, 661 (1985). Google ScholarCrossref
  3. 3. H. Kantz and P. Grassberger, Phys. Lett. A https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9601(87)90342-2 123, 437 (1987). Google ScholarCrossref
  4. 4. G. Contopoulos, Order and Chaos in Dynamical Astronomy (Springer, New York, 2004). Google Scholar
  5. 5. G. Contopoulos, N. Voglis, and R. Dvorak, Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008275829979 67, 293 (1997). Google ScholarCrossref
  6. 6. G. Contopoulos, Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1998.tb11248.x 867, 14 (1998). Google ScholarCrossref
  7. 7. C. F. F. Karney, Physica D https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2789(83)90232-4 8, 360 (1983). Google ScholarCrossref
  8. 8. J. D. Meiss and E. Ott, Phys. Rev. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.55.2741 55, 2741 (1985). Google ScholarCrossref
  9. 9. H. E. Kandrup, C. Siopis, G. Contopoulos, and R. Dvorak, Chaos https://doi.org/10.1063/1.166415 9, 381 (1999). Google ScholarScitation
  10. 10. J. Meiss, Rev. Mod. Phys. https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.64.795 64, 795 (1992). Google ScholarCrossref
  11. 11. G. Zaslavsky, Phys. Rep. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0370-1573(02)00331-9 371, 461 (2002). Google ScholarCrossref
  12. 12. R. Artuso and A. Prampolini, Phys. Lett. A https://doi.org/10.1016/S0375-9601(98)00542-8 246, 407 (1998). Google ScholarCrossref
  13. 13. E. G. Altmann, A. E. Motter, and H. Kantz, Phys. Rev. E https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.73.026207 73, 026207 (2006). Google ScholarCrossref
  14. 14. G. Contopoulos, Astron. J. https://doi.org/10.1086/111098 76, 147 (1971). Google ScholarCrossref
  15. 15. B. V. Chirikov and D. L. Shepelyansky, Physica D https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-2789(00)00016-6 13, 395 (1984). Google ScholarCrossref
  16. 16. N. Slater, Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 63, 1115 (1967). Google ScholarCrossref
  17. 17. D. Mayer, Lett. Math. Phys. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00402021 16, 139 (1988). Google ScholarCrossref
  18. 18. E. G. Altmann, G. Cristadoro, and D. Pazó, Phys. Rev. E https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.73.056201 73, 056201 (2006). Google ScholarCrossref
  19. 19. J.-P. Eckmann, S. Kamphorst, and D. Ruelle, Europhys. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1209/0295-5075/4/9/004 4, 973 (1987). Google ScholarCrossref
  20. 20. N. Marwan, M. Romano, M. Thiel, and J. Kurths, Phys. Rep. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2006.11.001 438, 237 (2007). Google ScholarCrossref
  21. 21. Y. Zou, D. Pazo, M. C. Romano, M. Thiel, and J. Kurths, Phys. Rev. E https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.76.016210 76, 016210 (2007). Google ScholarCrossref
  22. 22. M. Casdagli, Physica D https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-2789(97)00030-4 108, 12 (1997). Google ScholarCrossref
  23. 23. M. Kac, Probability and Related Topics in Physical Sciences (Interscience, New York, 1959). Google Scholar
  24. 24.In our computations, 500 initial values are chosen randomly. From these trajectories several typical orbits are represented to be computer memory efficient. If we did not proceed so, a figure like Fig. 1(a) would require approximately 15GB of hard-disk space. There are no trajectories in the white regions of Fig. 1 for the initial values we choose, which are excluded from the color bar.
  1. © 2007 American Institute of Physics.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Proin imperdiet nibh sed ipsum molestie eu mattis justo malesuada. Curabitur id quam augue, ac eleifend justo. Integer eget metus sagittis velit semper auctor vel et nunc. Phasellus tempus felis at arcu fringilla at ndimentum libero placerat. Aenean ut imperdiet dolor. Nulla pretium mi vestibulum dui dictum sed ullamcorper tellus sodales. Duis non nibh id ipsum feugiat imperdiet id fermentum nunc. Maecenas id ultricies felis. Suspendisse lacinia rhoncus vestibulum. Vestibulum molestie vulputate convallis.Fusce et augue erat, nec mollis mi.