Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

DARWEN: Data-driven Algorithm for Reduction of Wide Exoplanetary Networks

T0 review · 3 major / 7 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 A genetic algorithm that automatically reduces exoplanet chemical networks can match the accuracy of hand-built reduced schemes and, for the first time, produces a reduced network that includes photochemistry.

desk verdict A plausible and genuinely new application of GA-based network reduction to exoplanet chemistry, but the headline accuracy numbers are in-sample and best-of-many, so the claimed edge over R20 is not yet proven. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.04359 v1 pith:2JKYXGIC submitted 2024-12-05 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IM

A. Lira-Barria , J. N. Harvey , T. Konings , R. Baeyens , C. Henríquez , L. Decin , O. Venot , R. Veillet This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.IM
keywords exoplanetatmosphereschemicalnetworkreductiongeneticalgorithmprincipalcomponentanalysisphotochemistryhotJupitersatmosphericmodeling
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 aims to establish that chemical networks for exoplanet atmospheres can be reduced automatically, without manual expert tuning, while preserving accuracy. It introduces DARWEN, a genetic algorithm that starts from a PCA-based sensitivity ranking of reactions in a full 100-species, roughly 2000-reaction network and evolves candidate reduced schemes. On two benchmark hot Jupiters, HD 209458b and HD 189733b, DARWEN's validation scheme keeps key-molecule errors around 5-6%, comparable to the hand-built R20 network, while major-species errors are lower (58% vs 98%). A low-cost scheme runs 2.5 times faster than R20, and a photochemistry-inclusive scheme keeps key-species errors under 18% while running about 20 times faster than the full model. If correct, this offers a systematic, adjustable way to build fast chemical networks for 3D global circulation models.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is DARWEN, a genetic algorithm in which candidate chemical schemes are encoded as binary strings of reaction inclusion or exclusion, and evolve via selection, crossover, mutation, and an elitism/curiosity mechanism. Its starting population is a single PCA-reduced scheme, built by a local sensitivity analysis (multiplying each forward rate constant by 1.1) followed by principal component analysis. The loss function $\varphi = \Delta_{\mathrm{max}}^{\mathrm{key}} + w_0 n_{\mathrm{mlc}} + w_1 \log\left(\Delta_{\mathrm{max}}^{\mathrm{maj}}\right)$, with $w_0=0.1$ and $w_1=1$, drives evolution by measuring the maximum relative deviation of species abundances between reduced and full models. This allows the algorithm to trade accuracy against molecule count explicitly.

What would settle it

Disable the reaction-pool restriction for HD 209458b or HD 189733b, re-run the genetic algorithm over all 958 forward reactions, and compare the best loss; if an unrestricted run finds a scheme with lower loss than the published validation or low-cost schemes, the paper's reported optimum is an artifact of the restriction. Alternatively, demonstrate a specific reduced network that beats DARWEN's schemes and necessarily includes a reaction outside its species pool.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a data-driven genetic algorithm can generate reduced exoplanet chemical networks whose accuracy on key molecules matches or beats the expert-built R20 reduction of the V20 network, and that it can do so while retaining photochemistry for the first time. The paper reports validation-scheme key-species errors of 0.05-0.06 against 0.06-0.07 for R20, a low-cost scheme with 298 reactions that runs 2.5 times faster than R20, and a photoscheme with 48 molecules and 756 reactions whose key-species errors are 0.16-0.18 and whose runtime is under 45 seconds versus roughly 900 for the full photochemical model. The method optimizes a loss function that balances key-species accuracy, major-species accuracy, and molecule count, and can optimize a single scheme for multiple planets at once by taking the worst case across planets.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the initial species pool already contains every reaction worth having; if the optimal reduced network for some planet requires a reaction with a different molecule, DARWEN cannot find it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On HD 209458b and HD 189733b, the validation scheme of 576 reactions reproduces key molecules within 5-6% and major species within about 58%, improving on R20's 6-7% key-species and 98% major-species errors.
  • The low-cost scheme, with 298 reactions and 32 molecules, runs 2.5 times faster than R20 while keeping key-species discrepancies under about 33%.
  • The photoscheme is the first reduced exoplanet chemical network to include photochemistry, with key-species errors of 16-18% and runtimes about 20 times faster than the full photochemical model.
  • Because DARWEN penalizes the worst-performing planet, a single reduced network can be optimized for several similar planets at once, avoiding separate reductions for each.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The search space is confined to reactions touching the initial species pool plus a few added molecules, so DARWEN's optimal schemes are only provably optimal inside that subspace; a reaction outside the pool could beat them, and the paper does not test this.
  • Accuracy is measured against the V20 full model, which itself has rate-constant uncertainties; the 5-6% and 16-18% errors therefore bound agreement with V20, not with an observed atmosphere.
  • A natural extension would be to let DARWEN suggest new molecules during evolution, or to seed it with the R20 scheme rather than a PCA scheme, and check whether accuracy or speed improves further.
  • The multi-planet optimization could be stress-tested on planets with significantly different thermal or UV conditions, where the single-scheme approach might be expected to break down.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. Lira-Barria et al. present DARWEN, a genetic-algorithm-based method for reducing chemical networks for exoplanet atmospheres, initialized with a PCA-ranked sensitivity analysis and optimized against a loss function that combines maximum relative abundance deviations (for key and 'major' species) with a penalty on molecule count. The method is applied to the V20 network on two hot Jupiters (HD 209458b and HD 189733b), yielding three schemes: a 'validation' scheme targeting accuracy, a 'low-cost' scheme emphasizing speed, and a 'photoscheme' that is claimed to be the first reduced exoplanet network including photochemistry. The authors report key-species errors of 5-6% for the validation scheme (comparable to the expert-built R20 network), 27-33% for HCN in the low-cost scheme, and 16-18% key-species errors for the photoscheme, with speedups of up to ~20x relative to the full model.

Significance. If the reported accuracy holds up, DARWEN would provide a transparent, automated path to reduced chemical networks, which is valuable for 3D GCMs and for exploring chemical diversity. The inclusion of photochemistry is a novel contribution, and the GA design is clearly described with parameter tables and appendix material. The main weakness is that all evaluation metrics are in-sample: the two planets used to optimize the loss function and to select the final scheme are the same ones used in Table 1 and Figs. 2-3. This makes the quantitative comparison to R20 difficult to interpret as a measure of predictive accuracy. The search-space restriction is an additional limitation that should be acknowledged more explicitly.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4 (Eq. 5); Section 5.1; Table 1] The reported errors are in-sample: the loss function in Eq. (5) is maximized over exactly HD 209458b and HD 189733b, and Section 5.1 states that the final scheme was chosen from 'around two dozen candidate schemes' based on major-species accuracy on these same planets. Thus the validation-scheme errors of 5-6% and low-cost HCN errors of 27-33% in Table 1 are best-case selected in-sample fit values, not independent predictions. R20, by contrast, is a fixed expert-built network evaluated without any tuning on these planets. To support the claim that DARWEN produces networks applicable to 'sufficiently similar planets' (Section 4), the authors should add an out-of-sample test, for example by applying one of the optimized schemes to a third hot Jupiter or to a planet with a different temperature profile or metallicity, and reporting the resulting discrepancies.
  2. [Section 4 (Eq. 5); Table B.1] The loss weights w0 and w1 are described as 'strategically set' and 'determined by aiming for desired results,' and the GA parameters in Table B.1 were the result of experimentation. These hyperparameters are therefore tuned on the same data that are later used to evaluate the final schemes, which biases the reported accuracy numbers. The paper should provide a sensitivity analysis for w0, w1, and the PCA-derived thresholds, or hold out a separate tuning set, to demonstrate that the selected schemes are not an artifact of a particular hyperparameter choice.
  3. [Section 4, paragraph 4] The restriction of the reaction pool to 'those associated with the initial species and a few additional molecules' (fewer than 2^350 combinations) is a load-bearing assumption: the PCA-based initial scheme is itself known to be less accurate than R20 (Section 3.2), so the GA can never discover a reduced network that requires a reaction involving a species outside this pool. The paper should justify the sufficiency of this pool, e.g., by testing whether adding a sample of excluded reactions changes the optimized accuracy, or should explicitly qualify the optimality claim in the Abstract and Conclusions as optimal within the chosen reaction pool.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Table 1] The V20* row lists 1956 reactions, while Section 5.3 states the full model with photochemistry has 1958; please reconcile this discrepancy.
  2. [Figures 2 and 3] The captions refer only to validation and low-cost schemes, but the panels also show R20 and V20; please update the captions to include all plotted curves.
  3. [Section 5.1] The phrase 'comparable to the Δmax in the R20 scheme (0.07-0.06)' is a bit ambiguous because the numbers are ordered differently from the preceding pair; clarify which planet corresponds to which value.
  4. [References] The reference list contains a duplicate entry for Xue et al. (2024); remove one occurrence.
  5. [Equation (4)] The shorthand max{planets} is not defined; please state explicitly that the maximum is taken over the two test planets.
  6. [Section 2.3] The sentence describing the exclusion of high and low pressure layers could be more quantitative; please state the exact pressure boundaries used for the optimization and evaluation.
  7. [Throughout] There is inconsistent notation for the maximum deviation and for the number of molecules (Δmax vs. ∆max, nmlc vs. n_m); please standardize.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Headline key-species errors are the GA's own in-sample objective on the two training planets, and the final scheme was selected on those same planets; the R20 comparison is an external but not held-out benchmark.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4, Eq. (5); Section 5.1, Table 1]
    "φ = ∆max{key} + w0 nmlc + w1 log(∆max{maj}) (Eq. 5) ... As detailed in Table 1 the ∆max for key molecules in the atmospheres of the two tested planets (0.05-0.06) is comparable to the ∆max in the R20 scheme (0.07-0.06)."

    The headline accuracy metric, ∆max for key species in Table 1, is exactly the leading term of the GA loss function φ in Eq. (5), evaluated on the same two planets (HD 209458b and HD 189733b) used to define the loss. The GA minimizes this quantity, so reporting 'an error of less than 6% on key species' is reporting the fitted objective, not an independent validation. R20 is a fixed expert scheme not produced by this objective, so the comparison is uneven: DARWEN's number is an optimized in-sample value, while R20's is a single non-selected baseline.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 5.1; Section 4, Eq. (5)]
    "Following this optimization, we identified around two dozen candidate schemes to validate our procedure. The final choice was made based on the accuracy of the broader set of the 'major' (i.e., the most abundant) species. ... Weighting factors w0 = 0.1 and w1 = 1 are strategically set ... These values were determined by aiming for desired results in the schemes."

    The published scheme is selected from roughly two dozen GA candidates using the major-species accuracy computed on the same planets that define the loss, so Table 1's errors are best-of-many selections rather than expected performance of the method. The loss weights were also hand-tuned to produce 'desired results' on these planets. R20 is reported without any such selection or weight tuning, so the claimed advantage over R20 is partly manufactured by selection on the evaluation set.

full rationale

The core GA pipeline is not definitionally circular: DARWEN starts from a PCA-reduced scheme and evolves genuinely different reaction subsets, and no load-bearing self-citation or uniqueness theorem is invoked. V20 and R20 come from a group that includes a co-author, but they function as an external reference network and baseline rather than as justification for the GA's validity; that self-citation is not load-bearing. The circularity that is present is narrower but real: the quantitative evidence for the central claim is the same quantity the GA minimizes. Eq. (5) defines φ as the maximum key-species discrepancy over HD 209458b and HD 189733b, plus molecule-count and major-species penalty terms, and Table 1 reports the key-species ∆max for exactly those two planets as the demonstration of accuracy. A 5-6% error on key species is therefore the minimized in-sample objective, not a prediction. Section 5.1 adds a further in-sample selection step—about two dozen candidate schemes, with the final choice based on major-species accuracy on the same planets—and the loss weights were 'determined by aiming for desired results,' so the reported numbers are best-case selections over many runs. The restriction of the search space to reactions associated with the initial species pool is a modeling limitation, not circularity. Because R20 provides an independent fixed baseline and the produced schemes are not simply restatements of the inputs, the paper is only partly circular rather than fully so; score 6.

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

The method adds two hand-tuned loss weights (w0, w1), a tuned PCA threshold pair, a perturbation factor, and convergence criteria. These choices materially influence which reduced networks are found and reported. The GA hyperparameters (Table B.1) are also hand-set but have more modest influence. No new physics entities are introduced; the reference V20 network and 1D model are assumptions inherited from prior work.

free parameters (6)
  • w0 (weight on number of molecules in loss function) = 0.1
    Sec. 4, Eq. 5. Hand-chosen to balance species count against accuracy; the authors state it was set 'by aiming for desired results in the schemes'.
  • w1 (weight on log(Delta_max_major)) = 1
    Sec. 4, Eq. 5. Hand-chosen to prevent overfitting to key molecules; no independent justification.
  • PCA eigenvalue threshold and reaction-component threshold = 95% cumulative eigenvalue; component threshold tuned to ~100 reactions and <=50 species
    Sec. 3.2. Thresholds were fine-tuned specifically to hit the target scheme size, making the initial PCA network a fitted object.
  • Sensitivity perturbation factor = 1.1 (10% increase in rate constants)
    Sec. 3.1 and Appendix A. Chosen as a finite-difference step; authors note 5% gives modest changes, so the exact value is not critical.
  • Convergence threshold for steady state = 1e-4 in Delta_max over two successive integrations
    Sec. 2.3. Chosen as a compromise between computational cost and accuracy; affects all reported discrepancies.
  • Minimum abundance for 'major species' (fmin) = 1e-20
    Sec. 2.3 and Eq. 2. Hand-chosen threshold to define which species count as significant; different values would change the loss function and reported major-species errors.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The 1D chemical kinetics model of Agúndez et al. (2014), as modified by the authors, is a valid representation of hot Jupiter atmospheric chemistry, including vertical mixing, molecular diffusion, and photochemistry.
    This is the forward model used to compute all sensitivities, fitness values, and final abundances. The paper takes its validity for granted.
  • domain assumption The full V20 chemical network (Venot et al. 2020) is the correct reference for the atmospheres of HD 209458b and HD 189733b.
    All reduced schemes are benchmarked against V20; if V20 is itself inaccurate, the reduced networks inherit those inaccuracies. The authors note this in the Conclusions but still use V20 as ground truth.
  • domain assumption Steady state at the convergence criterion Delta_max < 1e-4 (two successive integrations) is sufficient for comparing full and reduced models.
    Sec. 2.3. A stricter threshold could change sensitivity rankings and loss-function values, and the authors exclude pressure regions that do not converge (below 1e-5 bar with photochemistry).
  • ad hoc to paper The search space restriction to reactions associated with the initial species plus a few added molecules (fewer than 2^350 combinations) contains all reactions required for a good reduced network.
    Sec. 4, paragraph 4. This restriction is an algorithmic choice; nothing in the paper proves the optimal network lies inside this subspace.
  • standard math The PCA ranking method of Lebedev et al. (2013) correctly identifies influential reactions when applied to local sensitivity matrices.
    Imported from combustion chemistry; the paper uses it without re-derivation or validation on exoplanet data.
  • domain assumption The fixed list of key species (H2O, CO2, CO, HCN, C2H2, OH, CH4, NH3) is the appropriate set for evaluating network accuracy.
    Sec. 3.2. The loss function weights only these species in the key-species term, so the resulting networks are optimized for them, not for all species equally.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of DARWEN: Data-driven Algorithm for Reduction of Wide Exoplanetary Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2JKYXGIC

@misc{pith2026241204359,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: DARWEN: Data-driven Algorithm for Reduction of Wide Exoplanetary Networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2JKYXGIC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.04359}
}
read the original abstract

Exoplanet atmospheric modeling is advancing from chemically diverse one-dimensional (1D) models to three-dimensional (3D) global circulation models (GCMs), which are crucial for interpreting observations from facilities like the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) and Extremely Large Telescope (ELT). However, maintaining chemical diversity in models, especially in GCMs, is computationally expensive, limiting their complexity. Optimizing the number of reactions and species can address this tradeoff, but transparent and efficient methods for such optimization are lacking in current exoplanet literature. We aim to develop a systematic approach for reducing chemical networks in exoplanetary atmospheres while balancing accuracy and computational efficiency. Our data-driven method selects optimal reduced chemical networks based on accuracy and computational efficiency metrics. This approach can optimize networks for similar planets simultaneously, assign weights to prioritize accuracy or efficiency, and is applicable when including photochemistry. We base our method on sensitivity analysis of a typical 1D chemical kinetics model, applying principal component analysis to the sensitivities. To achieve fast and reliable network reduction, we utilize a genetic algorithm, a machine-learning optimization method that mimics natural selection. We present three schemes tailored for different priorities (accuracy, computational efficiency, and adaptability to photochemistry) that demonstrate improved performance and reduced computational costs. Our genetic algorithm-based method, the first to reduce a chemical network including photochemistry in exoplanet research, offers a versatile and efficient approach to enhance both accuracy and computational efficiency.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.04359 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example of DARWEN’s “evolution” during simul [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Validation and low-cost schemes’ performance on key and major molecules. The plots illustrate the performance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. OpenAlex reports about 2 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. Phase-dependent chemistry of WASP-43 b revealed with a suite of one-, two-, and three-dimensional models

    astro-ph.EP 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Horizontal quenching at wind speeds ≳500 m/s, plus carbon-sulfur chemistry, explains the MIRI non-detection of night-side methane on WASP-43 b without requiring high metallicity.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2014, , 564, A73

    Ag \'u ndez , M., Parmentier , V., Venot , O., Hersant , F., & Selsis , F. 2014, , 564, A73

    work page 2014

  2. [2]

    R., Alam, M

    Alderson, L., Wakeford, H. R., Alam, M. K., et al. 2023, , 614, 664

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    & Rojo, P

    Astudillo-Defru, N. & Rojo, P. 2013, , 557

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    2021, , 505, 5603

    Baeyens, R., Decin, L., Carone, L., et al. 2021, , 505, 5603

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Baeyens, R., Désert, J.-M., Petrignani, A., Carone, L., & Schneider, A. D. 2024,

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    2022, , 512

    Baeyens, R., Konings, T., Venot, O., Carone, L., & Decin, L. 2022, , 512

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Basilicata, M., Giacobbe, P., Bonomo, A., et al. 2024,

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Bauer , S. J. 1973, Physics of planetary ionospheres , Vol. 6 (Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., New York)

    work page 1973

Show all 79 references
  1. [9]

    J., Welbanks, L., Schlawin, E., et al

    Bell, T. J., Welbanks, L., Schlawin, E., et al. 2023, , 623, 709

    2023

  2. [10]

    2024, , 167, 179

    Blain, D., Sánchez-López, A., & Mollière, P. 2024, , 167, 179

    2024

  3. [11]

    R., et al

    Brogi, M., Emeka-Okafor, V., Line, M. R., et al. 2023, , 165, 91

    2023

  4. [12]

    H., Madhusudhan, N., Hawker, G

    Cabot, S. H., Madhusudhan, N., Hawker, G. A., & Gandhi, S. 2019, , 482, 4422

    2019

  5. [13]

    2021, , 646, A168

    Carone , L., Molli \`e re , P., Zhou , Y., et al. 2021, , 646, A168

    2021

  6. [14]

    F., et al

    Changeat, Q., Edwards, B., Al-Refaie, A. F., et al. 2022, , 260, 3

    2022

  7. [15]

    W., Sheets, J., Cohen, M., et al

    Claire, M. W., Sheets, J., Cohen, M., et al. 2012, , 757

    2012

  8. [16]

    Crossfield, I. J. M. 2023, , 952, L18

    2023

  9. [17]

    2014, , 796

    Diamond-Lowe, H., Stevenson, K., Bean, J., Line, M., & Fortney, J. 2014, , 796

    2014

  10. [18]

    2014, , 228, 324

    Dobrijevic, M., Hébrard, E., Loison, J., & Hickson, K. 2014, , 228, 324

    2014

  11. [19]

    2010, Advances in Space Research, 45, 77

    Dobrijevic, M., Hébrard, E., Plessis, S., et al. 2010, Advances in Space Research, 45, 77

    2010

  12. [20]

    J., et al

    Drummond, B., Hébrard, E., Mayne, N. J., et al. 2020, , 636

    2020

  13. [21]

    2024, , 625, 51

    Dyrek, A., Min, M., Decin, L., et al. 2024, , 625, 51

    2024

  14. [22]

    2023, , 269, 31

    Edwards, B., Changeat, Q., Tsiaras, A., et al. 2023, , 269, 31

    2023

  15. [23]

    F., & Manousiouthakis, V

    Edwards, K., Edgar, T. F., & Manousiouthakis, V. I. 1998, Computers chem. Engng, 22, 239

    1998

  16. [24]

    B., Kyne , A

    Elliott , L., Ingham , D. B., Kyne , A. G., et al. 2004, Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 30, 297

    2004

  17. [25]

    B., Kyne, A

    Elliott, L., Ingham, D. B., Kyne, A. G., et al. 2005, Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research, 44, 658

    2005

  18. [26]

    Esparza-Borges, E., López-Morales, M., Redai, J. I. A., et al. 2023, , 955, L19

    2023

  19. [27]

    Etangs, A. L. D., Bourrier, V., Wheatley, P. J., et al. 2012, , 543

    2012

  20. [28]

    W., Xin, Y., et al

    Finnerty, L., Xuan, J. W., Xin, Y., et al. 2024, , 167, 43

    2024

  21. [29]

    France, K., Loyd, R. O. P., Youngblood, A., et al. 2016, , 820, 89

    2016

  22. [30]

    2021, , 592, 205

    Giacobbe, P., Brogi, M., Gandhi, S., et al. 2021, , 592, 205

    2021

  23. [31]

    Goldberg, D. E. 1989, Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization, and Machine Learning (New York: Addison-Wesley)

    1989

  24. [32]

    A., Baiocchi, P., & Merlin, E

    Grassi, T., Bovino, S., Gianturco, F. A., Baiocchi, P., & Merlin, E. 2012, , 425, 1332

    2012

  25. [33]

    Grassi, T., Bovino, S., Schleicher, D., & Gianturco, F. A. 2013, , 431, 1659

    2013

  26. [34]

    2019, , 625

    Guilluy, G., Sozzetti, A., Brogi, M., et al. 2019, , 625

    2019

  27. [35]

    Hindmarsh, A. C. 1983, in IMACS Transactions on Scientific Computation, Vol. 1, Scientific Computing, ed. R. S. Stepleman et al. (Amsterdam: North-Holland), 55--64

    1983

  28. [36]

    2019, in EPSC-DPS Joint Meeting 2019, Vol

    Hoeijmakers , J., Ehrenreich , D., Kitzmann , D., et al. 2019, in EPSC-DPS Joint Meeting 2019, Vol. 2019, EPSC--DPS2019--1405

    2019

  29. [37]

    Holland , J. H. 1992, Scientific American, 267, 66

    1992

  30. [38]

    C., et al

    Hébrard, E., Dobrijevic, M., Loison, J. C., et al. 2013, , 552

    2013

  31. [39]

    S., et al

    Kama, M., Shorttle, O., Jermyn, A. S., et al. 2019, , 885, 114

    2019

  32. [40]

    L., Désert, J

    Kreidberg, L., Bean, J. L., Désert, J. M., et al. 2014, , 793

    2014

  33. [41]

    M., et al

    Lampón, M., López-Puertas, M., Lara, L. M., et al. 2020, , 636

    2020

  34. [42]

    2021, , 656

    Landman, R., Sánchez-López, A., Mollière, P., et al. 2021, , 656

    2021

  35. [43]

    V., Okun, M

    Lebedev, A. V., Okun, M. V., Chorkov, V. A., Tokar, P. M., & Strelkova, M. 2013, Journal of Mathematical Chemistry, 51

    2013

  36. [44]

    J., Boutle, I

    Lines, S., Mayne, N. J., Boutle, I. A., et al. 2018, , 615

    2018

  37. [45]

    M., & Mendez , R

    Lira-Barria , A., Rojo , P. M., & Mendez , R. A. 2022, , 657, A36

    2022

  38. [46]

    Loyd, R. O. P., France, K., Youngblood, A., et al. 2016, , 824, 102

    2016

  39. [47]

    2012, , 758, 36

    Madhusudhan, N. 2012, , 758, 36

    2012

  40. [48]

    I., & Hu , Y

    Madhusudhan , N., Ag \'u ndez , M., Moses , J. I., & Hu , Y. 2016, , 205, 285

    2016

  41. [49]

    I., Visscher, C., Fortney, J

    Moses, J. I., Visscher, C., Fortney, J. J., et al. 2011, , 737

    2011

  42. [50]

    V., et al

    Mounzer , D., Lovis , C., Seidel , J. V., et al. 2022, , 668, A1

    2022

  43. [51]

    K., Kawahara, H., Gibson, N

    Nugroho, S. K., Kawahara, H., Gibson, N. P., et al. 2021, , 910, L9

    2021

  44. [52]

    Nurislamova, L. F. & Gubaydullin, I. M. 2017, Journal of Mathematical Chemistry, 55, 1779

    2017

  45. [53]

    & Fortney, J

    Ohno, K. & Fortney, J. J. 2023, , 956, 125

    2023

  46. [54]

    M., Krishna, S

    Perumal, T. M., Krishna, S. M., Tallam, S. S., & Gunawan, R. 2013, Computers and Chemical Engineering, 56, 37

    2013

  47. [55]

    J., Pelletier, S., et al

    Prinoth, B., Hoeijmakers, H. J., Pelletier, S., et al. 2023, , 678

    2023

  48. [56]

    D., & Koesterke , L

    Redfield , S., Endl , M., Cochran , W. D., & Koesterke , L. 2008, , 673, L87

    2008

  49. [57]

    J., Zamyatina, M., Mayne, N

    Ridgway, R. J., Zamyatina, M., Mayne, N. J., et al. 2023, , 518, 2472

    2023

  50. [58]

    Rimmer, P. B. & Rugheimer, S. 2019, , 329, 124

    2019

  51. [59]

    K., Mukherjee, S., et al

    Rustamkulov, Z., Sing, D. K., Mukherjee, S., et al. 2023, , 614, 659

    2023

  52. [60]

    2005, Chemical Reviews, 105, 2811, pMID: 16011325

    Saltelli, A., Ratto, M., Tarantola, S., & Campolongo, F. 2005, Chemical Reviews, 105, 2811, pMID: 16011325

    2005

  53. [61]

    2014, International Journal of Chemical Kinetics, 46, 41

    Sikalo, N., Hasemann, O., Schulz, C., Kempf, A., & Wlokas, I. 2014, International Journal of Chemical Kinetics, 46, 41

    2014

  54. [62]

    J., López-Puertas, M., et al

    Sánchez-López, A., Alonso-Floriano, F. J., López-Puertas, M., et al. 2019, , 630

    2019

  55. [63]

    2019, Chemical Engineering Journal, 375

    Till, Z., Varga, T., Sója, J., Miskolczi, N., & Chován, T. 2019, Chemical Engineering Journal, 375

    2019

  56. [64]

    F., & Schwieterman, E

    Tsai, S.-M., Innes, H., Wogan, N. F., & Schwieterman, E. W. 2024, , 966, L24

    2024

  57. [65]

    M., Lee, E

    Tsai, S. M., Lee, E. K., Powell, D., et al. 2023, , 617

    2023

  58. [66]

    2021, , 909, 40

    Turrini, D., Schisano, E., Fonte, S., et al. 2021, , 909, 40

    2021

  59. [67]

    2024, , 682

    Veillet, R., Venot, O., Sirjean, B., et al. 2024, , 682

    2024

  60. [68]

    2019, , 624

    Venot, O., Bounaceur, R., Dobrijevic, M., et al. 2019, , 624

    2019

  61. [69]

    2020, , 634

    Venot, O., Cavalié, T., Bounaceur, R., et al. 2020, , 634

    2020

  62. [70]

    2015, , 577

    Venot, O., Hébrard, E., Agúndez, M., Decin, L., & Bounaceur, R. 2015, , 577

    2015

  63. [71]

    2012, , 546

    Venot, O., Hébrard, E., Agúndez, M., et al. 2012, , 546

    2012

  64. [72]

    F., et al

    Welbanks, L., Madhusudhan, N., Allard, N. F., et al. 2019, , 887, L20

    2019

  65. [73]

    2019, , 872, 107

    Xu, R., Bai, X.-N., Öberg, K., & Zhang, H. 2019, , 872, 107

    2019

  66. [74]

    L., Zhang, M., et al

    Xue, Q., Bean, J. L., Zhang, M., et al. 2024, , 963, L5

    2024

  67. [75]

    L., Zhang , M., et al

    Xue , Q., Bean , J. L., Zhang , M., et al. 2024, , 963, L5

    2024

  68. [76]

    Youngblood, A., France, K., Loyd, R. O. P., et al. 2016, , 824, 101

    2016

  69. [77]

    2023, , 519, 3129

    Zamyatina, M., Hebrard, E., Drummond, B., et al. 2023, , 519, 3129

    2023

  70. [78]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sent...

  71. [79]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

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