Neutron star envelopes with machine learning: a single-hidden-layer neural network application

D. De Grandis; K. Kovlakas; N. Rea

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Neutron star envelopes with machine learning: a single-hidden-layer neural network application

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper shows that a single-hidden-layer neural network with 2048 sigmoid units reproduces the magnetised neutron-star envelope Tb–Ts relation to about 3% accuracy in surface temperature, and that this generalises to unseen magnetic field

desk verdict A clean and reproducible neural-network surrogate for the magnetized NS envelope Tb–Ts relation; the global ~3% MAE hides large residual tails near 10^14 G that the authors should break down before use in magnetar simulations. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.03090 v1 pith:TGRJKUX2 submitted 2025-09-03 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.IM

K. Kovlakas , D. De Grandis , N. Rea This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.IM PACS 97.60.Jd07.05.Mh

keywords neutronstarenvelopesTb–Tsrelationsingle-hidden-layerneuralnetworksthermalconductivitymagneticfieldsurfacetemperaturemagneto-thermalsimulationssurrogatemodels

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 tries to establish that the Tb–Ts relation of neutron star envelopes — the link between the temperature at the envelope base and the observed surface temperature — can be replaced by a deliberately simple neural network without losing accuracy. A single hidden layer of 2048 sigmoid units, fed with bottom density, bottom temperature, magnetic field strength, and field angle, predicts the surface temperature with a mean absolute error of ~0.012 dex for iron envelopes and ~0.015 dex for hydrogen envelopes, i.e. about 3% to 3.5% in T_s. The residuals are unbiased and no larger on whole held-out profiles than on random test points, indicating generalisation to unseen magnetic configurations rather than memorisation. If this holds, neutron-star thermal and magneto-thermal simulations can call a smooth, fast, infinitely differentiable boundary condition at every surface point and time step, for any envelope bottom density, instead of relying on narrow analytic fits. The authors also argue the same training recipe transfers to other problems where simulations are used to build approximating formulae.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the single-hidden-layer feedforward network (SLFN): each hidden unit applies a sigmoid to a weighted sum of the four inputs, and a linear output unit combines the hidden activations, giving 6n+1 trainable parameters with n=2048. It acts as the universal approximator of T_s(B, Θ, T_b, ρ_b), inheriting the smoothness and differentiability that numerical solvers require. The companion mechanism is the data split: random point-wise assignment of 90% of the simulated profiles into training, validation, and test sets, plus a holdout set of 10% complete profiles, which exposes any tendency of the network to memorise the ordered structure of the profile curves rather than

What would settle it

Run the released networks on a new, independently computed suite of envelope models covering the same range of B, Θ, ρ_b and T_b but generated with a different integrator or updated microphysics; if the mean absolute error on complete held-out profiles exceeds ~0.015 dex (~3.5%), the claimed approximation accuracy fails. A direct observational test is not a clean falsifier, since the network is only trained to reproduce the simulation model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's discovery is that a single-hidden-layer feedforward network is sufficient to approximate the magnetised Tb–Ts relation with ~3% accuracy. For a standard 1.4 M_sun, 10 km neutron star, the network maps log ρ_b, log T_b, log B, and Θ to log T_s; after training on ~4,200 simulated profiles per composition, the best models reach test and holdout mean absolute errors of ~0.012 dex (Fe) and ~0.015 dex (H), with mean bias below 0.0025 dex and standard deviation ~0.02 dex. The holdout set is the key evidence: it consists of complete profiles from field-strength/angle combinations never seen in training, so the equal performance there signals genuine interpolation of the

Load-bearing premise

The ~3% accuracy is measured against the authors' envelope simulations; if the underlying microphysics — the equation of state, thermal conductivity, neutrino emissivities, or the plane-parallel quasi-stationary approximation — misrepresents real neutron star envelopes, the network inherits that error and is smoothly wrong regardless of its fit quality.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Magneto-thermal and 3D neutron-star codes can impose the surface boundary condition from the network for any envelope bottom density and any field orientation, rather than interpolating among fits valid for a single ρ_b.
Because the same hyperparameters perform well for both iron and hydrogen envelopes, extending the model to other compositions or wider parameter ranges should not require a new hyperparameter search.
Envelope relations for short-timescale phenomena such as outbursts can be built at shallow ρ_b, where standard fits are not defined or would discard models as unphysical.
The smooth and infinitely differentiable approximator is compatible with implicit and higher-order numerical solvers that need a well-behaved boundary condition.
The released codes and trained weights let other groups drop the relation into existing simulation pipelines, with a measured 1–5% runtime overhead.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper: the reported accuracy is relative to the microphysical model, not to nature; a wrong equation of state, conductivity, or neutrino emissivity would be inherited smoothly by the network.
Beyond the paper: adding surface gravity (or M and R explicitly) and a composition parameter as inputs would likely yield one network covering all envelope types, since the relation scales as g_s^{1/4}.
Beyond the paper: the holdout-curve split is a reusable anti-overfitting idea for any regression on 'evolution tracks' — stellar evolution, population synthesis, galaxy formation histories — where random point splits can silently overstate generalisation.
Beyond the paper: the network should not be used for extrapolation outside the sampled range; how the sigmoid ansatz behaves for B > 1e15 G or T_s > 5e7 K is an open question the paper does not address.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Konstantinos,

You'll want to know two things about arXiv:2509.03090. First, it's a competent application of a single-hidden-layer network to the magnetized NS envelope Tb–Ts relation, with a genuinely careful holdout-by-profile evaluation. Second, the advertised '~3% accuracy' is a mean absolute error, not a uniform bound; Figure 7 shows residual tails near ±0.3 dex, and the paper doesn't break down residuals by B, which is where the phase-transition plateaus around 10^14 G live. So the headline number is honest but potentially misleading for magnetar applications.

What's new: I know of no prior trained surrogate for the magnetized envelope relation covering B from 10^9 to 10^15 G, varying angle and bottom density. The holdout set of entire profiles—testing the network on unseen (B, Θ) combinations—is a nice touch and goes beyond the usual random split. The paper also ships code and ready-trained models, and the self-citation to the companion magnetar simulation paper (De Grandis et al. 2025) appears legitimate.

The data generation follows standard, published microphysics (Potekhin et al. 2007, 2015; Yakovlev et al. 2001), so the surrogate's accuracy is relative to that model, not to Nature. The authors say this clearly enough. My main substantive complaint, which your stress-test note captures, is that they report only global MAE. The residuals in Figure 7 have large wings. I'd want to see residual maps as a function of log B and Θ, and specifically for the plateau/unstable-EOS region. If those points are driving the tails, the network could be unreliable exactly where magnetar simulations live. The paper doesn't furnish that check.

That said, the core approach—train on a large simulated sample, validate on held-out profiles—is sound, and the implementation is reproducible. The paper deserves a serious referee, and I'd expect revision to add the residual breakdown and perhaps a warning label on the '3%' claim. It's a useful contribution for the magneto-thermal simulation community, not a headline-grabbing claim.

I'd cite it if I work on NS cooling, and I'd bring it to a reading group focused on ML surrogates for expensive simulations. My recommendation: engage with it, but push on the residual-by-regime analysis.

Best, [Your name]

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper trains single-hidden-layer feedforward neural networks (SLFNs) to approximate the surface temperature T_s of neutron star envelopes as a function of magnetic field strength B, magnetic field angle Θ, bottom density ρ_b, and bottom temperature T_b. Training data are generated by integrating the plane-parallel envelope equations following Potekhin et al. (2007), with the EOS, conductivities, and neutrino emissivities from standard references. The authors perform a grid search over network width, learning rate, and regularization, use early stopping with a validation set, and evaluate performance on both a random-point test set and a specially constructed holdout set of complete profiles. They report global mean absolute errors of ~0.012 dex (Fe) and ~0.015 dex (H), corresponding to ~3% and ~3.5% errors in T_s, and argue that such simple networks are sufficient for fast and accurate evaluation in thermal and magneto-thermal simulations. The code and trained models are publicly released.

Significance. If the reported accuracy holds uniformly over the parameter space, this is a useful and practical contribution: it provides a fast, differentiable, and easily portable surrogate for the T_b–T_s relation, including dependence on magnetic field strength and orientation, which is directly applicable in 3D magneto-thermal codes. The method is not new, but the application to envelope models with a carefully designed holdout-curve set is a positive feature. The paper is transparent about the microphysics inputs and provides a reproducible workflow with public code. Its main strength is the clean evaluation protocol: the holdout set, made of entire profiles, tests generalization to unseen (B, Θ) combinations and guards against the overfitting that a point-wise random split could miss. However, the global accuracy claim is not yet supported by a stratified error analysis in the parameter regions that the paper itself identifies as problematic.

major comments (2)

[§3.2 and Abstract] The headline accuracy (~3% in T_s) is a global mean absolute error over all test/holdout points, but Figure 7 shows residual tails reaching ~±0.3 dex, i.e., individual predictions can be wrong by factors of ~2 in T_s. The paper itself (§2.2) identifies B≈10^14 G as the regime where the EOS develops thermodynamically unstable/solid phases, causing density jumps and plateaus in the temperature profiles—the exact regime relevant for magnetar envelopes. No residual statistics are reported as a function of B, Θ, T_s, or ρ_b, so the global MAE could conceal a cluster of large errors in this regime. Since the abstract and discussion present the accuracy as a general property of the approximator, I request a stratified residual analysis (at least vs. B, and ideally vs. Θ and ρ_b) and, if the large tails are concentrated, either retraining/oversampling or an explicit qualifier restricting the acc
[§2.2 and §3.2] The envelope profiles include genuine discontinuities (density jumps) associated with phase transitions at strong magnetic fields. A single-hidden-layer network with smooth sigmoid activations is a smooth function and cannot exactly represent a jump; it can only approximate a step by using many units, which may lead to localized errors or smoothing of the plateau structure. The paper does not discuss how the network handles these discontinuities, nor does it report errors separately for profiles with versus without phase-transition features. This is particularly relevant because the plateaus are prominent in the training data (Figure 1) and the holdout set includes such profiles. I recommend adding a diagnosis of prediction accuracy in the vicinity of these density jumps, and a discussion of the consequences for the smoothness of the resulting T_b–T_s relation in thermal evolution codes.

minor comments (4)

[§3.1] The text states 'the best performing models (mean absolute error between 0.015 and 0.19)' for Fe; 0.19 is likely a typo for 0.019. Please check and correct.
[Figure 5] The x-axis labels in the right panel appear as '28 29 210 211 212'; the superscripts are missing (should be 2^8, 2^9, 2^10, 2^11, 2^12). Also, the green/blue violin labels refer to f=10^-6 and r=0.01; consider making the color coding more explicit in the caption.
[§2.2] The sentence 'Our sample is constituted by 4221 profiles for the two compositions' is ambiguous: does this mean 4221 profiles per composition or 4221 in total? Please clarify.
[Figure 6 and §3.2] The caption says the curves were smoothed using a Savitzky-Golay filter with 'a window length equal to two'. Savitzky-Golay filters require an odd window length, so this description is confusing. Please specify the actual filter parameters.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the neural-network surrogate is trained on independently integrated envelope models and evaluated on a separate holdout set.

full rationale

The paper fits a single-hidden-layer feedforward network to map (log rho_b, log T_b, log B, Theta) to log T_s, with training data generated by integrating the Potekhin et al. (2007) envelope equations. The target T_s is the boundary condition of each integration, not a quantity derived from the network or from a fitted parameter; the relation being approximated is therefore independent of the approximator by construction. The holdout curves (10% of full profiles) and separate test set provide an out-of-sample check on unseen (B, Theta) combinations, and the authors compare against the Gudmundsson et al. (1983) and Potekhin et al. (2015/2003) relations in Figures 8-9, finding agreement. The only self-reference (De Grandis et al. 2025) is a companion application and is not load-bearing. Reported accuracy is relative to the simulation model; this is a model-dependence caveat, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central accuracy claim rests on the assumption that the envelope simulations are a faithful representation of the target physics; the network only learns this mapping. The free parameters are the trained weights and the hyperparameters chosen by grid search. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)

Neural network weights and biases = trained during optimization, 6n+1 = 12289 per model
All predictive accuracy of the surrogate comes from these fitted values.
Number of hidden units, n = 2048
Selected as compromise between performance and speed after grid search.
Learning rate, r = 0.01
Chosen from grid search on validation error.
Regularization factor, f = 1e-6
Chosen from grid search on validation error.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The Potekhin et al. (2007) envelope equations with plane-parallel and quasi-stationary approximation describe NS envelopes.
Used to generate all training data, Section 2.1.
domain assumption Equation of state and thermal conductivity from Potekhin and Chabrier (2013) and Potekhin et al. (2015) are correct.
Inputs to the envelope integration, Section 2.1.
domain assumption Neutrino emissivity prescriptions from Yakovlev et al. (2001) are correct.
Used in the envelope equations, Section 2.1.
domain assumption A standard NS with M = 1.4 Msun and R = 10 km is representative, with surface gravity scaling g_s^(1/4).
Adopted for all simulations, Section 2.1.
domain assumption Pure hydrogen and pure iron compositions represent the extreme ends of NS envelope compositions.
Other compositions are assumed to fall between these cases, Section 2.1.
standard math Single-hidden-layer feedforward networks can approximate the target function (universal approximation theorem).
Invoked in Section 1, citing Cybenko (1989) and Hornik et al. (1989).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Neutron star envelopes with machine learning: a single-hidden-layer neural network application." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TGRJKUX2

@misc{pith2026250903090,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Neutron star envelopes with machine learning: a single-hidden-layer neural network application},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TGRJKUX2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.03090}
}

abstract

Thermal and magneto-thermal simulations are an important tool for advancing understanding of neutron stars, as they allow us to compare models of their internal structure and physical processes against observations constraining macroscopic properties such as the surface temperature. A major challenge in the simulations is in modelling of the outermost layers, known as the envelope, exhibiting a drop of many orders of magnitude in temperature and density in a geometrically thin shell. This is often addressed by constructing a separate envelope model in plane-parallel approximation that produces a relation between the temperature at the bottom of the envelope, $T_b$, and the surface temperature, $T_s$. Our aim is to construct a general framework for approximating the $T_b$-$T_s$ relation that is able to include the dependencies from the strength and orientation of the magnetic field. We used standard prescriptions to calculate a large number of magnetised envelope models to be used as a training sample and employed single-hidden-layer feedforward neural networks as approximators, providing the flexibility, high accuracy, and fast evaluation necessary in neutron star simulations. We explored the optimal network architecture and hyperparameter choices and used a special holdout set designed to avoid overfitting to the structure of the input data. We find that relatively simple neural networks are sufficient for the approximation of the $T_b$-$T_s$ relation with an accuracy $\sim 3\%$. The presented workflow can be used in a wide range of problems where simulations are used to construct approximating formulae.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.03090 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Profile curves from the NS envelope simulations for the Fe (left panel) and H envelope (right panel). Orange lines indicate the holdout curves used as an alternative test set. In the inset we show a zoom-in illustrating the random assignment of data points to the training (black), validation (green), and test (purple) sets from 90% of the profiles as well as the holdout points (orange) comprised of whole curves (the… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Equation of state by Potekhin & Chabrier (2013) for a strong field and different temperature values in the case of iron composition. The gaps correspond to thermodynamically unstable regions (we note that the high density branches for all temperatures are almost superimposed and indistinguishable from one another). squared error (MSE) combined with L1 and L2 regularisation terms: L = MSE + RL1 + RL2 = = 1 N X N i=1… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Fraction of data in the training (‘train’), validation (‘valid’), test, and holdout sets as a function of the input simulation parameters: magnetic field strength (left panel) and angle (middle panel), and the target variable surface temperature (right panel) for the Fe (cyan) and H (violet) compositions. For better visibility, the fraction of the validation and test sets has been multiplied by three and two, respec… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (5 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Distribution of the validation mean absolute errors of the models trained during the hyperparameter tuning. Left panel: Dependence on the regularisation factor (pink), with f = 10−6 indicated as the optimal value. Middle panel: Dependence on the learning rate (pink). T…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Improvement of the mean absolute error during the training of the SLFNs for the Fe (cyan) and H-envelope (violet) composition models, calculated on the training (dashed lines) and validation sets (solid lines). For illustrative purposes, the curves have been smoothed …

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Distribution of the prediction errors, r = y−yˆ, of the final models for Fe (upper part) and H (lower part) in the different sets (from top to bottom): training (‘train’), validation (‘val’), test (‘test’), and holdout curves (‘hold’). The standard deviation of the pre…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Tb–Ts relations for different densities, ρb (see annotated coloured text, in g cm−3 ), and three magnetic field strengths (see titles) for the Fe envelope. The band corresponds to different values of the magnetic angle, Θ (lower values of Ts for the same Tb correspond …

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]

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. Full citation record

NNStar: An end-to-end AI agent for nuclear matter and neutron star physics
nucl-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

NNStar packages the RMF-to-neutron-star pipeline as a portable LLM-agent skill, validated on TM1/NL3/FSU-δ6.7 and demonstrated by an autonomous σ6-extended TM1 fit.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

2024, , 533, 201

Ascenzi , S., Vigan \`o , D., Dehman , C., et al. 2024, , 533, 201

work page 2024
[2]

V., Potekhin , A

Beznogov , M. V., Potekhin , A. Y., & Yakovlev , D. G. 2016, , 459, 1569

work page 2016
[3]

V., Potekhin , A

Beznogov , M. V., Potekhin , A. Y., & Yakovlev , D. G. 2021, , 919, 1

work page 2021
[4]

Collister , A. A. & Lahav , O. 2004, , 116, 345

work page 2004
[5]

Cybenko, G. V. 1989, Mathematics of Control, Signals and Systems, 2, 303

work page 1989
[6]

2025, , submitted: in press 10.1051/0004-6361/202554666

De Grandis, D., Rea, N., Kovlakas, K., et al. 2025, , submitted: in press 10.1051/0004-6361/202554666

doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554666 2025
[7]

S., et al

De Grandis , D., Turolla , R., Wood , T. S., et al. 2020, , 903, 40

work page 2020
[8]

A., & Rea , N

Dehman , C., Vigan \`o , D., Pons , J. A., & Rea , N. 2023, , 518, 1222

work page 2023

Show all 36 references

[9]

Dom \' nguez S \'a nchez , H., Huertas-Company , M., Bernardi , M., Tuccillo , D., & Fischer , J. L. 2018, , 476, 3661

2018
[10]

H., Pethick , C

Gudmundsson , E. H., Pethick , C. J., & Epstein , R. I. 1983, , 272, 286

1983
[11]

Guliyev, N. J. & Ismailov, V. E. 2018, Neural Networks, 98, 296

2018
[12]

Y., & Yakovlev , D

Haensel , P., Potekhin , A. Y., & Yakovlev , D. G. 2007, Neutron Stars 1 : Equation of State and Structure , Vol. 326

2007
[13]

2015, in 2015 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 1026--1034

He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S., & Sun, J. 2015, in 2015 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 1026--1034

2015
[14]

1989, Neural Networks, 2, 359

Hornik, K., Stinchcombe, M., & White, H. 1989, Neural Networks, 2, 359

1989
[15]

2015, , 221, 8

Huertas-Company , M., Gravet , R., Cabrera-Vives , G., et al. 2015, , 221, 8

2015
[16]

P., Hollerbach , R., Wood , T., & Gourgouliatos , K

Igoshev , A. P., Hollerbach , R., Wood , T., & Gourgouliatos , K. N. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 145

2021
[17]

Kingma, D. P. & Ba, J. 2015, in 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2015, San Diego, CA, USA, May 7-9, 2015, Conference Track Proceedings, ed. Y. Bengio & Y. LeCun

2015
[18]

2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1020

Marino , A., Dehman , C., Kovlakas , K., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1020

2024
[19]

C., Stockwell , E

Odewahn , S. C., Stockwell , E. B., Pennington , R. L., Humphreys , R. M., & Zumach , W. A. 1992, , 103, 318

1992
[20]

2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.15032

Oreste Pinciroli Vago , N., Amato , R., Imbrogno , M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.15032

2025 arXiv
[21]

M., Prakash , M., & Steiner , A

Page , D., Lattimer , J. M., Prakash , M., & Steiner , A. W. 2004, , 155, 623

2004
[22]

Pons , J. A. & Vigan \`o , D. 2019, Living Reviews in Computational Astrophysics, 5, 3

2019
[23]

Potekhin , A. Y. & Chabrier , G. 2013, , 550, A43

2013
[24]

Y., Chabrier , G., & Yakovlev , D

Potekhin , A. Y., Chabrier , G., & Yakovlev , D. G. 2007, , 308, 353

2007
[25]

Y., Pons , J

Potekhin , A. Y., Pons , J. A., & Page , D. 2015, , 191, 239

2015
[26]

Y., Yakovlev , D

Potekhin , A. Y., Yakovlev , D. G., Chabrier , G., & Gnedin , O. Y. 2003, , 594, 404

2003
[27]

J., Kale, S., & Kumar, S

Reddi, S. J., Kale, S., & Kumar, S. 2018, in International Conference on Learning Representations

2018
[28]

2024, in Multifrequency Behaviour of High Energy Cosmic Sources XIV, 55

Rigoselli , M. 2024, in Multifrequency Behaviour of High Energy Cosmic Sources XIV, 55

2024
[29]

Shapiro , S. L. & Teukolsky , S. A. 1983, Black holes, white dwarfs and neutron stars. The physics of compact objects

1983
[30]

L., et al

Silva , L., Schurer , A., Granato , G. L., et al. 2011, , 410, 2043

2011
[31]

Smith , M. J. & Geach , J. E. 2023, Royal Society Open Science, 10, 221454

2023
[32]

Tauris , T. M. & van den Heuvel , E. P. J. 2023, Physics of Binary Star Evolution. From Stars to X-ray Binaries and Gravitational Wave Sources

2023
[33]

Thorne , K. S. 1977, , 212, 825

1977
[34]

& Cameron , A

Tsuruta , S. & Cameron , A. G. W. 1966, Canadian Journal of Physics, 44, 1863

1966
[35]

2018, , 475, 894

Tuccillo , D., Huertas-Company , M., Decenci \`e re , E., et al. 2018, , 475, 894

2018
[36]

G., Kaminker , A

Yakovlev , D. G., Kaminker , A. D., Gnedin , O. Y., & Haensel , P. 2001, , 354, 1

2001

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

2024, , 533, 201

Ascenzi , S., Vigan \`o , D., Dehman , C., et al. 2024, , 533, 201

work page 2024

[2] [2]

V., Potekhin , A

Beznogov , M. V., Potekhin , A. Y., & Yakovlev , D. G. 2016, , 459, 1569

work page 2016

[3] [3]

V., Potekhin , A

Beznogov , M. V., Potekhin , A. Y., & Yakovlev , D. G. 2021, , 919, 1

work page 2021

[4] [4]

Collister , A. A. & Lahav , O. 2004, , 116, 345

work page 2004

[5] [5]

Cybenko, G. V. 1989, Mathematics of Control, Signals and Systems, 2, 303

work page 1989

[6] [6]

2025, , submitted: in press 10.1051/0004-6361/202554666

De Grandis, D., Rea, N., Kovlakas, K., et al. 2025, , submitted: in press 10.1051/0004-6361/202554666

doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554666 2025

[7] [7]

S., et al

De Grandis , D., Turolla , R., Wood , T. S., et al. 2020, , 903, 40

work page 2020

[8] [8]

A., & Rea , N

Dehman , C., Vigan \`o , D., Pons , J. A., & Rea , N. 2023, , 518, 1222

work page 2023